date:20100522

Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 You have another way out.  By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
 in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
 unused.  Running fdisk in expert mode (x command), you can move the
 partition's beginning of data (b command) from sector 63 back to
 sector 56.  That will give you the needed 4K alignment and a partition
 that is no smaller than what it was before.
 
 Right idea, not the right procedure.  You'll need to turn off DOS
 compatibility mode, then create the partition, and then go into
 expert mode and move the beginning of data from sector 1 to sector
 56.
 

It ended up like this, but still sync'ing at about 4M/sec instead of 40.


Expert command (m for help): p

Disk /dev/sdh: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 91201 cylinders

Nr AF  Hd Sec  Cyl  Hd Sec  Cyl Start  Size ID
  1 00   0   20 254  63   64 56 1465144009 fd


-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] GRUB Hard Disk Error

2010-05-22 Thread cornel panceac

2010/5/22 Jozsi Vadkan jozsi.avad...@gmail.com

 yes, i tried to install it to hd1,0 too.


do you have /boot on both drives?

-- 
Among the maxims on Lord Naoshige's wall, there was this one: Matters of
great concern should be treated lightly. Master Ittei commented, Matters
of small concern should be treated seriously.
(Ghost Dog : The Way of The Samurai)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] LSI software raid with centos 5.4

2010-05-22 Thread CList

Hi,

I have been trying to install CentOS 5.4 on a Intel SR1530SHS, Intel S3200SH
mainboard.. It has a 3 x 1TB sata hotswap drives with LSI software raid
onboard.

I had configured the LSI to have Sata0 and Sata1 with raid 1 and the third
drive as a hotspare drive.

Format the harddisk and installation was a breeze. The server rebooted into
a blank screen and the cursor just keep blinking.

Please advise.

Thanks
wL


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] OT: Strange Email Problem

2010-05-22 Thread Bart Schaefer

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Chris Geldenhuis
chris.gel...@iafrica.com wrote:

 The records that Richard was talking about was not that of your actual
 mail, but the Domain Name Service (DNS) records required to find the
 destination server and for that server to look up your server to verify
 that the mail comes from a valid address.

Right so far ...

 I recall a discussion earlier
 this month about the root DNS servers being updated to a new version of
 DNS software that would increase the size of the DNS records. This would
 then take a while to filter through the tree of DNS servers and
 eventually software that could not handle these larger records would fail.

You're thinking of the DNSSEC changes to add security information to
the packets.  That should only affect software that actually asks for
DNSSEC packets, which presumably excludes any software that isn't
prepared to handle those responses.

I'm not familiar with the qmail bug that was previously mentioned, but
from the description it appears to be related to CNAME records, not to
DNSSEC.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] LSI software raid with centos 5.4

2010-05-22 Thread Ryan Wagoner

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:40 PM, CList centosl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 I have been trying to install CentOS 5.4 on a Intel SR1530SHS, Intel S3200SH
 mainboard.. It has a 3 x 1TB sata hotswap drives with LSI software raid
 onboard.

 I had configured the LSI to have Sata0 and Sata1 with raid 1 and the third
 drive as a hotspare drive.

 Format the harddisk and installation was a breeze. The server rebooted into
 a blank screen and the cursor just keep blinking.

 Please advise.

 Thanks
 wL

I've had this problem on an Intel board when I had hard drives on the
motherboards SATA ports and some on the motherboards silicon image
SATA ports. The bios seemed to swap the order the drives were present
to grub so it couldn't boot. I would either get a blinking cursor or
GRUB. I ended up putting all the drives on a LSI PCI Express card and
everything just worked. However in your situation it sounds like you
only have drives on the LSI controller.

I would try booting into resuce mode with the CentOS installation CD.
You can do this by typing linux rescue. Have it search and mount the
CentOS installation. Look at /boot/grub/device.map and make sure hd0
references the correct /dev/sd device. Also chroot /mnt/sysimage and
try grub-install /dev/sd

Ryan
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

Hi,

I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version? Thanks in
advance!

