.
Thanks,
--Bill
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:28:54 +0200, Walter H. wrote
> On 23.06.2016 02:52, listmail wrote:
> > According to the compatibility chart over here:
> > https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/intel
> > ...anything later than 6.3 (6.4 and up) should work with the
Hi All,
Hopefully someone with broad overview of CentOS compatibility issues can
comment on this:
I am evaluating a Supermicro X10SLM motherboard with an Intel E3-1231 v3
CPU. Testing with boots from Live DVDs, the CentOS 6.x family is panicking
at boot time. I have tried 6.8, 6.5, and 6.3,
I just saw this:
https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01
which includes this:
A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a
stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the
privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases
Hi All,
I a working on configuring a not-quite minimal installation of CentOS 6.2. I
tried doing the minimal installation available with the installer, but it's
a bit too minimal to be useful. So I'm cutting down from a less minimal
starting place. I'm pretty familiar with 5.x, but what I'm
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:22:17 -0700, listmail wrote
Also, any
ideas as to what would be launching cups would be appreciated.
I answered one of my own questions: cups was being started by the VMware tools
startup script. I fixed this for now by editing the VMware startup script and
removing
I notice that CentOS 5.6 release notes say that bind97 is now included.
However, my CentOS 5.6 installations have bind 9.3. I'm guessing that bind97
is not installed by default, due to the possibility of config file breakage or
something. It looks like you have to explicitly install the bind97*
Hi All,
Please feel free to correct any misconceptions in my premises as I get to my
question. I have about 6 ftp services running on a CentOS system that is going
down for service, and I want to move the ftp services to a VM on another
network. These are all running on Proftpd, with fairly
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:48:50 +0100, Ned Slider wrote
On 10/07/10 03:07, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
On Friday 09 July 2010 21:37, listmail wrote:
I'm trying to get lm_sensors to work on a Shuttle with an AMD K10.
The version of lm_sensors in the main CentOS repo is 2.10.7, which is
two
Hi All,
I'm trying to get lm_sensors to work on a Shuttle with an AMD K10. The version
of lm_sensors in the main CentOS repo is 2.10.7, which is two years old now.
Support for the K10 was added about a year ago.
So, does anyone know if there are binaries available for more recent versions
of
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:43 -0500, Daniel_Curry wrote
I'm looking at building about a dozen CentOS VM's for a project. I have
a desire to use kickstart for this coupled with PXE. I'm looking
for a minimal ks.cfg file specifically, I want the bare minimum of software
that is needed for a
Hi,
Is anyone else noticing a problem updating Firefox and its dependencies?
It appears that xulrunner-devel 1.9.0.6-1.el5 wants xulrunner 1.9.0.5-1.el5,
but this is not available. Following is the output from Yum when I attempt
to update Firefox on CentOS 5.2 X86_64:
Resolving
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:07:14 +, Ned Slider wrote
listmail wrote:
Is anyone else noticing a problem updating Firefox and its dependencies?
It appears that xulrunner-devel 1.9.0.6-1.el5 wants xulrunner 1.9.0.5-1.el5,
but this is not available. Following is the output from Yum when I
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:48:55 -0700, I wrote
I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and I am seeing
a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine is idle, i.e.
no processes appear to be running.
Both top and uptime report the same thing. Looking at top, I cannot
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:06:54 -0400, William Warren wrote
the issue occurs even on a live cd so the machine's software load
isn't suspect. It's the nics.
It sure does look like it. I submitted a bug to the CentOS bug tracker,
so hopefully someone better equipped than I to resolve this can
I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and I am seeing
a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine is idle, i.e.
no processes appear to be running.
Both top and uptime report the same thing. Looking at top, I cannot see
any processes that are using CPU time except
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:21:44 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote
listmail wrote:
snip
Are you running X ... how many processes (on average are running).
Running X and logged in with applets and such, I have this:
===
top - 17:18:49 up 4
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Mark Pryor wrote
Replying to my own post as a follow-up. I just checked
another machine that
I am burning in with CentOS 5.2, and it has the same
problem: load average
~0.4 when idle. Both of these machines have Supermicro
X7DBN motherboards,
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:28:55 -0400, Dan Halbert wrote
listmail wrote:
it has the same problem: load average 0.4 when idle.
If you disconnect or shut down the NIC(s), does that make any difference?
Good suggestion. Disconnecting the Ethernet cables from the NICs did not
make a difference
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:32:42 -0400, Dan Halbert wrote
You mentioned these are Supermicro X7DBN boards. They use the Intel
(ESB2/Gilgal) 82563EB Dual-Port Gigabit Ethernet Controller. There's
an open bug here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=403121,
e1000: issues with Intel
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:44 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote
Filipe Brandenburger wrote on Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:08:44 -0400:
The exact same question came up two weeks ago.
And the answers were confusing at least me ;-)
To me as well, having now read the thread. No one seems to know why the
I just did an update, and PAM was was one of the modules.
Yum has placed /etc/pam.d/system-auth.rpmnew and it's different than
the existing file, which is actually a link to system-auth-ac.
The files are slightly different, and I'm wondering if the differences
are important. I can't find any
21 matches
Mail list logo
