Discuss January 2015

discuss@lists.centos.org

166 participants
145 discussions

SAMBA as AD DC
by Sergio Belkin 11 Sep '15

11 Sep '15

Hi folks, Is able SAMBA on CentOS 7 to work as Active Directory Domain Controller? If it's not, what is the recommended way of doing? Compiling from sources? Install packages from SerNet? Thanks in advance! -- -- Sergio Belkin http://www.sergiobelkin.com LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.org

9 14

How to setup own i686 buildenv for CentOS7
by Robin Lee 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Hi, all! How to setup own i686 mock for CentOS7? Or, is there any public i686 repo for CentOS7? I found i686 repo available in internal CentOS building environment, from a root.log from a mock build result[1]. [1] http://buildlogs.centos.org/c7-updates/glibc/20141218212615/2.17-55.el7_0.3… Cheers, -robin

3 5

Mail Merge data to a pdf file by overlaying the data on the image
by Gregory P. Ennis 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

Everyone, I am looking for a utility that I can use to do a mail merge of data to a pdf image file. The image file does not have any active fields, but will be just an image file. I would like to overlay names addresses etc. We currently do this with a pcl file by just overlaying the data with pcl print positions. However, in order to get the pcl file from an original pdf file we have to use gimp to convert the pdf to pcl file, and we always lose a little resolution. I was wondering if anyone knows of a utility to perform this function without first converting the image to a pcl file. Thanks, -- Greg Ennis

4 10

heavy IO load when working with sparse files (centos 6.4)
by Ron E 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

Dear List, We have noticed a variety of reproducible conditions working with sparse files on multiple servers under load with CentOS 6.4. The short story is that processes that read / write sparse files with large "holes" can generate an IO storm. Oddly, this only happens with holes and not with the sections of the files that contain data. We have seen extremely high IO load for example copying a 40 or 80gb sparse file that only has a few gigs of data in it. Attempts to lower the io priority and cpu priority of these processes do not make any measurable difference. (ionice, nice) This has been observed with processes such as: cp rsync sha1sum The server does have to be under some load to reproduce the necessary conditions. The cases we have seen involve servers running 10-30 guests under kvm. Load is in acceptable norms when the processes are run, such as load avg 5-15 on a 24 core (12 core with HT enabled) server. We also verify before starting such a process that the spindle with the file we're working on is not being unduly hammered by another process. These servers have one hardware raid controller each (Dell H700 controller with write cache enabled) and multiple raid arrays (separate sets of physical spindles). Interestingly, the IO storm is not limited to the array / spindles where the sparse file resides but affects all IO on that server. We have looked extensively and not found any account of a similar issue. We have seen this on configurations that are 'plain vanilla' enough to think that this is not something specific to our environment. Wondering if anyone else has seen this and if any suggestions on gathering more data / troubleshooting. We wonder if we've found either a raid controller driver issue, an OS issue or some other such thing. What seems to point in this direction is that even with ionice -c3 which should prevent the process from using IO unless the storage is idle, an io storm which appears to saturate the entire raid bus on a given server can occur. Thanks in advance.

3 3

NTLM Authentication ISA Server
by Tim 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

Hello list, how can I get CentOS 7 to authenticate against a Microsoft ISA server for package installations after the OS is installed. In Debian/Ubuntu apt.conf just needs to be edited and it works. How to do so in CentOS? Regards Tim

4 6

Centos 6.4 on Xserve, IPMI error
by Arno B 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

Hello! I'm trying to install Centos 6.4 64 bit on this Xserve: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/xserve/specs/xserve-intel-xeon-2.8-ei… I got a bootloader from: http://blog.christophersmart.com/2009/07/23/linux-on-an-apple-xserve-efi-on… as none of the official Centos releases (full, minimal, network 64 bit) boot on this machine. They all crash when loading the bootx64.conf. I have built a USB stick with a working bootx64.efi, grub.cfg, together with an initrd and a vmlinuz from the isolinux folder. These seem to get me into booting a kernel until something called IPMI is starting to throw errors at me: Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 128x48 fb0: VESA VGA frame buffer device ipmi message handler version 39.2 IPMI System Interface driver. ipmi_si 0000:09:00.4: enable device (0002 -> 0003) ipmi_si 0000:09:00.4: PCI INT C -> GSI 16 (level, low) -> IRQ 16 ipmi_si: Adding PCI-specified kcs state machine ipmi_si 0000:09:00.7: enable device (0000 -> 0003) ipmi_si 0000:09:00.7: PCI INT D -> GSI 17 (level, low) -> IRQ 17 ipmi_si: Adding PCI-specified bt state machine ipmi_si: Trying PCI-specified kcs state machine at mem address 0x90841000, slave address 0x0 irq 16 IRQ 16/ipmi_si: IRQF_DISABLED is not guaranteed on shared IRQs Using irq 16 ipmi: Found new BMC (man_id: 0x00003f, prod_id: 0x0003, dev_id: 0x20) IPMI kcs interface initialized ipmi_si: Trying PCI-specified kcs state machine at mem address 0x90840000, slave address 0x0 irq 17 Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 2792.999 MHz. Switching to clocksource tsc IPMI BT: timeout in XACTION [ B_BUSY ] 1 retries left IPMI BT: timeout in XACTION [ B_BUSY ] failed 2 retries, sending error response IPMI: BT reset (takes 5 secs) IPMI BT: timeout in XACTION [ B_BUSY H2B ] failed 2 retries, sending error response IPMI: BT reset (takes 5 secs) IPMI BT: timeout in XACTION [ B_BUSY H2B ] failed 2 retries, sending error response IPMI: BT reset (takes 5 secs) IPMI BT: timeout in XACTION [ B_BUSY H2B ] failed 2 retries, sending error response IPMI: BT reset (takes 5 secs) IPMI BT: timeout in XACTION [ B_BUSY H2B ] failed 2 retries, sending error response IPMI: BT reset (takes 5 secs) then the screen goes to black and the machine doesn't respond to anything anymore... Can anyone please help me with this? Maybe just point me in a direction where to find a solution? I've been googling for a few days now without much results... thanks in advance Arno Beekman

