Re: [CentOS] How's 5.10 coming along?
> -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On > Behalf Of Jim Perrin > Sent: den 14 oktober 2013 22:04 > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] How's 5.10 coming along? > > > Just wondering how the build of 5.10 is coming along. Is there a > > resource that informs us on these matters? Thanks! > > The rpms are built and available in the CR repository. The isos are > under construction. The -announce list is where we'll post when it's > officially out the door. Cool! We appreciate your work in our CADD-group, and looking forward to the new release! -- //Sorin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] yum checksum for updates fails
Hello, this is my first time sending to this list. I tried to found the most appropriate place to ask my question, and the most matching list was this. I hope not to be off-topic. Today, I tried to make a yum update to my centos machines, and I got an error for the updates channel. The error was: Metadata file does not match checksum Is there an issue on this? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum checksum for updates fails
Στις 15/10/2013 10:49 πμ, ο/η Strimpakos Giorgos έγραψε: > Hello, this is my first time sending to this list. I tried to found the > most appropriate place to ask my question, and the most matching list > was this. I hope not to be off-topic. > > Today, I tried to make a yum update to my centos machines, and I got an > error for the updates channel. > > The error was: Metadata file does not match checksum > > Is there an issue on this? > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos If you want to reproduce the problem, try yum clean all, first ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum checksum for updates fails
On 10/15/2013 08:49 PM, Strimpakos Giorgos wrote: > Hello, this is my first time sending to this list. I tried to found the > most appropriate place to ask my question, and the most matching list > was this. I hope not to be off-topic. > > Today, I tried to make a yum update to my centos machines, and I got an > error for the updates channel. > > The error was: Metadata file does not match checksum > > Is there an issue on this? I saw something similar recently. Are you using a proxy? Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum checksum for updates fails
Στις 15/10/2013 1:22 μμ, ο/η Peter έγραψε: > On 10/15/2013 08:49 PM, Strimpakos Giorgos wrote: >> Hello, this is my first time sending to this list. I tried to found the >> most appropriate place to ask my question, and the most matching list >> was this. I hope not to be off-topic. >> >> Today, I tried to make a yum update to my centos machines, and I got an >> error for the updates channel. >> >> The error was: Metadata file does not match checksum >> >> Is there an issue on this? > I saw something similar recently. Are you using a proxy? > > > Peter > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos thanks for your response, I am almost sure that I don't use an http proxy from the OS side. I don't know if it is used at the network layer. Giorgos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum checksum for updates fails
On 15/10/13 11:34, Strimpakos Giorgos wrote: > I am almost sure that I don't use an http proxy from the OS side. I > don't know if it is used at the network layer. When I've seen this error before, it was caused by a proxy that was caching metadata for too long. Have you tried using a different mirror ? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum checksum for updates fails
Στις 15/10/2013 1:38 μμ, ο/η Tom Grace έγραψε: > On 15/10/13 11:34, Strimpakos Giorgos wrote: >> I am almost sure that I don't use an http proxy from the OS side. I >> don't know if it is used at the network layer. > When I've seen this error before, it was caused by a proxy that was > caching metadata for too long. Have you tried using a different mirror ? > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Is there a way to update metadata manually? Giorgos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 104, Issue 6
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ...@centos.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
centos-announce-ow...@centos.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. CEBA-2013:1421 CentOS 6 glibc Update (Karanbir Singh)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:24:43 +
From: Karanbir Singh
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2013:1421 CentOS 6 glibc Update
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Message-ID: <20131014192443.ga65...@n04.lon1.karan.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2013:1421
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-1421.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
4c811ca786013f6bd60d6eae101388eecbbdca862a22b2732a934612bd3fe877
glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
b419d1396f986e664d8119a01bf88f0108fc45ebe91a1651ca25c5a39efe3c9e
glibc-common-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
532559adc4274c2fe89bf4d0699f416a6797656a9639deddcd54b83a8ce9a996
glibc-devel-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
8553a4f2592492b8612d46eaa62e0f545bf05ee189388cfc10ee0272866655b7
glibc-headers-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
9706e0a295c60f0dab4b889e8004ef9d570bdd5906f9bb4cbf640e0f6cb399d3
glibc-static-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
144d1d0770ce82615399e1feacd70091c7f8ebfe95462f5c30bad0e2b41ac85d
glibc-utils-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
38d2d152916ebec32c112477b4b22dcb4054d70c197a1d2965acf42761121998
nscd-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
x86_64:
4c811ca786013f6bd60d6eae101388eecbbdca862a22b2732a934612bd3fe877
glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
7dbb14b789c218baa5687cada508519a3d37f4fbd3a7beac332dcec7db33789e
glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