Relevant forum quotes:

Probably not relevant to the problem; however, the current release is
5.4 - 5.3 is getting seriously obsolete with respect to security
problems and bugs.
http://centos.caosity.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flatorder=ASCtopic_id=25069forum=39move=prevtopic_time=1267482814

If you really mean 5.0, it is seriously obsolete and has numerous
known bugs and security issues that have been fixed in subsequent
updates. Obsolete releases are not supported, nor is it advisable to
be installing or running them. See the CentOS 5.5 Release Notes for
details.
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26339forum=37
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Ray Van Dolson

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 08:09:22PM +0200, Aniruddha wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
 every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
 CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
 is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version? Thanks in
 advance!
 
 Relevant forum quotes:
 
 Probably not relevant to the problem; however, the current release is
 5.4 - 5.3 is getting seriously obsolete with respect to security
 problems and bugs.
 http://centos.caosity.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flatorder=ASCtopic_id=25069forum=39move=prevtopic_time=1267482814
 
 If you really mean 5.0, it is seriously obsolete and has numerous
 known bugs and security issues that have been fixed in subsequent
 updates. Obsolete releases are not supported, nor is it advisable to
 be installing or running them. See the CentOS 5.5 Release Notes for
 details.
 https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26339forum=37

See:

  http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/

RHEL 5.x is supported through March 31, 2014 (thus CentOS will be the
same).

Ray
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Akemi Yagi

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Aniruddha mailingdotl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
 every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
 CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
 is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version? Thanks in
 advance!

I'm afraid there is some misunderstanding of 5 versus 5.x.

CentOS-5 is supported until 2014.  CentOS, as of this writing, is at
*point* release 5.5. If you are running 5.0 (or 5.1 or 5.2 or ...)
today, you are way behind because there have been a number of security
patches and bug fixes since 5.0.  In other words, CentOS 5 has a
seven year support but 5.0  (or 5.1 or 5.2 or ...) is obsolete. So,
if you install CentOS 5.5 now, you will have 4 more years of support.

Hope this clears a bit.

Akemi
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Kevin Krieser

On May 22, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Aniruddha wrote:

Hi,

I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version? Thanks in
advance!

Relevant forum quotes:

Probably not relevant to the problem; however, the current release is
5.4 - 5.3 is getting seriously obsolete with respect to security
problems and bugs.
http://centos.caosity.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flatorder=ASCtopic_id=25069forum=39move=prevtopic_time=1267482814

If you really mean 5.0, it is seriously obsolete and has numerous
known bugs and security issues that have been fixed in subsequent
updates. Obsolete releases are not supported, nor is it advisable to
be installing or running them. See the CentOS 5.5 Release Notes for
details.
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26339forum=37

The basic CentOS 5 is supported for a total of 7 years from initial release.
Since 5 first came out in April 2007, the support will last until April 2014.

5.2, 5.3, etc, are essentially wrap up releases of the basic CentOS 5, with all
known fixes applied as of that time, along with new functionality provided by
the upstream vendor. So you can start with 5.5 and not have to download large
amounts of fixes that starting with an older release would entail.

Each increment doesn't start a 7 year support cycle, just the major CentOS 4,
5, etc.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS  5 and all
5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
security updates? Does each point release gets itś own security
updates? In other words is it possible to install
CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
receiving security updates?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread John R Pierce

Aniruddha wrote:
 Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS  5 and all
 5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
 security updates? Does each point release gets itś own security
 updates? In other words is it possible to install
 CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
 is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
 receiving security updates?
   

there is no distinction between bug fixes and security updates (Indeed, 
many bugs lead to potential security exploits).   centos 5.5 is just a 
snapshot of centos 5 at a particular point in time.   updates will take 
that to 5.6 or 5.7 or whatever state is released, but its all still CentOS 5





___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Gordon Messmer

On 05/22/2010 11:09 AM, Aniruddha wrote:

 I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
 every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
 CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years?

