Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

2 participants
34758 discussions

Using a CentOS 6 Machine as a gateway/router/home server
by Max Pyziur 29 Jun '15

29 Jun '15

Greetings, I'm rebuilding a machine to function as a gateway/router to Verizon DSL. It has two NICs eth0 and eth1 (static set to 192.168.1.1). eth0 connects to the DSL modem. I've setup Verizon DSL usine pppoe-setup, and it works. I can connect from home machines to the server (192.168.1.1); while logged in to the server, I can connect to both the internet, and the home machines. But ... I can't connect from the home machines directly to the Internet. I have set net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 in /etc/sysctl.conf I haven't setup the firewall yet (dangerous, I know) until I get the connectivity working. I'm obviously overlooking some other configuration settings required for machines inside the network being able to connect through the gateway/router. Thanks for any advice in advance. Max Pyziur pyz(a)brama.com

10 18

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 124, Issue 16
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 29 Jun '15

29 Jun '15

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CEBA-2015:1191 CentOS 5 irqbalance BugFix Update (Johnny Hughes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:10:07 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2015:1191 CentOS 5 irqbalance BugFix Update Message-ID: <20150627121007.GA30368(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:1191 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1191.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 0ec224e1af235b81234eea49486b3cf28562457ce4c67ae3da06cdc7e5f4ba37 irqbalance-0.55-16.el5_11.i386.rpm x86_64: 818235db375a8409016a5bf4a3c27765adbf4a44dfea7b9a0bbbc6c7c6a959ab irqbalance-0.55-16.el5_11.x86_64.rpm Source: b233e7b4dfe9720ddad886936804055e2c92ae57a5ee83ff3324eff85de0c719 irqbalance-0.55-16.el5_11.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 124, Issue 16 ************************************************

1 0

/boot on a separate partition?
by Chris Murphy 29 Jun '15

29 Jun '15

Timothy Murphy gayleard at eircom.net Tue Jun 23 12:49:08 UTC 2015 > > Do most people today have /boot on a separate partition, > or do they (you) have it on the / partition ? Different distros have different defaults. There's no actual right or wrong here. Pretty much anything you can think of can be made to work. Jonathan Billings billings at negate.org Tue Jun 23 13:28:18 UTC 2015 >Not only do I have a /boot partition, but I have a /boot/efi partition. It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the mount process must make sure they're mounted in that order, or there's failure. Second, there is no good reason for the EFI System partition to ever be mounted; and multiple reasons to not ever mount it (Windows and OS X never mount the EFI System partition but somehow all the Linux distros are obsessed with mounting things that don't need mounting). Eventually systemd will become smarter and handle on-demand dynamic mount and umount, including the ESP so this will get better but even better would be not ever mounting it in the first place. > I probably could get away without using the /boot partition, but I've > been experimenting with btrfs and snapshots and it makes sense to keep > /boot as an ext4 filesystem. I disagree, yet I'm curious what example you have that this makes sense. This ext4 /boot is unique to F/C/RH's dependency on grubby which doesn't grok Btrfs subvolumes, and therefore kernel updates don't get written to grub.cfg properly if /boot is on a Btrfs subvolume. GRUB, including grub2-mkconfig figures out subvolumes just fine. It's specifically a limitation of RH distros. Ubuntu and openSUSE don't have this problem. >I suspect with the move to XFS it might be a good idea to keep an ext4 /boot too. There's no advantage to it being ext4. The default installation for Fedora 22 Server, CentOS/RHEL 7 is /boot on XFS, and / on a separate XFS, and /home on a separate XFS. Just like with ext4, except with XFS. -- Chris Murphy

4 6

/boot on a separate partition?
by Timothy Murphy 29 Jun '15

29 Jun '15

Do most people today have /boot on a separate partition, or do they (you) have it on the / partition ? -- Timothy Murphy gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

21 43

Anyone else think the latest Xorg fix is hogging stuff?
by Bill Maltby (C4B) 28 Jun '15