18a8620b6432a0aed14af936b953ee190f41711e82f5db6b28118d2f7211f2c8
glibc-common-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
532559adc4274c2fe89bf4d0699f416a6797656a9639deddcd54b83a8ce9a996
glibc-devel-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
f7819f61defc6d6c34deca6e620fdde350c42de8246fb92f369d61e2e7c95567
glibc-devel-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
a3265156925c1543c78291d8fd5a9f922bdd84e5e792f35667ff48f01f983e20
glibc-headers-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
9706e0a295c60f0dab4b889e8004ef9d570bdd5906f9bb4cbf640e0f6cb399d3
glibc-static-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.i686.rpm
e1885832e42718c5c2f34c6d808d86465a5e40338fccdf56d5af08e18ea44ecd
glibc-static-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
441ed8250632fd3a32b577de20e7b5de90f20c28c41909c63703ed9425ceb5b6
glibc-utils-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
d667954bcc7dcc96158e51277570f6c64b172d8bbb71f9b0a5f0cf4dc2e9b6b8
nscd-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.x86_64.rpm
Source:
a0ca8e634128441fd60351d481300e9e974e86212b87816a2f2f979063c2718b
glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.5.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
--
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
centos-annou...@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 104, Issue 6
***
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation
I'm trying to install centos 6.4 on my server A (which has 512 MB ram and no cdrom) by PXE. I exported installation tree 'CentOS-6.4-i386-bin-DVD1.iso' via http on server 'Z', all according to Centos howto (copied vmlinuz, pxelinux.cfg, initrd.img , started tftpd+dhcpd services) Boot process is OK (in text mode! I think it's a memory problem); it's required keyboard type, time zone, network parameters, disk partitions, ... but no installation type is required (basic, minimal, server, ...) and no packages selection ! Installation goes on installing the packages but without choosing them! I'd like to choose type of installation and the details of packages, any options as I used directly installation dvdrom1. I don't want to use kickstart file ! My 'pxelinux.cfg/default' file: timeout 9000 default menu.c32 menu title ## PXE Boot Menu ## label 1 menu label ^1) Install CentOS 6 kernel centos64/vmlinuz append initrd=centos64/initrd.img repo=http://a.b.x.y/centos6 devfs=nomount ramdisk_size=152000 label 2 menu label ^2) Boot from local drive localboot What do you think ? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:26:35PM +0200, Riccardo Castellani wrote: > I'm trying to install centos 6.4 on my server A (which has 512 MB ram and no > cdrom) by PXE. You need more than 512 MB of RAM to do a graphic installation, I've forgotten the exact requirement. As for text install, RedHat has crippled it--you cannot choose packages or disk layout. Apparently Anaconda developers decided to focus upon the graphic install, and so, the only way to customize a text based install is to use a kickstart file. So, your options are to increase the RAM so you can get a GUI installation, use a kickstart file, or use an operating system where the developers still think like system administrators rather than smart phone users. (Yeah, I know that's unfair and FUD, but it is aggravating for something that is supposed to be a server O/S.) -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] installing on second drive
Hello list, I have two drives - the first drive currently has F14 on it. The second drive is empty. If I select custom partition and only partititon and format the second drive, will CentOS install on the second and not touch the first drive? This is using the installer from the CentOS 6.4 Live DVD. Thanks, -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
On 15/10/13 13:46, Steve Clark wrote: > Hello list, > > I have two drives - the first drive currently has F14 on it. The second drive > is empty. > If I select custom partition and only partititon and format the second drive, > will > CentOS install on the second and not touch the first drive? The installer may replace/modify the bootloader configuration, so you'll need to be careful of that. If you're unsure, I'd suggest making sure you have backups first and/or disconncting the disk containing Fedora before you install CentOS. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
CentOS 6.4 and Fedora 14 are both using GRUB Legacy, so it should be OK to install CentOS along with F14. The installer should detect both operating systems and add entries in GRUB menu for them. If the disk with Fedora is removed during the installation of CentOS, the system won't dual-boot... at least not without some GRUB tweaking. On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Tom Grace wrote: > On 15/10/13 13:46, Steve Clark wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > I have two drives - the first drive currently has F14 on it. The second > drive is empty. > > If I select custom partition and only partititon and format the second > drive, will > > CentOS install on the second and not touch the first drive? > > The installer may replace/modify the bootloader configuration, so you'll > need to be careful of that. > > If you're unsure, I'd suggest making sure you have backups first and/or > disconncting the disk containing Fedora before you install CentOS. > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Marios Zindilis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
Hi, My concern is that the installer will see the F14 / and /boot partitions on the first drive and try to install there as opposed to the newly created / and /boot partitions on the second drive. On 10/15/2013 09:03 AM, Marios Zindilis wrote: > CentOS 6.4 and Fedora 14 are both using GRUB Legacy, so it should be OK to > install CentOS along with F14. The installer should detect both operating > systems and add entries in GRUB menu for them. > > If the disk with Fedora is removed during the installation of CentOS, the > system won't dual-boot... at least not without some GRUB tweaking. > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Tom Grace > wrote: > >> On 15/10/13 13:46, Steve Clark wrote: >>> Hello list, >>> >>> I have two drives - the first drive currently has F14 on it. The second >> drive is empty. >>> If I select custom partition and only partititon and format the second >> drive, will >>> CentOS install on the second and not touch the first drive? >> The installer may replace/modify the bootloader configuration, so you'll >> need to be careful of that. >> >> If you're unsure, I'd suggest making sure you have backups first and/or >> disconncting the disk containing Fedora before you install CentOS. >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] setuid or other ideas
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Gregory P. Ennis wrote: > I have never used setuid, but it appears that this will only allow a > piece of software to be set to root. I really do not want to give that > kind of privilege to this piece of software. IIRC suid sets the effective user to the owner of the file. If ceres runs a setuid program owned by series, the effective user will become series. There is also a system call to make effective owner the actual owner. suid root programs often use it after they have glommed onto all the necessary resources only availale to root. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu "On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class, whom I teach not to run with scissors, that my fiance ran me through with a broadsword." -- Lily ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:26:35PM +0200, Riccardo Castellani wrote: > > I'm trying to install centos 6.4 on my server A (which has 512 MB ram > and no > > cdrom) by PXE. > > You need more than 512 MB of RAM to do a graphic installation, I've > forgotten the exact requirement. > I believe the minimum for graphical is around 640 MB, but don't hold me to that number. I've not been able to quickly find the exact value (and it's likely in a RHEL6 release announcement). While I was looking for a thread or URL that had the minimum memory info I found [0]. [0] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-July/115367.html > > As for text install, RedHat has crippled it--you cannot choose packages or > disk layout. Apparently Anaconda developers decided to focus upon the > graphic install, and so, the only way to customize a text based install is > to use a kickstart file. > > So, your options are to increase the RAM so you can get a GUI installation, > use a kickstart file, or use an operating system where the developers still > think like system administrators rather than smart phone users. (Yeah, I > know that's unfair and FUD, but it is aggravating for something that is > supposed to be a server O/S.) > > > -- > Scott Robbins > PGP keyID EB3467D6 > ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > Hi, > > My concern is that the installer will see the F14 / and /boot partitions > on the first > The installer shouldn't mess with them. Unless you choose a guided disk layout that removes existing partitions or formats existing file systems ... you should be fine. But you'll want to choose the option for manual partitioning. > drive and try to install there as opposed to the newly created / and /boot > partitions > on the second drive. > Just unhook the second drive. It's a simple, [hopefully] quick way of avoiding a catastrophe and you don't have to back up the partitions or MBR on that disk. Make sure your volume group names are unique [if using LVM] or that you use labels or UUIDs. When you hook that primary drive back up, the drive naming will change for the secondary drive. > > > > On 10/15/2013 09:03 AM, Marios Zindilis wrote: > > CentOS 6.4 and Fedora 14 are both using GRUB Legacy, so it should be OK > to > > install CentOS along with F14. The installer should detect both operating > > systems and add entries in GRUB menu for them. > > > > If the disk with Fedora is removed during the installation of CentOS, the > > system won't dual-boot... at least not without some GRUB tweaking. > > > > > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
I've given up on getting the other machine to work so I'm looking at building a new one. The machine will be a firewall/gateway running NAT, Web Proxy with Dansguardian, DHCP, DNS, NTP and VPN (~6 clients). I read so much about VPN encryption and the processor needs, now I am unsure if this will work. I can get this for AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor for under $120 (it's on sale), would it work ? Any thoughts? Thanks, Terre ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Terre Porter wrote: > I've given up on getting the other machine to work so I'm looking at > building a new one. > > The machine will be a firewall/gateway running NAT, Web Proxy with > Dansguardian, DHCP, DNS, NTP and VPN (~6 clients). > > I read so much about VPN encryption and the processor needs, now I am > unsure > if this will work. > You'll likely need to determine how many VPN tunnels you're going to run simultaneously and then find benchmarks on the web. > > I can get this for AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core > Desktop Processor for under $120 (it's on sale), would it work ? > Seems like overkill to me. I'd suggest more along the lines of an Atom-CPU based system. One of those mini-ITX setups that use 20W or thereabouts. Just my two cents. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Terre > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] setuid or other ideas
