Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

1 participants
34753 discussions

Migrating from RHEL 4 to CentOS
by techlist＠pathfinder.phys.utk.edu 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Hello, I'm thinking about migrating from RHEL 4 to CentOS. Is there a document that provide pointer / guidance for doing that ? or is this document: http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=19 relevant enough to follow in my situation ? I understand that I should probably strip the install of any RedHat images, trademark, etc, as to not infringing any copyright. So I am wondering if there's a list of things to do / document to show that. My current installation is: $ cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 4 (Nahant Update 1) Thanks for any help / pointer. RDB

4 4

FreeRADIUS
by Joseph T Mai 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Greetings list, I'm haveing problem with FreeRADIUS v1.0.1-3 which came with CentOS 4.1 FreeRADIUS refuses to use system accounts for authentication. The latest freeradius-1.0.4 is working correctly. Can we have this update or have to wail till RH release new rpm src? Thanks, -j

2 1

RE: [CentOS] FreeRADIUS
by Joshua Hirsh 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

> I'm haveing problem with FreeRADIUS v1.0.1-3 which came with > CentOS 4.1 > FreeRADIUS refuses to use system accounts for authentication. Hi Joseph, FreeRadius 1.0.1-3 works fine on my systems using local system authentication (using UNIX instead of PAM). In my users configuration file, I have the following defined: "DEFAULT Auth-Type = System". Please also note, however, that your daemon will require READ access to your /etc/shadow file and you probably have it running with little to no permissions. You should create a new group (ex: shadow) and assign it to your /etc/shadow with read access and add your FreeRadius user into the group. That should correct your authentication issues. I vaguely recall having problems when I first tried to have it use PAM authentication (based on the RHEL3 version), but I haven't looked at the issue since then. Regards, -Joshua

1 0

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

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-2005:562-01: Critical CentOS 2 i386 krb5 security update (John Newbigin) 2. CESA-2005:470-04: Low CentOS 2 i386 fileutils bug fix update (John Newbigin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:04:00 +1000 From: John Newbigin <jnewbigin(a)ict.swin.edu.au> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2005:562-01: Critical CentOS 2 i386 krb5 security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <42DC3560.5000009(a)ict.swin.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded to the centos mirror: RHSA-2005:562-01 Critical: krb5 security update Files available: krb5-devel-1.2.2-37.i386.rpm krb5-libs-1.2.2-37.i386.rpm krb5-server-1.2.2-37.i386.rpm krb5-workstation-1.2.2-37.i386.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date with all the latest patches is to run: # yum update -- John Newbigin Computer Systems Officer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:05:15 +1000 From: John Newbigin <jnewbigin(a)ict.swin.edu.au> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2005:470-04: Low CentOS 2 i386 fileutils bug fix update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <42DC35AB.9070900(a)ict.swin.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded to the centos mirror: RHBA-2005:470-04 fileutils bug fix update Files available: fileutils-4.1-10.9.i386.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date with all the latest patches is to run: # yum update -- John Newbigin Computer Systems Officer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7 *********************************************

1 0

RE: [CentOS] Red Hat Cluster Suite
by Adam Breaux 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

I was hoping there already was a port available. So I second this request. -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Dag Wieers Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:54 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Red Hat Cluster Suite Importance: High On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 16:53 -0400, Adam Breaux wrote: > > Is there an equivalent for CentOS? > > For CentOS-3 here: > http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/ > > For CentOS-4: > GFS 6.1 (and RHCS) is not yet released Not wanting to add extra load on the CentOS developers, but it would be nice to have this as part of CentOS :) Or this there a problem distributing this ? -- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

5 6

Re: [CentOS] CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

From: John Hinton <webmaster(a)ew3d.com> > Yup, it's a shame to waste expensive horsepower if you don't need it and > most web stuff doesn't use a lot of horsepower.. Buy a bit above your > needs. Quality over horsepower as well, has been my philosophy. Actually, it's not about waste IMHO. It's about believing a newer processor design means the interconnect is better. A dual-P3 on a ServerSet IIIHE-SL will slap a P4-Celeron silly when it comes to server I/O. Especially when you throw a GbE on one PCI channel, and your SATA RAID on another. > I would advise going to the DL380 series. These use only the ultra2 > or 3 scsi drives.. not the mix of ultra and wide-ultra. Actually, it wasn't until recently that most 36, 73, 146GB SCSI drives started breaking 40MBps sustained. Ultra2/3 (aka Ultra80/160) offer LVD (low-voltate differential) for longer bus length and integrity. But yes, at today's disk speeds, Ultra2(80) is minimum. And you typically don't want more than 2-3 drives per channel. Although Ultra640 is planned, Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) is going to quickly kill it. A parallel storage bus is yesteryear. Until then, a SATA controller with queuing and "enterprise" SATA drives is the best of all worlds. The great thing is that SAS can use SATA drives too (so you can recycle your "enterprise" SATA drive investments). > I very nice speed improvement. Also, when buying, watch for drives > quanity, size and speed (try to avoid the 7200rpm and get the 10 or > 15k units). Because in many cases, many current 7200rpm drives come off the same line as ATA and SATA drives too. Interface is not an indicator of reliability, the actual mechanics are. A good indicator is the vibration and other tolerances in the spec sheet. "Enterprise" drives (typically the 9, 18, 36, 73 and 146GB capacities) vibrate 3-8x less than "Commodity" drives (typically the 40, 80, 120, 160, 200, 250, 300, 320 and 400GB capacities). E.g., WD Raptor 73 and 146GB 10,000rpm SATA drives come off the same line as Hitachi 10,000 U320 SCSI drives. > I think that was the ending point for the 1850s. The DL380s are almost > the same unit with a lot of parts being interchangable. The 380s are > just more modern in terms of processors, circuitry, raids, drives... and > pretty much picked up I think at the 600mhtz point and have grown from > there. The dual 866s and up to about 1.2 giggers are very reasonble on ebay >From what I was reading, the 1850 and similar era are 440 and 450 series chipsets. The 440 is _crap_. The 450NX is so-so, but bridges on extra PCI channels (for either 2 or 5 total). It still doesn't compare to a ServerWorks ServerSet III series. > A t-1 is still only 1/6th of a ten base ethernet card... and how much > power does it take to deliver products at one sixth of a 10base card? > Yeah, I know.... it's more complex than that. Database apps can eat up a > lot, email/spam systems can eat up HUGE amounts of processing power. But > if you're mostly delivering web pages, it just doesn't take much. I guess I've been too used to having a GbE saturated. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

