Discuss April 2011

discuss@lists.centos.org

312 participants
283 discussions

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Digest, Vol 75, Issue 5
by Chuck Munro 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

On 04/05/2011 09:00 AM, John R Pierce wrote: > > AFAIK, no standard raid modes verify parity on reads, as this would > require reading the whole slice for every random read. Only raid > systems like ZFS that use block checksuming can verify data on reads. > parity (or mirrors) are verified by doing 'scrubs' > > Further, even if a raid DID verify parity/mirroring on reads, this would > at best create a nonrecoverable error (bad data on one of the N drives > in the slice, no way of knowing which one is the bad one). > Thanks John, that's good information, something I didn't know. So I should think of RAID-5/6 parity as a mechanism for recovering from a drive fault that is more space-efficient than simple mirroring. Maybe RAID-10 with hot spares is more than "good enough" in most applications, but I do like dual parity for its ability to recover even in the face of a disk error popping up during the rebuild. Am I being too paranoid? Too bad ZFS on Linux is still up at the fuse layer. I understand Btrfs is rolled into newer kernels and should be in CentOS-6, but I read somewhere it's not yet in stable release and has some potential issues, so I'm reluctant to try it. It won't have RAID-6-like parity for a while. The fact that Oracle has both ZFS and Btrfs under its wing is, um, "interesting". I'm only asking for the world :-) Chuck

1 0

php53 and pear
by Michael Simpson 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Hi all We require some packages installed through pecl (apc and memcache) which we have done on CentOS 5.5 by installing php 5.2 from testing and also installing php-devel and php-pear to much success! We would like to move to php 5.3 after 5.6 comes out but I note that there is no specific php53-pear package in testing and the php-pear srpm in the 5server directory on ftp rc com seems to be quite old. I also note that there was a php53-pear.spec posted in this list file with (?unsanctioned) mention of the possibility of this going in extras. Is it prudent to install pear using the php go-pear.phar method for php53 and will this then give me access to pecl though with the same downside as using cpan for perl (do not want) or will there be an "official" php53-pear rpm available through centos.org? I'm sorry if this has been answered before but my google-fu seems to be letting me down. regards mike

2 1

3.5 kernel panic on boot
by Bruce Ferrell 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Yes, I know 3.5 is old. However in this case it's required for a legacy app. a fresh install get's me: kmod: failed to exec /sbin/modprobe -s -k block-major-104, errno = 2 followed by: VFS: Cannot open root device "cciss/c0d0p2" or 68:02 The system is an HP DL380 G4. any thought on what could cause this? the rescue system is able to mount the disk and grub-install works to re-install grub on the device. TIA Bruce Ferrell

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by Brian Mathis 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi(a)softdux.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Brian Mathis > <brian.mathis+centos(a)betteradmin.com> wrote: > >> Rudi, >> >> Cut the crap. You're intentionally changing the context of the >> discussion, so please stop posting. No one has "demanded" that the >> Devs send an email every time they take a shi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H make a cup >> of coffee, as you have said. In fact no one has "demanded" anything. >> Requests, yes. A post once in a while with some real information >> (other than "we're working on it") would be nice. >> >> Also I don't see any comments demanding anyone do anyone else's work >> for them. Again, you have twisted the conversation to become more of >> a flamefest by making things up that are not true. Not one post has >> "demanded" anything. >> >> Everyone is here because they care about the project. That's what is >> constantly missing in the replies by those who continue to browbeat >> and deride anyone simply looking for information. It's a symptom of a >> deeper problem that will only be made worse by that kind of treatment. >> >> // Brian Mathis > > Brian, since you take it so personal, you should cut the crap. And grow up. > > Have you actually followed, properly, what has been said the past few > weeks about the last updates (i.e. 4.9 / 5.6 & 6.0?) about people > leaving CentOS cause other products are better and how the devs should > step up to keep up with the rest of the world? > > I personally, as well as many others (looking at their comments) are > more than happy to wait for the next release - exactly when it > released. I rely on CentOS for one reason - it's stability and > security. I don't want a half-ass-baked distro.And I frankly don't > care what you think about it. If you don't like it, then move on. Get > RedHat, or Novell or Debian, or whatever fits your needs. BUT PLEASE, > stop putting extra pressure on the devs cause you have some personal > vendetta against how quickly they release their updates. Surely, when > you started using CentOS, you knew exactly what it was and what it's > relationship was with it's upstream vendor. Now, due to their changes, > CentOS updates gets delayed. Live with it, or get in touch with Red > Hat and take it out on them. > > The last thing I want to see if CentOS coming to a grinding halt > because the demand for half-tested-and-released-too-soon-releases and > everyone want an update every 5 days have become too so great the devs > can't get to doing their work properly anymore. I really have no way to respond to such a thorough misreading of what I have said. I don't even know where to begin. For everything you claim I have said I have in fact said the exact opposite. I have no idea where you get the idea of lumping me in with those throwing a tizzy about the releases not being ready. The only thing I have said is that if we want these weekly threads to stop there needs to be better communication. How that translates in your head as me and everyone else "demanding" all sorts of things, pressuring the project, or wanting premature releases is simply beyond any ability of reasonable thought. // Brian Mathis P.S. I do take it very personally when someone mis-characterizes something I have said.

