Face it. What you said was wrong. Play it off some more if you want. We all know women never admit when they're wrong no matter how obvious that fact is to everyone else.
Don't want to be thought the typical female? Don't act the part. None of us are gonna get any pussy from you (and you're probably an undesirable fatass anyway though your lack of logic suggests maybe this isn't the deal) so really what is your incentive to play coy? Just admit you were wrong.
Someone just lost yet another chance at getting some...
Must be getting really frustrating for you, eh?
Server Name Indication (SNI) is what you are looking for.
SNI, combined with using a different port for each certificate (domain name) in case the client doesn't support it, will serve most clients - except the ones that a) don't support SNI AND b) are behind a firewall allowing SSL/TLS connections on port 443 only.
There are people out there using Python as their shell, would you cater for them in your one-liner as well? I only assumed the lowest common denominator, a POSIX-compatible shell. (Of course the ksh-ism slipped in, didn't test enough).
Awk is fine by me, what I'm allergic to is eval/piping commands to a shell, input validation becomes a bitch there. This is what prompted my original reply by the way, I never meant to enter pedant mode.
To close this off, hats off to you, you sure do know your shit.
To switch schedulers without rebooting:
grep -l anticipatory
/sys/block/*/queue/scheduler |\
awk '{print "echo anticipatory >"$1}' | sh
Was V7 Unix that bad?
grep -l deadline
| while read; do echo deadline >"$REPLY"; done
Thank you very much for your reply, old Unix stories are always fascinating to read!
I have amended the Wikipedia "disambiguation" page to make clicking through more
Excuse my nitpicking, your post sparked some new questions for me:
The problem stems when legitimate applications attempt to use that memory. How long does it take to page (read/wirte) 16GB, 4KB at a time?
Are you sure that's it's only reading/writing 4KB at a time? It seems pretty braindead to me.
The old 1:1+x and 2:1 memory to disk ratios are based on notions of swapping rather than paging (yes, those are two different virtual memory techniques), plus allowing room for kernel dumps, etc. Paging is far more efficient than swapping ever was.
Could you elaborate on the difference between swapping and paging? I have always thought of it (adopting the term "paging") as an effort to disconnect modern Virtual Memory implementations from the awful VM performance of Windows 3.1/9x. Wikipedia mentions them as interchangeable terms and other sources on the web seem to agree.
You might come back and say, one day I might need it. Well, one day you can create a file (dd if=/dev/zero of=/pagefile bs=1024 count=xxxx), initialize it as page (mkswap
Just mentioning here that Swapspace (Debian package) takes care of that, with configurable thresholds.
You may say the performance will be horrible with paging on top of a file system - but if you're overflowing several GB to a page file on top of a file system, the performance impact won't be noticeable as you already have far, far greater performance problems. And if the page activity isn't noticeable, the fact its on a file system won't matter.
Quoting Andrew Morton:
"[On 2.6 kernels the difference is] None at all. The kernel generates a map of swap offset -> disk blocks at
swapon time and from then on uses that map to perform swap I/O directly
against the underlying disk queue, bypassing all caching, metadata and
filesystem code."
I apologise, I didn't pay enough attention to the context while replying.
Indeed, using swapping for the sole purpose of mitigating memory leaks is wrong.
1. Programs can't use the swapped memory directly. The kernel only swaps parts of memory that haven't been accessed in a while.
2. By swapping out unused (even because of leaks) memory, the kernel has more memory to use for disk caching.
All this has nothing to do with whether your system will grind to a halt today instead of one month later.
And to answer your question, the mod(s) apparently thought this was common knowledge and not worth responding to.
Fucking rumour starters at it once more.
Your way is the proper one to go about it, provided you stay on top of security updates by yourself.
In the aforementioned developers' case, they just followed some shitty "How to install LAMP" "howto" and never bothered to check if their distro provided the relevant packages. On top of that, they had absolutely no clue on how to provide a secure or even performance-optimised configuration for the custom compiled packages. If all that wasn't enough, they also never applied security updates after the initial installation.
I've met smartpants web developers that felt they were getting a more tailored-to-their-system installation by downloading tarballs and compiling the stack all the way down.
Nevermind updates or security though...
"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_
