On Thu, February 19, 2015 13:41, Chris Murphy wrote:
Linux distros experience on this front is terrible. Why? Linux OS's
Because Linux-land is a bazaar and Apple-land is a cathedral. You
cannot have consistency at the user level without stability at the OS
and application framework level.
On Thu, February 19, 2015 22:01, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
On 19.02.2015 19:41, Chris Murphy wrote:
Linux with a thousand knobs is never going become popular. Instead
somebody has to go and create an opinionated system where most knobs
are removed and replaced by sane/good/useful
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:06 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/18/2015 9:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
You might be a candidate for LVM integrated raid. It uses the md
kernel code on the backend, but it's all LVM tools to create, manage
and monitor. The raid level is defined per
On 20 February 2015 at 05:25, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'd say your mom is an admin in the sense that chickens fly and horses swim.
It's a confusing analogy. Chickens don't fly. Horses do swim.
I have a couple of chickens, and yes, the buggers do fly if you don't
clip their
Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
On 20 February 2015 at 05:25, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com
wrote:
I'd say your mom is an admin in the sense that chickens fly and horses
swim.
It's a confusing analogy. Chickens don't fly. Horses do swim.
I have a couple of chickens, and yes, the buggers do
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr wrote:
A *user* never has to even see - or use - an installer. A USER has to USE a
computer, by which I mean the applications he or she needs to get some work
done.
This is a false dichotomy. I reject it. There's too much fact
Le 19/02/2015 11:03, Chris Murphy a écrit :
This is a false dichotomy. I reject it. There's too much fact to the
contrary. My mom has done an OS installation, she is most definitely
not an admin.
I'd say your mom is an admin in the sense that chickens fly and horses swim.
:o)
--
Microlinux -
On 19.02.2015 06:28, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:20 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Niki Kovacs wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 23:12,
close, but then, for mysterious reasons, Red Hat decided to cripple it
into oblivion. Go figure.
One word: desktop. That's what they want to conquer
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:28 AM, Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr wrote:
Le 19/02/2015 11:03, Chris Murphy a écrit :
This is a false dichotomy. I reject it. There's too much fact to the
contrary. My mom has done an OS installation, she is most definitely
not an admin.
I'd say your mom is an
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
I think the problem is that you simply have to draw a distinction
between technology and product.
The rise of the Linux desktop will never happen because Linux is not a
product but a technology and as a result
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn denni...@conversis.de
I'm not sure why you seem to disagree with what I wrote (unconvinced)
and then basically say what I was saying.
you: result has to be a jack of all trades.
me: Chrome is not jack of all trades (yet) yet is very successful/growing
But also I'm
On Thu, February 19, 2015 02:25, Niki Kovacs wrote:
Le 19/02/2015 05:43, Chris Murphy a écrit :
My personal view on installers is extremely biased toward the user
staying out of trouble, they shouldn't have to read documentation
for
a GUI installer.
A *user* never has to even see - or use
On 19.02.2015 19:41, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
I think the problem is that you simply have to draw a distinction
between technology and product.
The rise of the Linux desktop will never happen because Linux is not a
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Kahlil Hodgson
kahlil.hodg...@dealmax.com.au wrote:
On 20 February 2015 at 05:25, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'd say your mom is an admin in the sense that chickens fly and horses swim.
It's a confusing analogy. Chickens don't fly. Horses do
Hi Niki,
md127 apparently only uses 81.95GB per disk. Maybe one of the partitions has
the wrong size. What's the output of lsblk?
Regards
Michael
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr
An: CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Februar 2015
i am going to sit the rest of this out and read Michael's book. ;-)
--
peace out.
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.
CentOS GNU/Linux 6.6
tc,hago.
g
.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Le 18/02/2015 09:59, Niki Kovacs a écrit :
└─sdd3 8:51 0 76,4G 0 part
└─md127 9:127 0 229G 0 raid5 /
Any idea what's going on ?
Ooops, just saw it. /dev/sdd3 apparently has the wrong size.
As to why this is so, it's a mystery.
I'll investigate further into this. (Since
On 02/18/2015 03:01 AM, Niki Kovacs wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 09:59, Niki Kovacs a écrit :
└─sdd3 8:51 0 76,4G 0 part
└─md127 9:127 0 229G 0 raid5 /
Any idea what's going on ?
Ooops, just saw it. /dev/sdd3 apparently has the wrong size.
