On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:18 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> > > > On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the
> massively
> > > > increased complexity of grub2? And why do all configuration files
> > > > suddenly *des
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:14:56 -0300
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And, would
> you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to something
> else)?
>
Please don't remove it. Why this sudde
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:18 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > > On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the massively
> > > increased complexity of grub2? And why do all configuration files
> > > suddenly *desperately* need to be xml?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Always Le
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:18 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the massively
> > increased complexity of grub2? And why do all configuration files
> suddenly
> > *desperately* ne
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:31 PM, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
>> Before very recent versions of rsync (not sure exactly when it
>> changed), it would load the entire tree listing from both sides into
>> memory before walking them for the comparison. What's the destination
>> side look like? Maybe you
On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 08:33 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
> > Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
> > better replacements.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
> >
> > And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC.
> > THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was
> > detected as p5p1.
>
> Just because the MAC ch
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM, John Doe wrote:
>
> >>>kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0,
> oom_adj=0,
> >>> oom_score_adj=0
> >>>...
> >>>kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score
On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
> And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC.
> THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was
> detected as p5p1.
Just because the MAC chip is soldered to the motherboard doesn't mean it
can't be on the P
On 3/21/2014 2:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
> build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
> this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just dunno
> 'bout this one.
if it do
Digimer wrote:
> On 21/03/14 05:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
>> build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
>> this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just
>> dunno 'bou
On 21/03/14 05:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
> build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
> this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just dunno
> 'bout this one.
>
>
Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just dunno
'bout this one.
mark
___
Thomas Harold wrote:
> On 3/19/2014 2:50 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>> Just to add, I'm sure everyone has already read and implemented many of
>> the suggestions here:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH
>>
>> Numbers 2 and 7 have already been highlighted in this thread.
>
> #1 Th
On 3/19/2014 2:50 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
> Just to add, I'm sure everyone has already read and implemented many of
> the suggestions here:
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH
>
> Numbers 2 and 7 have already been highlighted in this thread.
>
#1 These days I would say that
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but that reason is generally that someone changed the language
> syntax underneath it instead of settling on simple working APIs.
> What has actually stayed stable and backwards compatible over the
> years other than bourne shell syntax
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>>
> The case is being made to remove a tool that is considered to be legacy.
> While it is understood that legacy = old/unmaintained/crap,
No, legacy = the foundation everything else builds on. Change it at
the risk of forcing everyone
On 21 March 2014 19:03, Robert Clove wrote:
> I have an VPI card and will ofed ofed convert the infiniband ports to
> Ethernet ports.
I'm pretty sure it will. Check the docs!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/list
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd love to hear about the "old and unmaintainable code". It's open
>> source code. If somethings broken you can fix it right!?! That's the open
>> source mantra! Either provide a set
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
> I'd love to hear about the "old and unmaintainable code". It's open
> source code. If somethings broken you can fix it right!?! That's the open
> source mantra! Either provide a set of reasons why it should be removed
> and the alter
I have an VPI card and will ofed ofed convert the infiniband ports to
Ethernet ports.
On Saturday, March 22, 2014, Andrew Holway wrote:
> On 21 March 2014 18:24, Robert Clove >
> wrote:
> > Will non ofed also work as mellanox ofed or any other difference will I
> > face ?
>
> The Mellanox OFED s
- Original Message -
| Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And,
| would
| you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to
| something
| else)?
|
Yes, we do use TCP Wrappers. We also use IPTables, edge gateway firewalls,
VPNs and other tools. T
On 21 March 2014 18:24, Robert Clove wrote:
> Will non ofed also work as mellanox ofed or any other difference will I
> face ?
The Mellanox OFED stack is a development version maintained by
Mellanox whereas the "OFED OFED" is maintained by the OpenFabrics
Enterprise Distribution which is a consor
Will non ofed also work as mellanox ofed or any other difference will I
face ?
Where to get other ofed ?
On Friday, March 21, 2014, Andrew Holway wrote:
> On 21 March 2014 18:08, Robert Clove >
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Has anyone installed mellanox ofed on linux kernel 3.x?
>
> I hear those
On 21 March 2014 18:08, Robert Clove wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Has anyone installed mellanox ofed on linux kernel 3.x?
I hear those guys over in Ubuntu land do that kind of thing a lot. Why
Mellanox OFED and non OFED OFED?
Ta
Andrew
>
>
> Regards
> ___
>
Hi all,
Has anyone installed mellanox ofed on linux kernel 3.x?
Regards
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0,
>>> oom_score_adj=0
>>>...
>>>kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score 361 or
>>> sacrifice child
>>>kernel: Killed process 27974, UID
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:33 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
>> Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
>> better replacements.
>
> Yes. For example look how MicroSoft has improved Windows sin
Hi Guys,
I have made custom Centos DVD , I have copied ks.cfg in top directory of
my DVD. and it is working fine.