2 1

leap second and Centos
by G Galitz 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Hi. We have another leap second coming. Have past bugs with Centos and leap seconds (specifically high CPU spikes) been resolved? Should we be worried? -G

13 30

Re: [CentOS] Another Fedora decision
by James B. Byrne 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

On Sat, January 31, 2015 05:14, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 01/30/2015 06:09 PM, Scott Robbins wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:27:55PM +0000, Marko Vojinovic wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:15:05 -0800 >>> Akemi Yagi <amyagi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Scott Robbins >>>> <scottro(a)nyc.rr.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Centos 7 does that as well. >>>>> Heh, I guess I've used good passwords in my installs then. >>>> >>>> I have to tap it twice all the time. But don't tell this to >>>> anyone! ;-) >>> >>> OP's point is that probably in RHEL8 you won't be able to do even >>> that anymore. >> >> Exactly. There is some complaining going on on the Fedora testing >> list, >> not sure where else one can protest. >> > > Well, protesting here would be meaningless .. as is protesting systemd > here. CentOS-8 will have whatever is in the RHEL-8 source code, > exactly > as it is in that source code minus branding. Just like CentOS-2.1, 3, > 4, 5, and 6. Our goal is to rebuild the source code exactly, bugs and > all. We want all the behaviors and the experience to be identical in > every way. > > If you want to effect change before it gets in RHEL, then Fedora is > the place. If you want to get it changed in CentOS, then buy RHEL > and providing feedback there is the way. We are, by design, exactly > as Red Hat pushes the RHEL source code. > Reading between the lines of the Fedora list discussion leads me to the conclusions that: 1. The password strength decision is driven by RH corporate. 2. There is not going to be any back-off by the developers. 3. This is going to be in RH-8. 4. There is absolutely no rational argument that can be made to anyone alter any of this. 5. Protesting there is evidently meaningless as well. The Fedora Server WG has already asked that this be optionally enforced if it cannot be removed. Answer: No. This change was not discussed, it was announced. There has been zero support for it from the community and a large amount of criticism. All requests for information respecting the rational and evidential support driving he change are met with what can only be described as political doublethink amounting to: See the unrelated discussion on this thread over here; and when you discover that it has nothing to do whatsoever with your request then see that tangential thread over there; and when you persistently return to your original request because there is no answer in either then be told that you are a conspiracy theory nut-case. > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Chris Murphy > <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 12:59 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> What's the actual, real world, >>> non-imaginary impetus behind the change? >> >> It's exactly what all the list posts I pointed you to say it is. > > Please go find quotes because I just went through them all and I > found: > > "Better security is always a plus." > > "Instead I propose that we increase our minimum password..." > > "In principle I don't disagree with it; But IMO it can not be > a replacement to stronger defaults." > > And that's it. No actual reasons, let alone any data to back it up. > And all three of those statements have flaws which I've already > addressed. > >> I don't know how to stop the conspiracy virus which causes >> people to leap to the conclusion that there's some shadowy >> secret motive behind every change they don't like, but there >> *isn't*. ( Odd, is it not, that Mr. Williamson professes that there is no secret motive but cannot actually provide one when asked. ) The most telling line in the entire thread, for me, is this one: On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 12:59 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > When you stop trusting me. I stop trusting you. And that's a > huge problem, and thus far the engineering types are looking > at this with narrow vision, it's 2 more key presses. They > aren't looking at this at all from the perspective of its > connotation. Personally, from the outside looking in, this all smells of a pointy haired boss directive that the devs are trying to cover their collective asses from. Of course, my corporate days are long behind me so perhaps things have changed. Equally it could be simple incompetence by highly strung people that do not like being criticised for an ill-considered hasty decision but who actually have no evidence to support it. I have to go off now and find a nice bone bed to lie down in; and fossilize. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3

23 194

Another Fedora decision
by Scott Robbins 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

So, probably some of you, at least, follow Fedora, perhaps in part to see what new desktop user oriented decision will make it into the next version of RHEL/CentOS. You may have noticed how if Fedora, by some odd scheme, deems your password unworthy, you have to click Done two times. So, the latest Ananconda takes this one step further. Passwords that the system considers weak will no longer be allowed. While this will probably only be a minor inconvenience, (add 3 bangs to the end or something equally meaningless), a few on the fedora-testing list, including myself, think it's just one more solution seeking a problem. At present, I don't know where one can lodge a protest. Hopefully, someone will care enough to file a bugzilla RFE. Others may think it's a great idea--at last, users can't install with a password of 1234. Anyway, as part of their push for it is that no one minds it, thought I'd mention it here, as many of the desktop oriented decisions get into Fedora, then into RH and it's already too late. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

12 15

reboot - is there a timeout on filesystem flush?
by Les Mikesell 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

I've had a few systems with a lot of RAM and very busy filesystems come up with filesystem errors that took a manual 'fsck -y' after what should have been a clean reboot. This is particularly annoying on remote systems where I have to talk someone else through the recovery. Is there some time limit on the cache write with a 'reboot' (no options) command or is ext4 that fragile? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

9 19

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss January 2015