Rudi Ahlers wrote:
John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
snip /
But as with so many posts on the mailing lists these days everyone seem to
wonder off from the original topic and not even bother to help with OP with
the original question. Surely he has a good reason why
Apologies in advance for excerpting or leaving out the messages sent to the
list as i was in digest mode so got them all in one lump.
Rudi Ahlers:
You could assign a LABEL to each hard drive. The LABEL is attached to the
drive's UID (I think?) so even if you move the drive to anther port it
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Cal Sawyer cal.saw...@artsalliancemedia.com
wrote:
Apologies in advance for excerpting or leaving out the messages sent to the
list as i was in digest mode so got them all in one lump.
Rudi Ahlers:
You could assign a LABEL to each hard drive. The LABEL is
The reason for the udev hotplug rule is simply for the purpose of mounting
removable devices as read-only. If udev is left to its devices, everything
plugged up is read-write which is verboten in this application. Unfortunately,
there seems to be no way (i've found) to distinguish, at
Sawyer
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Controlling the order of /dev/sdX devices?
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Cal Sawyer
cal.saw...@artsalliancemedia.com wrote:
Apologies in advance for excerpting or leaving out the messages sent to
the list as i was in digest mode so got them all in one lump
At Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:05:35 +0100 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
The reason for the udev hotplug rule is simply for the purpose of mounting
removable devices as read-only. If udev is left to its devices, everything
plugged up is read-write which is verboten in this
On Friday, April 01, 2011 04:23:40 am Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Yes, that's why you assign a LABEL to the device :)
According to the OP's initial message, I think he's already doing this:
SATA system HDD /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 /
RAID array LABEL=STORE /store ## mounts ==
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
Nope sir. Assume never the same device twice and no control
over those devices, so UUID is out of the question.
UUID is out of the question where I have 3 drives (main and two backup)
with wear leveling wherein ANY of the drives, put in /dev/sda's
position, is
to be a replacement for it at some
point?
- cal sawyer
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Lamar Owen
Sent: 01 April 2011 14:18
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Controlling the order of /dev/sdX devices?
On Friday
.
- csawyer
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Brunner, Brian T.
Sent: 01 April 2011 14:51
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Controlling the order of /dev/sdX devices?
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
Nope sir
On Friday, April 01, 2011 09:53:06 am Cal Sawyer wrote:
Nope, no LVM on the RIAD array. It just needs to load right after the main
LVM so that something removable doesn't wiggle its way in and mess up the
device order.
Ok, so the LVM line was for the previous filesystem; it wasn't
[mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Brunner, Brian T.
Sent: 01 April 2011 14:51
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Controlling the order of /dev/sdX devices?
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
Nope sir. Assume never the same device twice and no control
over those
Sent: 01 April 2011 15:19
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Controlling the order of /dev/sdX devices?
On Friday, April 01, 2011 09:53:06 am Cal Sawyer wrote:
Nope, no LVM on the RIAD array. It just needs to load right after the main
LVM so that something removable doesn't wiggle its
Hi
CentOS 5.4(final) 2.6.18-164el5PAE. I am trying to prevent removable
USB and eSATA devices from occupying /dev/sdX devices ahead of a 3ware
RAID controller. For example: at boot, if a USB drive and eSATA HDD
(connected to an LSI 1068E onboard controller, reflashed in IT mode to
handle
Cal Sawyer wrote on 03/31/2011 08:13 AM:
Hi
CentOS 5.4(final) 2.6.18-164el5PAE.
I hope you are aware that you are using a very obsolete OS with a lot of
known (i.e. exploitable) security holes and bugs that have subsequently
been fixed.
...
I realise this description is kind of a tangle
On 31/03/11 15:24, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Cal Sawyer wrote on 03/31/2011 08:13 AM:
CentOS 5.4(final) 2.6.18-164el5PAE.
I hope you are aware that you are using a very obsolete OS with a lot of
known (i.e. exploitable) security holes and bugs that have subsequently
been fixed.
Do you really
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Nick oinksoc...@letterboxes.org wrote:
On 31/03/11 15:24, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Cal Sawyer wrote on 03/31/2011 08:13 AM:
CentOS 5.4(final) 2.6.18-164el5PAE.
I hope you are aware that you are using a very obsolete OS with a lot of
known (i.e. exploitable)
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Nick oinksoc...@letterboxes.org wrote:
On 31/03/11 15:24, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Cal Sawyer wrote on 03/31/2011 08:13 AM:
CentOS 5.4(final) 2.6.18-164el5PAE.
I hope you are aware that
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 06:57:00PM +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
I don't think the OP asked how secure, or in-secure, his system is. So
please try and keep on-topic?
Whether asked for or not it is negligent to _not_ point out that
there are holes large enough to fly a space
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:02 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 06:57:00PM +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
I don't think the OP asked how secure, or in-secure, his system is. So
please try and keep on-topic?
Whether asked for or not it is negligent to
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:24:42 am Phil Schaffner wrote:
I hope you are aware that you are using a very obsolete OS with a lot of
known (i.e. exploitable) security holes and bugs that have subsequently
been fixed.
No to pick on you, Phil, but the OP may have very specific reasons to run
21 matches
Mail list logo
