Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

An Interview with Karan
by didi 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

A nice little insight into CentOS : http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100628#feature Cheers Didi p.s. Sorry if this has already been posted :) -- Hoffmann Geerd-Dietger http://contact.ribalba.de

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Update update failed on filesystem-2.4.0-3.el5.x86_64
by Emmanuel Noobadmin 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

On 7/1/10, Bond Masuda <bond.masuda(a)jlbond.com> wrote: > I believe the filesystem RPM basically owns all the main directories on the > system. One of them being /media. I suspect you have something mounted on > /media, and since installing filesystem will try to create /media, that > results in an error it wasn't expecting. > > can you umount /media and try again? I think that would allow 'filesystem' > to complete its install process.... Thank you very much for the help, didn't realized /media was still mounted.

1 0

Update update failed on filesystem-2.4.0-3.el5.x86_64
by Emmanuel Noobadmin 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

I was doing a upgrade of an existing machine from 5.4 to 5.5. Everything else worked except for this rpm filesystem-2.4.0-3.el5.x86_64 It seems that it's trying to unpack the file into the CentOS DVD mount point > Error unpacking rpm package filesystem-2.4.0-3.el5.x86_64 > error: unpacking of archive failed on file /media: cpio: lsetfilecon Would it be safe to manually download the rpm then install it locally, or would that not work either? I haven't restart the machine because I'm concerned that not updating this file could mean the filesystem becomes inaccessible.

2 1

How can binaries be different when package versions are identical? (mkfs.ext3 on CentOS 5.4)
by Aleksey Tsalolikhin 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

Situation: two similar servers, both with CentOS 5.4 64-bit. Making an ext3 filesystem on one takes seconds, on the other minutes. Partition Size Server 1 Server 2 1 GB 0.7 sec 0.3 sec 4 GB 2.5 sec 1.2 sec 40 GB 15 sec 13 min WTF e2fsprogs RPM is e2fsprogs-1.39-23.el5 on both systems mkfs --version reports "util-linux 2.13-pre7" on both systems mkfs -V reports the same on both systems (mke2fs 1.3 (29-May-2006) Using EXT2FS Library version 1.39) file size on mkfs and mkfs.ext3 binaries is identical However, checksum on these binaries differs across servers, and "cmp" reports files are different I took "mkfs" and "mkfs.ext3" from server 1, put them on server 2, and got an improvement: 40 GB 15 sec 3 min Just out of curiousity, I ran "rpm -V e2fsprogs" to see if rpm would pick up the difference and sure enough, it complained mkfs.ext3 changed. Both of these servers have CentOS 5.4; Server 1 was installed in Dec 2009, Server 2 in April 2010. I'd like to: (a) account for the difference in the binaries, and (b) see if something else is different that I can make the same to get the mkfs.ext3 time down to 15 sec on both systems. Solving (a) should shed light on (b). Any ideas? Best, Aleksey

6 7

Live CD problems
by drew einhorn 01 Jul '10

01 Jul '10

Hi, I'm trying to repair a remote system using the Live CD. I have VPN access to the subnet where it lives. An onsite person is booting from cd, and running a small script I provided to tweak the default firewall rule set to allow incoming ssh, and set a password for the centos user and start sshd so far so good I can remotely access the system. the problem is the live cd environment is very fragile. I need to rebuild the contents of a couple filesystems, so I need to umount them and remount them rw. If I make a mistake in a mount command instead of giving an error message and letting me try again. The system freezes and any other ssh session freezes, ahnd will not accept any more incoming ssh connections. the only way I have found to recover is have the onsite person reboot from cd and rerun the script allowing incoming ssh again. Hmm. I should try to talk the onsite person through trying something else from the console. Argghhh!!! This is more than just an annoyance. -- Drew Einhorn "You can see a lot by just looking." -- Yogi Berra

2 1

firewire follow up
by aurfalien 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

A bit more info about my system; I edited /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist-firewire and commented out the blacklist like so it looks like so; #blacklist firewire-ohci Running lspci returns; 10:0b.0 Firewire (IEEE 1394): Texas Instruments TSB82AA2 IEEE-1394b Link Layer Controller (rev 02) lsmod | grep firewire returns; firewire_sbp2 50897 0 firewire_core 79305 1 firewire_sbp2 scsi_mod 196953 5 firewire_sbp2,scsi_dh,sg,libata,sd_mod - aurf

1 0

firewire in centos 5.4 - do i really need the centosplus kernel
by aurfalien 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

Hi list, I'm running 2.6.18-164-15.1 xen kernel. Any way to get firewire to work on it? I've read plenty about needing the centosplus kernel but is that really necessary? - aurf

1 0

Grub fails on dell optiplex 320
by Jason Pyeron 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

After reading: *[1] http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=141178 *[2] https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id=2… forum=39 *[3] http://wirelessness.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/installing-fedora-linux-on-a-d… ptiplex-320/ *[4] http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-desktops/2007-January/000148.html 1. I booted with linux rescue 2. chroot /mnt/sysimage 3. yum upgrade 4. reboot 5. 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 6. hang... Per [4] this should have been fixed in 2.6.20 (2007), did this get back ported by the upstream? The LILO solution wont work because we have to use LVM. Suggestions? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333 Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00.

1 1

uuid_fixer?
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

Anyone know of a repository with uuid_fixer? Now that I've rebuilt this thing, I need to recover the LVM that the raid comprises.... mark

1 0

Anyone seen the Adobe update?
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 30 Jun '10

30 Jun '10

I get an email from security, I see the article on slashdot, and other places, that Adobe's issued an update to acroread... but yum update AdobeReader_enu is still telling me there's no update. Has anyone seen it yet, in the repositories? mark

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