3 2

KILL THIS THREAD (Re: Centos 6 Update?)
by Brian Mathis 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

KILL IT NOW. KILL IT NOW. KILL IT NOW. // Brian Mathis On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Jimmy Bradley <bmobile40(a)ocellaris.net> wrote: > I've seen the posts over and over again about "when is 6 going to > be out?" I appreciate the time the developers put in to make cent os > available. > My main question about when is 6 going to be out is, does it > really matter? 5.5 works just fine, so if it's not broke, why fix it? > Other than being able to say" you have the latest and greatest version, > are you really gaining anything? Is your machine going to suddenly stop > working if you don't get ver. 6 on your machine right now? I don't think > so. > I'm a small business owner, and I don't have a large IT team to > handle software deployments. I have to do it all myself. I'm not looking > forward to another OS upgrade, and all the backing up beforehand that > goes with it. I just don't see what all the fuse is over. > > Jim > > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 13:43 -0700, Ryan Ordway wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, David Brian Chait wrote: >> >> >> If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6) >> > >> > Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now... >> >> I didn't realize it was already CentOS bashing day... oh, it's just Monday. >> >> Really, guys... give it a rest.

2 1

Door not hitting me on my way out
by Nico Kadel-Garcia 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Sorry, folks. I wish our release developers well, and hope that they can open up their processes to allow much needed community involvment. But I've hopped to Scientific Linux and find it much more usable due to their willingness to publish updates even without the entire new release bundled, and the much timelier updates from the upstream vendor. php53 and bind97 are directly available for their verison 5.x release, and their version 6.0 has now taken over my testing environments. This makes EPEL's version of drupal, and various Samba 4 testing accessible, and I don't have to waste my time on backports that will be replaced by a release that is further, and further, and further behind. Perhaps in the future the configuration of the build and patch environments can be opened up, or the patching going on for the package rebundling can be published in just the way people with RHEL would publish their kernel patches, rather than presenting merely the results. But such ideas have been rejected as unnecessary, and even the suggestion was rejected with hostility. I know very well how much work such projects take, and regret that I was unable to assist further. My tweaks and bundles will now be going over to Fedora and Scientific Linux, rather than here or in the developer's list. Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com>

11 13

lvm and kickstart issues deploying CentOS5.5
by Machin, Greg 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Hi. I'm currently trying to configure a kickstart script to do auto installs. We split up the partitions so that we have control on the mount security like setting no execute on the tmp portions etc . I keep hitting the same error : "Could not stat /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol_root --- No Such file or directory The device apparently does not exist; did you specify is correctly " Even after doing a manual install to generate the file lvm configuration I'm getting the same results. I have also deleted the whole virtual machine and started from scratch. Any suggestions on how I can resolve this ? >From ks.cfg bootloader --location=mbr --driveorder=sda clearpart --linux part /boot --size=101 --fstype ext3 part swap --size=2048 --asprimary part pv.22 --size=100 --grow volgroup VolGroup00 --pesize=32768 pv.22 logvol /var/log --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_var_log --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol /home --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_home --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol /var --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_var --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol /usr --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_usr --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol / --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_root --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol /tmp --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_tmp --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol /var/tmp --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_var_tmp --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048 logvol /opt --fstype ext3 --name=LogVol_opt --vgname=VolGroup00 --size=2048

1 1

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by John R. Dennison 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:39:33AM +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > but to send out an email to the list, for every bloody thing the devs > do (even make coffee, but the sounds of the of the demands here?) do > eventually add-up. An update every couple of days, however, really isn't asking a lot. > And, judging by some of the comments it looks like the devs would have > to start doing some of these people's work for them as well.... Can't argue that. > P.S. What I'm getting at is that many of the demands form some people > are getting ridiculous Concur 100%. There's a difference in wishing things would change and demanding that same change. John -- Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), Thirty-fourth President of the USA

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by Brian Mathis 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi(a)softdux.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Brian Mathis > <brian.mathis+centos(a)betteradmin.com> wrote: >> Appreciate your efforts, but let's make one thing clear: >> >> The SINGLE source of ALL the current community issues (or "whining" as >> you put it) is: >> ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** >> ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** >> ***LACK OF INFORMATION*** >> about what is going on. >> >> No one cares if it's going to take another 3 months. >> >> All that is needed to stop the weekly explosions are some regular >> updates about the process. Something like "Working on xyz package but >> ran into this problem. Still have to look at packages abc and def" >> would more than satisfy a vast majority of people complaining here. >> It's mind boggling that the project just doesn't seem to understand >> that. >> >> >> // Brian Mathis > > > and prolong development even further.......... > > > -- > Rudi Ahlers > SoftDux Rudi, the most professional thing I can think of to say about this argument, which is continually used, is that it's complete BS. Any developer who doesn't already use some type of status tracking tool is such a beginner that they have probably not yet completed primary school. Clearly this is NOT the level of the CentOS devs. Also, this gets into a much deeper discussion of what is the work product of any IT person. The thing preventing you from doing more work is not how fast you can type, but working out problems. To say that keeping track of your status slows down problem solving is completely ignorant -- in fact it's the opposite since you need to sleep sometime and status tracking will help you get back up to speed faster the next day. // Brian Mathis

1 0

interview request for ppl who have Shockwave/.Firefox working
by ken 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

For a long time now I've wanted to be able to watch videos. I've done the "try this!" and "try that!" method and it hasn't worked well. So I'm wondering if anyone running CentOS 5.5 has Shockwave on Firefox working. Currently it works for me with short videos-- up to two or three minutes long. However, when Shockwave is enabled, CPU usage jumps to 99%, sometimes even 100%! If I disable it CPU usage goes down to 1 - 5%. (For those who speak load avg, I've seen highs of 6 and 8... as opposed to the no Shockwave-now of 0.14 to 0.45.) So with the CPU already buried just by having Shockwave is enabled, if a video lasts longer than four minutes, gaps in the video's continuity begin to appear, and by ten minutes in the video is locked up altogether. What's everyone else's experience with this? Does anyone have a setup where they can view a 1.5-hour video normally... and maybe even work in their editor alongside it at the same time? If so, would you be open to explaining what hardware and software etc. you've got so that this works so well? Thanks. -- Anything is easy if you know how to do it.

9 21

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss April 2011