[CentOS] RE: CentOS Digest, Vol 23, Issue 30

-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:28:37 -0500 From: "Drew Weaver" drew.weaver@thenap.com Subject: RE: [CentOS] Redhat 5 delayed until march, Centos april then? To: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Message-ID: B9ECBF8D89E7684EB63FF250E8788B1942C25C@BIGLOG.thenap.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I know they added support in 2.6.18 for 965/s5000 (ich8). ChangeLog-2.6.18-rc1: commit 19039bd0079f282b1023e61212285b5653e3a8ad Author: Takashi Iwai Date: Wed Jun 28 15:52:16 2006 +0200 [ALSA] Add Intel D965 board support Added the support for Intel D965 boards with STAC9227 codec. Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai Signed-off-by: Jaroslav Kysela ChangeLog-2.6.18-rc2: commit ae2c3860eb18712b71861bb6fc8d7e11e0f79e6d Author: Auke Kok Date: Tue Jun 27 09:08:30 2006 -0700 e1000: add ich8lan device ID's Add the device ID's of the supported ICH8 LAN devices. Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg Signed-off-by: Auke Kok commit 1f9e7e3d32f7ff3fd3a936fc9ad59770b3d29774 Author: Auke Kok Date: Tue Jun 27 09:08:26 2006 -0700 e1000: allow user to disable ich8 lock loss workaround The workaround for the ich8 lock loss problem is only needed for a very small amount of systems. This adds an option for the user to disable the workaround. Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg Signed-off-by: Auke Kok commit cd94dd0b648ceb64ca5e41d9ccfa99c1e30e92ef Author: Auke Kok Date: Tue Jun 27 09:08:22 2006 -0700 e1000: integrate ich8 support into driver This hooks up the ich8 structure into the driver itself. Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg Signed-off-by: Auke Kok commit d37ea5d56293b7a883d2a993df5d8b9fb660ed3b Author: Auke Kok Date: Tue Jun 27 09:08:17 2006 -0700 e1000: add ich8lan core functions This implements the core new functions needed for ich8's internal NIC. This includes: * ich8 specific read/write code * flash/nvm access code * software semaphore flag functions * 10/100 PHY (fe - no gigabit speed) support for low-end versions * A workaround for a powerdown sequence problem discovered that affects a small number of motherboard. Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg Signed-off-by: Auke Kok ChangeLog-2.6.18-rc3: commit 08f12edc335d24a89ba2f50b0a5b9d12295ce198 Author: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue Jul 11 11:57:44 2006 -0400 [libata] ata_piix: attempt to fix ICH8 support Take into account the fact that ICH8 changed the register layout of the MAP and PCS register bits. Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:15 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Redhat 5 delayed until march, Centos april then? Drew Weaver wrote: > Its not really a bug, the kernel which comes with the installer > doesn't support the hardware... > Do you know what kernel version does, and can you point out the patch for the driver ? Maybe we can massage it into a driver that works :) -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:24:52 -0800 From: Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com Subject: [CentOS] Re: UPS support on CentOS 4.4 To: centos@centos.org Message-ID: en40va$dba$1@sea.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Edward Diener spake the following on 12/29/2006 7:29 AM: > peter wrote: >> >> >> >>> You are right, but this software needs to be manually run for the end >>> user to find out what is happening. >>> >>> What I really want of course is for a visual window to popup whenever >>> there are A/C problems, and whenever the A/C has lost power and the UPS >>> battery is getting low. >> >>> It is part of apcupsd. I will look at it and see if I can get it going >>> in CentOS 4.4. Thanks for reminding me of it. >> >> >> >> >> I haven't bothered to play with apcupsd just because I don't need to >> worry >> about my power where my boxes live, but on the software note, I tend >> to find >> far more usefull to have linux software do something intelligent like >> send me >> an email when there's a problem so I can just forward that to my cell >> phone, >> and end up notified and able to react wherever I happen to be. > > That is a nice feature to have. > >> >> I don't even see popups on the screen of my workstation, much less >> anything >> I might need a UPS on. Why would I want windows software behavior >> under Linux? > > I don't know what you mean by "windows software behavior" but if I am > working with the screen in front of me and the A/C power to my UPS goes > out or the system needs to shut down because the A/C power has been out > and the UPS battery is running out of power to support my continued > working, I like to experience some sort of notification when these > things are happening. Since I am staring at my screen, a visual > notification seems justified to me. If that seems unusual to you then I > can only surmise that you use your computer differently than I do. > Nonetheless, since it's each to their own, a visual notification is what > I would like to alert me to what is happening. You always have the constant beeping from the UPS, and the sound of the inverters humming. Don't depend on the software to be real accurate on the time remaining, as it is an estimate, and is not always very accurate. I usually close what I am doing , saving if needed, as soon as I hear the damn thing.. I will give it a minute or two, as the building I am in right now has many short (5 to 10 second) sags every day. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!! ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:34:05 -0800 From: Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com Subject: [CentOS] Re: Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. To: centos@centos.org Message-ID: en41gk$erb$1@sea.