No.  As best I understand Red Hat's model, EL 5 will have 7 years of 
support from the time of its initial release.  CentOS will rebuild their 
packages to provide the same.  In neither case can you install the 
current version today and expect 7 years of support.  With Red Hat's EL 
you have the option to install a given point release and apply only 
security fixes, staying at point release until the EOL for the remainder 
of the major release's support lifetime.  CentOS does not provide that 
option easily.  You could watch the errata feed and manually apply only 
the security related patches, but if you use yum update without 
further options, you'll be updated to whatever point release is current.

 Or
 is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version?

The preference is yours.  Keeping your system current is the easiest 
management strategy.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

Coming from Gentoo - Debian I am to trying to understand the way
CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
for a major upgrade.

In CentOS there is an yum-security plugin which allows you to install
security updates only. If I understand correctly the preferred way
though is to do at least an yum upgrade every 6 months in order to
upgrade to a point release.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-

On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 You have another way out.  By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
 in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
 unused.  Running fdisk in expert mode (x command), you can move the
 partition's beginning of data (b command) from sector 63 back to
 sector 56.  That will give you the needed 4K alignment and a partition
 that is no smaller than what it was before.

 Right idea, not the right procedure.  You'll need to turn off DOS
 compatibility mode, then create the partition, and then go into
 expert mode and move the beginning of data from sector 1 to sector
 56.


 It ended up like this, but still sync'ing at about 4M/sec instead of 40.


 Expert command (m for help): p

 Disk /dev/sdh: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 91201 cylinders

 Nr AF  Hd Sec  Cyl  Hd Sec  Cyl Start  Size ID
1 00   0   20 254  63   64 56 1465144009 fd

Is that one of those WD drives that falsely reports its physical sector
size as 512 bytes?  I don't know if the kernel can always do the right
thing when that happens, but all the reports I've seen say that getting
the start of the partition aligned properly is sufficient.

What does hdparm -I /dev/sdh | grep 'Sector size' show?

-- 
Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address.
 Do NOT delete it.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Michael Lampe

 ... I understand now ...

No, you don't.

 is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
 receiving security updates?

It's strictly linear and one-dimensional.

Point releases only mark a specific point in time, where you get a 
little bit more, e.g. additional drivers, an optional new version of 
samba, etc.

You always type 'yum update' and go ahead. Nothing else.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread William Warren

On 5/22/2010 3:39 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
 Coming from Gentoo -  Debian I am to trying to understand the way
 CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
 use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
 for a major upgrade.

 In CentOS there is an yum-security plugin which allows you to install
 security updates only. If I understand correctly the preferred way
 though is to do at least an yum upgrade every 6 months in order to
 upgrade to a point release.
 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

my mahcines run yum update every night.  Security updates are NOT only 
at the point releases but whenever the upstream releases them.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Michael Lampe
la...@gcsc.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
 ... I understand now ...

 No, you don't.

 is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
 receiving security updates?

 It's strictly linear and one-dimensional.

 Point releases only mark a specific point in time, where you get a
 little bit more, e.g. additional drivers, an optional new version of
 samba, etc.

 You always type 'yum update' and go ahead. Nothing else.

 ___


Please don't quote me out of context. My original sentence was I
understand now that CentOS  5 and all
5.? versions are supported until 2014. Which is correct.

Ok, I see that you have to run yum update regularly to keep up with
the latest (security) updates.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:52 PM, William Warren
hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote:
 On 5/22/2010 3:39 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
 Coming from Gentoo -  Debian I am to trying to understand the way
 CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
 use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
 for a major upgrade.

 In CentOS there is an yum-security plugin which allows you to install
 security updates only. If I understand correctly the preferred way
 though is to do at least an yum upgrade every 6 months in order to
 upgrade to a point release.
 ___

I can imagine this works fine with vanilla CentOS, however is this
still possible when you enable third party repositories such as epel?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Kwan Lowe

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Aniruddha mailingdotl...@gmail.com wrote:

 I can imagine this works fine with vanilla CentOS, however is this
 still possible when you enable third party repositories such as epel?

