I'm trying to update my server. I have serveral packages to do, but I tried the kernel first:
Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package kernel.i686 0:2.6.9-42.0.2.EL set to be installed --> Running transaction check
Dependencies Resolved
============================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================= Installing: kernel i686 2.6.9-42.0.2.EL update 11 M
Transaction Summary ============================================================================= Install 1 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) Total download size: 11 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Running Transaction Test Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
[root@mail /]# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda2 145M 116M 21M 85% / /dev/sda1 168M 7.0M 152M 5% /boot /dev/sda9 8.2G 3.9G 3.9G 50% /home /dev/sda8 2.0G 341M 1.5G 19% /home/root none 506M 0 506M 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda7 92M 4.1M 83M 5% /tmp /dev/sda5 4.2G 1.5G 2.5G 37% /usr /dev/sda3 981M 743M 189M 80% /var /dev/shm 53M 0 53M 0% /var/amavis/tmp
What to do?
Thanks, Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
That is a common, confusing error.
What it should say is "needs 6MB more than what is currently avaliable".
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
That is a common, confusing error.
What it should say is "needs 6MB more than what is currently avaliable".
[]s
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
That is a common, confusing error.
What it should say is "needs 6MB more than what is currently avaliable".
[]s
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
You are quite wrong there. Are is plenty of gain on "correct partitioning". Having the correct number of partitions will make it possible to you to have partitions with different flag (/usr as read-only, /tmp as nosuid/noexec, /var/log as non-journaling etc), giving you flexibility, speed and security.
The problem is that many people (not saying that is the case here) don't know how to do it right, or even why they are doing it. In those cases, they should stick to the 4 basic partitions (/boot, /, /tmp and swap). But if you know what you are going, partitioning the disk correctly is the best thing to do.
Best Regards,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
That is a common, confusing error.
What it should say is "needs 6MB more than what is currently avaliable".
[]s
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
You are quite wrong there. Are is plenty of gain on "correct partitioning". Having the correct number of partitions will make it possible to you to have partitions with different flag (/usr as read-only, /tmp as nosuid/noexec, /var/log as non-journaling etc), giving you flexibility, speed and security.
The problem is that many people (not saying that is the case here) don't know how to do it right, or even why they are doing it. In those cases, they should stick to the 4 basic partitions (/boot, /, /tmp and swap). But if you know what you are going, partitioning the disk correctly is the best thing to do.
Agreed.. not to mention what happens when the single partition fills! It's nice to have the OS pretty much protected from no space.
Anyway, back to the root of the problem. If the machine has been running a while and has been updated regularly, you likely have 2, 3, 4, or more kernels on the system. Uninstall one or more of the older ones 'NOT' in use and you'll have room again. If it's multi-processor, you'll have two kernels for each update. Just be sure you are only removing the kernels and the old ones. You can fully wreck your system... be 'positive' of what you are doing. It can help to take a look at your bootloader to see what old stuff is in the list.
Best, John Hinton
On 8/28/06, John Hinton webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
That is a common, confusing error.
What it should say is "needs 6MB more than what is currently avaliable".
[]s
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
You are quite wrong there. Are is plenty of gain on "correct partitioning". Having the correct number of partitions will make it possible to you to have partitions with different flag (/usr as read-only, /tmp as nosuid/noexec, /var/log as non-journaling etc), giving you flexibility, speed and security.
The problem is that many people (not saying that is the case here) don't know how to do it right, or even why they are doing it. In those cases, they should stick to the 4 basic partitions (/boot, /, /tmp and swap). But if you know what you are going, partitioning the disk correctly is the best thing to do.
Agreed.. not to mention what happens when the single partition fills! It's nice to have the OS pretty much protected from no space.
Anyway, back to the root of the problem. If the machine has been running a while and has been updated regularly, you likely have 2, 3, 4, or more kernels on the system. Uninstall one or more of the older ones 'NOT' in use and you'll have room again. If it's multi-processor, you'll have two kernels for each update. Just be sure you are only removing the kernels and the old ones.
you can use this,
# yum install yum-utils # package-cleanup --oldkernels
regards, Guillermo.
Guillermo Garron spake the following on 8/28/2006 8:03 AM:
On 8/28/06, John Hinton webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
Transaction Check Error: installing package kernel-2.6.9-42.0.2.EL needs 6MB on the / filesystem
But I have much more than 6M:
That is a common, confusing error.
What it should say is "needs 6MB more than what is currently
avaliable".
[]s
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
You are quite wrong there. Are is plenty of gain on "correct
partitioning".
Having the correct number of partitions will make it possible to you to have partitions with different flag (/usr as read-only, /tmp as nosuid/noexec, /var/log as non-journaling etc), giving you flexibility, speed and security.
The problem is that many people (not saying that is the case here) don't know how to do it right, or even why they are doing it. In those cases, they should stick to the 4 basic partitions (/boot, /, /tmp and swap). But if you know what you are going, partitioning the disk correctly is the best thing to do.
Agreed.. not to mention what happens when the single partition fills! It's nice to have the OS pretty much protected from no space.
Anyway, back to the root of the problem. If the machine has been running a while and has been updated regularly, you likely have 2, 3, 4, or more kernels on the system. Uninstall one or more of the older ones 'NOT' in use and you'll have room again. If it's multi-processor, you'll have two kernels for each update. Just be sure you are only removing the kernels and the old ones.
you can use this,
# yum install yum-utils # package-cleanup --oldkernels
How many kernels does this remove? I like to keep current and one older for a while.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:59:57AM -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
# yum install yum-utils # package-cleanup --oldkernels
How many kernels does this remove? I like to keep current and one older for a while.
It keeps --count=KERNELCOUNT, where KERNELCOUNT defaults to 2.
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 10:59 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
Guillermo Garron spake the following on 8/28/2006 8:03 AM:
On 8/28/06, John Hinton webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
><snip>
you can use this,
# yum install yum-utils # package-cleanup --oldkernels
How many kernels does this remove? I like to keep current and one older for a while.
Lazy? ;-)) When he first posted it, I did a "man ...". The answer is there!
William L. Maltby spake the following on 8/28/2006 11:04 AM:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 10:59 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
Guillermo Garron spake the following on 8/28/2006 8:03 AM:
On 8/28/06, John Hinton webmaster@ew3d.com wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote: > >> <snip>
you can use this,
# yum install yum-utils # package-cleanup --oldkernels
How many kernels does this remove? I like to keep current and one older for a while.
Lazy? ;-)) When he first posted it, I did a "man ...". The answer is there!
But you have to install it before you have the man entry. And it leaves info for others. And yes, maybe a little bit lazy... O:-)
And now that I tried it, it didn't remove the smp kernels, so I had to do it manually. And I don't see anything in the man page about that.
Lazy? ;-)) When he first posted it, I did a "man ...". The answer is there!
But you have to install it before you have the man entry. And it leaves info for others. And yes, maybe a little bit lazy... O:-)
And now that I tried it, it didn't remove the smp kernels, so I had to do it manually. And I don't see anything in the man page about that.
Bazooka Joe fastfish@gmail.com from the Fedora forum wrote this a few days ago. <start qoutation> 1) "uname -r" to tell you what kernel you are running.
2) "rpm -qa | grep kernel"
3) "rpm -e" all the kernel-XXX and kernel-devel-XXX kernels you want to delete. I recommend keeping your last two kernels.
4) In addition, you might want to do the following:
rpm -e `rpm -qa | grep kernel | grep -v smp`
That will remove all kernel and kernel-devel stuff that is not smp. ____ <end of qoutation> regards,
Guillermo.
Guillermo Garron spake the following on 8/28/2006 11:47 AM:
Lazy? ;-)) When he first posted it, I did a "man ...". The answer is there!
But you have to install it before you have the man entry. And it leaves info for others. And yes, maybe a little bit lazy... O:-)
And now that I tried it, it didn't remove the smp kernels, so I had to do it manually. And I don't see anything in the man page about that.
Bazooka Joe fastfish@gmail.com from the Fedora forum wrote this a few days ago.
<start qoutation> 1) "uname -r" to tell you what kernel you are running.
"rpm -qa | grep kernel"
"rpm -e" all the kernel-XXX and kernel-devel-XXX kernels you want to
delete. I recommend keeping your last two kernels.
- In addition, you might want to do the following:
rpm -e `rpm -qa | grep kernel | grep -v smp`
That will remove all kernel and kernel-devel stuff that is not smp. ____ <end of qoutation> regards,
Guillermo.
That is basically what I did to clean it up. A few of the machines were freshly installed a few weeks ago, so they had several kernels on them. I just got too busy to clean up. I just wonder if there is a flaw in the package-cleanup script. If I was any good at python, I would think it is just missing the smp kernels.
kernels for each update. Just be sure you are only removing the kernels and the old ones.
you can use this,
# yum install yum-utils # package-cleanup --oldkernels
How many kernels does this remove? I like to keep current and one older for a while.
I used only one time and did just that, keep the newest and one older. So only two kernels left after aplying the command, but i am not sure this is going to be the behabior always.
greetings.
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
The problem is that many people (not saying that is the case here) don't know how to do it right, or even why they are doing it. In those cases, they should stick to the 4 basic partitions (/boot, /, /tmp and swap).
You are forgetting /home, which I really would put on a partition of its own, as that makes upgrading your Distribution much easier, cause you don't really have to worry about the data there. You can even go for another distribution then and still use your old /home partition.
Ralph
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:26 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:09:06PM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 09:59:04PM -0500, techlist wrote:
<snip>
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
You are quite wrong there. Are is plenty of gain on "correct partitioning". Having the correct number of partitions will make it possible to you to have partitions with different flag (/usr as read-only, /tmp as nosuid/noexec, /var/log as non-journaling etc), giving you flexibility, speed and security.
Rodrigo is 100% correct. Plus, many do as I do, have pre-built bootable (and/or root) partitions on the same or other disks in the machine. Can you imagine the ear-to-ear grin when I try my best to screw myself and end up just rebooting another boot or mounting another root that is ready to go: I feel like I'm *so* damn smart then (easy to overlook the screw up:-)? I also get additional security and performance such as Rodrigo suggests by taking advantage of partitioning. And with my new- found LVM knowledge (still n00b, but coming along nicely) I find that partitions still have a strong use.
The problem is that many people (not saying that is the case here) don't know how to do it right, or even why they are doing it. In those cases, they should stick to the 4 basic partitions (/boot, /, /tmp and swap). But if you know what you are going, partitioning the disk correctly is the best thing to do.
100% right again. Although the terms I tend to think of are not "don't know how to do it right", but "won't take the time to think and do it right". And having experience and knowledge of some of the underlying processes is really useful for more than a basic split. Consideration for the activity profile of the particular node should also come into play.
<snip>
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 15:09 +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
This is why I've always been opposed to this "over partitioning" that people do. It made some sense when hard drives were 2 gig but now it just causes problems for no tangible gain.
I would disagree with this statement. It made less sense (although IMO it still *did* make sense) because it was so hard to get the allocation % correct and there was very little slop to recover. With larger drives, lots of slop and growth room (could leave unallocated space on the disk: couldn't do that often on the small disks). But what really makes it useful (counter-intuitive, but true IMO) is the availability of LVM. Even considering some of the overlapping functionality, aggressive partitioning with aggressive use of the LVM facilities can yield a lot.
But remember that I'm new to LVM and my opinion should be suspect.
<snip>
-
Guillermo Garron -
John Hinton -
Matthew Miller -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
Scott Silva -
techlist -
Tony Wicks -
William L. Maltby