Search Results

Search found 9 results on 1 pages for 'foxyboa'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Does HP 8530w support Wifi 802.11n?

    - by FoxyBOA
    According to vendor site HP 8530w supports 802.11n draft mode. My Windows 7 tell me that network card is 5100 ABG and know nothing about N mode (guys from Intel forum mentioned, that 802.11N versions must ended with N letter, e.g. 5100 ABN). Not sure if it matter, but my laptop model id is #FU462EA. How could I check that my Wifi card compliant with 802.11n (I suspect that "draft N" could have two "special" meaning: doesn't work with 802.11n at all or requires special activation of the mode). Any hints are welcome.

    Read the article

  • SVN authz, path-based authentication woes

    - by Ronny
    [groups] developer = a,b,c doc = r,x [/doc] @doc = rw @developer = rw [/] @developer = rw * = If now a member of the group doc tries to check out the documentation, it does not work. I want members of doc just to be able to check out the sub-dir doc, anything else is forbidden. Any ideas howto achieve this? kind regards ronny [update] client: svn, version 1.5.4 (r33841) server: svn, Version 1.4.6 (r28521) access via svn+ssh:/user@host/fullpath-to-repos 1 perfectly works for two years 2 might be - see version numbers above (I'll contant our admin, immediatelly) 3 no? just ssh 4 nope 5 nope [update] using client version svn 1.4.6 (r28521) does not work either - same errors I use plain command line access. svn co svn+ssh://.... [update] server:Linux 2.6.16.60-0.39.3-default9 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux - suse 10? or something like that I think client: Kubuntu 9.04 connection via OpenSSH SSH client the server rejects svn:// connections from localhost - any connection --- gotta try it with a copy at home time soon [update 4] * this is not my own server, I cannot do what I want with it. It is a very old server 10 years at least running, with hundreds of users. Standard things should work. correct me if I am missing something. [update 5] believe it or not. I was using the wrong path and now everything works perfectly well, I am sorry to have wasted your time. I'll give the bounty to FoxyBOA for his efford.

    Read the article

  • What is the performance penalty of XML data type in SQL Server when compared to NVARCHAR(MAX)?

    - by Piotr Owsiak
    I have a DB that is going to keep log entries. One of the columns in the log table contains serialized (to XML) objects and a guy on my team proposed to go with XML data type rather than NVARCHAR(MAX). This table will have logs kept "forever" (archiving some very old entries may be considered in the future). I'm a little worried about the CPU overhead, but I'm even more worried that DB can grow faster (FoxyBOA from the referenced question got 70% bigger DB when using XML). I have read this question http://stackoverflow.com/questions/514827/microsoft-sql-server-2005-2008-xml-vs-text-varchar-data-type and it gave me some ideas but I am particulairly interrested in clarification on whether the DB size increases or decreases. Can you please share your insight/experiences in that matter. BTW. I don't currently have any need to depend on XML features within SQL Server (there's nearly zero advantage to me in the specific case). Ocasionally log entries will be extracted, but I prefer to handle the XML using .NET (either by writing a small client or using a function defined in a .NET assembly).

    Read the article

1