It varies on the repository, but for the most part the existing
repositories try to keep their packages up to date. There are no
guarantees though.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Kevin Krieser


On May 22, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:

 On 05/22/2010 11:09 AM, Aniruddha wrote:
 
 I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
 every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
 CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years?
 
 No.  As best I understand Red Hat's model, EL 5 will have 7 years of 
 support from the time of its initial release.  CentOS will rebuild their 
 packages to provide the same.  In neither case can you install the 
 current version today and expect 7 years of support.  With Red Hat's EL 
 you have the option to install a given point release and apply only 
 security fixes, staying at point release until the EOL for the remainder 
 of the major release's support lifetime.  CentOS does not provide that 
 option easily.  You could watch the errata feed and manually apply only 
 the security related patches, but if you use yum update without 
 further options, you'll be updated to whatever point release is current.
 
 Or
 is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version?
 
 The preference is yours.  Keeping your system current is the easiest 
 management strategy

I've seen extended release support from the upstream vendor for some specific 
kernels.  I haven't looked closely into this, to see why.  My suspicion is that 
they are maintaining some kernels from just before more major updates (like the 
addition of KVM) that may have negatively impacted certain larger customers.  
Unfortunately, in my case, when these have been released they didn't resolve 
some security issue in them that we were interested in.  So we had to go with 
the latest kernel anyway.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

At Sat, 22 May 2010 21:39:46 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org 
wrote:

 
 Coming from Gentoo - Debian I am to trying to understand the way
 CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
 use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
 for a major upgrade.

I am not sure if Gentoo or Debian even have 'point releases', at least
in the sense that RedHat has done things since way back when.

 
 In CentOS there is an yum-security plugin which allows you to install
 security updates only. If I understand correctly the preferred way
 though is to do at least an yum upgrade every 6 months in order to
 upgrade to a point release.

No, you you really should run yum update more frequently.  Every 6
months (or so), 'yum update' will automagically upgrade to a point
release. I am not really sure it really makes any sense to stay at a
given point release, esp. sice point releases are not some sort of
major new version or anything -- they are more a consolidation of many
small updates bundled together has a kind of 'update milestone' and are
more a matter of being a conveinent place (in 'time') to burn a new
batch of iso images.

 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
   
  

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com   -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

  
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

At Sat, 22 May 2010 21:03:49 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org 
wrote:

 
 Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS  5 and all
 5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
 security updates? Does each point release gets itÅ own security
 updates? In other words is it possible to install
 CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
 is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
 receiving security updates?

The 'point releases' ARE the security updates (or actually the
consolidation of security (and other) updates).  If you install 5.5 and
do 'yum update' on regular basis, at some point (like in about 6-8
months maybe), you will find you are running 5.6 (this will happen
automagically), and in like 6-8 months or so after that you will be
running 5.7, and so on.  Except for some rare cases, things will be
'binary compatible' and the *base* version of all CentOS supplied
software (actually upstream vendor supplied) will be the same, but will
have security and essential bug fixes back-ported.  This will continue
until sometime in 2014.  The point releases are not really a new
version, just update 'milestones' of a sort.  Don't confuse CentOS 5.5
and CentOS 5 -- CentOS 5.5 is just CentOS 5 as of mid-May 2010 -- it is
not distinct in any other way.  Installing CentOS 5.5 is no different
than installing using a CentOS 5.4 DVD and then doing a 'yum update'
after completing the install.

Note: there will be various between point release updates from
time-to-time -- these will be placed in the 'updates' repo.  The point
release updates are a consolidation of these (and other less
critical) updates and also mark points when new install media is
created, and past updates are migrated to the 'base' repo and the 'updates'
repo is zeroed out (although usually by the time a point release hits
the bricks and few updates since its 'freeze' will have come along --
the 'updates' repo is only really figuratively zeroed out).

Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
numbered.  Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010, it is
NOT the 4th point release of the 10th major incarnation of Ubuntu. 
Don't confuse this 'version numbering' with how CentOS's versions are
numbered.

Fedora Core has no point releases.  Each version is a completely fresh
release. And they come out much more frequently than RHEL/CentOS.

 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
   


-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com   -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

At Sat, 22 May 2010 22:02:34 +0200 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org 
wrote:

 
 On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:52 PM, William Warren
 hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote:
  On 5/22/2010 3:39 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
  Coming from Gentoo - Â Debian I am to trying to understand the way
  CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
  use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
  for a major upgrade.
 
  In CentOS there is an yum-security plugin which allows you to install
  security updates only. If I understand correctly the preferred way
  though is to do at least an yum upgrade every 6 months in order to
  upgrade to a point release.
  ___
 
 I can imagine this works fine with vanilla CentOS, however is this
 still possible when you enable third party repositories such as epel?

Yes.  You do have to be careful and properly setup priorities, etc. and
be carefull about what you install from the third party repositories and
which ones you have enabled when you do a generic 'yum update'. 
Generally you only enable third party repositories when you do an 'yum
install some specific package from the third party repository' and
have them all disabled when you do a 'yum update':

yum --enablerepo=epel install wine
yum --disablerepo=epel update
yum --enablerepo=rpmforge install mplayer

 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 


-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com   -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
   
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Tom H

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:

 Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
 numbered.  Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
 release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010, it is
 NOT the 4th point release of the 10th major incarnation of Ubuntu.
 Don't confuse this 'version numbering' with how CentOS's versions are
 numbered.

Correction:

Ubuntu LTS versions do have point releases, probably swiped from RHEL/CentoOS.

8.04 was published at the end of April 2008 and has been updated to
8.04.1, 8.04.2, 8.04.3, 8.04.4 every subsequent July and January.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Kevin Krieser

Another issue with trying to apply just security updates for older point 
updates is that newer updates may be built differently.  On 5.3, a package may 
not require another package be installed.  But at some point later on, say, 
5.5, it may gain a dependency.  So if you try to install it, it may fail.  if 
you are maintaining a system that is not directly connected to the internet, 
that can be an issue.  I suppose that if it is, then you can end up having to 
upgrade more packages than you originally expected.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

At Sat, 22 May 2010 16:49:49 -0400 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org 
wrote:

 
 On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:
 
  Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
  numbered. Â Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
  release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010, it is
  NOT the 4th point release of the 10th major incarnation of Ubuntu.
  Don't confuse this 'version numbering' with how CentOS's versions are
  numbered.
 
 Correction:
 
 Ubuntu LTS versions do have point releases, probably swiped from RHEL/CentoOS.
 
 8.04 was published at the end of April 2008 and has been updated to
 8.04.1, 8.04.2, 8.04.3, 8.04.4 every subsequent July and January.

Yes, but the *base version* '8.04' is NOT a point release.  I stated
Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers.  I know about Ubuntu LTS versions.

 ___
 CentOS mailing list
 CentOS@centos.org
 http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
   
   

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
hel...@deepsoft.com   -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-

Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 You have another way out.  By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
 in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
 unused.  Running fdisk in expert mode (x command), you can move the
 partition's beginning of data (b command) from sector 63 back to
 sector 56.  That will give you the needed 4K alignment and a partition
 that is no smaller than what it was before.
 Right idea, not the right procedure.  You'll need to turn off DOS
 compatibility mode, then create the partition, and then go into
 expert mode and move the beginning of data from sector 1 to sector
 56.

 It ended up like this, but still sync'ing at about 4M/sec instead of 40.


 Expert command (m for help): p

 Disk /dev/sdh: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 91201 cylinders

 Nr AF  Hd Sec  Cyl  Hd Sec  Cyl Start  Size ID
1 00   0   20 254  63   64 56 1465144009 fd
 
 Is that one of those WD drives that falsely reports its physical sector
 size as 512 bytes?  I don't know if the kernel can always do the right
 thing when that happens, but all the reports I've seen say that getting
 the start of the partition aligned properly is sufficient.
 
 What does hdparm -I /dev/sdh | grep 'Sector size' show?

It doesn't mention sector size.  All of the size related options seem to match 
the Seagate desktop drive.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Jorge Fábregas

On Saturday 22 May 2010 16:36:18 Robert Heller wrote:
 Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
 release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010

I didn't know that one!  Interesting.  Thanks Robert.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-

Les Mikesell wrote:
 Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 You have another way out.  By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
 in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
 unused.  Running fdisk in expert mode (x command), you can move the
 partition's beginning of data (b command) from sector 63 back to
 sector 56.  That will give you the needed 4K alignment and a partition
 that is no smaller than what it was before.
 Right idea, not the right procedure.  You'll need to turn off DOS
 compatibility mode, then create the partition, and then go into
 expert mode and move the beginning of data from sector 1 to sector
 56.

 It ended up like this, but still sync'ing at about 4M/sec instead of 40.


 Expert command (m for help): p

 Disk /dev/sdh: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 91201 cylinders

 Nr AF  Hd Sec  Cyl  Hd Sec  Cyl Start  Size ID
1 00   0   20 254  63   64 56 1465144009 fd
 Is that one of those WD drives that falsely reports its physical sector
 size as 512 bytes?  I don't know if the kernel can always do the right
 thing when that happens, but all the reports I've seen say that getting
 the start of the partition aligned properly is sufficient.

 What does hdparm -I /dev/sdh | grep 'Sector size' show?
 
 It doesn't mention sector size.  All of the size related options seem to 
 match 
 the Seagate desktop drive.
 

Does the 4K sector size mean that the drive is going to read the 4K chunk then 
merge in the 512 bytes you wrote, the wait for the sector come around again to 
write it back?  I guess that could explain the 10x write speed difference 
regardless of cylinder alignment.   Read speed doesn't seem that much different.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-

On 05/22/2010 05:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Les Mikesell wrote:
 Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 You have another way out.  By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
 in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
 unused.  Running fdisk in expert mode (x command), you can move the
 partition's beginning of data (b command) from sector 63 back to
 sector 56.  That will give you the needed 4K alignment and a partition
 that is no smaller than what it was before.
 Right idea, not the right procedure.  You'll need to turn off DOS
 compatibility mode, then create the partition, and then go into
 expert mode and move the beginning of data from sector 1 to sector
 56.

 It ended up like this, but still sync'ing at about 4M/sec instead of 40.


 Expert command (m for help): p

 Disk /dev/sdh: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 91201 cylinders

 Nr AF  Hd Sec  Cyl  Hd Sec  Cyl Start  Size ID
 1 00   0   20 254  63   64 56 1465144009 fd
 Is that one of those WD drives that falsely reports its physical sector
 size as 512 bytes?  I don't know if the kernel can always do the right
 thing when that happens, but all the reports I've seen say that getting
 the start of the partition aligned properly is sufficient.

 What does hdparm -I /dev/sdh | grep 'Sector size' show?

 It doesn't mention sector size.  All of the size related options seem to 
 match
 the Seagate desktop drive.


 Does the 4K sector size mean that the drive is going to read the 4K chunk then
 merge in the 512 bytes you wrote, the wait for the sector come around again to
 write it back?  I guess that could explain the 10x write speed difference
 regardless of cylinder alignment.   Read speed doesn't seem that much 
 different.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  Every unaligned write or write that is
not a multiple of the 4KB sector size becomes a read-modify-write within the
drive, and a 10X reduction in write throughput is typical.

-- 
Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address.
 Do NOT delete it.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-

On 05/22/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/22/2010 05:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Does the 4K sector size mean that the drive is going to read the 4K chunk 
 then
 merge in the 512 bytes you wrote, the wait for the sector come around again 
 to
 write it back?  I guess that could explain the 10x write speed difference
 regardless of cylinder alignment.   Read speed doesn't seem that much 
 different.