My ks.cfg looks like :
%post --log=/root/my-post-log
yum remove libreoffice* -y ;
/usr/bin/wget http://210.X.X.52/LibreOffice_4.1.5_Linux_x86-64_rpm.tar.gz ;
tar -xvzf LibreOffice_
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014, Keith Keller wrote:
>On 2014-03-21, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> Interesting double negative. Implies that once the "technical barriers" are
>> removed, then it's OK to remove old features for change's sake. ;)
>
>If, as Matthew says, the codebase hasn't been maintained since
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>Larry Martell wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:33 AM, James B. Byrne
>> wrote:
...
>>> Yes. For example look how MicroSoft has improved Windows since
>>> XPsp3.;-^)
>>
>> I wouldn't know. I don't use it. I've been programming professionally
>> sinc
From: SilverTip257
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] rsync triggers oomkiller
>
> I added a subject so we can track this message on the list easier. ;)
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Doe wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> ker
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fred Smith
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:55:33AM +, Andrew Holway wrote:
> > Dear Bonnie,
> >
> > Your not getting an answer because the emails you are sending look
> > like spam to most email filters.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
I added a subject so we can track this message on the list easier. ;)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Hey,
>
> kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0,
> oom_score_adj=0
> ...
> kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score 361
Hey,
kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0,
oom_score_adj=0
...
kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score 361 or sacrifice
child
kernel: Killed process 27974, UID 27, (mysqld) total-vm:3804672kB,
anon-rss:2890828kB, file-rss:3324kB
rsync
On 03/20/2014 12:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And, would
> you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to something
> else)?
>
> I bring this up because we are discussing dropping it from Fedora. This
> would be far e
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Leon Fauster wrote:
> its just used in a multiple layer protection / security model.
Bingo! Same here. And it works well!
> well i would say its more scary when humans are editing configuration files
> :-)
I can speak for nearly 20 years of experience on this, including
bl
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>> The technical problem is that there's no maintainer. Are you
>> volunteering (and capable)?
>>
>
> Then, for crying out loud... :) this discussion should have been started
> with a different subject line:
> "Looking for a new tcp wrappe
Am 20.03.2014 um 22:22 schrieb Matthew Miller :
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 06:14:56PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> Please don't remove it. Why this sudden idea in software circles that
>> stuff that works properly needs to be removed for no reason whatsoever
>> other than "it's old and we think
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Keith Keller <
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> The technical problem is that there's no maintainer. Are you
> volunteering (and capable)?
>
Then, for crying out loud... :) this discussion should have been started
with a different subject line:
"Look
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 09:29:01AM -0400, John Jasen wrote:
> https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/tools2/linux/CIS_RHEL5_Benchmark_v1.1.pdf
> Also note, agencies or groups required to implement CIS or better who
> maintain a mixed environment may also use tcp_wrappers on all their
> platforms, as fro
On 03/20/2014 06:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Not sure there's a one-to-one mapping or even a conceptual overlap in
> what tcpwrappers and iptables do. Applications can be configured to
> use different ports than someone setting up iptables might expect -
> and how would you handle portmapper?
>
On 03/20/2014 04:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:00:49PM -0400, John Jasen wrote:
>> Various government entities may use it extensively. I don't recall if
>> tcp_wrappers is in the USGCB baselines for RHEL, but I do believe its in
>> several CIS benchmarks.
>
> Good quest
Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:33 AM, James B. Byrne
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
>>>
>>> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior
>>> products. Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction
of new and
>>>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:55:33AM +, Andrew Holway wrote:
> Dear Bonnie,
>
> Your not getting an answer because the emails you are sending look
> like spam to most email filters.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 March 2014 09:22, Bonnie B Mtengwa wrote:
> > I have a file Serve
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:37 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 18:52, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> xml isn't intended for humans - it is supposed to be parsed and
>> verified by machines. The bigger question is why the machines aren't
>> managing the config files themselves yet?
>>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:33 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
>> Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
>> better replacements.
>
> Ye
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:33:19AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
> > Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
> > better replac
On Thu, March 20, 2014 18:52, Les Mikesell wrote:
> xml isn't intended for humans - it is supposed to be parsed and
> verified by machines. The bigger question is why the machines aren't
> managing the config files themselves yet?
>
Possibly because the machines are running programs written by h
On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
>
>
> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
> Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
> better replacements.
Yes. For example look how MicroSoft has improved Windows since XPsp3.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And, would
> you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to something
> else)?
>
> I bring this up because we are discussing dropping it from Fedora. This
> wou
Dear Bonnie,
Your not getting an answer because the emails you are sending look
like spam to most email filters.
Thanks,
Andrew
On 18 March 2014 09:22, Bonnie B Mtengwa wrote:
> I have a file Server CentOS 5.10, its on the internet, so I compress all csv
> into one file using (tar -czvf co
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Miller
> Sent: den 20 mars 2014 20:49
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: [CentOS] Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny)
> anymore?
>
> Does anyone use tcp wrapper
53 matches
Mail list logo
