Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

Forcing IPv4 DNS lookups first before IPv6
by Russell Jones 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Hello! I am having a strange issue with CentOS 5.4 that I cannot seem to solve. Every DNS lookup results in AAAA records being requested first before A records. As a result, this causes a large amount of unnecessary DNS traffic on the network. IPv6 has been completely disabled on these servers: /etc/modprobe.conf, ipv6 off and net-pf-10 off /etc/sysconfig/network, NETWORKING_IPV6=no lsmod | grep ipv6 shows the kernel module no longer loaded. Yet watching TCP dump shows that AAAA records are requested before A records every time a login is requested from one of our local machines to another. Is there some sort of configuration directive I can use to force IPv4 lookups first before IPv6? Or even better, stop IPv6 lookups all together?

6 13

Re: [CentOS] KILL THIS THREAD ( Centos 6 Update?)
by Ian Murray 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

----- Original Message ----- > From:Kai Schaetzl <maillists(a)conactive.com> > To:centos@centos.org > Cc: > Sent:Tuesday, 5 April 2011, 13:21 > Subject:Re: [CentOS] KILL THIS THREAD ( Centos 6 Update?) > > +100 !!!! > > Kai Anybody that thinks this thread can be "killed" is so badly mis-understanding the situation. This thread or others like it will continue to pop-up in the short term until all releases are in-line with RH and then they will continually re-appear with subsequent releases. So 'killing' the thread is akin to burying ones head in the sand. I question whether a rebuild project is a sensible way forward for anything but hobbyist use. That isn't a criticism of the dev team (before anyone tries to twist it as such) but more a question about the viability of the model.

2 1

screen
by Agile Aspect 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Hi - under CentOS 5, has anyone be able to get the vertically splitting under screen to work? I downloaded the latest screen-4.0.3 and the wrp_vertical_split_0.3_4.0.2.diff.bz2 patch for vertical splitting and I still can't get it work. ^A | doesn't do anything. Horizontal splitting works fine. -- Agile

2 2

OT Problem seeing slave drives.
by Jimmy Bradley 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

This isn't specifically about cent os, but I am running cent os on this machine. I've got a Dell Dimension 2400 desktop pc. I've tried on a number of occasions to put a second hard drive in the machine, but I can't get the machine to recognize the second drive in BIOS. I'm going to try and keep this short and sweet. I've tried all that I know to try. I've set the jumpers on the drives to master and slave, I've tried setting the jumpers to cable select. I've changed the IDE ribbon cable. As far as I know, I've done all the trouble shooting steps that you'd do when having this problem. The only conclusion I can come up with, is that it's the BIOS. The one thing I haven't done is flash the BIOS, and I'm reluctant to do that. One other thing that I did try, was on the secondary IDE, I tried connecting a second CD drive, and the BIOS would not see it either. The machine will only see the drives that are connected to what would be the Master drive connection on the ribbon cable. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks Jim

6 8

How to install wine ?
by Rajan Dahal 05 Apr '11

05 Apr '11

Hello friends, I have downloaded wine-1.3.13.tar.bz2 How to install it ? I have no internet connection. so I want to install it manually. Thanks in advance. Rajan

6 7

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

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss