Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block
On Sat, 2015-01-10 at 13:03 -0800, John R Pierce wrote: > On 1/10/2015 12:56 PM, F. Mendez wrote: > > We need that same with IPv6 since we have a /48 and we need to have > > all IPv6s available for usage. > > Do you realize that a ipv6 /48 is a septillion IP addresses? thats > 1,208,925,819,614,629,200,000,000 individual IPs ? > > Or, its 65536 /64 subnets of 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 hosts each. Can someone spare one for me :-) Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Thunderbird randomly segfaults at startup
On 01/11/2015 01:16 AM, Jason S. Evans wrote: On 2015-01-10 23:31, Robert Nichols wrote: On 01/10/2015 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight "Desktop" install of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than installing Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the time) fail to start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't see any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days? Do abrt reports submitted from CentOS go anywhere useful these days? I saw some discussion a while back, but don't recall the results. Should I submit one? Another data point: If I install CentOS 6.6 from the distribution ISO and do _not_ do an update, Thunderbird seems to start reliably -- 100 starts and no failures. As soon as I install the current set of updates, it starts failing. I haven't seen this, but I'm curious if it has something to do with your configuration. What I would suggest trying is working from a clean config. mv ~/.thunderbird ~/.thunderbird.backup Try it like that. If it starts correctly, then it is your config and you'll probably have to recreate your config to make it work. If it doesn't, then rename .thunderbird.config back to .thunderbird. No harm done. I've been testing with a new install and a newly created user with no previous thunderbird configuration. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Thunderbird randomly segfaults at startup
On 01/11/2015 01:42 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote: On 01/10/15 20:39, Robert Nichols wrote: Anyone else seeing this? This is happening on a straight "Desktop" install of CentOS 6.6 fully updated. I have made no changes other than installing Thunderbird. Thunderbird will occasionally (10 to 20% of the time) fail to start, and the abrt report indicates a signal 11 (SIGSEGV). I don't see any other reports of this. Is no one using Thunderbird these days? I have the same problem with Thunderbird and Firefox after the update from C6.5 to C6.6. I've wined and complained about it on this list in the past but have not seen any useful response. Mark LaPierre Are you referring to this thread by any chance? http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-December/148445.html The upstream bugzilla referenced in there is now private but I provided the known workaround. Have you tried it? It worked for me and others. Downgrading nss-softokn to 3.14.3-17.el6 does _not_ solve the issue for me. Thunderbird still segfaults frequently on startup. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Thunderbird randomly segfaults at startup
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 01/11/2015 01:42 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> Are you referring to this thread by any chance? >> >> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-December/148445.html >> >> The upstream bugzilla referenced in there is now private but I >> provided the known workaround. Have you tried it? It worked for me and >> others. > > Downgrading nss-softokn to 3.14.3-17.el6 does _not_ solve the issue for > me. Thunderbird still segfaults frequently on startup. > > -- > Bob Nichols Just to be sure, I recommend you reboot the system. In my case that was necessary (it seems). Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Thunderbird randomly segfaults at startup
On 01/11/2015 10:08 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: On 01/11/2015 01:42 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: Are you referring to this thread by any chance? http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-December/148445.html The upstream bugzilla referenced in there is now private but I provided the known workaround. Have you tried it? It worked for me and others. Downgrading nss-softokn to 3.14.3-17.el6 does _not_ solve the issue for me. Thunderbird still segfaults frequently on startup. -- Bob Nichols Just to be sure, I recommend you reboot the system. In my case that was necessary (it seems). I did reboot. After some experimenting, I found it was the _library_ package, nss-softokn-freebl, that needs to be downgraded to 3.14.3-17.el6. Surprisingly, the newer nss-softokn-3.14.3-10.el6_6 is happy to coexist with that older library. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote: > What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? > Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? Ensuring that services are up and running? About which sysinit are you talking btw? The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart. systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it _does_ provide much needed features. if you don't know them or if you ignore them or if you think you don't need them: fine but don't think others don't know or need them. HTH Sven -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJUsrFyAAoJEAq0kGAWDrqlk1IMAMLlRoqsoR54RUsV+jFuqGDt EU/kIZOczro9l4xWuYDuhyO2PnVt6gKC5+kmLDndF/URRTjc9s8D47SU4rquPycT JxnfWxmpQI9zVW/HwAtbNZEWKW7BV6G6PrH8LVyn9aMveP0C6/d52W3wUIidm9EH ul7vtvdlICw0wNzknREuj1bDkO7VBAoAZX/29QPBpe91bK+33pE0YETTIDks5CUf nY6gGi3KiO5/KHEIVkYXq5zP2iHh/l++9LbSXhE+hWIGmUoj2q+tv4jBz1sgv5Tj vgD00V8hDH57PmUT3gySSte7rMUkus3Z7k/7h9QZ1S4P7FxQySzvvzNW9l5jUoYM /XYZTe5mbEcm6K/SvO7HOHPBc56tqHeptoTe9h6sZ27gC37SVlr5WDGw92ryrlUa aSC5ZOAdCr1GKAhveuTp7m9dTg3UJEFMfRTFAMHOFmPaxizQTgWpjEByru+La02r LZki+nMgBJxStS6E63Gi0gRjjiWTlE27MxQwApy1Zw== =xIum -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote: >> What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >> > Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? > Ensuring that services are up and running? > > About which sysinit are you talking btw? > The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart. > > systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it > _does_ provide much needed features. > > if you don't know them or if you ignore them > or if you think you don't need them: > fine > > but don't think others don't know or need > them. > That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and against systemd. (Mine, BTW is against, and I do not feel it fair to be discounted as a stupid minority as it is implied in your post). There is no point to repeat listing of ugly sides of systemd - which you said yourself are there. As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. BTW, when "counting votes" keep in mind an existence of an army of refugees from Linux, they already have voted against ugliness here, there,... Just my $0.02 Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Thunderbird randomly segfaults at startup
On Sun, January 11, 2015 10:08 am, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Robert Nichols > wrote: >> On 01/11/2015 01:42 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > >>> Are you referring to this thread by any chance? >>> >>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-December/148445.html >>> >>> The upstream bugzilla referenced in there is now private but I >>> provided the known workaround. Have you tried it? It worked for me and >>> others. >> >> Downgrading nss-softokn to 3.14.3-17.el6 does _not_ solve the issue for >> me. Thunderbird still segfaults frequently on startup. >> >> -- >> Bob Nichols > > Just to be sure, I recommend you reboot the system. In my case that > was necessary (it seems). > Oh, boy. We do seem to have to treat Linux like Windows these days and _reboot_ after any update, not only kernel or glibc update. So much for "Unix-like", sigh ;-( Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and > against systemd. How could it sound like I collected "votes"? I don't care about votes when it comes to technical superiority. > As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to > sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts > 3 times faster You are making an excellent job at ignoring my argument. Again: how do you ensure that your system services are up and running with sysvinit? - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the > podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my > life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. Than how do you maintain servers with sysvinit? I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. kind regards Sven -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJUsslAAAoJEAq0kGAWDrqluqoL/3BEc57e5w5y/S5f56dihIAv qTDlBJCNHeToknRvF/7q3J4LRL8PhHnN6Fs4tf9gJDIBMMTGGQbzT4JCkom310kV qSuUaohvxeO9zF8g9roqRA1T6hnfUfbraxIgbGU05yztGM5U6acRbf3WTBGMgem4 K+mg6z64WbVOXDSN1OnbFoELoSfoGO4Nn2Az/t6gYGC7343VT4s2ZAGC/DxzpUi5 JEDovBryBGsIy5cU+uMK153tKczmDOvn576Wcqr6dg1lcXKkmxc/iJHca7YADh5t /zaYnjimR/5HA/XUIIaUhmbw0dXk9wuMt10dKmR6+sNqU2SNNWJFptBUeN2qpgcm mYHzSFXi78Zse4GchP7GIlt4HocI2S/txeZLzq9P2WWwL3AKQev2b4FeYhzrc91K WRmn+DAu70DuOebEZeueXpLjUxlkFBnJ2BFQY8DeCQ0+A4D9pCpX+16/o1gzNaeR A29Gmy+9pg9x7+hZAyvJdZquE4h7ML5Nl2S28wMkSQ== =0k8p -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Help with IPv6 /48 block
The normal usage for a /48 block is to divide it into /64 sub-networks and use DHCP to issue addresses to each subnet from the corresponding /64 segment. I would recommend taking the IPv6 certification course from Hurricane Electric at https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ as a start. Mike ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 01:04 PM, Sven Kieske wrote: > On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and >> against systemd. > How could it sound like I collected "votes"? I don't care about votes > when it comes to technical superiority. > >> As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to >> sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts >> 3 times faster It is not just 3 times faster .. you can also list prereqs. So if something requires httpd to be started, you don't just mark one to start with a 10 and the other with a 15 .. then hold your breath and hope that it takes 2 seconds or less for the item marked with 10 to start before the item marked as 15 starts .. the daemon with a require does not attempt to start before the prereq as started and registered as started. You also act like starting servers faster is no big deal .. ask Amazon if it was a big deal that the hundreds of thousands of servers they need to restart for AWS xen update took 1/3 the time to restart. Ask them how much money it cost them for things to take way longer to restart. As any of the cloud providers how much time/money it can save if you can spin up things faster. > You are making an excellent job at ignoring my argument. > Again: how do you ensure that your system services are up and running > with sysvinit? You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the points like they don't exist. Here is a prime example. You would need to use another piece of software to do something systemd does that sysinit does not. You need something like monit (http://mmonit.com/monit/) to monitor daemons. > > - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the >> podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my >> life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. > Than how do you maintain servers with sysvinit? > > > I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the > design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. > I agree with Sven .. this is a religious argument (like vi/emacs or kde/gnome or even gnome2/gnome3) and not a technical argument now. Stuff changes, get used it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev > I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the > design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ? It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal". Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread. Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote: On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ? It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal". Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread. Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!) I'm just saying. EGO II ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: > On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev >> >> >>> I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the >>> design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init >>> systems. >> Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing >> systems ? >> >> It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing >> Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in >> English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. >> >> Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement >> and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be >> implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing >> systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to >> properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this >> occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence >> of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. >> >> Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require >> stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where >> disruption is a scheduled "design goal". >> >> Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to >> tread. >> >> Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the >> non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. >> >> > There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you > currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!) I'm > just saying. > Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 03:09 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 2:05 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: On 01/11/2015 03:02 PM, Always Learning wrote: On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ? It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal". Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread. Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. There's always the option of just NOT upgrading...and using what you currently have...(I'm just now going from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6!) I'm just saying. Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your thought half a step farther ;-) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos And that's the beauty of it...the "extending" of thoughts to achieve a common goal. EGO II ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the > points like they don't exist. Anyone who already has 'enterprise' software already running on a distribution without systemd (e.g. any earlier RHEL/CentOS) clearly is able to get along without those changes. > Here is a prime example. You would need > to use another piece of software to do something systemd does that > sysinit does not. You need something like monit > (http://mmonit.com/monit/) to monitor daemons. There was a time when having one piece of software do one specific job was considered an advantage, since the complexity of large monolithic programs makes them harder to debug. I thing the way systemd will be judged in the long run will relate more to whether bug affecting a large number of systems is allowed to slip through QA. It's not impossible to get this right - Microsoft hasn't made a big mistake in a long time... But it seems risky. But, It doesn't even simplify things. You can't just start someone with 'service program start' and know whether it worked. > I agree with Sven .. this is a religious argument (like vi/emacs or > kde/gnome or even gnome2/gnome3) and not a technical argument now. Yes, definitely - a lot of people would be vocally unhappy if a distribution dropped vi and made everyone use something different - and it is unreasonable to expect anything else. Gnome3 vs gnome2 is a practical matter, though, given that gnome3 doesn't work with x2go. It's not really about 'differences' it is about making changes that break existing infrastructure without regard to the damage to users. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] logrotate script not working
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Got a quick question and I hope this is an easy one!
>
> In my /etc/logrotate.conf file I have the following entry:
>
> # rotate all of the apache logs -- we'll rotate them here
> /var/log/mysqld.log {
> weekly
> size 50M
> create 0644 mysql mysql
> rotate 1
> }
>
> And from that I would expect the log to rotate when it reaches 50M in size.
> However I just caught that log weighing in at 356MB!! So how can I get
> this log file to rotate when it hits 50MB?
>
Given the other replies and your description...
http://www.question-defense.com/2009/12/20/configure-logrotate-to-rotate-and-flush-mysql-logs-without-a-password
(You already have this solution as your answer. But I find it interesting
to read others' solutions and determine if mine could use improvement.)
http://www.percona.com/blog/2014/11/12/log-rotate-and-the-deleted-mysql-log-file-mystery/
http://www.percona.com/blog/2013/04/18/rotating-mysql-slow-logs-safely/
http://forums.cpanel.net/f354/large-general-log-file-how-clean-up-safely-stop-reoccuring-278392.html
http://ronaldbradford.com/blog/the-correct-approach-to-rolling-mysql-logs-2010-02-22/
>
> Any ideas, advice and help at all would be appreciated.
>
I'm a bit late on replying to this one ... in the past I've handled
_binary_ log file (for replication) rotation via MySQL itself.
* I realize the OP did not indicate he's using sql replication. But maybe
this is helpful to somebody.
In my case it was in regards to binary replication logs and specifically
how many were retained (when MySQL began to purge). I also didn't blink at
letting the logs grow to 1GB (the default for that version) but the size
was configurable as well.
max_binlog_size
expire_logs_days
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/purge-binary-logs.html
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/log-file-maintenance.html
--
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:02:26PM +, Always Learning wrote: > Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing > systems ? > > It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing > Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in > English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. Systemd does support managing and starting SysV init scripts. In fact, it does a better job than SysV init does -- putting them into their own cgroup and capturing stdout and stderr into the journal. Making 'chkconfig' and 'service' work with systemd isntead of SysVinit makes it so you have a fairly minimal impact, interface-wise. > Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement > and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be > implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing > systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to > properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this > occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence > of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. I know this might sound crazy, but have you considered... just once... that maybe the design of RHEL7 might have happened in a planned manner, with the full understanding of its developers? You make it seem like the multi-year development effort to produce RHEL7 was done in some sort of drunken haze by untrained interns with no scrutiny by experienced linux developers. I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument other than ad hominem and "change = bad". -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C-6, Gnome question
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:42 -0500, Fred Smith wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 07:07:38PM -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > > > > Well, that's the limit of my offerings. I'm still trying to find the > > thing I used back in C5(?) that raised the panels when the mouse hovered > > over it for X seconds. With C6 I can't find it anymore and it switches > > way too fast. > > in C6 it's in SYSTEM | PREFERENCES | WINDOWS > there's a slider titled "interval before raising". LoL! I just found it while trying to find out where another distasteful C6.6 update effect was started. > > > > > In a nutshell, after I would terminate Firefox as part of my normal log off process, there would be another instance of Firefox left hanging around with a ppid of 1 (so it's daemonized", or as I prefer "demonized" ;-)) and using all the CPU it could get (97%-99% of a 6 core AMD in my desktop) while no Firefox windows were open. Figuring it might be saving stuff I checked back many minutes later on many days and cycles and it was always there. Moreover, when normally using Firefox I'd seen 103%, 104% CPU usage etc. I commented out the entries that start it in Xclients and made a patch. If I see no ill effects I'll leave it in place, otherwise back to digging as to why it's there. I'll tell ya, those folks keep going the way they are and every Windows box on the planet will be able to run circles around many of these Linux distros. Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C-6, Gnome question
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 21:02 -0600, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 01/09/2015 06:07 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > > I'm still trying to find the > > thing I used back in C5(?) that raised the panels when the mouse hovered > > over it for X seconds. With C6 I can't find it anymore and it switches > > way too fast. > > I presume you're talking about panels with "Autohide" set. If you have > the GUI gconf-editor installed, it's under apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay. > You can also set it from the command line: > > gconftool-2 --type int --set /apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay 500 > > (The default is 300, unit is milliseconds). Thanks! My terminalogy was likely not correct. I was refering to the ... "windows" for applications, which I've been calling "panels" (because they are within my virtual windows). The ... task bar(?) works just fine with autohide. As Fred correctly divined, it was in one of the drop-downs under preferences. But I'll bet you know the CL for that too. Since I'm an old CLI guy that prefers that method, I'll be hunting starting from your hint. > Thanks for taking the time! It helps a lot. Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C-6, Gnome question
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 05:12:48PM -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 19:42 -0500, Fred Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 07:07:38PM -0500, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, that's the limit of my offerings. I'm still trying to find the > > > thing I used back in C5(?) that raised the panels when the mouse hovered > > > over it for X seconds. With C6 I can't find it anymore and it switches > > > way too fast. > > > > in C6 it's in SYSTEM | PREFERENCES | WINDOWS > > there's a slider titled "interval before raising". > LoL! I just found it while trying to find out where another distasteful > C6.6 update effect was started. > > > > > > > > > > In a nutshell, after I would terminate Firefox as part of my normal log > off process, there would be another instance of Firefox left hanging > around with a ppid of 1 (so it's daemonized", or as I prefer > "demonized" ;-)) and using all the CPU it could get (97%-99% of a 6 core > AMD in my desktop) while no Firefox windows were open. Figuring it might > be saving stuff I checked back many minutes later on many days and > cycles and it was always there. Moreover, when normally using Firefox > I'd seen 103%, 104% CPU usage etc. I commonly also find a "stray" firefox running after stopping firefox, and it isn't using a window either. it's a nuisance because, when there's a firefox update and it wants to restart the browser, it can't because there's that darn "stray" one hanging around. like you, I have no idea where it comes from or why it's there, nor what it's doing, either. > > I commented out the entries that start it in Xclients and made a patch. > If I see no ill effects I'll leave it in place, otherwise back to > digging as to why it's there. please let me know how it goes, I may want to investigate doing the same. > > I'll tell ya, those folks keep going the way they are and every Windows > box on the planet will be able to run circles around many of these Linux > distros. > > Bill Thanks! Fred -- Fred Smith -- fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us - The Lord detests the way of the wicked but he loves those who pursue righteousness. - Proverbs 15:9 (niv) - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your > thought half a step farther ;-) Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work to get CentOS working without it. Unhappy Debian users are trying to do this with Devuan. It seems extremely unlikely that complaining about downstream is going to change anything. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 17:00 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote: > I know conspiracy theories are fun but your argument is simply > absurd and insulting. At least try to assemble a convincing argument > other than ad hominem and "change = bad". Disruption = BAD Gentle change / gradual change = GOOD :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, January 11, 2015 5:16 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-01-11, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> Indeed. Or another system altogether (sihg). I'm just extending your >> thought half a step farther ;-) > > Or going even farther, if you like CentOS but not systemd, do the work > to get CentOS working without it. Unhappy Debian users are trying to do > this with Devuan. It seems extremely unlikely that complaining about > downstream is going to change anything. > I know... But: systemd is in a mainstream kernel. All Linux distros imminently have Linux kernel... There are different levels to which I care about two different groups of boxes I maintain. One of them stays with Linux and is upgraded to the latest whenever appropriate no matter whether there is systemd or anything else I might not like. Another group... I'm talking about their issues on different mail lists for quite some time already. So, I'm happy. And wish the same to everybody else ;-) Valeri PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-) Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I > look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way > back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins > were fighting with the consequences of this: > http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I > would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question > sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff > could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop > never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would > constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while > one cares about it ;-) Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Thunderbird randomly segfaults at startup
On 01/11/2015 12:13 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Oh, boy. We do seem to have to treat Linux like Windows these days and _reboot_ after any update, not only kernel or glibc update. So much for "Unix-like", sigh ;-( When you are trying to track down unexplained and only semi-repeatable behavior, you have to know that you are starting from a known state. Heck, I did at least 5 re-installs of the OS during the course of this. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C-6, Gnome question
On 01/11/2015 04:19 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 21:02 -0600, Robert Nichols wrote: I presume you're talking about panels with "Autohide" set. If you have the GUI gconf-editor installed, it's under apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay. You can also set it from the command line: gconftool-2 --type int --set /apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay 500 (The default is 300, unit is milliseconds). Thanks! My terminalogy was likely not correct. I was refering to the ... "windows" for applications, which I've been calling "panels" (because they are within my virtual windows). Oh. I've always kept auto-raise turned off. I frequently have multiple overlapping windows open, and sometimes raising the one I'm typing into would hide something I need to see. (Yes, the part I'm typing into is visible.) The ... task bar(?) works just fine with autohide. As Fred correctly divined, it was in one of the drop-downs under preferences. But I'll bet you know the CL for that too. Since I'm an old CLI guy that prefers that method, I'll be hunting starting from your hint. In Gnome they're called "panels." Right-click in one and you'll see, "Add to Panel," "Delete This Panel," etc. No, I don't know the CLI path for the window auto-raise delay. Heck, I only found the one I posted by searching for it in the gconf-editor GUI. I don't use that stuff anywhere near often enough to remember it, just that it's in there, somewhere. -- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C-6, Gnome question
