Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34753 discussions

Postpone/avoid swaping while there is still free RAM.
by Alexander Georgiev 21 Jun '06

21 Jun '06

Hi people, I got Centos 4.3 on a 1GB Pentium IV machine. The output of free ------------------- $ free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 1026896 573848 453048 0 2988 131712 -/+ buffers/cache: 439148 587748 Swap: 1052248 137568 914680 ------------------ There is plenty of free ram, but the kernel prefers to swap unused pages to disk. And later I have to wait for them to be unswapped, the Desktop looses its promptness - annoying. In win2k and winXP there is a registry key property which prevents swapping while there is still RAM. Do you know whether I can achieve the same in linux? Best regards! alex

5 4

xorg display problems
by Mike M 21 Jun '06

21 Jun '06

Hi all, Up until today everything has been fine with CentOS on my Toshiba laptop. I booted into CentOS 4.3 today and Kudzu detected my video card for some reason. I let it configure it (wish I hadn't now). I can still get in. X and Gnome work. But the video resolution is 800x640. The LCD is capable of 1024x768. I cannot change it using Gnome tools or direct editing of /etc/X11/xorg.conf With the Gnome "Display" system tool I cannot change the monitor to "Generic LCD Display". Any help you can offer on getting the 1024x768 display mode to work again would be appreciated. Here are the relevant sections from /etc/X11/xorg.conf Section "Monitor" Identifier "Monitor0" VendorName "Monitor Vendor" ModelName "Unknown monitor" HorizSync 31.5 - 37.9 VertRefresh 50.0 - 70.0 Option "dpms" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "i810" VendorName "Videocard vendor" BoardName "Intel 852" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Videocard0" Monitor "Monitor0" DefaultDepth 16 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 16 Modes "800x600" "640x480" EndSubSection EndSection -- Mike

2 2

RE: [CentOS] SuperMicro X7DBE with CentOS4?
by Bowie Bailey 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > > Is there any reason you're locked into Xeon/FB-DIMM? SuperMicro makes > many rather nice Opteron boards, with good ol' DDR SDRAM. And there > aren't many areas where Xeon outperforms Opteron these days, if any. Not really, can you recommend a comparable Opteron MB? I need PCI-X 133 for the raid card, capability of at least 32MB RAM, and preferably onboard video and LAN. -- Bowie

3 2

SuperMicro X7DBE with CentOS4?
by Bowie Bailey 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

I am planning to build a server based on the SuperMicro X7DBE+-O motherboard. This server will have two dual-core Xeon processors and a 3ware 9550SX raid card. Has anyone built a server based on this motherboard? Are there any issues with the smp/dual-core support in CentOS4 that might cause problems? I appreciate any input. I'm just looking to find out about any possible problems before I spend the money for the MB, CPU, and amazingly expensive RAM. Thanks, -- Bowie

3 2

Mailers and records MX
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

I've installed bind on centos 4.3.. This is a part of my config file: example.com. IN MX 10 mail.example.com. example.com. IN MX 15 mail1.example.com. example.com. IN MX 20 mail2.example.com. mail.example.com. IN A x.x.x.x mail1.example.com. IN A x.x.x.x mail2.example.com. IN A x.x.x.x Every seems to be fine, but I'm constantly receiving messages in my 3 MX servers, even if mail.example.com (the less MX record) is available waiting for connections from outside... Why if my less mx record server is available the others servers are constantly receiving messages for my domain? Thanks for your time Israel

4 3

RE: [CentOS] Mailers and records MX
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

More details: 1. The 3 servers are in diferents networks... 2. My higher's mx servers (mx 15 and mx 20) receive a lot of legitimate mail.. It also received a lot of spam too.... :-( 3. MX1 server is in the main network (backbone).. It's the most accesible network of the others Mx's 4. Mx 2 and Mx 3 are constantly receiving messages... Like if the dns were the same MX record for the three servers.. Regards Israel -----Mensaje original----- De: replies-lists-centos(a)listmail.innovate.net [mailto:replies-lists-centos@listmail.innovate.net] Enviado el: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:04 PM Para: SV-Israel Garcia Asunto: Re: [CentOS] Mailers and records MX are you seeing spam or "real" mail through the higher ordinal MX hosts? spammers often target higher ordinal MX hosts because they assume that there are fewer blocks there (e.g., the user base isn't checked). if it's "real" mail, it can simply be that the lower ordinal MX hosts are seen as slow by some sender's mail hosts. - Rick ------------ Original Message ------------ > Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 02:01:06 PM -0500 > From: israel.garcia(a)cimex.com.cu > To: centos(a)centos.org > Subject: [CentOS] Mailers and records MX > > I've installed bind on centos 4.3.. This is a part of my config file: > > example.com. IN MX 10 mail.example.com. > example.com. IN MX 15 mail1.example.com. > example.com. IN MX 20 mail2.example.com. > > mail.example.com. IN A x.x.x.x > mail1.example.com. IN A x.x.x.x > mail2.example.com. IN A x.x.x.x > > > Every seems to be fine, but I'm constantly receiving messages in my 3 > MX servers, even if mail.example.com (the less MX record) is available > waiting for connections from outside... Why if my less mx record > server is available the others servers are constantly receiving > messages for my domain? > > Thanks for your time > Israel > ---------- End Original Message ----------

4 3

Mailers and records MX
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

2 1

32->64 bit
by Mark Belanger 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

Is it possible to take a Centos 3.7 machine - that was installed with the 32 bit version of CentOS, and update it to a 64 bit kernel? In other words - convert an i386 to ia64. I don't care about the applications, just the kernel. -Mark

5 5

Routing w/ Two Interfaces
by Michael B Allen 20 Jun '06

20 Jun '06

I have two interfaces on a centos machine with IPs 192.168.2.15 and 192.168.3.15. The routing table is: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.3.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 The gateway 192.168.2.1 is a wireless router on which I have a static route for 192.168.3.0/24 to 192.168.2.15. The problem is I cannot communicate between these networks. If I ping from a machine on 192.168.2.0 to a machine on 192.168.3.0 it never makes it. If I run tcpdump -i eth0 on the machine with two nics, I can see the ICMP packets coming in so I know the static route on the wireless router is working. If I run tcpdump -i eth1 I cannot see the ICMP packets. So the routing is wrong. I can successfully ping the machine on the 192.168.3.0 network from the machine with two interfaces. I would think that a packet sent from 192.168.2.100 for 192.168.3.128 would go to the gateway, get sent to 192.168.2.15 which it would go though the above listed routing table, match 192.168.3.0 and get sent to eth1. What am I doing wrong? Mike -- Michael B Allen PHP Extension for SSO w/ Windows Group Authorization http://www.ioplex.com/

4 5

64-bit ISO Burning Failures
by karl＠klxsystems.net 19 Jun '06

19 Jun '06

Hi, I have downloaded several different sets of the 64-bit ISOs, and have burned them to CD using various of my known-good ISO burning softwares, including Nero and DeepBurn on Windows, as well as the native CD burning KDE linux tool on Xandros Linux. I am using mirrors from the site, like kernel.org. I have chosen low burning speeds also, but when I insert the ISO CD into a server and boot it up, the ISO doesn't work. I have all of the BIOs/boot settings perfect, the machine is definitely 64-bit, and even when I insert another OS, like Fedora, or Whitebox, it works fine. Is there something i'm not doing, or doing wrong when burning these 64 bit CD's? I'm in a colo facility and would really like to leave here having converted a bunch of my WBEL and FC boxes to 64-bit Centos. Any help would be much appreciated. -karlski

6 9

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