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Indunil Jayasooriya spake the following on 12/29/2006 3:11 AM: > Hi , > > I have a network to reach which is 192.168.2.0/24 > . It is a branch of the company. I have currently > added a route to that network via one gateway ( 192.168.0.254) > in following way. > > ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.0.254 > > > Now, We got another gateway which is 192.168.0.250 > < Now I want to add a route to the same network > which is 192.168.2.0/24 via this gateway ( > 192.168.0.250 ) as well. > > Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be primary > and the other path should be backup. everything should go via primary > path. > > if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active. > > That is the purpose of doing this. > > Pls let me know whether it is possible or not? > > if possible, How can I achieve this goal. > When you create a route there is a metric number that does this. But you will need a routing daemon running to use it. Another possibility would be to have a script run every 5 minutes in cron that pings the first gateway, and if the ping fails, change the route. It would also need logic to fix the first route when the primary gateway starts answering pings again. -- MailScanner is like deodorant... You hope everybody uses it, and you notice quickly if they don't!!!! ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:39:04 +0000 From: Peter Farrow peter@farrows.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Message-ID: 45958AF8.3000800@farrows.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed You can add a second route and weight it as follows: ip route add equalize 192.168.2.0/24 scope global nexthop via 192.168.0.254 dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.0.250 dev eth0 weight 1 This assumes that: both gateways are connected to eth0 on your linux box You want equal traffic weight down each gateway to the remote network.... Regards P. Indunil Jayasooriya wrote: > Hi , > > I have a network to reach which is *MailScanner warning: numerical > links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 http://192.168.2.0/24. It > is a branch of the company. I have currently added a route to that > network via one gateway ( *MailScanner warning: numerical links are > often malicious:* 192.168.0.254 http://192.168.0.254) in following way. > > ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often > malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 http://192.168.2.0/24 via *MailScanner > warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.254 > http://192.168.0.254 > > Now, We got another gateway which is *MailScanner warning: numerical > links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.250 http://192.168.0.250. Now > I want to add a route to the same network which is *MailScanner > warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 > http://192.168.2.0/24 via this gateway (*MailScanner warning: > numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.250 > http://192.168.0.250) as well. > > Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be > primary and the other path should be backup. everything should go via > primary path. > > if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active. > > That is the purpose of doing this. > > Pls let me know whether it is possible or not? > > if possible, How can I achieve this goal. > > > > > > > -- > Thank you > Indunil Jayasooriya > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by the *Enhancion* http://www.enhancion.net/ > system scanner, > and is believed to be clean. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Enhancion system Scanner and is believed to be clean. http://www.enhancion.net ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:43:49 +0000 From: Peter Farrow peter@farrows.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Message-ID: 45958C15.807@farrows.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To achieve the goal of primary path only, you can heavily weight one path over the other, some traffic will still spill into the other, you can remove the equalize parameter to disable this behaviour, if you take a look at the linux advanced routing howto there are lots of options to play with.. P. Peter Farrow wrote: > You can add a second route and weight it as follows: > ip route add equalize 192.168.2.0/24 scope global nexthop via > 192.168.0.254 dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.0.250 dev eth0 > weight 1 > > This assumes that: > > both gateways are connected to eth0 on your linux box > You want equal traffic weight down each gateway to the remote network.... > > Regards > > P. > > > > Indunil Jayasooriya wrote: >> Hi , >> >> I have a network to reach which is *MailScanner warning: numerical >> links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 http://192.168.2.0/24. >> It is a branch of the company. I have currently added a route to that >> network via one gateway ( *MailScanner warning: numerical links are >> often malicious:* 192.168.0.254 http://192.168.0.254) in following >> way. >> >> ip route add *MailScanner warning: numerical links are often >> malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 http://192.168.2.0/24 via *MailScanner >> warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.254 >> http://192.168.0.254 >> >> Now, We got another gateway which is *MailScanner warning: numerical >> links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.250 http://192.168.0.250. Now >> I want to add a route to the same network which is *MailScanner >> warning: numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.2.0/24 >> http://192.168.2.0/24 via this gateway (*MailScanner warning: >> numerical links are often malicious:* 192.168.0.250 >> http://192.168.0.250) as well. >> >> Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be >> primary and the other path should be backup. everything should go >> via primary path. >> >> if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active. >> >> That is the purpose of doing this. >> >> Pls let me know whether it is possible or not? >> >> if possible, How can I achieve this goal. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thank you >> Indunil Jayasooriya >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by the *Enhancion* http://www.enhancion.net/ >> system scanner, >> and is believed to be clean. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Enhancion system Scanner and is believed to be clean. http://www.enhancion.net ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:07:53 -0600 From: Aleksandar Milivojevic alex@milivojevic.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. To: centos@centos.org Message-ID: 20061229160753.1ibh0xbiuck4c8gk@www.milivojevic.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp=Yes; format=flowed Quoting Indunil Jayasooriya indunil75@gmail.com: > Hi , > > I have a network to reach which is 192.168.2.0/24. It is a branch of the > company. I have currently added a route to that network via one gateway ( > 192.168.0.254) in following way. > > ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.0.254 > > Now, We got another gateway which is 192.168.0.250. Now I want to add a > route to the same network which is 192.168.2.0/24 via this gateway > (192.168.0.250) > as well. > > Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be primary and > the other path should be backup. everything should go via primary path. > > if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active. > > That is the purpose of doing this. > > Pls let me know whether it is possible or not? > > if possible, How can I achieve this goal. One possible solution is to enable one of the routing protocols on your routers, instead of using static routing. For example BGP or OSPF. The routers will than discover which paths to every of the networks you have exist and will dynamically change routing rules (instead of using static set of rules) as the network connections go up and down. In the way you requested in your question. It might be an overkill for simple network. But if your network becomes more complex in the future, you'll have infrastructure to handle it. Another advantage of using standard routing protocol is that they tend to be platform independent. You want to replace that Cisco router with Linux router or Linux router with Cisco router. Guess what, you can use BGP or OSPF on both Linux and Cisco based router and your configuration is not specific to single type of router anymore. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:49:14 +0530 From: "Indunil Jayasooriya" indunil75@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: [CentOS] Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. To: peter@farrows.org, "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Message-ID: 7ed6b0aa0612292119g3b6c624fn251c454d144fa14d@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" HI Peter, Interesting in deed. You say that You can add a second route and weight it as follows: ip route add equalize 192.168.2.0/24 scope global nexthop via 192.168.0.254 dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.0.250 dev eth0 weight 1 I want to know whether I can use the above command , when the below command exists . ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.0.254 Then I want to know about your second answer which is "To achieve the goal of primary path only, you can heavily weight one path over the other, some traffic will still spill into the other, you can remove the equalize parameter to disable this behaviour " herein, what is this "you can heavily weight one path over the other" When weight 1 and weight 1 , Both paths are equal. If I use weight 1 and weight 100 , what would be the primary path ? Is it weight 1 ? Is it the lower number which becomes primary ? Then , in my case, is the following coomad is right? ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 scope global nexthop via 192.168.0.254 dev eth0 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.0.250 dev eth0 weight 100 I guess with the above command that traffc will flow via primary, when it fails , traffic will flow via secondary. That is what I need. Am I right ? Then can I acheive this goal ? Thanks Indunil ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aleksandar Milivojevic alex@milivojevic.org Date: Dec 30, 2006 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Fwd: How to add a route to a network via 2 gateways. To: centos@centos.org Quoting Indunil Jayasooriya indunil75@gmail.com: > Hi , > > I have a network to reach which is 192.168.2.0/24. It is a branch of the > company. I have currently added a route to that network via one gateway ( > 192.168.0.254) in following way. > > ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.0.254 > > Now, We got another gateway which is 192.168.0.250. Now I want to add a > route to the same network which is 192.168.2.0/24 via this gateway > (192.168.0.250) > as well. > > Then I will have 2 paths to the same network. One path should be primary and > the other path should be backup. everything should go via primary path. > > if the primary path goes down, the backup path should be active. > > That is the purpose of doing this. > > Pls let me know whether it is possible or not? > > if possible, How can I achieve this goal. One possible solution is to enable one of the routing protocols on your routers, instead of using static routing. For example BGP or OSPF. The routers will than discover which paths to every of the networks you have exist and will dynamically change routing rules (instead of using static set of rules) as the network connections go up and down. In the way you requested in your question. It might be an overkill for simple network. But if your network becomes more complex in the future, you'll have infrastructure to handle it. Another advantage of using standard routing protocol is that they tend to be platform independent. You want to replace that Cisco router with Linux router or Linux router with Cisco router. Guess what, you can use BGP or OSPF on both Linux and Cisco based router and your configuration is not specific to single type of router anymore. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Thank you Indunil Jayasooriya