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 07:49:02PM -0600, Robert Nichols wrote: > On 01/11/2015 04:19 PM, Bill Maltby (C4B) wrote: > >On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 21:02 -0600, Robert Nichols wrote: > >>I presume you're talking about panels with "Autohide" set. If you have > >>the GUI gconf-editor installed, it's under > >>apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay. > >>You can also set it from the command line: > >> > >> gconftool-2 --type int --set /apps/panel/global/panel_show_delay 500 > >> > >>(The default is 300, unit is milliseconds). > > > >Thanks! My terminalogy was likely not correct. I was refering to the ... > >"windows" for applications, which I've been calling "panels" (because > >they are within my virtual windows). > > Oh. I've always kept auto-raise turned off. I frequently have multiple > overlapping windows open, and sometimes raising the one I'm typing into > would hide something I need to see. (Yes, the part I'm typing into is > visible.) I've traditionally done that, too. but 2 or 3 years ago I decided to try it, with a 1 second delay, and found I (mostly) like it. Odd. -- Fred Smith -- fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us - The Lord is like a strong tower. Those who do what is right can run to him for safety. --- Proverbs 18:10 (niv) - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if >> I >> look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way >> back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins >> were fighting with the consequences of this: >> http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I >> would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question >> sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff >> could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big >> flop >> never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would >> constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while >> one cares about it ;-) > > Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as > the predictable number generator issue. > Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-) Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue. Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.even when it doesn't seem like there is! EGO II ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: > On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: >>> On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-) >>> Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as >>> the predictable number generator issue. >>> >> Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems >> (not >> only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD >> boxes >> were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet >> these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you >> decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this >> kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing >> way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference. >> >> Valeri >> >> >> Valeri Galtsev >> Sr System Administrator >> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics >> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics >> University of Chicago >> Phone: 773-702-4247 >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or > bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on > it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN > distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, > there's STILL choice.even when it doesn't seem like there is! > I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still... Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-) Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue. Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.even when it doesn't seem like there is! I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still... Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I am sorry...you're right. I was basing that statement on the devs who forked Debian to make Devuan. I assumed that they are building a version of the linux kernel with no systemd in it. (Maybe I'm wrong?will have to check out a few articles and find out what's really going on!) My apologies...once again EGO II ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 08:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: > On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: >>> On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat >> if >> I >> look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way >> back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) >> admins >> were fighting with the consequences of this: >> http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian >> machine >> I >> would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question >> sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential >> stuff >> could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big >> flop >> never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that >> would >> constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something >> while >> one cares about it ;-) > Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as > the predictable number generator issue. > Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>> I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or >>> bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on >>> it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN >>> distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, >>> there's STILL choice.even when it doesn't seem like there is! >>> >> I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux >> distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux >> kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to >> that >> level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is >> quite >> a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on >> it, still... >> >> Valeri >> >> >> Valeri Galtsev >> Sr System Administrator >> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics >> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics >> University of Chicago >> Phone: 773-702-4247 >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > I am sorry...you're right. I was basing that statement on the devs who > forked Debian to make Devuan. I assumed that they are building a version > of the linux kernel with no systemd in it. (Maybe I'm wrong?will > have to check out a few articles and find out what's really going on!) > My apologies...once again No, you are correct. They would just have to figure out how to do it on their own in a way that works. The bottom line is that every bit of the code that is used for CentOS is released to everyone. One needs to either use what is compiled or be smart enough to take the source code and make it do what they want. That can be done .. but it is much easier to bitch about what someone else is doing that actually do something themselves .. so what you will see is a bunch whinning all over the Internet and people using whatever is released .. because the whinners are too lazy to actually work on an open source project. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Design changes are done in Fedora
On 01/11/2015 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 01/11/2015 08:50 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev wrote: PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if I look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins were fighting with the consequences of this: http://www.debian.org/security/2008/dsa-1571 . If I had Debian machine I would not only regenerate all key pairs, certs, etc. I would question sanity of that box then, and will not be certain what confidential stuff could have been stolen from it... I realized then that that level big flop never happened to RedHat. I couldn't even point to something that would constitute big flop RedHat of then. One only criticizes something while one cares about it ;-) Heartbleed was pretty scary, no? I'd consider that at least as bad as the predictable number generator issue. Well, heratbleed and shellshock were pretty much global: all systems (not only Linuxes, not to say particular Linux distributions - my FreeBSD boxes were affected too) using openssl or bash were affected... Same bad, yet these were not flops of particular distribution, so whichever system you decided to stick with , you had these. Not certain about you, but this kind of makes difference for me. When I say I'm happy about [me choosing way back] RedHat heartbleed, no heartbleed, no difference. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I guess everyone will have an opinion of systemd whether it be good or bad. The only resolution is to either use a distro that has systemd on it, use a distro that DOESN'T have systemd on it...or build your OWN distro and don't include systemd! I guess when it all boils down to it, there's STILL choice.even when it doesn't seem like there is! I wouldn't quite agree with you about someone building one's own Linux distro without systemd. You see, systemd _IS_ in the mainstrem Linux kernel which you imminently have to use. Having distro with kernel to that level not mainstream, so systemd related stuff is stripped off it is quite a task. Less that writing one's own kernel and building system based on it, still... Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I am sorry...you're right. I was basing that statement on the devs who forked Debian to make Devuan. I assumed that they are building a version of the linux kernel with no systemd in it. (Maybe I'm wrong?will have to check out a few articles and find out what's really going on!) My apologies...once again No, you are correct. They would just have to figure out how to do it on their own in a way that works. The bottom line is that every bit of the code that is used for CentOS is released to everyone. One needs to either use what is compiled or be smart enough to take the source code and make it do what they want. That can be done .. but it is much easier to bitch about what someone else is doing that actually do something themselves .. so what you will see is a bunch whinning all over the Internet and people using whatever is released .. because the whinners are too lazy to actually work on an open source project. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos I will admit to being a bit of a whiner when I first came to Linux, and it was over the massive changes that took place in Gnome 3. it was so long ago that I can't even remember what I was complaining about,...but after like a month the issue was "reverted" back, or reinstated, and I've never complained since then. And the reason I don't complain anymore?..I had gotten an email response once (will have to dig through the millions I have to find it!...unless I deleted it..) from a person who worked on a project, it wasn't the one I had been complaining about but it was something popular, and he went into great detail as to what is needed and required of him on a daily basis just to make sure this project "worked" f
[CentOS] Zone file not written to slave DNS server
I have mostly succeeded in getting master and slave DNS servers operational. Mostly, because the zone file is not written when a zone is updated on the master server when the notify and transfer process happens. The slave DNS server gets the changes to the modified zone, but the slave zone file remains as before. I've found a few tutorials and lots of discussions, many of which talk about the slave's zone file getting written upon transfer, but none mention what configuration option would cause the slave's files to get updated. The master is on a Cantos 6 server and the slave is on a Cantos 7 machine. Any ideas? Emmett ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Zone file not written to slave DNS server
On 1/11/2015 9:28 PM, Emmett Culley wrote: I have mostly succeeded in getting master and slave DNS servers operational. Mostly, because the zone file is not written when a zone is updated on the master server when the notify and transfer process happens. The slave DNS server gets the changes to the modified zone, but the slave zone file remains as before. I've found a few tutorials and lots of discussions, many of which talk about the slave's zone file getting written upon transfer, but none mention what configuration option would cause the slave's files to get updated. The master is on a Cantos 6 server and the slave is on a Cantos 7 machine. does the named service have write access to the slave directory ? chown named.named /path-to-named/slave oh, is your slave chrooted? are you looking in the right directory, eg, /var/named/chroot/var/named/slave ? -- 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