RE: [CentOS] Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

From: Robert Hanson <roberth(a)abbacomm.net> > exactly one of the reasons i started this thread... > 1st and most important bottom line is that CentOS works for me. And for myself as well. I deploy it like RHEL, just without the SLA. > 2nd is that I need to lay a different type of solid foundation of server > hardware with CentOS to jump from, other than the machines I build from > scratch... even though they work fine and last forever... I self-assemble personal systems, possibly even desktops on occassion. I tend to avoid it when it comes to consulting and servers, never. [ SIDE NOTE: You'll note I purposely use the term "assemble," not build. That's my Angineer (anal engineer) coming out in me, although even I slip at times. ;-] I'll deploy whatever tier-1 OEM the client has standardized on. When they are open to it, Monarch Computer has built itself as a solid tier-2 vendor that will assemble whatever you need, but they have well tested in other sales. I've yet to throw something at Monarch Computer they can't deliver for a client. 1U, 2U, 3U, 4 ... value, commodity or enterprise, they do it well at almost a "NewEgg-level" price. And did I mention they are basically the first OEM with the latest AMD stuff? Let alone have no issue in supporting 3Ware. And if you want RHEL with SLAs, they'll bundle it with software support for the hardware (RHEL AS is around only $1,300 sold as such). Of course, they'll also ship with Debian, Fedora Core, SuSE Linux, etc... too if you just want software (and hardware-only support). > unfortunately I have NEVER (looked for years too) found cheap yet rock > solid 2U - 4U rack mount cases with or without redundant power > supplies and any other goodies. $200 or much less I think would be > adequate eh? _Not_ on redundant, hot-swap power. Now if you're mainboard takes redundant power (and handles the transient), that's another story. > It's like everyone "goes stupid" when you ask where to get them > (i.e. cheap reliable solid rack mount cases) or something. I mean > really extremely brain dead never heard of em cant do it they cost > and arm and a leg and we cannot stand behind it stupid!! Monarch Computer does a good job. Most of their assemble-to-order prices are extremely competitive. It's all about volume. > Isn't there a market for that so we can build CentOS servers galore? I think people are more interested in getting the whole hardware+ software deal, or getting it at economies-of-scale volume. Monarch Computer is tough to beat in the combined price/service and I consider them a tier-2. > anyways... some of this started when Bryan and others mentioned > that the PIII chip had some advantages over some P4 versions or > something to that effect. All I said was that old P3s aren't always "worse" than P4s. Especially the "cheap" P4-Celeron chipset-interconnect designs I've seen. Especially if you can find a ServerSet IIIHE[-SL] chipset. As far as the P3 v. P4 core, P4 sucks in comparison MHz for MHz to a P3. That's why Intel is going back to it for all new designs (beyond just the current Pentium M). -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

From: Ken Godee <ken(a)perfect-image.com> > I'll also add that the "Proliant Support Pack" works as well. Definitely agree on the PSPs and HP System Insight Manager (SIM) tools available for HP platforms. Especially if the system has an integrated Lights-Out (iLO) board (typically an embedded PowerPC). -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Tony Wicks <tonyw(a)tonyw.com> > Hmm, if you drop the "gold" support it drops to 1944USD. Still strange, > we are used to paying more not less for hardware here in New Zealand. I'm really hesitant to pay that much for a crippled Celeron with an old i960 microcontroller for an SATA controller. I'd much rather go with Monarch Computer and get something better for the same price, especially in an Opteron 1xx that will eat the Celeron alive (along with the greater choice in controllers). Which brings us back to the "old" P3 DL3xx series. I'd prefer to go that direction, with an added 64-bit @ 66MHz PCI SATA controller, than pay for a P4-core Celeron. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers -- whoa!
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Tony Wicks <tonyw(a)tonyw.com> > I run Centos on Compaq dl380g1/2/3's and Dell servers. While the > Compaqs are strong hardware they are old and frankly the performance > compared to modern (cheap or otherwise) hardware is not really that > impressive. A dual 1 gig P3 dl380 and ultra 3 scsi drives get significantly > out performed by a generic celeron with software raid SATA drives. Whoa! Who said U160 SCSI was faster than SATA? That's a common farce! In fact, it's the whole reason why SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is coming about. SAS can even use SATA drives. I don't think that's is a good comparison at all. You're changing too many variables. Especially when you're comparing ultra-high density SATA drives to typical, lower-density U160 SCSI drives. Latency might be better, but throughout is clearly not. It all depends on your application. > I firmly believe the best value for money and performance is the Dell > Poweredge 750 with hardware raid SATA drives. The PE 750 is cheap > and installs out of the box (Centos 3 and 4), performes flawlessly and > is extremely fast. Depends on the app, but you might be correct for many applications. And, just because I'm curious, "hardware RAID SATA" by what controller? -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

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