Hi all,
I see centos 3.5Beta in the beta.centos.org. Is this the next release of version 3 ? Strangely, 3.4 is not the final release of version 3 ?
Thx Ceg Ryan
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 11:54 +0800, Ceg Ryan wrote:
Hi all,
I see centos 3.5Beta in the beta.centos.org. Is this the next release of version 3 ? Strangely, 3.4 is not the final release of version 3 ?
Thx Ceg Ryan _______________________________________________
Quarterly (about) RHEL releases new ISOs for RHEL-3 and RHEL-4. They call them Update1, Update2, etc. Almost all BugFix updates and enhancements are done via those releases. The RHEL update release CDs boot the latest RH Kernel and contain all updates to that point on the new ISOs.
CentOS uses point releases that match the update number. So CentOS-3.1 was RHEL with Update 1 ... CentOS-3.3 is all the changes for update3, etc. Currently, RedHat has RHEL4 update4 with update 5 in beta: https://www.redhat.com/archives/taroon-list/2005-March/msg00291.html
When RH releases their Update5 .. CentOS will release CentOS-3.5.
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 05:07 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: <snip>
Currently, RedHat has
RHEL4 update4
I meant RHEL3 update 4 :)
with update 5 in beta: https://www.redhat.com/archives/taroon-list/2005-March/msg00291.html
When RHEL releases their RHEL3 Update5 .. CentOS will release CentOS-3.5.
Is there any way we could get access to the beta's to test out as I'd really be interested in trying it on my laptop which runs centos 4. I'm fully aware of the risks, etc, etc. thus god invented backups, plus it's nice to see what changes are made so i'll be comfortable running the final release on my production machines.
I think CentOS users passing along bug reports to Redhat, especially with beta releases would be very benificial to redhat end users and centos end users alike.
I ask only as i've not seen any rpm's just directories on the beta server, and i know that they've been released for quite a while now, for the most part.
On 5/11/05, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 05:07 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
<snip> > Currently, RedHat has
RHEL4 update4
I meant RHEL3 update 4 :)
with update 5 in beta: https://www.redhat.com/archives/taroon-list/2005-March/msg00291.html
When RHEL releases their RHEL3 Update5 .. CentOS will release CentOS-3.5.
BodyID:513413002.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 06:30 -0400, Beau Henderson wrote:
Is there any way we could get access to the beta's to test out as I'd really be interested in trying it on my laptop which runs centos 4. I'm fully aware of the risks, etc, etc. thus god invented backups, plus it's nice to see what changes are made so i'll be comfortable running the final release on my production machines.
I think CentOS users passing along bug reports to Redhat, especially with beta releases would be very benificial to redhat end users and centos end users alike.
I ask only as i've not seen any rpm's just directories on the beta server, and i know that they've been released for quite a while now, for the most part.
http://beta.centos.org/centos/
:)
I must be missing something though, because all i can find is srpm's for 3.5 and not even that for 4.1, no rpm's in site, or are they somehow just not visable us mere humans?
On 5/11/05, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 06:30 -0400, Beau Henderson wrote:
Is there any way we could get access to the beta's to test out as I'd really be interested in trying it on my laptop which runs centos 4. I'm fully aware of the risks, etc, etc. thus god invented backups, plus it's nice to see what changes are made so i'll be comfortable running the final release on my production machines.
I think CentOS users passing along bug reports to Redhat, especially with beta releases would be very benificial to redhat end users and centos end users alike.
I ask only as i've not seen any rpm's just directories on the beta server, and i know that they've been released for quite a while now, for the most part.
http://beta.centos.org/centos/
:)
BodyID:513436286.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Beau Henderson wrote:
I must be missing something though, because all i can find is srpm's for 3.5 and not even that for 4.1, no rpm's in site, or are they somehow just not visable us mere humans?
does this work for you :
http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/isos/i386/
- K
-- A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Beau Henderson wrote:
I must be missing something though, because all i can find is srpm's for 3.5 and not even that for 4.1, no rpm's in site, or are they somehow just not visable us mere humans?
does this work for you :
and I can see stuff in :-
http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/os/i386/
so I guess you must be talking about one of the arch'es that havent been done ...
or at least not uploaded :)
Regards Lance
Cool yep works :)
Sorry to hijack the thread, but would it be unwise of me to grab these ISO's and and build my own ( even public ) repo to update my current setup via yum ? I'm guessing the reason this isn't currently an option is availability of diskspace ?
On 5/11/05, Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
Beau Henderson wrote:
I must be missing something though, because all i can find is srpm's for 3.5 and not even that for 4.1, no rpm's in site, or are they somehow just not visable us mere humans?
does this work for you :
http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/isos/i386/
- K
-- A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 08:54 -0400, Beau Henderson wrote:
Cool yep works :)
Sorry to hijack the thread, but would it be unwise of me to grab these ISO's and and build my own ( even public ) repo to update my current setup via yum ? I'm guessing the reason this isn't currently an option is availability of diskspace ?
Are you talking 4.1 or 3.5 :)
For 4.1, we have an internally tested alpha that works, but I didn't want to release it until RH releases the SRPMS publicly :)
For 3.5 You can just point the [base] for the machines you want to update to http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/os/i386/ in yum
Ahh that I did not know.. it was 4.1 i was after, but i'll be happy to wait it out no problemo.
On 5/11/05, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 08:54 -0400, Beau Henderson wrote:
Cool yep works :)
Sorry to hijack the thread, but would it be unwise of me to grab these ISO's and and build my own ( even public ) repo to update my current setup via yum ? I'm guessing the reason this isn't currently an option is availability of diskspace ?
Are you talking 4.1 or 3.5 :)
For 4.1, we have an internally tested alpha that works, but I didn't want to release it until RH releases the SRPMS publicly :)
For 3.5 You can just point the [base] for the machines you want to update to http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/os/i386/ in yum
BodyID:516198353.2.n.logpart (stored separately)
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Beau Henderson wrote:
Cool yep works :)
Sorry to hijack the thread, but would it be unwise of me to grab these ISO's and and build my own ( even public ) repo to update my current setup via yum ? I'm guessing the reason this isn't currently an option is availability of diskspace ?
On 5/11/05, Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
Beau Henderson wrote:
I must be missing something though, because all i can find is srpm's for 3.5 and not even that for 4.1, no rpm's in site, or are they somehow just not visable us mere humans?
does this work for you :
http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/isos/i386/
- K
( as lance posted a minute ago ... ) There are online repo's for the Beta tree for the released Arch's ( eg. http://beta.centos.org/centos/3.5beta/os/i386/ )
get and install centos-release-3-5.2.i386.rpm and centos-yumconf-1-11.noarch.rpm, then run 'yum upgrade' - it should move you over to 3.5Beta
- K
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting. Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Hi all, I have an issue with bind on Centos 4, I recently migrated one of my dns servers to a Centos 4 machine from a Centos 3 machine. The Centos 4 machine is running chroot, apart from that the configs were identical (both have caching-nameserver removed). The Centos 4 machine is very slow at initial lookups -
[root@host3 ~]# dig hotmail.com
; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> hotmail.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 32011 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;hotmail.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION: hotmail.com. 3600 IN A 64.4.33.7 hotmail.com. 3600 IN A 64.4.32.7
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: hotmail.com. 172795 IN NS ns4.msft.net. hotmail.com. 172795 IN NS ns5.msft.net. hotmail.com. 172795 IN NS ns1.msft.net. hotmail.com. 172795 IN NS ns2.msft.net. hotmail.com. 172795 IN NS ns3.msft.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.msft.net. 172800 IN A 207.46.245.230 ns2.msft.net. 172800 IN A 64.4.25.30 ns3.msft.net. 172800 IN A 213.199.144.151 ns4.msft.net. 172800 IN A 207.46.66.75 ns5.msft.net. 172800 IN A 207.46.138.20
;; Query time: 3789 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu May 12 09:48:07 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 239
[root@host3 ~]#
whereas a Centos 3.4 machine on the same subnet is running fine -
[root@host12 named]# dig hotmail.com
; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> hotmail.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 60042 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;hotmail.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION: hotmail.com. 3600 IN A 64.4.33.7 hotmail.com. 3600 IN A 64.4.32.7
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: hotmail.com. 99323 IN NS ns1.msft.net. hotmail.com. 99323 IN NS ns2.msft.net. hotmail.com. 99323 IN NS ns3.msft.net. hotmail.com. 99323 IN NS ns4.msft.net. hotmail.com. 99323 IN NS ns5.msft.net.
;; Query time: 169 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu May 12 09:51:39 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 159
[root@host12 named]#
Has anyone got any ideas ?
thanks
Someone else recently had this problem (search the archives a few days back). His solution was to rebuild a SRPM from Fedora Core of an older BIND and it solved it.
I suggested it might be IPv6 lookups stalling you; try adding:
alias net-pf-10 off
to your /etc/modprobe.conf and reboot the server, see if that fixes the slowness issue. This used to show up when IPv6 was first introduced into Fedora Core, Mozilla had lookup pause issues as well.
-te
Tony Wicks wrote:
identical (both have caching-nameserver removed). The Centos 4 machine is very slow at initial lookups -
I did that ipv6 change and it has made a significant difference (400 ms instead of 4000) -
[root@host3 ~]# dig cisco.com
; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> cisco.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59188 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;cisco.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION: cisco.com. 86400 IN A 198.133.219.25
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: cisco.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.cisco.com. cisco.com. 86400 IN NS ns2.cisco.com.
;; Query time: 415 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu May 12 10:20:34 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 79
Troy Engel wrote:
Someone else recently had this problem (search the archives a few days back). His solution was to rebuild a SRPM from Fedora Core of an older BIND and it solved it.
I suggested it might be IPv6 lookups stalling you; try adding:
alias net-pf-10 off
to your /etc/modprobe.conf and reboot the server, see if that fixes the slowness issue. This used to show up when IPv6 was first introduced into Fedora Core, Mozilla had lookup pause issues as well.
-te
Tony Wicks wrote:
identical (both have caching-nameserver removed). The Centos 4 machine is very slow at initial lookups -
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:24 +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
I did that ipv6 change and it has made a significant difference (400 ms instead of 4000) -
[root@host3 ~]# dig cisco.com
; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> cisco.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59188 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;cisco.com. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION: cisco.com. 86400 IN A 198.133.219.25
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: cisco.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.cisco.com. cisco.com. 86400 IN NS ns2.cisco.com.
;; Query time: 415 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Thu May 12 10:20:34 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 79
Troy Engel wrote:
Someone else recently had this problem (search the archives a few days back). His solution was to rebuild a SRPM from Fedora Core of an older BIND and it solved it.
I suggested it might be IPv6 lookups stalling you; try adding:
alias net-pf-10 off
to your /etc/modprobe.conf and reboot the server, see if that fixes the slowness issue. This used to show up when IPv6 was first introduced into Fedora Core, Mozilla had lookup pause issues as well.
-te
If this is not an issue reported on the RH bugzilla it needs to be :)
let me check
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:24 +1200, Tony Wicks wrote:
I did that ipv6 change and it has made a significant difference (400 ms instead of 4000) -
Troy Engel wrote:
I suggested it might be IPv6 lookups stalling you; try adding:
alias net-pf-10 off
If this is not an issue reported on the RH bugzilla it needs to be :)
let me check
I haven't reported it -- it was just a gut instinct on my part, my bind daemons aren't running on CentOS4/RHEL4 (yet) for me to test or work with it. Tony, you'd be a good person to report this and be able to provide details...
-te