On 0, Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:11:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:32:06PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> > | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > | > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> > | > | On Wed,
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:11:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
> Actually, for compilation use jikes. It's written in C++ and is way
> sleeker than javac (faster, lighter weight, better error messages).
Although, I say from experience, an utter pig to compile. :) gcc takes
over 100Mb of memory here to com
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:11:23PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:32:06PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
> | > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> | > | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
> | >
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:32:06PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
| > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| > | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
| > ...
| > | > P.S. - Confirmation messages are not a "feature"!
|
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:21:11PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> | On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
> ...
> | > P.S. - Confirmation messages are not a "feature"!
> |
> | They are when they meet the teacher's specifications: writ
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 05:25:11PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
...
| > P.S. - Confirmation messages are not a "feature"!
|
| They are when they meet the teacher's specifications: written in java,
| use AWT, are a class, and use buttons, frames, and
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:25:47PM -0500, Ron wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 14:33, Seneca wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:55:17PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> > > | On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > > | > On Wed, M
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:14:04PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:33:47PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> | On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
>
> | > What services is that system running? It sounds like you're trying to
> | > push the machine way too far. How powerful
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 14:33, Seneca wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:55:17PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
> > | On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
> > | > On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
[snip
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:33:47PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:11:50PM -0500, dman wrote:
| > What services is that system running? It sounds like you're trying to
| > push the machine way too far. How powerful is it (CPU, RAM)?
|
| This system is my most powerful one. It'
ng I was wondering about would generally be considered a
> | > | maximum "safe" load average.
> | >
> | > I often run between .5 and 1 on my two machines (one desktop one
> | > laptop). One is my mail server, web server, desktop, and both are
> | > music
On Tue, 7 May 2002 21:56:57 -0400
"Seneca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would if I could afford it, I can't even afford to buy lunch, much
> less a pair of 16M DIMMs (and that would max out this laptop's memory).
> The only memory laying around is physically incompatible with my laptop.
Where a
On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 21:32, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
> At 2002-05-08T01:56:57Z, Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > More RAM perhaps to bring down the swapping load?
>
> > I would if I could afford it, I can't even afford to buy lunch, much less
> > a pair of 16M DIMMs (and that would max
At 2002-05-08T01:56:57Z, Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > More RAM perhaps to bring down the swapping load?
> I would if I could afford it, I can't even afford to buy lunch, much less
> a pair of 16M DIMMs (and that would max out this laptop's memory). The
> only memory laying around is p
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:55:17PM -0400, Seneca wrote:
| On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
| > On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
| >
| > | So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
| > | maximum "s
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 11:52:22AM +1000, John Griffiths wrote:
> >
> >Any suggestions on how to cool this thing down (other than removing the
> >builtin keyboard and putting bags of ice on the heatsink (I can't afford
> >the ice or the external keyboard)). Other than a new computer or
> >upgraded
>
>Any suggestions on how to cool this thing down (other than removing the
>builtin keyboard and putting bags of ice on the heatsink (I can't afford
>the ice or the external keyboard)). Other than a new computer or
>upgraded hardware, I can't afford it.
>
More RAM perhaps to bring down the swappin
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:03:39PM -0500, dman wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
>
> | So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
> | maximum "safe" load average.
>
> I often run between .5 and 1 on
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:18:01AM -1000, Joseph Dane wrote:
> > "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Colin> The load average refers to the average number of processes
> Colin> that are runnable or in uninterruptible sleep. The latter
> Colin> usually indicates I/O.
>
>
> "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> The load average refers to the average number of processes
Colin> that are runnable or in uninterruptible sleep. The latter
Colin> usually indicates I/O.
I did not know that. still, processes in uninterruptible sleep are
certain
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 08:17:11AM -1000, Joseph Dane wrote:
> > "Kirk" == Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kirk> "Safe"? I think you should be more interested in CPU states
> Kirk> than load average. For example, consider running 50 webserver
> Kirk> processes, all of which
it state. Your load
Kirk> average may be near 50, but your CPU may be sitting mostly
Kirk> idle. As another example, pretend you're running an RC5 or
no. "load average" refers to the average length of the run queue.
processes blocked on I/O are not on that queue.
to the OP
At 2002-05-02T02:15:36Z, Seneca Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
> maximum "safe" load average. I have had some problems with some hardware
> that look almost as if this machine wants to become a
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:15:36PM -0400, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
| So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
| maximum "safe" load average.
I often run between .5 and 1 on my two machines (one desktop one
laptop). One is my mail server, web server, desktop
to
> come up. The maximum operating temperature listed in my manual is 35C
> (internal or external, I'm not sure which, but I'm hoping external),
> while the cards feel like they're at least 45.
>
> So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
&g
the cards feel like they're at least 45.
So, something I was wondering about would generally be considered a
maximum "safe" load average. I have had some problems with some hardware
that look almost as if this machine wants to become a toaster (hopefully
the hardware wasn't d
26 matches
Mail list logo
