Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

3 participants
34748 discussions

RE: [CentOS] losing NFS connection
by Angelo Machils 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

> > >-----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On >> Behalf Of Angelo Machils >> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:28 PM >> To: centos(a)centos.org >> Subject: [CentOS] losing NFS connection >> >> Hello there! >> >> Perhaps this is a little off-topic, but I notice this only on the > > >Centos > > >>> box. >>> I'm running Centos 4 on an AMD64 which has the following entries in >> >> >the > > >>> fstab to connect to NFS shares on a Fedora3 box: >>> 192.168.1.12:/home/angelo/ /home/angelo/NFS_share1 nfs >>> rw,addr=192.168.1.12 0 0 >>> 192.168.1.12:/home/angelo/data /home/angelo/NFS_share2 nfs >>> rw,addr=192.168.1.12 0 0 >>> 192.168.1.12:/home/angelo/data2 /home/angelo/NFS_share3 nfs >>> rw,addr=192.168.1.12 0 0 >>> I have opened ports 111 (TCP), 648 (TCP), 651 (TCP) and 2049 (TCP and >>> UDP) in iptables on the FC3 box and I can connect to them, but after a >>> while I seem to loose the connection to the shares. >> >> > >[snip] > > > >>> >>> Anyone any idea what is wrong here? >> >> > >Just a thought but have you hard-coded speed and duplex all the way >through? Don't trust auto-negotiation. > >-- >Marc > I have opened the firewall on the server all the way for the client (and also the other way around) but it makes no difference. After a while I see these messages again in the /var/log/messages on the client: Apr 25 21:38:02 solaris kernel: RPC: garbage, exit EIO Apr 25 21:38:33 solaris last message repeated 70 times Apr 25 21:39:34 solaris last message repeated 122 times Apr 25 21:40:01 solaris last message repeated 55 times Apr 25 21:40:01 solaris crond(pam_unix)[4701]: session opened for user root by (uid=0) Apr 25 21:40:01 solaris crond(pam_unix)[4701]: session closed for user root Apr 25 21:40:02 solaris kernel: RPC: garbage, exit EIO And this keeps repeating...... No entries on the server though..... Which file do I have to edit in order to set the NIC into fixed state. I know that I can use mii-tool to check and set, but is this permanent, even after a reboot? Thanks in advance, Angelo

1 0

rebuilding anaconda for centos 4.0
by David Thompson 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Hi all: I'm trying to rebuild the anaconda installer for Centos 4.0 (i386) to add some RPMs and do some other things, and I've run into a problem. I've done lots of anaconda rebuilds for Tao Linux 1.0, and I'm bringing those bits forward into Centos 4.0. The all-knowing web hasn't turned up anything useful. It looks like the PXE-loaded kernel unpacked and mounted the initrd OK, but then things went awry (quickly). Anyone seen this on a PXE boot of an anaconda build? <snip> RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0 VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem). VFS: Cannot open root device "<NULL>" or unknown-block(3,2) Please append a correct "root=" boot option Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(3,2) Help or pointers to applicable docs very welcome. -- Dave Thompson ( thomas(at)cs(dot)wisc(dot)edu ) Associate Researcher Department of Computer Science University of Wisconsin-Madison http://www.cs.wisc.edu/(twiddle)thomas 1210 West Dayton Street Madison, WI 53706-1685 --

2 1

Help!!Firefox for CentOS 3
by Hugh Tollan 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

saw a post the other day with a link for the rpm for the latest Firefox build for CentOS 3..lost it..anyone copy me in on the post or send me the link?? thanks _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

4 3

bugs with large partitions
by John Moylan 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I installed centos4 on a raid system with 7 400GB Hitachi SATA disks in RAID 5 on the 3Ware card. I set up a 2.2TB EXT3 Partition /opt. After the install I rebooted and the system went straight into maintenance mode....! The system reported a problem with /opt, but I was able to mount it manually and init 4 with no problems. However a reboot dropped me straight back into maintanence mode ??? Back in maintenance mode again I tried to used parted to create a partition, but it says it can't manage a partition greater than 1.72TB - I thought parted could do > 2TB fs's? parted output below: [root@localhost ~]# parted GNU Parted 1.6.19 Copyright (C) 1998 - 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. Using /dev/sda (parted) print Disk geometry for /dev/sda: 0.000-2288754.000 megabytes Disk label type: msdos Minor Start End Type Filesystem Flags 1 0.031 101.975 primary ext3 boot 2 101.975 5098.754 primary linux-swap 3 5098.755 7091.191 primary ext3 4 7091.191 191600.624 extended 5 7091.222 9083.627 logical ext3 6 9083.659 11076.064 logical ext3 (parted) mkpart logical ext3 11076.065 2288754 Warning: You requested to create a partition at 11076.065-2288754.000Mb. The closest Parted can manage is 11076.095-191595.520Mb. OK/Cancel? Any one have experience/ideas? Regards, John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCbQjfHgDLUzVQ7OARAjNJAJ9DRwfUCS8eWjHndOToFpytfEp8swCgxEBV HPyZBViU+lb4XxeKiGZSqBo= =/CEl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ****************************************************************************** The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please note that emails to, from and within RTÉ may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and may be liable to disclosure. ******************************************************************************

3 2

RE: [CentOS] losing NFS connection
by Bowie Bailey 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

From: Marc Powell [mailto:marc@ena.com] > From: Joshua Baker-LePain > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 at 2:53pm, Marc Powell wrote > > > > > > Anyone any idea what is wrong here? > > > > > > Just a thought but have you hard-coded speed and duplex all the way > > > through? Don't trust auto-negotiation. > > > > Just a dissenting opinion here on that last bit. No less a source than > > Donald Becker often advises *strongly* against disabling auto-negotiation. > > Yes, some switches *cough*Cisco*cough* historically did it very badly. > > But that was then, not now. And, AIUI, it's actually part of the gbe > > standard. > > Sure, let me rephrase my original wording -- "I don't trust > auto-negitiation." =) I say that for two reasons -- The problem I've found with hard-coding speed and duplex is that it MUST be done on both sides of the link. If one side is hard-coded and the other side is trying to negotiate, the speed will be detected properly, but the duplex will not. This can result in one side of the link running at full and the other side running at half. Obviously, problems will occur. If both sides support (and are configured for) negotiation, there shouldn't be a problem. Likewise, if both sides are hard-coded, there shouldn't be a problem. Bowie

1 0

RE: [CentOS] losing NFS connection
by Marc Powell 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf Of Joshua Baker-LePain > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 AM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: RE: [CentOS] losing NFS connection > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 at 2:53pm, Marc Powell wrote > > > > Anyone any idea what is wrong here? > > > > Just a thought but have you hard-coded speed and duplex all the way > > through? Don't trust auto-negotiation. > > Just a dissenting opinion here on that last bit. No less a source than > Donald Becker often advises *strongly* against disabling auto-negotiation. > Yes, some switches *cough*Cisco*cough* historically did it very badly. > But that was then, not now. And, AIUI, it's actually part of the gbe > standard. Sure, let me rephrase my original wording -- "I don't trust auto-negitiation." =) I say that for two reasons -- I work with a very large network consisting of tens of thousands of machines connecting to a hodge-podge of switches and routers from many different vendors. It is my personal experience that auto-negotiation does not result in optimum or even compatible speed/duplex settings often enough to be trustworthy. I've experienced this as recently as last week with brand new Cisco equipment and Dell computers running CentOS 3.4 (100/Full on one end, 100/Half on the other). I've seen the problem with Alteon and Foundry equipment recently as well. It may be part of the standard but as anyone who's been around a while knows, each vendor's interpretation of a standard can vary enough to be problematic. Second, as an administrator I want to do everything in my power to make sure the devices I manage are going to run smoothly. Why leave something as simple but as problematic as speed/duplex settings to chance or trust when it is a simple task to force it to be that which works best in the networking environment that the device lives in? For example, if auto-negotiation comes up with 100/half, 10/full or 10/half and every other local device is 100/full or vice-versa, the network is operating at less than peak efficiency and that can also result in odd problems. -- Marc

1 0

losing NFS connection
by Angelo Machils 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

Hello there! Perhaps this is a little off-topic, but I notice this only on the Centos box. I'm running Centos 4 on an AMD64 which has the following entries in the fstab to connect to NFS shares on a Fedora3 box: 192.168.1.12:/home/angelo/ /home/angelo/NFS_share1 nfs rw,addr=192.168.1.12 0 0 192.168.1.12:/home/angelo/data /home/angelo/NFS_share2 nfs rw,addr=192.168.1.12 0 0 192.168.1.12:/home/angelo/data2 /home/angelo/NFS_share3 nfs rw,addr=192.168.1.12 0 0 I have opened ports 111 (TCP), 648 (TCP), 651 (TCP) and 2049 (TCP and UDP) in iptables on the FC3 box and I can connect to them, but after a while I seem to loose the connection to the shares. When I try to move into them while in a console I get the error: bash: cd: NFS_share1: Input/output error In Nautilus I don't even see the directories anymore and in /var/log/messages I get this error msgs: Apr 24 20:17:02 solaris kernel: RPC: garbage, exit EIO There are not entries in the /var/log/messages on the FC3 box. If I manually umount them and then mount them again, I can use them again for a while.... The exports file on the FC3 box looks like this: [root@imhotep etc]# more exports /home/angelo 192.168.1.*(rw,sync) /home/angelo/data 192.168.1.*(rw,sync) /home/angelo/data2 192.168.1.*(rw,sync) Anyone any idea what is wrong here? Thanks in advance, Angelo

4 4

APM on SMP kernel
by Nigel Kendrick 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

I'm Currently running Centos 3.4 on an old Dell PowerEdge with dual PIII-450 processors. I know from searching that 'APM is not SMP safe' and so when I choose to reboot the server someone has to hit the power button to power down and then restart it. Most of the Web-based info I have found on APM and SMP is dated 2000-2002 so can anyone update me on whether there is now any way round this to allow an unattended reboot? Thanks Nigel Kendrick

2 2

RE: [CentOS] APM on SMP kernel
by Mark A. Lewis 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

Not sure exactly what I am using (default install), but I run Cent on at least a half dozen machines with 2-8 CPUs and issue the reboot command with no problems. > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Kendrick > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:56 AM > To: 'CentOS mailing list' > Subject: [CentOS] APM on SMP kernel > > I'm Currently running Centos 3.4 on an old Dell PowerEdge > with dual PIII-450 processors. > > I know from searching that 'APM is not SMP safe' and so when > I choose to reboot the server someone has to hit the power > button to power down and then restart it. > > Most of the Web-based info I have found on APM and SMP is > dated 2000-2002 so can anyone update me on whether there is > now any way round this to allow an unattended reboot? > > Thanks > > Nigel Kendrick > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

NFS insanity
by Mark Weaver 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

Hi all, I've got some insanity with mounting an NFS share that before reloading my workstation afresh worked perfectly, but now refuses to mount. Actually there are two servers with shares mounted. (1) Mandrake 10.0 file server - two shares - mount perfectly (2) Fedora Core 3 - one share - can't mount to save my life! My workstation is CentOS 4. I reloaded it to get rid of the FC3 installation at the front of the main drive and recover some space on the second drive moving CentOS to the main drive. Everything else works wonderfully as advertised. The following is the only feedback I'm getting when attempting to mount the share from the FC3 server. (the shares on the file server mount perfectly) SERVER: Apr 24 09:43:41 mail rpc.mountd: authenticated mount request from 192.168.0.252:921 for /var/www (/var/www) CLIENT: Mounting NFS filesystems: mount: 192.168.0.4:/var/www failed, reason given by server: Permission denied ^^^ happens when running the command "service netfs restart[start]" I've researched this exaustively on Google and have come up with nuttin. what makes no sense at all to me is that it worked perfectly before on my previous centos 4 installation and has only developed this behavior since reinstalling and upgrading KDE to KDE-3.4 although I can't see what was in there that might have affected netfs/nfs share mounting since the other two shares from the Mandrake server do work. Any help will be greatly appreciated. -- Mark ----------------------------------------------------------- Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R) Linux User Since 1996 Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2, 10.0 & CentOS 4

6 9

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