|
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:14:33AM +0200, Jan Klopper wrote:
> Horms,
>
> Not te be provoking, but didn't you get the email from malcolm?
Ahh, yes I did. I didn't think to ask for a Xeon as they
tend to be rather expensive, and this is just one bug. But certainly
it would be useful at this time.
> >Does anyone in the core LVS team need some more harware to play with?
> >I'm feeling charitable as I've made a few pennies out of your hard work.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Malcolm.
>
> I guess he states that if you need nay hardware you should just ask, right?
> Maybe he's feeling charitable enough too spare you just such a xeon system.
>
> Clearly it would help the development of the software, and having an
> extra xeon around never really hurst now does it?
>
> If there are any political reasons why not to respond to his offer which
> im clearly unaware off, please ignore me.
>
> greets
> Jan
>
> Horms wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 08:38:40AM +0200, Christophe Yayon wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Last month there was a long thread about a top load average display on
> >>xeon system with ipvs_syncmaster.
> >>
> >>
> >>Does anybody have some news about this problem ? Is there an official
> >>patch ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That thread moved over to netdev, to try and get more kernel-hacker
> >eyes on the problem. But we are yet to find a solution. There are
> >however 2 patches floating around for testing. If you could test them
> >both that would be awsesome, I do not have hardware to do so.
> >
> >[Head of netdev thread]
> >http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00059.html
> >
> >[Patch 1]
> >http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00061.html
> >
> >[Patch 2]
> >http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00062.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
--
Horms
|
