Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

Security: gnome-screensaver VS. switch user
by erikmccaskey64 13 Feb '11

13 Feb '11

People "usually" suspend their laptop, so that they can continue their work when they open the laptop. OK! Two choices [GNOME]: 1 - Menu -> Shut Down -> Suspend in this case, the gnome-screensaver locks the PC. but the gnome-screensaver is just a "normal process", and it could be killed e.g.: http://securitytube.net/USB-Autorun-attacks-against-Linux-at-Shmoocon-2011-… or using any method [video was just an example!!]. 2 - Menu -> Log out -> Switch user -> Suspend in this case, the GDM [???] protects the user [i mean it locks the PC from other users] Which one is more secure/safer?

3 2

Software RAID vs 'fake/ on-board RAID'
by David Hornford 13 Feb '11

13 Feb '11

Setting: We are setting up a low usage server for an alfresco km/collaboration system It is a low-end server with a pair of 1.5 TB disks we will be mirroring The server comes with Intel's on-board 'fake raid/ low-end RAID' capability and for price reasons we have not selected a mainstream RAID card Prior thoughts: Searches on the net indicate no performance advantage, and possible performance disadvantages to the on-board RAID I expect Intel & the Centos product to be rough equivalents in quality I am leaning to software RAID for a simple reason of minimizing my administration & operational burden. If I need to perform repairs, obtain alerts it is the same administration toolset rather than a BIOS-based tool that seems to be accessible only through boot/ reboot. Question: Over a reasonable lifecycle are we better served going with the on-board or Centos' software RAID? Any issue with booting from the RAID (obviously RAID 1)? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Dave

3 2

Strange Kernel for Centos 5.5
by Always Learning 13 Feb '11

13 Feb '11

One of my VPS stopped working. After the data centre replaced a disk normal service resumed, then I notices this: CentOS release 5.5 (Final) Kernel 2.6.35.4 on an x86_64 I always thought Centos 5.x would always be on 2.6.18. Any thoughts?

18 31

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Digest, Vol 73, Issue 12
by Chuck Munro 12 Feb '11

12 Feb '11

On 02/12/2011 09:00 AM, Gerhard Schneider wrote: > > Sorry, I don't use CentOS 6 now so I cannot check, but: > > Could it be that RHEL6 changed the default superblock mdadm is creating? > CentOS 5 is creating a 0.9 superblock. Some "other OS" are creating 1.2 > per default. But you can change that on the command line. > > If that's the case it's not a bug but a feature.. > > GS > > -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of Lightweight Design and e-Mail: > gs(a)ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Structural Biomechanics (E317) Tel.: +43 664 60 588 > 3171 Vienna University of Technology / Austria Fax: +43 1 58801 31799 > A-1040 Wien, Gusshausstrasse 27-29 http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~gs/ Bingo! That hadn't occurred to me. And 1.2 is specified in the mdadm.conf file, which went right over my head. :-( Thanks Gerhard; mystery solved. Now all I need to do is wait for CentOS-6 to see if it correctly assembles all members of the arrays at boot time. I suspect the evaluation copy of RHEL-6 is not really up to date, so there may be issues with mdadm. I did take a look around the RedHat bugzilla site and saw a couple of things that might be related to the problem. Chuck

1 0

Samba or NFS
by Alfredo Perez 12 Feb '11

12 Feb '11

Hello Thinking of setup a backup process between two Centos systems. One will backup to the other one. For those people out there with Centos production severs what would you recommend to use Samba or NFS What is the most common and simple to use? Many thanks in advance Alfredo

9 13

Re: [CentOS] Some RAID-6 observations ... RHEL-6 vs CentOS-5.5
by Gerhard Schneider 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Sorry, I don't use CentOS 6 now so I cannot check, but: Could it be that RHEL6 changed the default superblock mdadm is creating? CentOS 5 is creating a 0.9 superblock. Some "other OS" are creating 1.2 per default. But you can change that on the command line. If that's the case it's not a bug but a feature.. GS -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of Lightweight Design and e-Mail: gs(a)ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Structural Biomechanics (E317) Tel.: +43 664 60 588 3171 Vienna University of Technology / Austria Fax: +43 1 58801 31799 A-1040 Wien, Gusshausstrasse 27-29 http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~gs/

1 0

Will Rogers: Kai Schaetzl may be ignorant about kill files (was: how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?)
by Larry Vaden 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl <maillists(a)conactive.com> wrote: > > This wasn't the first instance. This guy has recently started a habit of > copying mails (that are not his own it seems) that trip him off right to > this list. That is bad practice. I do not want to get more of this. > > Kai Kai, as you may not already know, Will Rogers said "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." e.g., I expressed my ignorance about just how far the binary compatibility with RedHat extended within the CentOS community and have learned from the questions posed. I think it fair to say the objective of binary compatibility has greater weight with CentOS folks than completeness and correctness, but that's JMHO and like Dennis Miller, I could be wrong about that. As Will's fellow OKie, if you don't already know about kill files, I'll help Will do posthumously what he might have done if he were alive today reading this CentOS list, namely refer you to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file>. I am somewhat saddened that Browning's "“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” doesn't seem enough to cause sufficient interest in an auxiliary repo consisting exclusively of current release intrinsic functions like BIND, DHCP, et al. Perhaps the most encouraging remark came from Karanbir, namely: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists(a)karan.org> wrote: > > [1]: I say that with a pinch of salt though - EL6 is a tad overdue. A > lot of new projects and services need a codebase newer than whats on > offer in C5. kind regards/ldv

3 2

how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?
by Larry Vaden 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

In order to avoid a cross post, the following background quote is from SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS(a)fnal.gov: <quote> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon <ewan(a)macmahon.me.uk> wrote: > > I'm a little bit hazy on the details, but there are some slides from the > meeting here[1]: > http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=8&sessionId=1&resId=1&mat… On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Chris Jones <christopher.rob.jones(a)cern.ch> wrote: > > I would say a bug in tcmalloc, not SL or RHEL. See for instance > > <http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/issues/detail?id=305> > > The fix is to move to google perftools 1.7 </quote> Because of a problem with not running the current BIND release a couple of weeks ago, I would like to ask: a) is RedHat likely to choose to backport the fix to 1.6 or will it adopt 1.7 or leave as is until 5.7 or later as it has done with BIND? b) will Centos and/or SL follow RH exactly or will their approaches differ? IOW, how far does the "binary compatiblity" policy extend? kind regards/ldv

7 13

Hyper-V template configuration
by Dvorkin, Asya 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Hi everyone, I've installed CentOS 5 on Hyper-V and finally got everything working. I would like to setup a template, but google is failing me. Everything I read does not seem very promising when it comes to templates support with MS Hyper-V. I was wondering if maybe someone here has successfully configured CentOS templates? I realize that VmWare is a lot better, but it's not a matter of choice at this point. Thank you! Asya

2 1

Centos 5.5 + firefox 3.6 and 64bit javaplugin (1.6u23)
by Eero Volotinen 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

Hi List, Any success running 64bit javaplugin on centos 5.5 & firefox 3.6? For me it always complains about wrong elfclass64 ? thanks for any help.. -- Eero

5 5

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