28 Jun '15

Since the latest update (may wrap here), xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.15.0-26.el6.centos.0.1.x86_64 Sat 20 Jun 2015 04:16:01 PM EDT xorg-x11-server-common-1.15.0-26.el6.centos.0.1.x86_64 Sat 20 Jun 2015 04:15:58 PM EDT x264-0.0.0-0.4.20101111.el6.rf.x86_64 Wed 19 Nov 2014 04:56:05 PM EST xvidcore-1.2.2-1.el6.rf.x86_64 Wed 19 Nov 2014 04:55:49 PM EST . . . drop a lot of older stable stuff ... Xorg is competing heavily with FF for top hog on my system. In FF I understand because I had multiple windows (6 desktops) with many tabs. I know this would theoretically increase Xorg work as well but prior to this update I seldom saw it near the top of "top" PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4055 hardtolo 20 0 2165m 945m 49m R 95.9 12.0 3724:26 firefox 3119 root 20 0 276m 121m 34m S 34.0 1.6 2228:58 Xorg 15645 hardtolo 20 0 6163m 350m 26m S 10.6 4.5 181:50.51 java 5663 hardtolo 20 0 1557m 202m 24m S 9.6 2.6 294:53.69 plugin-containe 27871 hardtolo 20 0 1957m 520m 88m S 7.6 6.6 456:54.44 soffice.bin 18245 hardtolo 20 0 6228m 356m 26m S 7.3 4.5 112:09.55 java 14349 hardtolo 20 0 6228m 345m 26m S 5.3 4.4 143:59.97 java 9164 root 20 0 197m 51m 12m S 3.3 0.7 14:14.06 Xorg 4152 hardtolo 20 0 915m 28m 20m S 1.7 0.4 182:27.00 knotify4 27 root 20 0 0 0 0 S 1.0 0.0 28:58.96 events/0 12581 wild-bil 20 0 302m 14m 9.9m S 1.0 0.2 0:02.43 gnome-terminal 26741 hardtolo 20 0 15300 1420 892 S 1.0 0.0 0:02.47 top Anyone else pound the crap out of a desktop with FF and see Xorg getting "fat"? TIA for any clues or response. Bill

2 3

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 124, Issue 15
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 27 Jun '15

27 Jun '15

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CESA-2015:1189 Important CentOS 5 kvm Security Update (Johnny Hughes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:05:54 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2015:1189 Important CentOS 5 kvm Security Update Message-ID: <20150626120554.GA17792(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2015:1189 Important Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-1189.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: 492ee4251b86edf043521fb03757643de2f25776eb6eab5745b53d1d2337be63 kmod-kvm-83-273.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm 4e43433ec3b141ff6d3eae3d2d4c2407ece9ce948439a4cdc87e651b26dd1e0c kmod-kvm-debug-83-273.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm 62f07523683d3bc7dd295bb39f079d9a08d4d4f4136d920a0b6baf026ca8d2ae kvm-83-273.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm 6a61830f8c07eaa0ce456660fd5bbe1f0d8a1ff791db0507b199e3cf70f3951f kvm-qemu-img-83-273.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm 83104ad3a7483c91c8cb0c09700c08bb5d3463fe20c455e367f17c2c49ce80d1 kvm-tools-83-273.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm Source: b83cedf1824e79195e22e88c431c8f87be9189e61d0dc67dc77eaff507a0a44c kvm-83-273.el5.centos.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 124, Issue 15 ************************************************

1 0

Re: [CentOS] LVM hatred, was Re: /boot on a separate partition?
by Gordon Messmer 26 Jun '15

26 Jun '15

On 06/26/2015 07:58 AM, Mark Milhollan wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Gordon Messmer wrote: > >> 1) If you have a system with a single disk, you have to reboot to add >> partitions for new guests. Linux won't refresh the partition table on the disk >> it boots from. > I'm not sure this is still true, but I use LVM almost everywhere so I > seldom need to try. It's definitely still true on CentOS 7. >> 3) If you want redundancy, partitions on top of RAID is more complex than LVM >> on top of RAID. As far as I know, partitions on top of RAID are subject to the >> same limitation as in #1. > They look the same to me, and share the same limitations (WRT the PV). Create a RAID1 volume on two drives. Partition that volume. Where is your partition table? Is it in a spot where your BIOS/UEFI or another OS will see it? Will that non-Linux system try to open or modify the partitions inside your RAID? It depends on what metadata version you use. If you set this up in Anaconda, it's going to be version 0.90, and your partition table will be in a spot where a non-Linux system will read it. There's no ambiguity with LVM. That's what I mean when I say that it's less complicated. The format of MBR and GPT partition tables are imposed by the design of BIOS and UEFI. There is no good reason to use them for any purpose other than identifying the location of a filesytem that BIOS or UEFI must be able to read. The limitation I was referring to was that as far as I know, if Linux has mounted filesystems from a partitioned RAID set, you can't modify partitions without rebooting. That limitation doesn't affect LVM. > Either can be partitioned but making more LVs is indeed simpler than > using DM to partition a partition or MD. I'd like to use LVM RAID and > never again have RAIDed partitions, so that I can choose the RAID level > per LV, alas LVM RAID MDs don't appear in /proc/mdstat so monitoring > them is somewhat more annoying. > >> 4) As far as I know, Anaconda can't set up a logical volume that's a redundant >> type, so LVM on top of RAID is the only practical way to support redundant >> storage of your host filesystems. > Anaconda has many deficiencies and indeed I am annoyed enough with it > that I often skip trying to use its new disk manager, but making the PV > on an MD RAID isn't impossible I know, that's what I said was the only practical way to support redundant storage (when using LVM). > , or alternatively making the LVs > redundant after install is a single command (each) and you can choose > whether it should be mere mirroring or some MD manged RAID level (modulo > the LVM RAID MD monitoring issue). I hadn't realized that. That's an interesting alternative to MD RAID, particularly for users who want LVs with different RAID levels.

3 2

Possible bug in kickstart
by James A. Peltier 26 Jun '15

26 Jun '15

Hello All, I seem to have run into a bug with the new --bridgeslaves=<INTERFACE> option. It would seem that if I tell the bridge device to use a virtual interface (like bond0) rather than a physical interface (em1/em2) that kickstart completely barfs on it. I have provided my network section below which works fine as long as i don't enable all the bridge content. When the installation starts off the creation of bond0 and all VLANs on bond0 go without issue. Jumping into TTY2 I can type 'ip a' and see all the bond0 device and bond0.VLANID devices no problem. When I enable bridge content with --bridgeslaves=bond0 or --bridgeslaves=bond0.VLANID anaconda barfs When I enable bridge content with --bridgeslaves=em1 or --bridgeslaves=em2 anaconda doesn't have an issue. Is this expected behaviour? I really don't want to have to manually manipulate the ifcfg-bond* interfaces and create the ifcfg-BRIDGE* interfaces manually so I'd like this to work. # Configure a bond over the slaves in failover mode network --device=bond0 --noipv6 --bootproto=dhcp --onboot=yes --bondslaves=em1,em2 --bondopts=mode=active-backup;primary=em1 --activate # Configure VLANs network --device=bond0 --vlanid=11 --noipv6 --onboot=yes --bootproto=dhcp --activate network --device=bond0 --vlanid=100 --noipv6 --onboot=yes --bootproto=dhcp --activate network --device=bond0 --vlanid=302 --noipv6 --onboot=yes --bootproto=dhcp --activate network --device=bond0 --vlanid=303 --noipv6 --onboot=yes --bootproto=dhcp --activate network --device=bond0 --vlanid=304 --noipv6 --onboot=yes --bootproto=dhcp --activate network --device=bond0 --vlanid=306 --noipv6 --onboot=yes --bootproto=dhcp --activate # Create a bridge on the bonded VLAN interfaces network --device=FASNET --bridgeslaves=bond0 network --device=GLUSTER --bridgeslaves=bond0.11 network --device=EXPERIMENTAL --bridgeslaves=bond0.302 network --device=NAT --bridgeslaves=bond0.303 network --device=DMZ2 --bridgeslaves=bond0.304 network --device=NETM --bridgeslaves=bond0.306 -- James A. Peltier IT Services - Research Computing Group Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus Phone : 604-365-6432 Fax : 778-782-3045 E-Mail : jpeltier(a)sfu.ca Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices Twitter : @sfu_rcg Powering Engagement Through Technology

1 1

An odd X question
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 26 Jun '15

26 Jun '15

I've got a headless server running CentOS 7. I've got a user who wants to run some graphical software on it, and view using x forwarding. What I don't have clear is how to set this up. I've just installed xorg-x11-server-[Xorg, common]. I assume I need to run X, but I don't see running this in runlevel 5. Thoughts? mark "and why is it called xorg-x11-server, when in X terminology, it's the client?"* * Which I always thought was bass-ackward, but...

7 7

LVM hatred, was Re: /boot on a separate partition?
by Chris Murphy 26 Jun '15

26 Jun '15

Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015 > I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who > prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better disk > performance than file-backed VMs. I did a bunch of testing of Raw, qcow2, and LV backed VM storage circa Fedora 19/20 and found very little difference. What mattered most was the (libvirt) cache setting, accessible by virsh edit the xml config or virt-manager through the GUI. There have been a lot of optimizations in libvirt and qemu that make qcow2 files perform comparable to LVs. For migrating VMs, it's easier if they're a file. And qcow2 snapshots are more practical than LVM (thick) snapshots. The thin snapshots are quite good though they take a lot of familiarity with setting them up. -- Chris Murphy

3 3

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