On 10/14/2013 02:31 PM, Gregory P. Ennis wrote: > Everyone, > > I am working on a Centos 5.9 system. I have an need to be able to > activate a piece of software from /etc/smrsh that is activated when > sendmail delivers the e-mail to this piece of software. I would like > this piece of software to take on the user and group identities that are > different than 'mail' which is what happens now. I want to use a user > and group that is not root), so that the piece of software will be able > to write (concatenate) to a file. > > I have never used setuid, but it appears that this will only allow a > piece of software to be set to root. I really do not want to give that > kind of privilege to this piece of software. > > Any ideas? I've done lots of operations from /etc/smrsh under sendmail. I can't say I've ever used setuid for this type of work; it may well suffice. Now in my case with sendmail, the scripts run as the user receiving the email locally, so I don't need to do any of the below. I simply define the account that I want to run the script as the recipient of the message and it's all done. I'd suggest to run sudo and make an entry in /etc/sudoers. You want to be paranoid around any publicly visible service like email but an entry like this might work in /etc/sudoers: mailALL=(user2) NOPASSWD: /usr/local/script.to.run.sh Defaults:mail !requiretty Again, I'm not sure why you are seeing this run as the "mail" user unless that is the name of the local account, sendmail runs these kinds of scripts as the user receiving the messages. In which case, if my user was "taxinfo" it would look like taxinfoALL=(user2) NOPASSWD: /usr/local/script.to.run.sh Defaults:taxinfo !requiretty Note that the last line (Defaults...) is probably needed because there's not an actual terminal involved when processing a background script. Try without and see if it works. Then, in /etc/smrsh/received.sh you have #! /bin/sh /usr/bin/sudo -u taxinfo /usr/local/script.to.run.sh; And in your .forward file: (don't forget to chmod 600 this file) | /etc/smrsh/received.sh Good luck! --- Ben, I was using an e-mail aliase that did not have a user account which becomes the 'mail' account when any data is stored or accessed by a piece of software that is activated in /etc/smrsh. However, I really like you suggestion. I should have thought about creating a user account and then aliasing the e-mail to that account. I will not have the opportunity to play with this idea until the weekend; thank you very much Greg ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
Thanks to everyone who replied. We manually partitioned the second drive and the install went without any problem, except that we had to say put the boot loader on the second drive. This meant we had to change the boot order in the bios to boot from the second drive first. On 10/15/2013 12:26 PM, SilverTip257 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> My concern is that the installer will see the F14 / and /boot partitions >> on the first >> > The installer shouldn't mess with them. > Unless you choose a guided disk layout that removes existing partitions or > formats existing file systems ... you should be fine. But you'll want to > choose the option for manual partitioning. > > >> drive and try to install there as opposed to the newly created / and /boot >> partitions >> on the second drive. >> > Just unhook the second drive. > It's a simple, [hopefully] quick way of avoiding a catastrophe and you > don't have to back up the partitions or MBR on that disk. > > Make sure your volume group names are unique [if using LVM] or that you use > labels or UUIDs. > When you hook that primary drive back up, the drive naming will change for > the secondary drive. > > >> >> >> On 10/15/2013 09:03 AM, Marios Zindilis wrote: >>> CentOS 6.4 and Fedora 14 are both using GRUB Legacy, so it should be OK >> to >>> install CentOS along with F14. The installer should detect both operating >>> systems and add entries in GRUB menu for them. >>> >>> If the disk with Fedora is removed during the installation of CentOS, the >>> system won't dual-boot... at least not without some GRUB tweaking. >>> >>> > > -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
On 10/15/2013 10:03 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > Thanks to everyone who replied. > > We manually partitioned the second drive and the install went > without any problem, except that we had to say put the boot loader on > the second drive. This meant we had to change the boot order in > the bios to boot from the second drive first. I don't see any reason you couldn't have shared the /boot partition on the first drive, and used Grub as your dual boot. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] installing on second drive
On 10/15/2013 01:08 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/15/2013 10:03 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >> Thanks to everyone who replied. >> >> We manually partitioned the second drive and the install went >> without any problem, except that we had to say put the boot loader on >> the second drive. This meant we had to change the boot order in >> the bios to boot from the second drive first. > I don't see any reason you couldn't have shared the /boot partition on > the first drive, and used Grub as your dual boot. We tried putting over the kernel, ramdisk, etc from the second drives /boot to the first drives /boot dir and copied the entry from the grub.conf file to the grub.conf file on the first drive - changing the root drive from root (hd0,0) to root (hd1,0) but when we tried to boot we got a message saying illegal format when trying to load the kernel. The only thing I could think of was the F14 was a 32bit system and the new CentOS was a 64 bit system. We didn't spend much time then - just changed the bios boot order. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
I've not worked with Atom processors but I'll look in to it. Thanks for the info. -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of SilverTip257 Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:36 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Terre Porter wrote: > I've given up on getting the other machine to work so I'm looking at > building a new one. > > The machine will be a firewall/gateway running NAT, Web Proxy with > Dansguardian, DHCP, DNS, NTP and VPN (~6 clients). > > I read so much about VPN encryption and the processor needs, now I am > unsure if this will work. > You'll likely need to determine how many VPN tunnels you're going to run simultaneously and then find benchmarks on the web. > > I can get this for AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core > Desktop Processor for under $120 (it's on sale), would it work ? > Seems like overkill to me. I'd suggest more along the lines of an Atom-CPU based system. One of those mini-ITX setups that use 20W or thereabouts. Just my two cents. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Terre > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
Hi, we are running 51 ipsec vpns on an Atom D510 at 1.66ghz and the load average is .07. HTH, Steve On 10/15/2013 02:13 PM, Terre Porter wrote: > I've not worked with Atom processors but I'll look in to it. > > Thanks for the info. > > > -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf > Of SilverTip257 > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:36 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Terre Porter > wrote: >> I've given up on getting the other machine to work so I'm looking at >> building a new one. >> >> The machine will be a firewall/gateway running NAT, Web Proxy with >> Dansguardian, DHCP, DNS, NTP and VPN (~6 clients). >> >> I read so much about VPN encryption and the processor needs, now I am >> unsure if this will work. >> > You'll likely need to determine how many VPN tunnels you're going to run > simultaneously and then find benchmarks on the web. > > >> I can get this for AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core >> Desktop Processor for under $120 (it's on sale), would it work ? >> > Seems like overkill to me. > > I'd suggest more along the lines of an Atom-CPU based system. One of those > mini-ITX setups that use 20W or thereabouts. > > Just my two cents. > > >> Any thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Terre >> >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:31:03PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote: > Hi, > > we are running 51 ipsec vpns on an Atom D510 at 1.66ghz and the load > average is .07. > > HTH, > Steve Some years back I used to run Smoothwall/GPL as a home firewall/router on things such as 90 MHz pentiums (with 64 or even 128 MB RAM), or at one point a 500 MHz AMD K6, and it had no load problems at all handling the 3 or 4 of us here who share the household LAN. Therefore I'd think that something such as an Atom would be entirely up to the task. There are a number of (relatively) inexpensive Atom boards in a Micro-ATX or Mini-ATX format that you could use, for example. Fred -- --- .Fred Smith / ( /__ ,__. __ __ / __ : / // / /__) / / /__) .+' Home: fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us // (__ (___ (__(_ (___ / :__ 781-438-5471 Jude 1:24,25 - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > Hi, > > we are running 51 ipsec vpns on an Atom D510 at 1.66ghz and the load > average is .07. > @Steve: Based on your statement, I figure you do not have a crypto accelerator and the CPU is handling all the crypto. Correct? @Terre: I don't know how VIA C7 CPUs stack up against the Intel Atom CPUs in terms of performance, but they're low power consuming x86 processors. And there's the VIA Padlock [0] security/encryption engine. AMD Geode CPUs like those in PC Engines ALIX [1] hardware have an integrated crypto accelerator [2]. If it wasn't for your web proxy requirements, etc an ALIX might fit the bill (with the right embedded OS - think Voyage Linux). You're better off with the hardware you're researching right now though. [0] http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp [1] http://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm [2] http://www.twam.info/hardware/alix/using-geodes-aes-engine-on-alix3d3 > > HTH, > Steve > > On 10/15/2013 02:13 PM, Terre Porter wrote: > > I've not worked with Atom processors but I'll look in to it. > > > > Thanks for the info. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On > Behalf > > Of SilverTip257 > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:36 PM > > To: CentOS mailing list > > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Terre Porter < > tpor...@webpage-builders.com > >> wrote: > >> I've given up on getting the other machine to work so I'm looking at > >> building a new one. > >> > >> The machine will be a firewall/gateway running NAT, Web Proxy with > >> Dansguardian, DHCP, DNS, NTP and VPN (~6 clients). > >> > >> I read so much about VPN encryption and the processor needs, now I am > >> unsure if this will work. > >> > > You'll likely need to determine how many VPN tunnels you're going to run > > simultaneously and then find benchmarks on the web. > > > > > >> I can get this for AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W > Eight-Core > >> Desktop Processor for under $120 (it's on sale), would it work ? > >> > > Seems like overkill to me. > > > > I'd suggest more along the lines of an Atom-CPU based system. One of > those > > mini-ITX setups that use 20W or thereabouts. > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Terre > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS@centos.org > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >> > > > > > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
Just a heads up that once again an xorg update has removed the link in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions that points to libglx.so.325.15 in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia thus breaking X. This should only effect those with nvidia proprietary driver. One of the following packages is the culprit but I have not tried to narrow it down. I have done updates and downgrades several times and it is quite reproducible. Oct 15 17:53:01 Updated: xorg-x11-server-common-1.13.0-11.1.el6.centos.1.x86_64 Oct 15 17:53:03 Updated: xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.13.0-11.1.el6.centos.1.x86_64 Oct 15 17:53:03 Updated: xorg-x11-drv-mga-1.6.1-8.el6_4.x86_64 Oct 15 17:53:04 Updated: xorg-x11-drv-synaptics-1.6.2-11.el6_4.1.x86_64 Oct 15 17:53:04 Updated: xorg-x11-drv-mach64-6.9.3-4.1.el6_4.x86_64 Cheers, B.J. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] hung nfs mount
What is the best approach when an nfs mount hangs on a client but the server is OK? I have mount options of: rw,bg,soft,intr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 but whatever it did was not interruptable and would not shut down. There were some: Oct 15 09:08:32 dev-ngf-l-01 kernel: INFO: task gnome-settings-:19169 blocked for more than 120 seconds. Oct 15 09:08:32 dev-ngf-l-01 kernel: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. messages on the console and /var/log/messages. Is this a bug or there a way to avoid it? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, B.J. McClure wrote: > Just a heads up that once again an xorg update has removed the link in > /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions that points to libglx.so.325.15 in > /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia thus breaking X. This is yet another reason to use ELRepo's kmod-nvidia [1]. :-) The major reason is that ELRepo's kmods are kABI-tracking, meaning no need to reinstall the driver upon kernel updates. Akemi [1] http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
On 10/15/2013 07:52 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, B.J. McClure > wrote: >> Just a heads up that once again an xorg update has removed the link in >> /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions that points to libglx.so.325.15 in >> /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia thus breaking X. > This is yet another reason to use ELRepo's kmod-nvidia [1]. :-) The > major reason is that ELRepo's kmods are kABI-tracking, meaning no need > to reinstall the driver upon kernel updates. > > Akemi > > [1] http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Errr, this was not a kernel update and elrepo kmod-nvidia is installed. Cheers, B.J. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 18:05 -0400, SilverTip257 wrote: > @Steve: > Based on your statement, I figure you do not have a crypto accelerator and > the CPU is handling all the crypto. Correct? > @Terre: > I don't know how VIA C7 CPUs stack up against the Intel Atom CPUs in terms > of performance, but they're low power consuming x86 processors. And > there's the VIA Padlock [0] security/encryption engine. > AMD Geode CPUs like those in PC Engines ALIX [1] hardware have an > integrated crypto accelerator [2]. If it wasn't for your web proxy > requirements, etc an ALIX might fit the bill (with the right embedded OS - > think Voyage Linux). You're better off with the hardware you're researching > right now though. > > [0] http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp > [1] http://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm > [2] http://www.twam.info/hardware/alix/using-geodes-aes-engine-on-alix3d3 You should look at the single board computers sold by Soekris Engineering. http://soekris.com Specifically the net6501 series: http://soekris.com/products/net6501.html Specifications: • 600 Mhz to 1.6 Ghz Intel Atom E6xx single chip processor with EG20T companion chip • 512 to 2048 Mbyte DDR2-SDRAM, soldered on board • 2x SATA 3 Gbit interfaces with +5V and +12V power header • 4x Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet ports, Auto-MDIX RJ-45, protected to 700W/40A Surge • 2x Serial ports, DB9 and 10 pins internal header • USB 2.0 interface, 2x internal, 1x external port, bootable • 1 Full Mini-PCI Express shared with mSATA socket. • 1 USB only Mini-PCI Express shared with mSATA socket • 2x PCI Express Slots, right angle • 16 bit general purpose I/O, 24 pins header, connected to FPGA ...in either a tiny or a rackable box. The number of lan slots can be increased above 4 by using expansion cards. Steve ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
On 10/15/2013 05:19 PM, B.J. McClure wrote: > On 10/15/2013 07:52 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, B.J. McClure >> wrote: >>> Just a heads up that once again an xorg update has removed the link in >>> /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions that points to libglx.so.325.15 in >>> /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia thus breaking X. >> This is yet another reason to use ELRepo's kmod-nvidia [1]. :-) The >> major reason is that ELRepo's kmods are kABI-tracking, meaning no need >> to reinstall the driver upon kernel updates. >> >> Akemi >> >> [1] http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > Errr, this was not a kernel update and elrepo kmod-nvidia is installed. > > Cheers, > B.J. The libglx.so.325.15 file comes from the nvidia-x11-drv package, not the kmod-nvidia. Elrepo is not putting any symlink in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions only in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia It then adds /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia to the ModulePath in xorg.conf so the Xserver picks up the nvidia version of libglx.so before the Xorg version. That way you If you do have/had a symlink in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions, it's a remnant from NVIDIA's own distribution, IIRC. It is the xorg-x11-server-Xorg package that writes over that symlink. Thomas ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Eriksson wrote: >>> >> Errr, this was not a kernel update and elrepo kmod-nvidia is installed. >> >> Cheers, >> B.J. > > The libglx.so.325.15 file comes from the nvidia-x11-drv package, not the > kmod-nvidia. > > Elrepo is not putting any symlink in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions > only in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia > > It then adds /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia to the > ModulePath in xorg.conf so the Xserver picks up the nvidia version of > libglx.so before the Xorg version. That way you > > If you do have/had a symlink in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions, it's > a remnant from NVIDIA's own distribution, IIRC. It is the > xorg-x11-server-Xorg package that writes over that symlink. > > Thomas I was about to write the same when I saw your post. Thank you, Thomas. So, that is the "yet another reason to use kmod-nvidia" -- not being affected by Xorg updates. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > I was about to write the same when I saw your post. Thank you, Thomas. > So, that is the "yet another reason to use kmod-nvidia" -- not being > affected by Xorg updates. Apparently I made the same mistake. :-( Not 'kmod-nvidia' but ELRepo's 'nvidia-x11-drv'. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xorg updates hose GUI with Nvidia driver
On 10/15/2013 08:51 PM, Thomas Eriksson wrote: > > On 10/15/2013 05:19 PM, B.J. McClure wrote: >> On 10/15/2013 07:52 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, B.J. McClure >>> wrote: Just a heads up that once again an xorg update has removed the link in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions that points to libglx.so.325.15 in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia thus breaking X. >>> This is yet another reason to use ELRepo's kmod-nvidia [1]. :-) The >>> major reason is that ELRepo's kmods are kABI-tracking, meaning no need >>> to reinstall the driver upon kernel updates. >>> >>> Akemi >>> >>> [1] http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-nvidia >>> ___ >>> CentOS mailing list >>> CentOS@centos.org >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>> >> Errr, this was not a kernel update and elrepo kmod-nvidia is installed. >> >> Cheers, >> B.J. > The libglx.so.325.15 file comes from the nvidia-x11-drv package, not the > kmod-nvidia. > > Elrepo is not putting any symlink in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions > only in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia > > It then adds /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions/nvidia to the > ModulePath in xorg.conf so the Xserver picks up the nvidia version of > libglx.so before the Xorg version. That way you > > If you do have/had a symlink in /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/extensions, it's > a remnant from NVIDIA's own distribution, IIRC. It is the > xorg-x11-server-Xorg package that writes over that symlink. > > Thomas > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Thanks for the input. Will take a look tomorrow. B.J. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
Interesting looking hardware... thanks for the info -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of S.Tindall Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:29 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 18:05 -0400, SilverTip257 wrote: > @Steve: > Based on your statement, I figure you do not have a crypto accelerator > and the CPU is handling all the crypto. Correct? > @Terre: > I don't know how VIA C7 CPUs stack up against the Intel Atom CPUs in > terms of performance, but they're low power consuming x86 processors. > And there's the VIA Padlock [0] security/encryption engine. > AMD Geode CPUs like those in PC Engines ALIX [1] hardware have an > integrated crypto accelerator [2]. If it wasn't for your web proxy > requirements, etc an ALIX might fit the bill (with the right embedded > OS - think Voyage Linux). You're better off with the hardware you're > researching right now though. > > [0] http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp > [1] http://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm > [2] > http://www.twam.info/hardware/alix/using-geodes-aes-engine-on-alix3d3 You should look at the single board computers sold by Soekris Engineering. http://soekris.com Specifically the net6501 series: http://soekris.com/products/net6501.html Specifications: • 600 Mhz to 1.6 Ghz Intel Atom E6xx single chip processor with EG20T companion chip • 512 to 2048 Mbyte DDR2-SDRAM, soldered on board • 2x SATA 3 Gbit interfaces with +5V and +12V power header • 4x Intel 82574L Gigabit Ethernet ports, Auto-MDIX RJ-45, protected to 700W/40A Surge • 2x Serial ports, DB9 and 10 pins internal header • USB 2.0 interface, 2x internal, 1x external port, bootable • 1 Full Mini-PCI Express shared with mSATA socket. • 1 USB only Mini-PCI Express shared with mSATA socket • 2x PCI Express Slots, right angle • 16 bit general purpose I/O, 24 pins header, connected to FPGA ...in either a tiny or a rackable box. The number of lan slots can be increased above 4 by using expansion cards. Steve ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
I have must have been in a hardware vacuum, have a clue any of that hardware you mentioned. Added it to the research list - haha! Thanks -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of SilverTip257 Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:05 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > Hi, > > we are running 51 ipsec vpns on an Atom D510 at 1.66ghz and the load > average is .07. > @Steve: Based on your statement, I figure you do not have a crypto accelerator and the CPU is handling all the crypto. Correct? @Terre: I don't know how VIA C7 CPUs stack up against the Intel Atom CPUs in terms of performance, but they're low power consuming x86 processors. And there's the VIA Padlock [0] security/encryption engine. AMD Geode CPUs like those in PC Engines ALIX [1] hardware have an integrated crypto accelerator [2]. If it wasn't for your web proxy requirements, etc an ALIX might fit the bill (with the right embedded OS - think Voyage Linux). You're better off with the hardware you're researching right now though. [0] http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp [1] http://www.pcengines.ch/alix.htm [2] http://www.twam.info/hardware/alix/using-geodes-aes-engine-on-alix3d3 > > HTH, > Steve > > On 10/15/2013 02:13 PM, Terre Porter wrote: > > I've not worked with Atom processors but I'll look in to it. > > > > Thanks for the info. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] > > On > Behalf > > Of SilverTip257 > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:36 PM > > To: CentOS mailing list > > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Terre Porter < > tpor...@webpage-builders.com > >> wrote: > >> I've given up on getting the other machine to work so I'm looking > >> at building a new one. > >> > >> The machine will be a firewall/gateway running NAT, Web Proxy with > >> Dansguardian, DHCP, DNS, NTP and VPN (~6 clients). > >> > >> I read so much about VPN encryption and the processor needs, now I > >> am unsure if this will work. > >> > > You'll likely need to determine how many VPN tunnels you're going to > > run simultaneously and then find benchmarks on the web. > > > > > >> I can get this for AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W > Eight-Core > >> Desktop Processor for under $120 (it's on sale), would it work ? > >> > > Seems like overkill to me. > > > > I'd suggest more along the lines of an Atom-CPU based system. One > > of > those > > mini-ITX setups that use 20W or thereabouts. > > > > Just my two cents. > > > > > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Terre > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS@centos.org > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >> > > > > > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] Firewall/Gateway Hardware Question
On 10/15/2013 3:05 PM, SilverTip257 wrote: > I don't know how VIA C7 CPUs stack up against the Intel Atom CPUs in terms > of performance, but they're low power consuming x86 processors. And > there's the VIA Padlock [0] security/encryption engine. I think the Atoms pretty much beat the living daylights out of the C7 stuff, which were based on an architecture many generations old. some of the core I3/i5 laptop chips are very low power, too, and nearly as powerful as modern 2-4 core desktop processors..the current 'Pentiums' are somewhere in between the Atom and the low end of the Core line. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation
Now I upgraded ram to 1 GB. Now I see that client try to get ... /centos6/images/product.img + /centos6/images/updates.img but these files are missing in /images/ of 'CentOS-6.4-i386-bin-DVD1.iso' [divx] Could not init font path element catalogue:/etc/X11/fontpath.d, removing from list! ... ... Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server Xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default I tried to append 'vga=771' to this line: append initrd=centos64/initrd.img repo=http://a.y.z.a.5/centos6 devfs=nomount ramdisk_size=352000 vga=771 but nothing! With vga=773 nothing! -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Scott Robbins Sent: martedì 15 ottobre 2013 14:44 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:26:35PM +0200, Riccardo Castellani wrote: > I'm trying to install centos 6.4 on my server A (which has 512 MB ram > and no > cdrom) by PXE. You need more than 512 MB of RAM to do a graphic installation, I've forgotten the exact requirement. As for text install, RedHat has crippled it--you cannot choose packages or disk layout. Apparently Anaconda developers decided to focus upon the graphic install, and so, the only way to customize a text based install is to use a kickstart file. So, your options are to increase the RAM so you can get a GUI installation, use a kickstart file, or use an operating system where the developers still think like system administrators rather than smart phone users. (Yeah, I know that's unfair and FUD, but it is aggravating for something that is supposed to be a server O/S.) -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation
I upgraded ram to 1 GB but now I obtained this message: Xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default No other messages... It's resolution problem ?! -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of SilverTip257 Sent: martedì 15 ottobre 2013 18:12 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] no group package selection via PXE network installation On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:26:35PM +0200, Riccardo Castellani wrote: > > I'm trying to install centos 6.4 on my server A (which has 512 MB > > ram > and no > > cdrom) by PXE. > > You need more than 512 MB of RAM to do a graphic installation, I've > forgotten the exact requirement. > I believe the minimum for graphical is around 640 MB, but don't hold me to that number. I've not been able to quickly find the exact value (and it's likely in a RHEL6 release announcement). While I was looking for a thread or URL that had the minimum memory info I found [0]. [0] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-July/115367.html > > As for text install, RedHat has crippled it--you cannot choose packages or > disk layout. Apparently Anaconda developers decided to focus upon the > graphic install, and so, the only way to customize a text based > install is to use a kickstart file. > > So, your options are to increase the RAM so you can get a GUI > installation, use a kickstart file, or use an operating system where > the developers still think like system administrators rather than > smart phone users. (Yeah, I know that's unfair and FUD, but it is > aggravating for something that is supposed to be a server O/S.) > > > -- > Scott Robbins > PGP keyID EB3467D6 > ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver > pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ 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
