Re: [CentOS] Starting asterisk: /usr/sbin/safe_asterisk: line 86: ulimit: open files: cannot modify limit: Operation not permitted

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please help me understand about the below issue ?
>
> [root@asterisk1 ~]# /etc/init.d/asterisk restart
> Stopping safe_asterisk:[  OK  ]
> Shutting down asterisk:[  OK  ]
> Starting asterisk: /usr/sbin/safe_asterisk: line 86: ulimit: open
> files: cannot modify limit: Operation not permitted

the message is pretty clear...
man ulimit
looks like that script is non-root when it tries to change the open 
files ulimit, and tries to change it beyond the hard limit. So, fails.
Or if it's not non-root it could be selinux interfering (?).
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] mounting a CentOS 5.5-based NFS partitions from a Mac OS X machine

[Tom H]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Boris Epstein  wrote:
>>
>> As Tom mentioned, you need the "insecure" exports option on the NFS server
>> side, otherwise I don't do anything special on the client. I'm sourcing
>> the automount maps through LDAP. Try mounting via IP address rather than
>> NFS server name; I've had some issues with this on Mac clients.
>
> I wish this could help but I am exporting with "insecure" already...

Is the OS X firewall blocking nfs?

How are you mounting the export? If you're not trying it from within
Terminal, does it work from within it?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOS 4 on IBMX3200 M3

[Torintino T]

I tried to setup CentOS 4.7 on IBM X3200 M3 but i couldn't, isn't it compatible?
if so what's the CentOS 4 release that's compatible with IBM X3200 M3?

and should i install I386 or X86_64?

Thanks
  ___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4 on IBMX3200 M3

[John Doe]

From: Torintino T 
>I tried to setup CentOS 4.7 on IBM X3200 M3 but i couldn't, isn't it 
>compatible?
>if so what's the CentOS 4 release that's compatible with IBM X3200 M3?
>and should i install I386 or X86_64?


In your server's product guide, you can read:
"Operating systems supported : ... RHEL 4/5 32/64-bit with and without Xen..."
So yes, CentOS 4 should be supported...
By the way, the latest 4.x version is 4.8... and soon 4.9.
Unless you have specific reasons to go 32-bit, go 64...

JD

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] OT: 1.1.1.1 is not private anymore?

[Fajar Priyanto]

Hi all,
Our network is suspected to be infected by malware by the detector in
upline network.
Turns out that some of our developers use 1.1.1.1 as a "pinging testing".

Google comes to my knowledge that 1.1.1.1 is not a private IP anymore?
Since when?
Also Google says 1.1.1.1 is well-known to be used by botnet command
and control host??

I've blocked it in the local gateway. Just curious..
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] OT: 1.1.1.1 is not private anymore?

[Pablo Martinez Schroder]

1/8 was debogonized last year, you can read something about it on
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/franz/content-pollution-18

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fajar Priyanto  wrote:

> Hi all,
> Our network is suspected to be infected by malware by the detector in
> upline network.
> Turns out that some of our developers use 1.1.1.1 as a "pinging testing".
>
> Google comes to my knowledge that 1.1.1.1 is not a private IP anymore?
> Since when?
> Also Google says 1.1.1.1 is well-known to be used by botnet command
> and control host??
>
> I've blocked it in the local gateway. Just curious..
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Power-outage

[Timothy Murphy]

I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
where there are occasional thunder-storms.

There was one yesterday, when the electricity
went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.

My server, an HP MicroServer,
came back (re-booted) on 2 of the 3 occasions,
but not on the third.

I assume that the problem arises because the machine
does not close down properly.
(Although it is also possible that a voltage surge
might have been responsible -
I have no surge protector on this supply.)

It seems to me that it should be possible
to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
which will keep the machine alive long enough
to make a graceful exit.
A full-blown UPS would be excessive, I think,
as I only want the machine to re-boot
when the current comes back on.

I know there is a Remote Management (iLO) card
for this machine, which might be useful for this.
Unfortunately, I've already used the PCIe slot
for a second ethernet card.

Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[John Hodrien]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:

> I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
> where there are occasional thunder-storms.
>
> There was one yesterday, when the electricity
> went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.



Just buy a really basic UPS.  I don't know what the prices are like where you
are, but a crappy 500VA UPS can be had for about 25 uk pounds.

I've only ever monitored APC UPSs which can be monitored easily from linux, so
check for linux compatibility before buying something obscure.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Rudi Ahlers]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Timothy Murphy  wrote:
> I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
> where there are occasional thunder-storms.
>
> There was one yesterday, when the electricity
> went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.
>
> My server, an HP MicroServer,
> came back (re-booted) on 2 of the 3 occasions,
> but not on the third.
>
> I assume that the problem arises because the machine
> does not close down properly.
> (Although it is also possible that a voltage surge
> might have been responsible -
> I have no surge protector on this supply.)
>
> It seems to me that it should be possible
> to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
> which will keep the machine alive long enough
> to make a graceful exit.
> A full-blown UPS would be excessive, I think,
> as I only want the machine to re-boot
> when the current comes back on.
>
> I know there is a Remote Management (iLO) card
> for this machine, which might be useful for this.
> Unfortunately, I've already used the PCIe slot
> for a second ethernet card.
>
> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
>
> --
> Timothy Murphy
> e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
> tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
> s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
>
> ___
>

A UPS would be your simplest option here since the UPS can send a
signal to the OS to shutdown properly.

Using a "torch battery" (I presume this is a large torch?) you'll
still have the same issue as you have now - when the battery runs flat
(i.e. power outage is longer than 10 minutes or so) Linux will still
crash uncleanly.


-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Robert Heller]

At Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:26:10 +0100 (BST) CentOS mailing list  
wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> 
> > I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
> > where there are occasional thunder-storms.
> >
> > There was one yesterday, when the electricity
> > went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Just buy a really basic UPS.  I don't know what the prices are like where you
> are, but a crappy 500VA UPS can be had for about 25 uk pounds.
> 
> I've only ever monitored APC UPSs which can be monitored easily from linux, so
> check for linux compatibility before buying something obscure.

With a non-Linux compatable UPS, you can use a old analog serial modem
as a power sensor. If the machine has a serial port (RS-232), you can
plug the modem into the wall outlet and connect it to the computer's
serial port.  When the power goes out, the modem goes off and powerd can
sense the loss of Modem Ready and treat that as a 'power failure'
signal.  This trick works for cheap, obscure or basic *dumb* UPSs.

> 
> jh
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
>   

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments


 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Ryan Wagoner]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Timothy Murphy  wrote:
> I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
> where there are occasional thunder-storms.
>
> There was one yesterday, when the electricity
> went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.
>
> My server, an HP MicroServer,
> came back (re-booted) on 2 of the 3 occasions,
> but not on the third.
>
> I assume that the problem arises because the machine
> does not close down properly.
> (Although it is also possible that a voltage surge
> might have been responsible -
> I have no surge protector on this supply.)
>

I've seen this happen before. The machine looses power long enough for
the system to hang as the proper voltage is not maintained, but not
long enough for it to turn off. A cheap UPS is what you need. Just
something to smooth out the momentary power faults so the machine can
shutdown or restart. A APC Back-UPs would be perfect and shouldn't
break the bank. You don't need an expensive sinewave output like the
APC Smart-UPS for what you are trying to accomplish.

Ryan
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[John Hodrien]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Robert Heller wrote:

> With a non-Linux compatable UPS, you can use a old analog serial modem
> as a power sensor. If the machine has a serial port (RS-232), you can
> plug the modem into the wall outlet and connect it to the computer's
> serial port.  When the power goes out, the modem goes off and powerd can
> sense the loss of Modem Ready and treat that as a 'power failure'
> signal.  This trick works for cheap, obscure or basic *dumb* UPSs.

Nice. ;)

Another trick I used was to hook the monitor up to non-UPS power, and connect
the USB hub within it to the PC.  A udev trigger than runs a script when the
device appears or disappers.  In my case it was to reconfigure the displays
when monitors were turned on, but I'd not thought of using it for UPS
monitoring.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Robert Heller wrote:
> At Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:26:10 +0100 (BST) CentOS mailing list 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
>>> where there are occasional thunder-storms.
>>>
>>> There was one yesterday, when the electricity
>>> went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.
>> 
>>
>> Just buy a really basic UPS.  I don't know what the prices are like where you
>> are, but a crappy 500VA UPS can be had for about 25 uk pounds.
>>
>> I've only ever monitored APC UPSs which can be monitored easily from linux, 
>> so
>> check for linux compatibility before buying something obscure.
> 
> With a non-Linux compatable UPS, you can use a old analog serial modem
> as a power sensor. If the machine has a serial port (RS-232), you can
> plug the modem into the wall outlet and connect it to the computer's
> serial port.  When the power goes out, the modem goes off and powerd can
> sense the loss of Modem Ready and treat that as a 'power failure'
> signal.  This trick works for cheap, obscure or basic *dumb* UPSs.
> 
>> jh
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>>   
> 
Another solution could be cheap router with IP not pluged into UPS. If 
server can not ping that IP, you would shut it down, via script.

Ljubomir

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Ryan Wagoner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Timothy Murphy 
> wrote:
>> I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
>> where there are occasional thunder-storms.
>>
>> There was one yesterday, when the electricity
>> went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.

>> (Although it is also possible that a voltage surge
>> might have been responsible - I have no surge protector on this supply.)

Speaking as someone who's lived in Chicago, central Florida, and the
Washington, DC metro area, DON'T trust the electricity, always have your
machine on a cheap surge protector, at least.

> long enough for it to turn off. A cheap UPS is what you need. Just
> something to smooth out the momentary power faults so the machine can
> shutdown or restart. A APC Back-UPs would be perfect and shouldn't

Any of them. I've got a CyberPower at home, and have had another brand,
and they *all* have a USB connection; none cost me more, over the last 10
years, than about $70 US.

Nothing against APC - we have a ton of them (literally, or more) at work -
it's just that these were cheaper by 10%-25%.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:26:10 +0100 (BST) CentOS mailing list
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>>
 I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
 where there are occasional thunder-storms.

 There was one yesterday, when the electricity
 went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.

>> With a non-Linux compatable UPS, you can use a old analog serial modem

> Another solution could be cheap router with IP not pluged into UPS. If
> server can not ping that IP, you would shut it down, via script.

*shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
are all you need.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[John Hodrien]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

> *shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
> years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
> are all you need.

Only if it speaks the right language which doesn't seem to be guaranteed.
apcupsd didn't have a clue about a Liebert UPS I tried it with.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

John Hodrien wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> 
>> *shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
>> years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
>> are all you need.
> 
> Only if it speaks the right language which doesn't seem to be guaranteed.
> apcupsd didn't have a clue about a Liebert UPS I tried it with.
> 
Have you reported this to apcupsd developers?

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

John Hodrien wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> *shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
>> years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
>> are all you need.
>
> Only if it speaks the right language which doesn't seem to be guaranteed.
> apcupsd didn't have a clue about a Liebert UPS I tried it with.
>
Ok, that's an interesting datapoint that I need to file away, for the next
UPS I buy. Thanks for the info.

   mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[John Hodrien]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:

> John Hodrien wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>>> *shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
>>> years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
>>> are all you need.
>>
>> Only if it speaks the right language which doesn't seem to be guaranteed.
>> apcupsd didn't have a clue about a Liebert UPS I tried it with.
>>
> Have you reported this to apcupsd developers?

This was some years ago, but no, I don't think I did.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> John Hodrien wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>
>>> *shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
>>> years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
>>> are all you need.
>>
>> Only if it speaks the right language which doesn't seem to be
>> guaranteed.apcupsd didn't have a clue about a Liebert UPS I tried it with.
>>
> Have you reported this to apcupsd developers?

They may not be that interested; I mean, it *is* APC UPS daemon

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Brent L. Bates]

 apcupsd is only suppose to work with APC's UPS's and the apcupsd
developer will not deal with complaints about UPS's from other manufacturers.
 If your non-APC UPS works with apcupsd, then count yourself lucky.  If you
want to use another manufacturer's UPS, check out NUT
(http://www.networkupstools.org/) to see if it will work with your UPS.  One
last thing, APC has changed their communications protocol (it's called
microlink now) on new UPS's, so apcupsd doesn't work nearly as well as it used
to.

-- 

  Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.)
  M.S. 912  Phone:(757) 865-1400, x204
  NASA Langley Research CenterFAX:(757) 865-8177
  Hampton, Virginia  23681-0001
  Email: b.l.ba...@larc.nasa.govhttp://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] OT: 1.1.1.1 is not private anymore?

[Lamar Owen]

On Friday, July 01, 2011 05:52:51 AM Fajar Priyanto wrote:
> Google comes to my knowledge that 1.1.1.1 is not a private IP anymore?
> Since when?

1.1.1.1 has never been an RFC1918 'private' address.  Applications that treat 
it as such are broken.

RFC1918 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 ) only list three address blocks 
for private use: 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, and 192.168.0.0/16

All other blocks are either reserved or are allocated (at this point, at least).
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Fajar Priyanto]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Timothy Murphy  wrote:
> It seems to me that it should be possible
> to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
> which will keep the machine alive long enough
> to make a graceful exit.
> A full-blown UPS would be excessive, I think,
> as I only want the machine to re-boot
> when the current comes back on.

I believe a personal UPS would be quite cheap.
Much cheaper than losing data.
The UPS can tell the OS to shutdown on power loss.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Colin Coles]

On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.

If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP servers and 
most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not produce the pure 
sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a crude stepped voltage.

Colin.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Nicolas Thierry-Mieg]

Colin Coles wrote:
> On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
>
> If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP servers and
> most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not produce the pure
> sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a crude stepped voltage.

perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs 
in those servers?
I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Colin Coles wrote:
>> On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
>>
>> If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP servers
>> and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not produce the
>> pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a crude stepped
>> voltage.
>
> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
> in those servers?
> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?

I agree. Esp. since, other than in datacenters, *most* electric power is
pretty crappy.

mark "let's not discuss ComEd in Chicago"

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Colin Coles]

On Friday 01 July 2011 15:25, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Colin Coles wrote:
> > On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> >> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
> >
> > If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP servers
> > and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not produce the
> > pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a crude stepped
> > voltage.
>
> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
> in those servers?
> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?

Lock-in tactics I think, I ended up having to buy HP USP's at about 5x the 
price.

Colin
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Colin Coles wrote:
> On Friday 01 July 2011 15:25, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>> Colin Coles wrote:
>> > On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> >> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
>> >
>> > If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP
>> >servers and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not
>> > produce the pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a
>> > crude stepped voltage.
>>
>> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
>> in those servers?
>> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
>
> Lock-in tactics I think, I ended up having to buy HP USP's at about 5x the
> price.

Question: are we talking server-grade systems, rackmounts? I can't imagine
that they'd do that for consumer-grade machines.

   mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Blake Hudson]

 Original Message  
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Power-outage
From: m.r...@5-cent.us
To: CentOS mailing list 
Date: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:28:21 AM
> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>> Colin Coles wrote:
>>> On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
 Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
>>> If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP servers
>>> and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not produce the
>>> pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a crude stepped
>>> voltage.
>> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
>> in those servers?
>> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
> I agree. Esp. since, other than in datacenters, *most* electric power is
> pretty crappy.
>
> mark "let's not discuss ComEd in Chicago"
>

I would have to disagree. They probably put high efficiency active PFC
power supplies in the servers to save YOU money. You could buy a cheaper
PSU that will not be as efficient and would thus cost you more in
electric costs and create more heat (which would again cost you more in
AC bills and reduce server density). The active PFC supplies are
actually better at dealing with high/low voltages, however they do
require actual AC power that conforms to a true sine wave. Newer/better
UPS units output sine waves, cheaper or older UPS units may only output
approximated (aka stepped) sine waves.

Dell has done this in some of their boxes too, and I would expect to see
it occur more often as more consumers are looking at 80+ and better
certified PSUs.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Colin Coles]

On Friday 01 July 2011 15:38, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Question: are we talking server-grade systems, rackmounts? I can't imagine
> that they'd do that for consumer-grade machines.

DL385 G7 rackmounts, wonderfull machines otherwise.

Colin.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Blake Hudson wrote:
> From: m.r...@5-cent.us
>> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>>> Colin Coles wrote:
 On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
 If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP
 servers and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not
 produce the pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a
 crude stepped voltage.
>>> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
>>> in those servers?
>>> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
>> I agree. Esp. since, other than in datacenters, *most* electric power is
>> pretty crappy.
>
> I would have to disagree. They probably put high efficiency active PFC
> power supplies in the servers to save YOU money. You could buy a cheaper
> PSU that will not be as efficient and would thus cost you more in
> electric costs and create more heat (which would again cost you more in
> AC bills and reduce server density). The active PFC supplies are

Except that I expect datacenters to have conditioned power, and so they
can cheap out with the servers, with the same expectations. And I would
expect consumer-grade systems to not have fancy power units, but ones that
won't die on power irregularities from the electric co's.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Robert Heller]

At Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:23:31 -0400 CentOS mailing list  wrote:

> 
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> > Robert Heller wrote:
> >> At Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:26:10 +0100 (BST) CentOS mailing list
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> >>>
>  I have a CentOS-5.6 remote server in a house in Italy,
>  where there are occasional thunder-storms.
> 
>  There was one yesterday, when the electricity
>  went off 3 times, for a second or so on each occasion.
> 
> >> With a non-Linux compatable UPS, you can use a old analog serial modem
> 
> > Another solution could be cheap router with IP not pluged into UPS. If
> > server can not ping that IP, you would shut it down, via script.
> 
> *shrug* I think all the UPSs I've seen for consumers in the last five
> years seem to have a USB port to go to the computer. That, and apcupsd,
> are all you need.

APC UPSes are supported by apcupsd.  Other brands, not so much.  Some
(read: cheaper models) have their own special protocol and don't
include Linux support.  These solutions are intended for the cheaper or
otherwise 'unsupported' UPSes.  It *sounds* like the OP does not need
something smart and is probably looking for something cheap.

> 
> mark
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments



   
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Robert Heller]

At Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:25:33 +0200 CentOS mailing list  
wrote:

> 
> Colin Coles wrote:
> > On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
> >
> > If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP servers and
> > most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not produce the pure
> > sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a crude stepped voltage.
> 
> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs 
> in those servers?
> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?

AND *I* thought *switching power supplies* (effectively) rectified the
AC input and then used the DC to drive a higher frequency system to get
the desired output voltages.  (The higher frequency means smaller, more
efficient transformers and need smaller filter caps -- all of which
means a lower cost, more reliable, more efficient power supply.)  Which
suggests that both the input voltage and frequency are not particularly
critical, so long as it does not have massive spikes/surges or
consistently low voltage. 

> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
>

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments


 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Blake Hudson]

 Original Message  
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Power-outage
From: m.r...@5-cent.us
To: CentOS mailing list 
Date: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:57:41 AM
> Blake Hudson wrote:
>> From: m.r...@5-cent.us
>>> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
 Colin Coles wrote:
> On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
> If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP
> servers and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not
> produce the pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a
> crude stepped voltage.
 perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
 in those servers?
 I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
>>> I agree. Esp. since, other than in datacenters, *most* electric power is
>>> pretty crappy.
>> I would have to disagree. They probably put high efficiency active PFC
>> power supplies in the servers to save YOU money. You could buy a cheaper
>> PSU that will not be as efficient and would thus cost you more in
>> electric costs and create more heat (which would again cost you more in
>> AC bills and reduce server density). The active PFC supplies are
> Except that I expect datacenters to have conditioned power, and so they
> can cheap out with the servers, with the same expectations. And I would
> expect consumer-grade systems to not have fancy power units, but ones that
> won't die on power irregularities from the electric co's.
> 
> mark
I think you missed the point - While manufacturer's could (and probably
sometimes do) "cheap out with the servers" power supplies, it is not in
your best interest (or their's).

More efficient PSUs create less waste heat and draw less power which
means higher density, more performance, etc. This is more important in
the server space where the computers are on 24/7 and tightly packed into
racks. More efficient PSUs cost more upfront than inefficient ones,
which mean that Dell/HP/etc can probably make a higher profit. In the
long term, you may be saving $50-100 per server per year on reduced
electric and associated costs. If you're in a colo with power draw
restrictions, you may be saving even more.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Thomas Harold]

On 7/1/2011 10:59 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> APC UPSes are supported by apcupsd.  Other brands, not so much.  Some
> (read: cheaper models) have their own special protocol and don't
> include Linux support.  These solutions are intended for the cheaper or
> otherwise 'unsupported' UPSes.  It *sounds* like the OP does not need
> something smart and is probably looking for something cheap.
>

And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive either.  Even 
the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they were 5-10 years ago. 
  $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth of hardware is worth it in my book.

(I prefer the Smart-UPS units for a variety of reasons.  Line filtering, 
voltage regulation, and nice reporting features via apcupsd.  We have 
MRTG polling the apcupsd data regularly and have graphs of line voltage 
/ operating temperature.  There are even variants with the audible alarm 
disabled, which is perfect for a home office where you don't need that 
high powered screech.)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Brunner, Brian T.]

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> On 7/1/2011 10:59 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> 
>> APC UPSes are supported by apcupsd.  Other brands, not so much.  Some
>> (read: cheaper models) have their own special protocol and don't
>> include Linux support.  These solutions are intended for the cheaper
>> or otherwise 'unsupported' UPSes.  It *sounds* like the OP does not
>> need something smart and is probably looking for something cheap.
>> 
> 
> And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive
> either.  Even the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they were
5-10
> years ago.   $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth of hardware is
worth
> it in my book.

To what extent does a UPS *protect* the hardware?
Maintaining up-time during brief brown-outs is one thing I expect of a
UPS,
Orderly shutdown is another thing I expect of a UPS.

*protection* of the PC from irregularity in the AC Mains by a UPS,
however, I question.
Rather, it seems, any power irregularity that would kill a PC by
propagating through the PSU will also propagate through the UPS.

NO UPS MADE TODAY (according to my reading of the stats on
advertisements) eats lightning strikes and asks for more.

So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
moments that take our breath away. 


//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Blake Hudson wrote:
> From: m.r...@5-cent.us
>> Blake Hudson wrote:
>>> From: m.r...@5-cent.us
 Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Colin Coles wrote:
>> On Friday 01 July 2011 12:05, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>> Any advice or suggestions gratefully received.
>> If you are thinking of the UPS route a caveat: I have several HP
>> servers and most of them will not work on cheap UPS's as they do not
>> produce the pure sine wave modern HP machines require but rather a
>> crude stepped voltage.
> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy
> PSUs
> in those servers?
> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
 I agree. Esp. since, other than in datacenters, *most* electric power
 is
 pretty crappy.
>>> I would have to disagree. They probably put high efficiency active PFC
>>> power supplies in the servers to save YOU money. You could buy a
>>> cheaper
>>> PSU that will not be as efficient and would thus cost you more in
>>> electric costs and create more heat (which would again cost you more in
>>> AC bills and reduce server density). The active PFC supplies are
>> Except that I expect datacenters to have conditioned power, and so they
>> can cheap out with the servers, with the same expectations. And I would
>> expect consumer-grade systems to not have fancy power units, but ones
>> that
>> won't die on power irregularities from the electric co's.
>> 

> I think you missed the point - While manufacturer's could (and probably
> sometimes do) "cheap out with the servers" power supplies, it is not in
> your best interest (or their's).

Oh, I haven't missed the point - you missed my point, that they will cheap
out - that's in the interest of their stockholders, and their exec's stock
options. Better power supplies, though they actually cost *them* a few
dollars more, are much more expensive options.
>
> More efficient PSUs create less waste heat and draw less power which
> means higher density, more performance, etc. This is more important in
> the server space where the computers are on 24/7 and tightly packed into
> racks. More efficient PSUs cost more upfront than inefficient ones,
> which mean that Dell/HP/etc can probably make a higher profit. In the
> long term, you may be saving $50-100 per server per year on reduced
> electric and associated costs. If you're in a colo with power draw
> restrictions, you may be saving even more.

Yup. As a matter of fact, my own brand new machine here at work just
arrived an hour ago (ah, the smell of fresh plastic outgassing, factory
air from China :((( ), and when I spec'd it out, this was the option:

Precision T3500 CMT Standard PSU, C2 Motherboard [Included in Price]
Precision T3500, CMT, 85 Percent Efficient Power Supply, C2 Motherboard
[add $42.82]

You know that's maybe $5, with the quantities they're buying.

mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[m . roth]

Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
>> On 7/1/2011 10:59 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>
>>> APC UPSes are supported by apcupsd.  Other brands, not so much.  Some
>>> (read: cheaper models) have their own special protocol and don't
>>> include Linux support.  These solutions are intended for the cheaper
>>> or otherwise 'unsupported' UPSes.  It *sounds* like the OP does not
>>> need something smart and is probably looking for something cheap.
>>>
>>
>> And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive
>> either.  Even the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they were
> > 5-10 years ago.   $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth of hardware is
> worth it in my book.
>
> To what extent does a UPS *protect* the hardware?
> Maintaining up-time during brief brown-outs is one thing I expect of a
> UPS,Orderly shutdown is another thing I expect of a UPS.
>
> *protection* of the PC from irregularity in the AC Mains by a UPS,
> however, I question.
> Rather, it seems, any power irregularity that would kill a PC by
> propagating through the PSU will also propagate through the UPS.
>
> NO UPS MADE TODAY (according to my reading of the stats on
> advertisements) eats lightning strikes and asks for more.
>
> So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
> power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?

Really? That's what you read in the specs? Here, I thought that good
quality surge protectors would do that, and my UPS does says surge
protection as well as UPS. IIRC, UPSs, and better surge protectors, offer
a multi-thousand dollar warranty if it doesn't stop a large surge and your
system's fried.

I *think* I have one of these,
,
which they say is suitable for SOHO usage... and you notice the "connected
equipment guarantee" (CEG): between $25k USDand $100k USD, depending on
model.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Rudi Ahlers]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Brunner, Brian T.
 wrote:
>
> NO UPS MADE TODAY (according to my reading of the stats on
> advertisements) eats lightning strikes and asks for more.
>
> So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
> power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?
>
>


Well, the UPS itself normally blows a fuse, or itself gets burnt out,
so you pay a small price to protect a bigger investment



-- 
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Robert Heller]

At Fri, 1 Jul 2011 11:46:40 -0400 CentOS mailing list  wrote:

> 
> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> > On 7/1/2011 10:59 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >> 
> >> APC UPSes are supported by apcupsd.  Other brands, not so much.  Some
> >> (read: cheaper models) have their own special protocol and don't
> >> include Linux support.  These solutions are intended for the cheaper
> >> or otherwise 'unsupported' UPSes.  It *sounds* like the OP does not
> >> need something smart and is probably looking for something cheap.
> >> 
> > 
> > And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive
> > either.  Even the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they were
> 5-10
> > years ago.   $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth of hardware is
> worth
> > it in my book.
> 
> To what extent does a UPS *protect* the hardware?
> Maintaining up-time during brief brown-outs is one thing I expect of a
> UPS,
> Orderly shutdown is another thing I expect of a UPS.
> 
> *protection* of the PC from irregularity in the AC Mains by a UPS,
> however, I question.
> Rather, it seems, any power irregularity that would kill a PC by
> propagating through the PSU will also propagate through the UPS.

A *good* UPS has a surge protector, then a good filtering power supply,
which functions as a battery charger.  Then there is an inverter
(powered by the battery) that generates 'fresh' AC.  'Normal' surges
are soaked up by the input 'battery charger' supply.  A UPS that
decouples the line power from its output by using the inverter all of
the (not just during a power failure) effectively isolates the output
from the the input -- all irregularities in the AC Mains are absorbed
by the battery charger supply.  The battery is very tolerant and does
not need the battery charger circuit to provide a *precise* continious
voltage -- eg dropouts that take the battery charger circuit 'off line'
for miliseconds are not going to affect the battery. Nor will modest
surges (regulation in the battery charger circuit should take care of
larger surges and MOVs on the AC Mains should take care of really large
surges). The inverter will be powered by the battery charger or
battery, depending on which is functioning at any given instant, and
the input to the inverter will be a flat, smooth DC voltage in either
case.

> 
> NO UPS MADE TODAY (according to my reading of the stats on
> advertisements) eats lightning strikes and asks for more.

It is likely that the UPS would die, leaving the computer, etc. untouched.

> 
> So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
> power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?

Certainly random 'low-level' surges (typical 'dirty' power as provided
by the power company).  The UPS would also be the front-line 'cannon
fodder' for more massive surges (eg lightning strikes). 

In reality, a *properly* wired building (one that is up to code), will
have effective lightning protection as part of the basic wiring.  A data
center wiring will be even better.

> 
> 
> Insert spiffy .sig here:
> Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
> moments that take our breath away. 
> 
> 
> //me
> ***
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
> email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
> www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
> 
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> 
>   
>

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments


   
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Timothy Murphy]

Rudi Ahlers wrote:

>> It seems to me that it should be possible
>> to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
>> which will keep the machine alive long enough
>> to make a graceful exit.

> A UPS would be your simplest option here since the UPS can send a
> signal to the OS to shutdown properly.
> 
> Using a "torch battery" (I presume this is a large torch?) you'll
> still have the same issue as you have now - when the battery runs flat
> (i.e. power outage is longer than 10 minutes or so) Linux will still
> crash uncleanly.

As will be obvious, I know nothing in this area.
My thought was just that the machine only requires say 30 seconds of life
to shutdown properly, and I would have thought
there was enough capacity in a large torch battery to supply this?

But there seems to be a 100% backing for UPS,
so I'll look into that.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Bowie Bailey]

On 7/1/2011 12:36 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>
>>> It seems to me that it should be possible
>>> to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
>>> which will keep the machine alive long enough
>>> to make a graceful exit.
>> A UPS would be your simplest option here since the UPS can send a
>> signal to the OS to shutdown properly.
>>
>> Using a "torch battery" (I presume this is a large torch?) you'll
>> still have the same issue as you have now - when the battery runs flat
>> (i.e. power outage is longer than 10 minutes or so) Linux will still
>> crash uncleanly.
> As will be obvious, I know nothing in this area.
> My thought was just that the machine only requires say 30 seconds of life
> to shutdown properly, and I would have thought
> there was enough capacity in a large torch battery to supply this?
>
> But there seems to be a 100% backing for UPS,
> so I'll look into that.

A UPS is the implementation of your "torch battery" idea.  Remember that
the battery will need a way to convert from DC to the A/C power required
by your machine.  There also needs to be circuitry to switch over to
battery power in the event of an outage.  You also need to make sure the
battery stays charged.  The UPS does all of this for you.  The UPS can
also notify your server in the event of a power outage so it can shut
down cleanly.  If you don't require a long runtime, then you don't need
to get a huge UPS.  APC's website has a calculator that can help you
determine which UPS will work best based on your equipment and desired
runtime.

-- 
Bowie
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Robert Heller]

At Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:36:56 +0100 CentOS mailing list  
wrote:

> 
> Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> 
> >> It seems to me that it should be possible
> >> to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
> >> which will keep the machine alive long enough
> >> to make a graceful exit.
> 
> > A UPS would be your simplest option here since the UPS can send a
> > signal to the OS to shutdown properly.
> > 
> > Using a "torch battery" (I presume this is a large torch?) you'll
> > still have the same issue as you have now - when the battery runs flat
> > (i.e. power outage is longer than 10 minutes or so) Linux will still
> > crash uncleanly.
> 
> As will be obvious, I know nothing in this area.
> My thought was just that the machine only requires say 30 seconds of life
> to shutdown properly, and I would have thought
> there was enough capacity in a large torch battery to supply this?

What do you mean by 'torch battery'? If you mean the D cells typical of
a flashlight (flashlight is 'American' English for [electric] torch),
no this is not going to power a computer for more than fraction of a
second.  If you mean a 'lattern battery' (a larger 6V battery, used in
typical upright camping latterns), maybe, but you are going to need an
inverter, etc. to feed AC to your computer's power supply.

> 
> But there seems to be a 100% backing for UPS,
> so I'll look into that.

Yes. They are not terribly expensive, partitularly if you are not
looking for a large one or a 'fancy' (excessive 'bells and whistles')
one. For a small server, a typical consumer-grade UPS costing like
US$100 will do everything you need.

These little consumer-grade UPSes, basically consist of a rechargable
'lattern battery' sized rechargable battery (commonly a gel-cell
lead-acid type battery), a charger for the battery, and an inverter to
re-create the AC power for your equipment (computer).  All in one box. 
Most now have some simple 'smart' electronics with a simple
micro-processor element with a USB connection that will talk to your
computer telling it how things are going (on Mains, on battery, battery
charging, battery charged, battery discharged, current load levels,
Mains voltage, etc.).

> 

-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments


  
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Brunner, Brian T.]

centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
>> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
>> 
>>> And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive
>>> either.  Even the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they
>>> were 5-10 years ago.   $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth
> of hardware is worth it in my book.
>> 
>> To what extent does a UPS *protect* the hardware?
>> Maintaining up-time during brief brown-outs is one thing I expect of
>> a UPS,Orderly shutdown is another thing I expect of a UPS.
>> 
>> *protection* of the PC from irregularity in the AC Mains by a UPS,
>> however, I question. Rather, it seems, any power irregularity that
>> would kill a PC by propagating through the PSU will also propagate
>> through the UPS. 
>> 
>> NO UPS MADE TODAY (according to my reading of the stats on
>> advertisements) eats lightning strikes and asks for more.
>> 
>> So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
>> power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?
> 
> Really? That's what you read in the specs? 

Yes.  Compare the joules rating (as being stopped by a UPS with surge
suppression) 
to the joules required to damage the computer on the other side of a
PSU.
So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?

Robert Heller suggested that UPS architecture matters:
AC->DC::DC Batteries::DC->AC
Where input AC is electrically decoupled from output AC.
Not many adverts for UPS's explain whether this is the case with their
UPS.

> Here, I thought that good quality surge protectors would do that, 
> and my UPS does says surge protection as well as UPS. IIRC, UPSs, and
better surge
> protectors, offer a multi-thousand dollar warranty if it doesn't stop
a large
> surge and your system's fried.

Have you tried collecting on said warranties?
Be prepared to prove that the surge that fried your hardware did not
exceed the joules rating on the surge suppressor.


Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
moments that take our breath away. 


//me
***
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOS 6 Progress as per qaweb

[Tim Nelson]

Greetings-

Is there any updated news on the CentOS6 front? As per qaweb [1], today should 
be the day of QA signoff and syncing to internal mirrors. Are things still on 
track?

--Tim

[1] http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Starting asterisk: /usr/sbin/safe_asterisk: line 86: ulimit: open files: cannot modify limit: Operation not permitted

[Kaushal Shriyan]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
 wrote:
> Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Please help me understand about the below issue ?
>>
>> [root@asterisk1 ~]# /etc/init.d/asterisk restart
>> Stopping safe_asterisk:                                    [  OK  ]
>> Shutting down asterisk:                                    [  OK  ]
>> Starting asterisk: /usr/sbin/safe_asterisk: line 86: ulimit: open
>> files: cannot modify limit: Operation not permitted
>
> the message is pretty clear...
> man ulimit
> looks like that script is non-root when it tries to change the open
> files ulimit, and tries to change it beyond the hard limit. So, fails.
> Or if it's not non-root it could be selinux interfering (?).
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

Hi

I have disabled SElinux, still no luck. Let me know if you need more
information.

Regards

Kaushal
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 Progress as per qaweb

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Tim Nelson wrote:
> Greetings-
> 
> Is there any updated news on the CentOS6 front? As per qaweb [1], today 
> should be the day of QA signoff and syncing to internal mirrors. Are things 
> still on track?
> 
> --Tim
> 
> [1] http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa

Admin of the QA site replied to my question following:

Ljubomir Q: What is the status of QA process for C6? Will QA Sign-off 
happen today?

Jeff Sheltren A: There's a good chance.  Please continue to watch the 
QAweb site for updated information.

-Jeff

And the last status from yesterday is here:
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/94

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Jim Nelson]

On 7/1/2011 1:02 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
>> Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
>>> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
>>>
 And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive
 either.  Even the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they
 were 5-10 years ago.   $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth
>> of hardware is worth it in my book.
>>>
>>> To what extent does a UPS *protect* the hardware?
>>> Maintaining up-time during brief brown-outs is one thing I expect of
>>> a UPS,Orderly shutdown is another thing I expect of a UPS.
>>>
>>> *protection* of the PC from irregularity in the AC Mains by a UPS,
>>> however, I question. Rather, it seems, any power irregularity that
>>> would kill a PC by propagating through the PSU will also propagate
>>> through the UPS.
>>>
>>> NO UPS MADE TODAY (according to my reading of the stats on
>>> advertisements) eats lightning strikes and asks for more.
>>>
>>> So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
>>> power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?
>>
>> Really? That's what you read in the specs?
>
> Yes.  Compare the joules rating (as being stopped by a UPS with surge
> suppression)
> to the joules required to damage the computer on the other side of a
> PSU.
> So per your experiences and greater technical savvy: What PSU/PC kill
> power irregularities will be stopped by which UPS?
>
> Robert Heller suggested that UPS architecture matters:
> AC->DC::DC Batteries::DC->AC
> Where input AC is electrically decoupled from output AC.
> Not many adverts for UPS's explain whether this is the case with their
> UPS.
>

APC's SmartUPS line, Liebert, and Eaton Powerware are all true-sine wave UPS's, 
and do proper decoupling. Unfortunately, this kind 
of data doesn't make for great ad copy, so it's left out, and you have to dig 
deep into datasheets to get that information. I pretty 
much only use APC, and we have truly crap power here. Because of some heavy 
industry in the area, brownouts are common, and that'll 
kill a PC power supply better than anything. I've pulled one 7 year old APC 
from a server closet where the lightning took the top of 
the telephone pole OFF. THE UPS was fried, some of the breakers in the building 
were fused (!), but the servers were fine, outside 
of the router that got zapped from the DSL modem.

The advantage to better UPS systems is they dump the input power through a big, 
beefy transformer. That provides enough of an 
inductor that it can eat a HUGE surge before the insulation in the transformer 
breaks down and it arcs across to the output. Even 
then, it has a long way to go before it can hit the output circuits.

So, your cheap $100 UPS won't provide as much protection from a nasty spike, 
but it would be VERY rare to see a spike that big.

>> Here, I thought that good quality surge protectors would do that,
>> and my UPS does says surge protection as well as UPS. IIRC, UPSs, and
> better surge
>> protectors, offer a multi-thousand dollar warranty if it doesn't stop
> a large
>> surge and your system's fried.
>
> Have you tried collecting on said warranties?
> Be prepared to prove that the surge that fried your hardware did not
> exceed the joules rating on the surge suppressor.
>

And that's why you don't go cheap on your UPSs. Overbuilding capacity means you 
get a longer run time - and you also have room for 
expansion. Cheaper to go big early.

>
> Insert spiffy .sig here:
> Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the
> moments that take our breath away.
>
>
> //me
> ***
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
> they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
> email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
> www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


-- 
Jim Nelson
Systems Administrator, Broadtime
(888) 582-3229
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Anyway to ensure SSH availability?

[Emmanuel Noobadmin]

On 7/1/11, Les Mikesell  wrote:

> The principle is the same but the way to control it would be different.
>   Spamassassin is a perl program that uses a lot of memory and takes a
> lot of resources to start up.  If you run a lot of copies at once,
> expect the machine to crawl or die.

This I had experienced before, which is why the first thing I look at
usually is the mail processes.

>MimeDefang, being mostly perl
> itself, runs spamassassin in its own process and has a way to control
> the number of instances - and does it in a way that doesn't tie a big
> perl process to every sendmail instance.  Other systems might run the
> spamd background process and queue up the messages to scan.   The worst
> case is something that starts a new process for every received message
> and keeps the big perl/spamassassin process running for the duration -
> you might also see this with spamassassin runs happening in each user's
> .procmailrc.  One thing that might help is to make sure the spam/virus
> check operations happen in an order that starts with the least resource
> usage and the most likely checks to cause rejection so spamassassin
> might not have to run so much.

I do have greylisting and stuff in to reject as much mail before spamd
runs, so there's probably not much more I could do on that side
without learning to program Exim conf.


> The same principle applies there, especially if you have big cgi
> programs or mod_perl, mod_python, mod_php (etc.) modules that use a lot
> of resources.  You are probably running in pre-forking mode so those
> programs quickly stop sharing memory in the child processes (perl is
> particularly bad about this since variable reference counts are always
> being updated).  Even if you handle normal load, you might have a
> problem when a search engine indexer walks your links and fires off more
> copies than usual.  You can get an idea of how much of a problem you
> have here by looking at the RES size of the httpd processes in top. If
> they are big and fairly variable, you have some pages/modules/programs
> that consume a lot of memory.   You can limit the number of concurrent
> processes, and in some cases it might help to reduce their life
> (MaxRequestsPerChild).

I'll keep this in mind if the current fix doesn't hold up (no
ballooning, higher starting memory for the VM) which it appears to so
far.

> Oh, one other thing... Do the web programs using mysql for anything?
> I've seen mysql do some really dumb things on a 3-table join, like make
> a temporary table containing all the join possibilities, sort it, then
> return the small number of rows you asked for with a LIMIT.  Maybe it is
> better these days but that used to happen even when there were indexes
> on the fields involved and if any of the tables were big it would take a
> huge amount of disk activity.

Most of the apps run off mysql, the likely culprit could be the
Wordpress corporate blog they have since that probably invites all
kind of spambots and what not. Definitely not our customized apps
since we basically have an audit trail of every single command issued
to the system and so although I don't have the relevant httpd logs due
to the logrotate error, I'm certain no cron jobs and nobody was
accessing it at those times.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Emmanuel Noobadmin]

On 7/1/11, Timothy Murphy  wrote:
> It seems to me that it should be possible
> to have a simple, torch-battery operated, system
> which will keep the machine alive long enough
> to make a graceful exit.
> A full-blown UPS would be excessive, I think,
> as I only want the machine to re-boot
> when the current comes back on.

Like others have suggested, a cheap UPS is the way to go. The problem
with your idea is that you'll need a DC to AC inverter that can handle
the output current required by your server and something to hold the
batteries (you'll need more than one because attempting to draw a huge
current from a normal battery will either kill it or at the very least
cause it to have a shorter than expected capacity) and everything
together, it's probably going to cost more in both money and time to
have this thing.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos|Windows Cross Platform File Managers

[Keith Roberts]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Keith Roberts wrote:

> To: CentOS mailing list 
> From: Keith Roberts 
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos|Windows Cross Platform File Managers
> 
>
> Here's the output of running DC from the command line:
>
> [root@karsites doublecmd]# ./doublecmd.sh
> Start watching
> Double Commander 0.4.5.2 beta
> Revision: 2968M
> Build: 2010/08/21
> Lazarus: 0.9.29-23841
> Free Pascal: 2.4.0
> Platform: i386-Linux-gtk2
> This program is free software released under terms of GNU
> GPL 2
> (C)opyright 2006-2010 Koblov Alexander (alexx2...@mail.ru)
>and contributors (see about dialog)

I'm using DC now for Centos 5.6 main machine, and also on my 
Vista laptop.

I also found http://winscp.net/eng/index.php

which is a gFTP type of FTP client.

I managed to connect to my main machine from my Vista laptop 
running this and FTP'd a test file from Centos 5.6 to my 
Vista laptop.

Next thing is to connect my Vista laptop to the CUPS server 
running on my Centos main machine, so I can print from some 
Vista laptop apps like Firefox, to my printer connected to 
the Centos 5.6 machine.

I'm not a lover of M$ stuff, but the application I need to 
run is Windows only, and doing a fresh install of Vista as I 
also have the Tech Guys recovery disk seems like the easiest 
option for me.

There is also alot of GPL's stuff written for Windows as 
well on sourceforge, so I might as well setup my laptop so I 
can make free use of that, as it's there for the taking.

Kind Regards,

Keith Roberts

-
Websites:
http://www.karsites.net
http://www.php-debuggers.net
http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk

All email addresses are challenge-response protected with
TMDA [http://tmda.net]
-
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Emmanuel Noobadmin]

On 7/1/11, Robert Heller  wrote:
> At Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:25:33 +0200 CentOS mailing list 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Colin Coles wrote:

>> perhaps naively, I'm surprised: doesn't this mean they put crappy PSUs
>> in those servers?
>> I thought decent PSUs were expected to deal with dirty input AC?
>
> AND *I* thought *switching power supplies* (effectively) rectified the
> AC input and then used the DC to drive a higher frequency system to get
> the desired output voltages.  (The higher frequency means smaller, more
> efficient transformers and need smaller filter caps -- all of which
> means a lower cost, more reliable, more efficient power supply.)  Which
> suggests that both the input voltage and frequency are not particularly
> critical, so long as it does not have massive spikes/surges or
> consistently low voltage.

In a normal SMPS that would be true, because the typical ATX PSU
normally has two bulk input capacitors. However the better PSUs
nowadays and those in servers are usually active PFC units which only
has one.

Now the problem occurs because non-true sinewave UPS usually use PWM
to achieve the output. This means the UPS outputs a consistent high
voltage but switches it on/off to achieve the same average power, i.e.
400V for x msec, then 0V for x msec = 200V average, where x should be
much smaller than 16 msec IIRC, which is the required hold up time for
ATX specifications.


In a cheap and arguably badly designed UPS, the selected voltage is
much higher than the PSU is expected to ever handle from a true
sine-wave source (which is nominally 320V peak for a 230V RMS source).
So it either blows the input capacitors (typically 400V values), or
protective circuitry shuts it down first. On the non-PFC PSU, the
voltage is divided across the two main caps so this isn't a problem.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Cluster Failover Troubleshooting (luci and ricci)

[Ryan Bunce]

Hello all.  I posted this in the forum and was told to instead post it to 
the mailing list.  My apologies for the redundancy if you have already 
seen and been irritated by my blatherings.

Thanks.
_

I am working on a CentOS clustered LAMP stack and running into problems. I 
have searched extensively and have come up empty.

Here's my setup:

Two node cluster identical hardware. IBM x226 with RSAII adapters for 
fencing.
Configured for Active/Passive failover - no load balancing.
No shared storage - manual rsync of data (shared SSH keys, rsync over SSH, 
cron job).
Single shared IP address

I used luci and ricci to configure the cluster. It's a bit confusing that 
there's an 'apache' script but you have to use the custom init script. I'm 
past that though.

The failover function is working when it's kicked off manually from the 
luci web interface. I can tell it to transfer the services (IP, httpd, 
msqld) to the secondary server and it works fine.

I run into problems when I attempt to simulate a failure (a pulled network 
cord for instance). The primary system recognizes the failure, shuts down 
it's services, attempts to inform the secondary server to take over and 
then it never does. Here is a log excerpt from a cable pull test:

Jun 16 15:33:27 flex kernel: tg3: eth0: Link is down.
Jun 16 15:33:34 flex clurgmgrd: [2970]:  Link for eth0: Not 
detected
Jun 16 15:33:34 flex clurgmgrd: [2970]:  No link on eth0...
Jun 16 15:33:34 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  status on ip "10.6.2.25" 
returned 1 (generic error)
Jun 16 15:33:34 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Stopping service 
service:web
Jun 16 15:33:35 flex proftpd[6321]: 10.6.2.47 - ProFTPD killed (signal 15)
Jun 16 15:33:35 flex proftpd[6321]: 10.6.2.47 - ProFTPD 1.3.3c standalone 
mode SHUTDOWN
Jun 16 15:33:39 flex avahi-daemon[2850]: Withdrawing address record for 
10.6.2.25 on eth0.
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Service service:web is 
recovering
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Recovering failed service 
service:web
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd: [2970]:  Link for eth0: Not 
detected
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  start on ip "10.6.2.25" 
returned 1 (generic error)
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  #68: Failed to start 
service:web; return value: 1
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Stopping service 
service:web
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd: [2970]:  script:mysqld: stop of 
/etc/rc.d/init.d/mysqld failed (returned 1)
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  stop on script "mysqld" 
returned 1 (generic error)
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  #12: RG service:web failed to 
stop; intervention required
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Service service:web is 
failed
Jun 16 15:33:49 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  #13: Service service:web 
failed to stop cleanly
Jun 16 15:36:43 flex kernel: tg3: eth0: Link is up at 100 Mbps, full 
duplex.
Jun 16 15:36:43 flex kernel: tg3: eth0: Flow control is off for TX and off 
for RX.
Jun 16 16:04:52 flex luci[2904]: Unable to retrieve batch 306226694 status 
from web2:1: Unable to disable failed service web before starting 
it:clusvcadm failed to stop web:
Jun 16 16:05:28 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Starting disabled service 
service:web
Jun 16 16:05:31 flex avahi-daemon[2850]: Registering new address record 
for 10.6.2.25 on eth0.
Jun 16 16:05:31 flex luci[2904]: Unable to retrieve batch 1997354692 
status from web2:1: module scheduled for execution
Jun 16 16:05:33 flex proftpd[1926]: 10.6.2.47 - ProFTPD 1.3.3c (maint) 
(built Thu Nov 18 2010 03:38:57 CET) standalone mode STARTUP
Jun 16 16:05:33 flex clurgmgrd[2970]:  Service service:web started



I have followed the HowTos for setting up the cluster (with the exception 
of the shared storage) as closely as possible.

Here's what I've already troubleshot:

No IPTables running
No SELinux running
Hosts file resolves all IP address/host names properly.

I must say that I am less familiar with how all of the cluster components 
work together. All of the Linux clusters I have built thus far have been 
heartbeat+mon style clusters.

I'm looking to find out if there is an additional debug layer that I can 
put in place to get some more detailed information about what is 
transacting (or not) between the two cluster members.

Many thanks. ___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Cluster Failover Troubleshooting (luci and ricci)

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Ryan Bunce wrote:
> I must say that I am less familiar with how all of the cluster 
> components work together. All of the Linux clusters I have built thus 
> far have been heartbeat+mon style clusters.
> 
> I'm looking to find out if there is an additional debug layer that I can 
> put in place to get some more detailed information about what is 
> transacting (or not) between the two cluster members.
> 
> Many thanks.

I never installed or used any Conga/lucci/ricci sistem.

But as far as I know and understand, you need to have a way for server 
failing to warn the rest of the nodes. Your log said it failed.

Some of the failover sistems need separate network connected to 
collective file systems. So when eth0 is not working, main node will use 
  eth1(2,3,4) to report this event to all other nodes.

What comes to mind is that IP's set for interconnection (in lucci conf) 
must not be public IP's but of that separate/secundary network in order 
for main node to be able to contact the rest of the nodes.

I hope this helps.

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Cluster Failover Troubleshooting (luci and ricci)

[m . roth]

Ryan Bunce wrote:

> I am working on a CentOS clustered LAMP stack and running into problems. I
> have searched extensively and have come up empty.
>
> Here's my setup:
>
> Two node cluster identical hardware. IBM x226 with RSAII adapters for
> fencing.
> Configured for Active/Passive failover - no load balancing.
> No shared storage - manual rsync of data (shared SSH keys, rsync over SSH,
> cron job).
> Single shared IP address
>
> I used luci and ricci to configure the cluster. It's a bit confusing that
> there's an 'apache' script but you have to use the custom init script. I'm
> past that though.

I'm not sure if either of them install heartbeat.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] shared cups printers disappeared

[Frank Cox]

I have two computers, one with a HP printer on it and one with a Samsung
printer on it.

Both systems have their respective pritnters listed under
system-config-printer and have  "enabled" "accepting jobs" and "shared" checked.

Up to a few days ago this worked fine.  Suddenly I can't see either printer
from the other machine and as far as I know nothing has changed other than the
usual "yum update" stuff that has come in over the past few days. I can see the
local printer on each computer but system-config-printer (and applications)
can't see the remote printer at all.

It's odd that the remote printer has disappeared from both computers at the
same time.  Each computer can see its own local printer but it can't see the
remote printer on the other computer.

The firewall has port 631 tcp and udp both allowed on both computers.  The cups
version on both computers is cups-1.3.7-26.el5_6.1 which doesn't appear to have
been updated since April.



-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] shared cups printers disappeared

[Frank Cox]

Creating a new printer with system-config-printer seems to work.  "new
printer" "IPP", "generic postscript driver".  Print test page.  Test page
printed.

So it's just the automatic find-the--remote-printer function that's not working.

I have avahi-daemon disabled on both of these computers?   Is that the
problem?  I re-enabled it on both computers and it didn't seem to change
anything; it still didn't see the remote printers.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] shared cups printers disappeared

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Frank Cox wrote:
> Creating a new printer with system-config-printer seems to work.  "new
> printer" "IPP", "generic postscript driver".  Print test page.  Test page
> printed.
> 
> So it's just the automatic find-the--remote-printer function that's not 
> working.
> 
> I have avahi-daemon disabled on both of these computers?   Is that the
> problem?  I re-enabled it on both computers and it didn't seem to change
> anything; it still didn't see the remote printers.
> 
Have you rebooted after the updates?

Ljubomir
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] shared cups printers disappeared

[Frank Cox]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:07:45 +0200
Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:

> Have you rebooted after the updates?

What updates?

I started avahi-daemon on both computers, restarted cups on both computers.

Nothing changed -- Still didn't see the remote printers.

I've had avahi-daemon turned off on these computers for a long time and it
hasn't been a problem before so it was just a shot in the dark anyway, and it
apparently didn't pan out.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Power-outage

[Christopher Chan]

On Friday, July 01, 2011 11:46 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
> centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
>> On 7/1/2011 10:59 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>>
>>> APC UPSes are supported by apcupsd.  Other brands, not so much.  Some
>>> (read: cheaper models) have their own special protocol and don't
>>> include Linux support.  These solutions are intended for the cheaper
>>> or otherwise 'unsupported' UPSes.  It *sounds* like the OP does not
>>> need something smart and is probably looking for something cheap.
>>>
>>
>> And the APC Smart-UPS 750 units are not all that expensive
>> either.  Even the 1500VA units are a lot less expensive then they were
> 5-10
>> years ago.   $250-$300 to protect $2000-$6000 worth of hardware is
> worth
>> it in my book.
>
> To what extent does a UPS *protect* the hardware?
> Maintaining up-time during brief brown-outs is one thing I expect of a
> UPS,
> Orderly shutdown is another thing I expect of a UPS.
>
> *protection* of the PC from irregularity in the AC Mains by a UPS,
> however, I question.
> Rather, it seems, any power irregularity that would kill a PC by
> propagating through the PSU will also propagate through the UPS.
>

PSUs must love Regular under voltage electricity and so too your data if 
the batteries of the UPS are anything to go by. Batteries died within 
two years on one particular circuit and the connected servers suffered 
while I was getting replacement batteries. Apparently one motherboard 
loved it so much that the thing would not POST anymore.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Starting asterisk: /usr/sbin/safe_asterisk: line 86: ulimit: open files: cannot modify limit: Operation not permitted

[Kaushal Shriyan]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Kaushal Shriyan
 wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
>  wrote:
>> Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Please help me understand about the below issue ?
>>>
>>> [root@asterisk1 ~]# /etc/init.d/asterisk restart
>>> Stopping safe_asterisk:                                    [  OK  ]
>>> Shutting down asterisk:                                    [  OK  ]
>>> Starting asterisk: /usr/sbin/safe_asterisk: line 86: ulimit: open
>>> files: cannot modify limit: Operation not permitted
>>
>> the message is pretty clear...
>> man ulimit
>> looks like that script is non-root when it tries to change the open
>> files ulimit, and tries to change it beyond the hard limit. So, fails.
>> Or if it's not non-root it could be selinux interfering (?).
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
> Hi
>
> I have disabled SElinux, still no luck. Let me know if you need more
> information.
>
> Regards
>
> Kaushal
>

Hi Again,

Can someone please reply on my earlier post to this mailing list

Regards

Kaushal
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] shared cups printers disappeared

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 17:15 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:07:45 +0200
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> 
> > Have you rebooted after the updates?
> 
> What updates?
> 
> I started avahi-daemon on both computers, restarted cups on both computers.
> 
> Nothing changed -- Still didn't see the remote printers.
> 
> I've had avahi-daemon turned off on these computers for a long time and it
> hasn't been a problem before so it was just a shot in the dark anyway, and it
> apparently didn't pan out.

you should do the logical things before you waste your time with shots
in the dark but I think avahi is a very useful tool for some things.

Logs? /var/log/cups/error_log

Settings? /etc/cups/printers.conf & cupsd.conf

Ping?

Telnet from client? telnet $CUPS_SERVER 631

restart cups service lately?

service cups restart

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] shared cups printers disappeared

[Frank Cox]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:10:36 -0700
Craig White wrote:

> Logs? /var/log/cups/error_log

Nothing of note.
> 
> Settings? /etc/cups/printers.conf & cupsd.conf

Nothing changed from when it did work before.
> 
> Ping?

Network connectivity is fine.  
> 
> Telnet from client? telnet $CUPS_SERVER 631

Cups is communicating -- entering the printer directly makes it work.  It's
just the automatic detection that's not working.
> 
> restart cups service lately?

Restarted on both computers.  No change.

-- 
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos