Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

5 participants
34752 discussions

RE: [CentOS] Installing 4.3 from CD
by Mike Kercher 29 May '06

29 May '06

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey B. Layton > Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 6:41 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: [CentOS] Installing 4.3 from CD > > Howdy, > > I hate to bother everyone with something so simple, but > I've beat my head bloody on this one. I have a new machine > with an MSI RS480M2-IL motherboard (ATI Xpress200 chipset) > and a Hammer DVD Writer (shows up as a Matshita DVD-RAM SW-9585). > Anyway, I downloaded the CentOS 4.3 iso's and burned them to > CD. When I boot the new machine it says: > > Boot CD: > DISK BOOT FAILURE, INSERT SYSTEM DISK AND PRESS ENTER > > > I've _never_ seen this error message before. I know this is a > RTFM kind of question, but I don't have any idea right now. Any ideas? > > TIA! > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > I would also make sure that your BIOS is set to boot from the CDROM. Mike

1 0

kickstart, no dhcp reply received.
by Fong Vang 29 May '06

29 May '06

I'm trying to kicktart a CentOS 4.3 x86_64. However, anaconda is unabled to do dhcp, complaining about"no DHCP reply received". While tailing the log on the dhcp server, I clearly see a request come in and address is offered. This same machine kicks fine with CentOS 4.1 (32-bit). Since anaconda could potentially use a different NIC (this system contains 2 NICSs), I've tried plugging both interfaces into the kickstart network (I've seen interfaces swapped before) as a test. I know that the CentOS 4.3 x64 setup I have works fine because I can kick a different hardware with it. Any idea what else to check for? Could it be that the e1000 driver in CentOS 4.3 x64 is older than the CentOS 4.1 driver? Any help is appreciated.

6 9

Re: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2006:0493 Important CentOS 4 i386 kernel - security update
by Phil Schaffner 29 May '06

29 May '06

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 17:13 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2006:0493 > > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0493.html > > The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently > syncing to the mirrors: > > i386: > kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm > kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm > kernel-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm > kernel-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm > kernel-doc-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.noarch.rpm > kernel-hugemem-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm > kernel-hugemem-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm > kernel-smp-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm > kernel-smp-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm > kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm > kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm > > src: > kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.src.rpm I wonder if a change in the naming convention for centosplus kernels might be in order? Had to think a bit to understand why yum was not showing me the new errata kernel until I realized that 2.6.9-34.106.unsupported > 2.6.9-34.0.1.EL in the sorting order. I downloaded from a mirror and forced the install: [root@tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package kernel-2.6.9-34.106.unsupported (which is newer than kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL) is already installed [root@tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh --force kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:kernel ########################################### [100%] [root@tabb1 RPMS]# Similar problems for kernel-devel and kernel-doc RPMS. If the name for the last centosplus/unsupported version had been kernel-2.6.9-34.unsupported.106 (or similar) the new version[s] would have been offered for installation, and since (I believe) unsupported.106 > EL for rpm/yum, the new centosplus kernels would still be installable if that repo is configured. Phil

5 7

Printing problem
by Damien Hull 28 May '06

28 May '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is anyone having any printing problems in CentOS 4.3? Here's what I'm seeing (problem) 1. Can't import ppd file 2. After manually adding the ppd file it doesn't show up in the gui print tool 3. Haven't been able to share a printer using the gui tool I'm wondering if this is just my problem (user error on my part) or if this is a CentOS/Redhat problem. - -- You can get my public PGP key at https://keyserver.pgp.com Digital Overload http://www.digitaloverload.net Keep your data safe by doing regular backups. At Digital Overload we use a combination of DVD and hard drive backups. For off site storage we use a safe-deposit box at the bank. All backups are encrypted. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEehKh+rNhalK/8UURAogIAJkBtRyca04LgyV5Bqp70lYwuX6CPQCZAZ88 q8iIdbEP4O0fddIFnHpP8pc= =RJRw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

two gateways on one PC ?
by Niels Przybilla 28 May '06

28 May '06

Hi, i added second nic to my server I have these two uplinks: My main uplink is 195.XXX.XXX.XXX My secondary is 83.XXX.XXX.XXX When I add the secondary NIC, CentOS automatically sets default gw to 83.XXX.XXX.1 and deletes the gateway from 195.XXX.XXX.1 How can I set it that CentOs uses the gateway 195.XXX.XXX.1 as default gateway. When I set this manually with route, CentOS changes my sentings after a reboot. And I need also to accept incoming traffic on 83.XXX.XXX.1. Thanks for your help and best regards Niels

3 4

SATA RAID - LSI Megaraid SATA 150-4
by Paul 28 May '06

28 May '06

I generally 3Ware controllers get recommended but the servers we are looking at getting use LSI Megaraid SATA 150-4 controllers. I was wonder what experiences there are under CentOS 4 with these positive & negative? Regards, Paul Berger

3 3

4.3 single server cd
by Robert Hanson 27 May '06

27 May '06

Greetings, I am not able to find the 4.3 single server cd torrent or iso Would someone please tell me where it currently resides? :-) Thanks in advance! - rh -- Robert Hanson - Abba Communications Computer & Internet Services (509) 624-7159 - www.abbacomm.net

8 14

RE: [CentOS] Centos and Software RAID
by Mark Schoonover 27 May '06

27 May '06

Barry L. Kline <mailto:blkline@attglobal.net> tapped at Friday, May 26, 2006 4:50 PM: > Les Mikesell wrote: >> On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 16:56, Barry L. Kline wrote: > >> >> Note that unless it has changed recently, SATA drives don't pass >> errors up to the software raid layer correctly. If a drive >> dies it doesn't get kicked out as it should. > > Good point. The systems on which I use it are either IDE-based or > SCSI-based. The SATA machines I have are all 3ware RAID controller > equipped. > > Barry This is what I go with, 3Ware and SATA drives. My company just needs the raw storage space, and not so much speed. So, I can live with SATA drives on 3Ware cards, and things just work. Mark

1 0

RE: [CentOS] Centos and Software RAID
by Mark Schoonover 27 May '06

27 May '06

Barry L. Kline <mailto:blkline@attglobal.net> tapped at Friday, May 26, 2006 4:48 PM: > Mark Schoonover wrote: >> Barry L. Kline <mailto:blkline@attglobal.net> tapped at Friday, May >> 26, 2006 2:56 PM: >> > >> >> I'd like to know how things went with software raid when you've lost >> a drive in a mirror or RAID5. The times that's happened to me, I >> could never recover the partition - had to always restore from tape. >> After that point, it was hardware only. Software RAID works fine, as >> long as there's no problems. >> > > I have lost a drive in a mirror and had no trouble recovering it. The > steps are basically the same for a RAID 5 system as they are for the > mirror. > > What I figured out early on was that I didn't want to be discovering > how RAID recovery works while under the gun to get a failed drive > replaced. I tried that once and found it extremely stressful. > > What you might want to do (assuming that you have an old PC and a > couple > of old drives around) is build a test system that you can experiment > with. Today, you don't need the spare hardware laying around. You can download VMware Server for free, and create what you need virtually. You'll accomplish the same thing, without the added expense and space of using actual hardware. I did that and now have a good working knowledge of the > recovery > steps. ('tho I took good notes because the frequence of this occuring > has been, for me, rather low). Failed drive in another machine? > BRING > IT ON! (okay, okay... I don't want to tempt the gods and *really* > have > that failure, but I'm not as concerned about it as I once was). > > Barry I'd rather not bring it on, but there are times it's going to happen! Mark

1 0

www.instalinux.com
by Dominik Składanowski 27 May '06

27 May '06

Hello list, Anybody saw this: http://www.instalinux.com/ ? Interesting idea. Regards -- _________________________________________________________________ D o m i n i k S k ł a d a n o w s k i

2 1

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