On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:36:50AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > > I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> > > > > current Debian release.
> > > > >
>
Richard Owlett wrote:
> My formal programming background is limited to an introductory course
> using CORC/CUPL (Dartmouth's BASIC being years in future).
[snip]
That doesn't seem to be quite right. CORC preceded Dartmouth BASIC by a
couple of years, whilst CUPL followed it by two years, if I am
at doth DEBIAN require of my CPU?"
Check the subject line--are you sure that's what you actually asked?
Your original message said: "I'm looking for for where *Debian*
documents which processors support current Debian release." In any
event, the question has been answered m
d a
Kim. Still have a Kaypro 10 in a back room - haven't booted in decades.
On 08/28/2024 09:07 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:10:21AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* d
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 09:10:21AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
Proce
вт, 27 авг. 2024 г. в 21:26, Richard Owlett :
>
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch02s01.en.html
"""
2.1.2. CPU Support
Both AMD64 and Intel 64 processo
Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 08/27/2024 08:36 AM, David wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:06, Richard Owlett
> > wrote:
> >> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors
> >> support current Debian release.
> >>
> >> I
Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> > > current Debian release.
...
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch0
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
<https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.en.html>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bi
On Aug 27, 2024, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
> Processors identified by running lscpu:
>
> Machine 1:
> Ar
On 08/27/2024 08:36 AM, David wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:06, Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
To add to Dan's reply:
https://www.
On 08/27/2024 08:14 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
Processors identified by running lscpu:
Machine 1:
Architecture:
> Will the OS linked to by https://www.debian.org/ run on all three?
Yes, on all three, both using the i386 (which is being phased out) or
the amd64 ports.
Stefan
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:06, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
To add to Dan's reply:
https://www.debian.org/ports/
https:
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
> current Debian release.
>
> I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
> Processors identified by running lscpu:
>
> Machine 1:
> Architecture: i686
>
I'm looking for for where *Debian* documents which processors support
current Debian release.
I have three machines whose processors are 64 bit capable.
Processors identified by running lscpu:
Machine 1:
Architecture: i686
Model name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 540 @ 2.
Am Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:36:59 -0400
schrieb Bijan Soleymani :
> On 64 bit machines it would have the same memory usage as i386 and
> arm32 but with the extra registers and features that the newer
> processors support.
>
> Something like that.
Thanks for the answer. But is there re
a set of ports for 64 bit amd64 and arm64, etc but with 32
but pointers and integers, so it uses less memory if you have small
amount of RAM.
On 64 bit machines it would have the same memory usage as i386 and arm32
but with the extra registers and features that the newer processors
su
Am Wed, 20 Jul 2022 22:11:08 +0300
schrieb Oskar Skog :
> When the x32 port becomes official, the only reason (that I can
> imagine) to use the i386 port would be for really old computers.
What is the x32 port?
I haven't heard about that yet.
> Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4?
I'm running Debian 10 on a 400 MHz Pentium II.
512 MiB RAM and a 240 GB SSD bottlenecked by a 33 MB/s IDE interface.
So, Debian 11 hardware compatibility the same as for Debian 10?
Because I don't want to deal with a (more) broke
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 11:26:36AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
Another thing that should not be forgotten is that the family of processors
vs the ability to make use of firmware patches to fix bugs took a hit since
family ID's of $0F and below could not be fixed with microcode. And many
of
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, Tim Woodall wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4? I ask
because I would like to bump 32 bit OS support from i386 (1985) to i686
Pentium 4 and newer.
Thanks
I think I'm running it on an
uires a different mode.
Subsequent processors introduced various extensions (addition of CMOVE,
MMX, SSE, ...) which are incremental changes which don't break
compatibility with previously existing code, so I think it makes a lot
of sense to still call it the "i386 instruction set".
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 08:35:33AM +, Marco wrote:
> But why the packages are still named i386 instead of i686?
Because changing the name of the architecture would be such a massive
pain in the ass, and would probably break *so* many things, that it's
simply not worthwhile.
3 which is the oldest processor in use on this thread. Some
> internet sites say that i686 is Pentium 4 and later others say that it is
> Pentium 2 or later. Others say that i686 is Pentium Pro version 2 and later.
> If it is indeed Pentium Pro and later then a lot of older processors are
> s
thread. Some internet sites say that i686 is Pentium 4 and later
> others say that it is Pentium 2 or later. Others say that i686 is
> Pentium Pro version 2 and later. If it is indeed Pentium Pro and
> later then a lot of older processors are still supported: Pentium 2,
> Pentium 3, Penti
4 and later others say that it
is Pentium 2 or later. Others say that i686 is Pentium Pro version 2 and
later. If it is indeed Pentium Pro and later then a lot of older processors
are still supported: Pentium 2, Pentium 3, Pentium M, Celeron, Pentium 4
etc.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀
Am Sat, 16 Jul 2022 11:26:44 -0400
schrieb Timothy M Butterworth :
> Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4? I ask
> because I would like to bump 32 bit OS support from i386 (1985) to
> i686 Pentium 4 and newer.
It would be interesting what the benefit of that is. You may
Am Sat, 16 Jul 2022 15:40:08 -0500
schrieb David Wright :
> Well, I have a "Intel® Pentium® M processor 1.50GHz". Unfortunately,
> "M" does not exactly appear on either a "586←→686" scale, or a
> "Pentium←→Pentium4" scale.
Pentium M (also some (not all) Celeron M) are based on the Pentium 3
becau
Timothy M Butterworth composed on 2022-07-16 11:26 (UTC-0400):
> Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4? I ask
> because I would like to bump 32 bit OS support from i386 (1985) to i686
> Pentium 4 and newer.
# inxi -CMS --vs
inxi 3.3.19-00 (2022-06-16)
System:
Host: m7
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4? I ask
because I would like to bump 32 bit OS support from i386 (1985) to i686
Pentium 4 and newer.
Thanks
I think I'm running it on an eeepc. I don't know what processor that
co
On Sat 16 Jul 2022 at 15:17:03 (-0400), Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 2:26 PM Marco wrote:
>
> > Am Sat, 16 Jul 2022 11:26:44 -0400
> > schrieb Timothy M Butterworth :
> >
> > > Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4?
> >
> > Yes, Pentium 3 600 MH
6 Pentium 4 and newer.
>
> Debian hasn't supported 80386 processors for many years. According to
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.en.html, the
> minimum processor for Debian Stable _is_ currently a 686-class
> processor.
Sure, and my oldest PC is running a *-686 kern
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 2:26 PM Marco wrote:
> Am Sat, 16 Jul 2022 11:26:44 -0400
> schrieb Timothy M Butterworth :
>
> > Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4?
>
> Yes, Pentium 3 600 MHz (I think it is a coppermine). Works fine.
>
Out of curiosity what tasks do you use
Am Sat, 16 Jul 2022 13:30:29 -0400
schrieb Stefan Monnier :
> Indeed, it has a Pentium mobile III-M at 1.2GHz.
>
> I'm not completely sure where that processor sits, to be honest, but
> I thought it was based on a CPU core that came before Pentium 4.
> E.g. the Pentium 4 supports SSE2, AFAIK, whe
Am Sat, 16 Jul 2022 11:26:44 -0400
schrieb Timothy M Butterworth :
> Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4?
Yes, Pentium 3 600 MHz (I think it is a coppermine). Works fine.
On 16/07/2022 16:26, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4? I ask
because I would like to bump 32 bit OS support from i386 (1985) to
i686 Pentium 4 and newer.
Debian hasn't supported 80386 processors for many years. According to
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:17 PM Stefan Monnier
wrote:
> > Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4?
>
> I'm using Debian (currently stable, tho I often end up moving to
> testing) on my Thinkpad X30, yes.
>
The Thinkpad X30 has a 1.2Ghz Pentium M processor which is i686 n
Is anyone running Debian 11 on a processor older than Pentium 4? I ask
because I would like to bump 32 bit OS support from i386 (1985) to i686
Pentium 4 and newer.
Thanks
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, none wrote:
So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ?
Read the first referece (the INRIA ocaml bug report) throughoutly. It
has been public since day one.
And read all references in the updates I sent to that thread too, for
good measure. It is not
On 10/29/2017 01:17 AM, none wrote:
So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ?
Debian Linux reveals Intel Skylake and Kaby Lake processors have broken
hyper-threading
http://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-linux-reveals-intel-skylake-kaby-lake-processors-have-broken-hyper
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, none wrote:
> So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ?
Read the first referece (the INRIA ocaml bug report) throughoutly. It
has been public since day one.
And read all references in the updates I sent to that thread too, for
good measure. It is not like
So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ?
John Elliot V wrote:
> KDE -> System Settings -> Multimedia (Hardware) -> Audio and Video ->
> Audio Hardware Setup
I was going to say - it is just KDE :D - crap
(updated perl script, it now needs the "liblist-moreutils-perl" package)
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
> > proce
(updated perl script, it now needs the "liblist-moreutils-perl" package)
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
> > proce
x48,
> fix available as a BIOS/UEFI update)
The recently launched "Kaby Lake-X" processors (signature 0x906e9,
socket LGA2066) are documented by Intel as *NOT* being affected by the
KBL095 defect. This information comes from table 16 of the latest
revis
On 27/06/17 03:16, John Elliot V wrote:
> Hmm. I re-enabled hyper-threading (to test) and sound didn't come back.
After a number of false starts I was able to restore audio by:
KDE -> System Settings -> Multimedia (Hardware) -> Audio and Video ->
Audio Hardware Setup
Then in the Hardware sect
On 06/25/2017 05:19 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and
7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and
On 27/06/17 02:47, John Elliot V wrote:
> I disabled hyper-threading in my BIOS in response to this advisory (I
> have an i7-7700K). Now I get weird graphical artifacts in drop-down
> lists in KDE (they flash between black and white background) and sound
> has stopped working on my system. Can anyo
I disabled hyper-threading in my BIOS in response to this advisory (I
have an i7-7700K). Now I get weird graphical artifacts in drop-down
lists in KDE (they flash between black and white background) and sound
has stopped working on my system. Can anyone guess why that might be
happening? I might tr
r the inconvenience.
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Once you know your processor model name, you can check the two lists
> below:
>
> * List of Intel processors code-named "Skylake":
> http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/37572/Skylake
>
&g
For the record: the email with the perl script doesn't contain malware.
The "malware" alert came from an extremely badly configured system that
violates every best practice in the field: it sends email to every
original recipient (and not just to local users), and it FORGES its
headers to look lik
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
> processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and
> 7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobi
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
> processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and
> 7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobi
This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel
processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and
7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and
HEDT), their related server processors (such as Xeon v5 and Xeon v6
: System hangs on Debian 7.6 and 7.8 when enabling Cluster on die
(COD) with Intel Haswell and Broadwell processors
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015, Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:06:30AM +, vincent...@mic.com.tw wrote:
> > Hi Debian-user,
> >
> > I got an issue – “Syste
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015, Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 11:06 +, vincent...@mic.com.tw wrote:
> > I got an issue – “System hangs on Debian 7.6 and 7.8 when enabling
> > Cluster on die (COD) with Intel Haswell and Broadwell processors”.
> > Does Debian 7.6 suppor
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015, Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:06:30AM +, vincent...@mic.com.tw wrote:
> > Hi Debian-user,
> >
> > I got an issue – “System hangs on Debian 7.6 and 7.8 when enabling
> > Cluster on die (COD) with Intel Haswell and Broadwell pr
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 11:06 +, vincent...@mic.com.tw wrote:
> Hi Debian-user,
>
> I got an issue – “System hangs on Debian 7.6 and 7.8 when enabling
> Cluster on die (COD) with Intel Haswell and Broadwell processors”.
> Does Debian 7.6 support Cluster on Die (COD) fea
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:06:30AM +, vincent...@mic.com.tw wrote:
> Hi Debian-user,
>
> I got an issue – “System hangs on Debian 7.6 and 7.8 when enabling Cluster on
> die (COD) with Intel Haswell and Broadwell processors”.
> Does Debian 7.6 support Cluster on Die (COD) fea
Hi Debian-user,
I got an issue – “System hangs on Debian 7.6 and 7.8 when enabling Cluster on
die (COD) with Intel Haswell and Broadwell processors”.
Does Debian 7.6 support Cluster on Die (COD) feature with Intel processors?
Vincent Du
Firmware Design Dept.
vincent...@mic.com.tw<mailto:vinc
On Saturday, August 30, 2014 5:50:02 AM UTC+5:30, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > I'd like to know whether the kernel microcode update is working well on some
> > of the older Intel 32-bit processors or not.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I'd like to know whether the kernel microcode update is working well on some
> of the older Intel 32-bit processors or not. These computers were sold
> between years 2000 and 2010.
>
> This information will be used to
I am the maintainer of the intel-microcode and iucode-tool packages, used to
update the microcode[1] on Intel system processors (CPU chip).
I'd like to know whether the kernel microcode update is working well on some
of the older Intel 32-bit processors or not. These computers were sold
be
Intel issued a high priority microcode update for all Intel processors with
Ivy Bridge and Haswell microarchitectures (i.e. 4th gen and 5th gen Core
processors, Xeon E3v2, Xeon E3v3, Xeon E5v2 and Xeon E7v2, plus several
models of the Pentium and Celeron processors).
Updated intel-microcode
On 19/01/2013 11:13, lina wrote:
On Saturday 19,January,2013 05:16 PM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18/01/2013 09:13, lina wrote:
On Friday 18,January,2013 03:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:29 AM, lina wrote:
Anyone has some idea about how to set 4 columns like this?
http:/
On Saturday 19,January,2013 05:16 PM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 18/01/2013 09:13, lina wrote:
>> On Friday 18,January,2013 03:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2013 1:29 AM, lina wrote:
Anyone has some idea about how to set 4 columns like this?
http://htop.sourceforg
On 18/01/2013 09:13, lina wrote:
On Friday 18,January,2013 03:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:29 AM, lina wrote:
Anyone has some idea about how to set 4 columns like this?
http://htop.sourceforge.net/htop-64.png
$ man htop
F2, S
Setup screen. There you can co
Am Freitag, 18. Januar 2013 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
> On 1/17/2013 9:53 PM, lina wrote:
> > On Friday 18,January,2013 11:18 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> What system do you possess that has 128 cores/hardware threads? HP
> >> DL980? Supermicro 5086B-TRF? What are you using it for? That's a
> >>
Am Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013 schrieb lina:
> Hi,
Hi Lina!
> I don't know how to scroll down in htop, for 128 processors.
>
> I have no problem in my laptop, it's only 8 processors.
>
> Thanks ahead for your suggestions,
Holy!
But I think you mean processor core
On Friday 18,January,2013 03:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/18/2013 1:29 AM, lina wrote:
>> Anyone has some idea about how to set 4 columns like this?
>>
>> http://htop.sourceforge.net/htop-64.png
>
> $ man htop
>
>F2, S
> Setup screen. There you can configure meters displ
On 1/18/2013 1:29 AM, lina wrote:
> Anyone has some idea about how to set 4 columns like this?
>
> http://htop.sourceforge.net/htop-64.png
$ man htop
F2, S
Setup screen. There you can configure meters displayed on
the top side of the screen, as well as set various display
On 1/17/2013 9:53 PM, lina wrote:
> On Friday 18,January,2013 11:18 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> What system do you possess that has 128 cores/hardware threads? HP
>> DL980? Supermicro 5086B-TRF? What are you using it for? That's a
>> tremendous amount of horsepower...
>
> I can't find the ans
Anyone has some idea about how to set 4 columns like this?
http://htop.sourceforge.net/htop-64.png
Thanks, I am baffled.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.
On Friday 18,January,2013 11:18 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 10:35 PM, lina wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know how to scroll down in htop, for 128 processors.
>
> What system do you possess that has 128 cores/hardware threads? HP
> DL980? Supermicr
On 1/16/2013 10:35 PM, lina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know how to scroll down in htop, for 128 processors.
What system do you possess that has 128 cores/hardware threads? HP
DL980? Supermicro 5086B-TRF? What are you using it for? That's a
tremendous amount of horsepower..
On Thursday 17,January,2013 12:35 PM, lina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know how to scroll down in htop, for 128 processors.
>
> I have no problem in my laptop, it's only 8 processors.
>
> Thanks ahead for your suggestions,
Fixed, based on the suggestion from
http://
Hi,
I don't know how to scroll down in htop, for 128 processors.
I have no problem in my laptop, it's only 8 processors.
Thanks ahead for your suggestions,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
lina writes:
> I have a script like
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> for i in {0..108}
> do
>
> some job will run for mins &
>
> done
>
> Here I used & for some kinda of parallel.
> but there is a problem,
>
> I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
> finished, a new job can cont
On 1 Feb, 2012, at 1:19, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
> On 31/01/2012 17:22, lina wrote:
>> I need time to understand the suggestions have been given.
>
> Yes, of course. But this may interest other pepole on the list since your
> topic since to be of great interest for others, including me!
http:/
I need time to understand the suggestions have been given.
A quick thanks.
Best regards,
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
> What about the use of ulimit or any other tool that your sysadmin could
> control?
>
> On the other hand, these solutions seem ok:
>
> http://stack
What about the use of ulimit or any other tool that your sysadmin could control?
On the other hand, these solutions seem ok:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1537956/bash-limit-the-number-of-concurrent-jobs
Nicolas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 31/01/2012 03:19, Cam Hutchison wrote:
seq 0 108 | xargs -I@ -P8 cat A_@.txt B_@.txt C_@.txt -o ABC_@.txt
Of course, this is (since cat -o doesn't exist):
seq 0 108 | xargs -I@ -P8 cat A_@.txt B_@.txt C_@.txt > ABC_@.txt
but "> ABC_@.txt" is out of the scope of xargs.
Nicolas
--
To UN
lina writes:
>Yes. the ultimate goal is:
>for i in {0..108}
>do
>cat A_$i.txt B_$i.txt C_$i.txt -o ABC_$i.txt (output as ABC_$i.txt)
>done
>but here I wish to use only 8 processors at most, total is 16.
>the administrator of the cluster asked me not to use whole, cause
&g
gt; "ABC_$1.txt" -- 2
> sh -c cat "A_$1.txt" "B_$1.txt" "C_$1.txt" > "ABC_$1.txt" -- 3
>
> $ cat ABC_1.txt
> a1
> b1
> c1
>
> This should be quite robust when encountering whitespace in filenames as
> well.
>
quot;C_$1.txt" > "ABC_$1.txt" -- 1
sh -c cat "A_$1.txt" "B_$1.txt" "C_$1.txt" > "ABC_$1.txt" -- 2
sh -c cat "A_$1.txt" "B_$1.txt" "C_$1.txt" > "ABC_$1.txt" -- 3
$ cat ABC_1.txt
a1
b1
c1
This
cover all cases or leave out important information. For example,
Yes. the ultimate goal is:
for i in {0..108}
do
cat A_$i.txt B_$i.txt C_$i.txt -o ABC_$i.txt (output as ABC_$i.txt)
done
but here I wish to use only 8 processors at most, total is 16.
the administrator of the cluster asked me not to
lina:
>
> well, a question,
>
> $ seq 0 3 | xargs --verbose echo A
> echo A 0 1 2 3
> A 0 1 2 3
>
> How can I make the output as:
>
> A0 A1 A2 A3
Your problem in this case is that xargs adds whitespace before adding
arguments. What you can do is to modify seq's output before xargs sees
it:
$
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> lina:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Jochen Spieker
>> wrote:
>>> lina:
I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
finished, a new job can continue,
>>>
>>> Xargs can be used for this. An exm
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 06:06:06PM +0800, lina wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> ( sorry if it a bit off-topic)
>>
>> I have a script like
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>> for i in {0..108}
>> do
>>
>> some job will run for mins &
>>
>> done
>>
>> Here I used & for
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Chen Wei wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 06:06:06PM +0800, lina wrote:
>> I have a script like
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>> for i in {0..108}
>> do
>>
>> some job will run for mins &
>> done
>>
>> Here I used & for some kinda of parallel.
>> but there is a problem,
>> I
lina:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> lina:
>>>
>>> I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
>>> finished, a new job can continue,
>>
>> Xargs can be used for this. An exmaple:
>>
>> $ seq 1 100 | xargs -n1 -P8 echo
>>
>> Seq prints the
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 06:06:06PM +0800, lina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ( sorry if it a bit off-topic)
>
> I have a script like
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
> for i in {0..108}
> do
>
> some job will run for mins &
>
> done
>
> Here I used & for some kinda of parallel.
> but there is a problem,
>
> I wished a
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 06:06:06PM +0800, lina wrote:
> I have a script like
>
> #!/bin/bash
> for i in {0..108}
> do
>
> some job will run for mins &
> done
>
> Here I used & for some kinda of parallel.
> but there is a problem,
> I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> lina:
>>
>> I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
>> finished, a new job can continue,
>
> Xargs can be used for this. An exmaple:
>
> $ seq 1 100 | xargs -n1 -P8 echo
>
> Seq prints the numbers from 1 to 100
lina:
>
> I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
> finished, a new job can continue,
Xargs can be used for this. An exmaple:
$ seq 1 100 | xargs -n1 -P8 echo
Seq prints the numbers from 1 to 100 (one per line) and xargs starts an
echo for each argument with 8 invo
.
> but there is a problem,
>
> I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
> finished, a new job can continue,
>
> Some suggestions?
#!/bin/bash
for i in {0..19}
do
sleep 60 &
while ($((ps au | grep sleep | wc -l)) > 9)
do
sleep 2
done
done
s
Hi,
( sorry if it a bit off-topic)
I have a script like
#!/bin/bash
for i in {0..108}
do
some job will run for mins &
done
Here I used & for some kinda of parallel.
but there is a problem,
I wished at most it only run 8 jobs simultantly, no more than 8, once
finished, a new job can continue
Hi Here it fails again. this is version 12.033 instead of 12.032
I downloaded kernel--package-12.033.tar.gz
invoke like this
CONCURRENCY_LEVEL=3 make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version dickhead1.0
kernel_image kernel_headers
All done in /usr/src/linux-source-2.6.32. I am running kernel
vmlin
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