As to why this is so, it's a mystery.
and then recreate the array.
Michael
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr
An: centos@centos.org
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Februar 2015 10:01:49
Betreff: Re: [CentOS] CentOS 7: software RAID 5 array with 4 disks and no
spares?
Le 18/02/2015 09:59, Niki Kovacs a écrit
Le 18/02/2015 09:24, Michael Volz a écrit :
Hi Niki,
md127 apparently only uses 81.95GB per disk. Maybe one of the partitions has
the wrong size. What's the output of lsblk?
[root@nestor:~] # lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda 8:00 232,9G 0 disk
├─sda1
On 02/18/2015 01:23 AM, Niki Kovacs wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 08:09, Niki Kovacs a écrit :
Apparently no spare devices have been created. So why do I only
have 226 GB of disk space under CentOS, when I had roughly 650 GB
under Slackware?
An idea just crossed my mind. Could it be that 'df' is
Le 18/02/2015 09:24, Michael Volz a écrit :
md127 apparently only uses 81.95GB per disk. Maybe one of the partitions has
the wrong size. What's the output of lsblk?
I just spent a few hours experimenting with the CentOS 7 installer in a
VirtualBox guest with four virtual hard disks. I can
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 09:24, Michael Volz a écrit :
md127 apparently only uses 81.95GB per disk. Maybe one of the partitions
has the wrong size. What's the output of lsblk?
I just spent a few hours experimenting with the CentOS
Le 18/02/2015 23:12, Chris Murphy a écrit :
installer is organized around mount points is correct, and what gets
mounted on mount points? Volumes, not partitions.
Says who?
--
Microlinux - Solutions informatiques 100% Linux et logiciels libres
7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat
Web :
Le 19/02/2015 05:43, Chris Murphy a écrit :
My personal view on installers is extremely biased toward the user
staying out of trouble, they shouldn't have to read documentation for
a GUI installer.
A *user* never has to even see - or use - an installer. A USER has to
USE a computer, by which
On 2/18/2015 11:06 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
but, is that lvm integrated raid stuff available in RHEL/CentOS 6
or 7 yet ?
/me scribbles postit note to self: google BEFORE hitting send
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr wrote:
Well, maybe it's just me. I've started Linux on Slackware 7.1 and used
pretty much every major and minor distribution under the sun. I know my way
around Slackware, Debian, CentOS, FreeBSD, Gentoo, Arch and many more, and
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Niki Kovacs i...@microlinux.fr wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 23:12, Chris Murphy a écrit :
installer is organized around mount points is correct, and what gets
mounted on mount points? Volumes, not partitions.
Says who?
Because it's ambiguous. A partition might
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:20 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Niki Kovacs wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 23:12,
close, but then, for mysterious reasons, Red Hat decided to cripple it
into oblivion. Go figure.
One word: desktop. That's what they want to conquer next.
OK well there's a really long road to
On 2/18/2015 8:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Niki Kovacsi...@microlinux.fr wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 23:12, Chris Murphy a écrit :
installer is organized around mount points is correct, and what gets
mounted on mount points? Volumes, not partitions.
Says who?
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:25 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
disks - partition(s) - mdraid devices - PVs - VG - LV - file system.
phew.
You might be a candidate for LVM integrated raid. It uses the md
kernel code on the backend, but it's all LVM tools to create, manage
and
On 2/18/2015 9:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
You might be a candidate for LVM integrated raid. It uses the md
kernel code on the backend, but it's all LVM tools to create, manage
and monitor. The raid level is defined per LV, instead of all LV's in
a VG inheriting the underlying raid. It supports
Le 18/02/2015 23:12, Chris Murphy a écrit :
What is NOT obvious: for single device installs, if you omit the size
in the create mount point dialog, the size of the resulting volume
will consume all remaining space. But since there's no way to preset
raid5 at the time a mount point is created
Niki Kovacs wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 23:12, Chris Murphy a écrit :
What is NOT obvious: for single device installs, if you omit the size
in the create mount point dialog, the size of the resulting volume
will consume all remaining space. But since there's no way to preset
raid5 at the time a
Le 18/02/2015 08:09, Niki Kovacs a écrit :
Apparently no spare devices have been created. So why do I only have 226
GB of disk space under CentOS, when I had roughly 650 GB under Slackware?
An idea just crossed my mind. Could it be that 'df' is reporting a wrong
partition size on the RAID
35 matches
Mail list logo
