On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Takayuki Muranushi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm building a computer cluster with about 20 nodes, all of them
> running ArchLinux. One of them is the 'login' node connected to the
> Internet, other nodes share Internet connection via the login node
> being a router.
> htt
Hello,
I'm building a computer cluster with about 20 nodes, all of them
running ArchLinux. One of them is the 'login' node connected to the
Internet, other nodes share Internet connection via the login node
being a router.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Internet_Share
Now, when I update the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> My point wasn't to push any policy change. I'll follow what Arch wants
> to do. My last post was simply an explanation of why /usr was a
> separate partition historically, nothing more.
Got it :-) My post was meant for everyone who choose to st
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 18:04, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
and IIRC its not perfect supported on any distro for a variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> I run several SuSE machines with /usr on a separate partition. Works
>>> fine. And right now, Arch shoul
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Myra Nelson wrote:
>>> and IIRC its not perfect supported on any distro for a variety of reasons.
>>
>> I run several SuSE machines with /usr on a separate partition. Works
>> fine. And right now, Arch should also work.
>
> It is historical and the default disk set
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 17:04, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 04.06.2011 23:48, schrieb C Anthony Risinger:
>> Separate /usr is 100% historical AFAICT ... per systemd it's unsupported,
>
> It is historical, yes.
>
>> and IIRC its not perfect supported on any distro for a variety of reasons.
>
> I run s
Am 04.06.2011 23:48, schrieb C Anthony Risinger:
> Separate /usr is 100% historical AFAICT ... per systemd it's unsupported,
It is historical, yes.
> and IIRC its not perfect supported on any distro for a variety of reasons.
I run several SuSE machines with /usr on a separate partition. Works
fi
On Jun 4, 2011 1:54 PM, "mangust" wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2011 07:43 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> >
> > I assume the next step will be to migrate /usr to the rootfs.
> No need to merge /usr with rootsf. See this thread
>
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-June/020564.html
Separat
On 06/04/2011 07:43 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:18, Myra Nelson wrote:
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Myra Nelson
>> Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:10
>> Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] coreutils-8.12-2,
>> initscripts-2011.06.2-1, net-tools-1.60
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:18, Myra Nelson wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Myra Nelson
> Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:10
> Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] coreutils-8.12-2,
> initscripts-2011.06.2-1, net-tools-1.60-15, udev-171-2,
> yp-tools-2.12-2
> To: Public ma
Hi Myra,
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Myra Nelson wrote:
> One quick question, why do I still have udev 169 and udev 171 starting.
As you correctly assumed, the first one is in initramfs. What has
happened is that your initramfs has not been updated (this happens on
kernel upgrade) since you
-- Forwarded message --
From: Myra Nelson
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:10
Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] coreutils-8.12-2,
initscripts-2011.06.2-1, net-tools-1.60-15, udev-171-2,
yp-tools-2.12-2
To: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:38:01 +0200, JM wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current installer images are from 05.2010 which is over a year
> old. I was unable to install Arch on my new laptop using this
> installer due to insufficient hardware support in kernel 2.6.33. Are
> there any plans to update it?
>
> R
Hello,
The current installer images are from 05.2010 which is over a year
old. I was unable to install Arch on my new laptop using this
installer due to insufficient hardware support in kernel 2.6.33. Are
there any plans to update it?
Regards,
JM
Jan de Groot :
> On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 03:06 -0400, Yclept Nemo wrote:
> > Perhaps openntpd does not set the hwclock. Therefore, should
> > openntpd be used in conjuction with the hwclock daemon?
>
> That's true, and that's also the reason why Openntpd doesn't play
> well with Xen where all gues
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 03:06 -0400, Yclept Nemo wrote:
> Perhaps openntpd does not set the hwclock. Therefore, should openntpd
> be used in conjuction with the hwclock daemon?
That's true, and that's also the reason why Openntpd doesn't play well
with Xen where all guest VMs will take over the clo
A recent announcement said:
* The adjustment of the hwclock for drift is moved into a daemon that should
not be used in most scenarios as it can lead to subtle bugs (especially if using
dual-boot or ntp). If you know what you are doing and want to adjust the
hardware clock for drift, add `"hwcloc
17 matches
Mail list logo