 Yes, that's exactly what it means.  Every unaligned write or write that is
 not a multiple of the 4KB sector size becomes a read-modify-write within the
 drive, and a 10X reduction in write throughput is typical.

I should add that the kernel normally will do I/O in multiples of its 4KB
(typical) page size where possible, but I have no idea whether any effort
is made to align those writes if the drive does not report a 4KB physical
sector size, or whether it even makes sense to try beyond what the
elevator algorithm does for coalescing sequential writes.

I don't currently have any of these enhanced format drives, nor am I
using RAID, so all I can report is the collected experience of others.

-- 
Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address.
 Do NOT delete it.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-

Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/22/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
 On 05/22/2010 05:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
 Does the 4K sector size mean that the drive is going to read the 4K chunk 
 then
 merge in the 512 bytes you wrote, the wait for the sector come around again 
 to
 write it back?  I guess that could explain the 10x write speed difference
 regardless of cylinder alignment.   Read speed doesn't seem that much 
 different.
 Yes, that's exactly what it means.  Every unaligned write or write that is
 not a multiple of the 4KB sector size becomes a read-modify-write within the
 drive, and a 10X reduction in write throughput is typical.
 
 I should add that the kernel normally will do I/O in multiples of its 4KB
 (typical) page size where possible, but I have no idea whether any effort
 is made to align those writes if the drive does not report a 4KB physical
 sector size, or whether it even makes sense to try beyond what the
 elevator algorithm does for coalescing sequential writes.
 
 I don't currently have any of these enhanced format drives, nor am I
 using RAID, so all I can report is the collected experience of others.

Well, the form factor is certainly nice.  I got a hot-swap carrier with 2 slots 
that fits in a floppy bay and the drives themselves are tiny so it seemed ideal 
for copies of data to go offsite.  I just wish it would work...  Even a dd at 
the disk level seems slow so I'm not sure the writes are being aggregated even 
if you ignore partitioning and offsets.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Is every CentOS release supported for 7 years?

2010-05-22 Thread Tom H

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:
 At Sat, 22 May 2010 16:49:49 -0400 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org 
 wrote:

 On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:
 
  Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
  numbered.  Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
  release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010, it is
  NOT the 4th point release of the 10th major incarnation of Ubuntu.
  Don't confuse this 'version numbering' with how CentOS's versions are
  numbered.

 Correction:

 Ubuntu LTS versions do have point releases, probably swiped from 
 RHEL/CentoOS.

 8.04 was published at the end of April 2008 and has been updated to
 8.04.1, 8.04.2, 8.04.3, 8.04.4 every subsequent July and January.

 Yes, but the *base version* '8.04' is NOT a point release.  I stated
 Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers.  I know about Ubuntu LTS versions.

No comment...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] SATA hotswap

2010-05-22 Thread Ryan Wagoner

2010/5/21 Jakub Jedelský jakub.jedel...@gmail.com:
 Hi all,

 I changed a bad disk (automaticly disabled from software raid1 and system
 for I/O error) in one of our servers and now have problem with adding new
 one to system without reboot. Does anybody have an experience with this? Or
 is it possible? :) We're using hotswap AXX6DRV3G for 6 SATA disks from Intel
 connected directly to MB (S5520HC from Intel too). There is AHCI as driver
 (enabled in bios), no HW raid.
 I found, something like that

 echo 0 0 0 /sys/class/scsi_host/hostn/scan

 but it found only sda disk which is already running..
 Using CentOS 5.5, x86_64.

 Thanks for your ideas and replies ... and excuse my english please :)
 --
 Jakub Jedelský
 e-mail/jabber: jakub.jedel...@gmail.com
 http://dev.stderr.cz


I use the following command to rescan all scsi devices

for f in /sys/class/scsi_host/host*; do echo - - -  $f/scan; done

You can also rescan the partitions on the devices with

partprobe -s /dev/sd?

Ryan
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] raid resync speed? - laptop drive-