Re: SELinux error booting backup f12
In short, selinux=0 turns off selinux. enforcing=0 disables it. Meaning if these are your current parameters you are not using it. jackson byers wrote: >Daniel J Walsh wrote > >> You can boot with selinux=0 or enforcing=0. enforcing=0 means that >> SELinux will block nothing, but maintain the labeling. > >1) selinux=0 worked; booted up into my backup f12, looks good. > >2) next tried rebooting with enforcing=0 >This was more difficult; the boot process got into relabeling > wtth a warning it would take long time. > I walked away from the screen maybe 20minutes into the relabeling > and when I got back (maybe at 30min time), > it had rebooted on its own, but into my main f12. > Rebooted yet again into the "enforcing=0" stanza of my backup f12, > and it came up this time into my backup f12, > with no further relabeling message, > so all looks ok here too. > >This was a good learning exerience. >But I must say I am still mostly ignorant of what SELinux is doing, >why I needed either selinux=0, enforcing=0, in the first place, and >in particular the "what/why/how" of this relabeling business. >I have spent some time, not a lot, on googling SELinux, relabeling, >and I am getting lost in the detail. > >thanks for showing me the ropes re selinux=0, enforcing=0 > >Jack >-- >users mailing list >users@lists.fedoraproject.org >To unsubscribe or change subscription options: >https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users >Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: using sudo
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 16:11 -0400, terry wrote: > I've looked through the systems > administation but cannot figure how > to put myself in the file where I can use say sudo yum something > without having to use su , passwd each time I need to be root > thank you. alt-f2 su -c visudo Sudo isn't a gui app, so there's no gui option to maintain it. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development. -- dmegg...@aix1.uottawa.ca signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
get-fedora export restrictions
According to the get-fedora page, the following restrictions are in effect when downloading/distributing Fedora: == Quote == Export Regulations By clicking on and downloading Fedora, you agree to comply with the following terms and conditions: Fedora software and technical information is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. and foreign law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria) or to persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports (including those (a) on the Bureau of Industry and Security Denied Parties List or Entity List, (b) on the Office of Foreign Assets Control list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, and (c) involved with missile technology or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons). You may not download Fedora software or technical information if you are located in one of these countries, or otherwise affected by these restrictions. You may not provide Fedora software or technical information to individuals or entities located in one of these countries or otherwise affected by these restrictions. You are also responsible for compliance with foreign law requirements applicable to the import and use of Fedora software and technical information. == Quote Ends == While I'm not a lawyer by any means, I thought the sanctions against Iraq were lifted in 2004?? http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iraq/iraq.pdf Quote: "On July 30, 2004, the President issued a new Executive Order 13350 effectively lifting the sanctions against Iraq and expanding the authorities of E.O. 13315 with regard to the former Iraqi regime, including an Annex containing the names of parties blocked under this order. These names have been incorporated into OFAC's SDN list." I'm not sure who's responsible for the legal language in regards to the restrictions here - but I see nothing in that document that talks about restricting IT or talking to an Iraqi about IT? Even export to Iraq is allowed as long as there's an approval from the Department of Commerce. Now - I may be wrong here about the restrictions when it comes to Iraq. If I am, my final comment would be why get-fedora doesn't block downloads from the countries mentioned? Isn't that in violation of the listed terms? -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: need help: my first packet to my provider gets lost :-( sel: dont send the first one, start with #2 * netgod is kidding signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Fedora13 showed 128 TB /proc/kcore on 2GB RAM
Chen, You NEVER EVER want to include /proc, /sys, /tmp, /media, /dev in your backup/iso. They're not really files but points to other systems data, or your kernel's internal structures. If you're on a 64bit machines, then yes - the "virtual" size of these files can be quite large. That's normal. They're not meant to be written/read by normal processes. So simply exclude the non persistent mount points, temporary and "cd/usb" mount points when you do a system dump like that. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Stupid nick highlighting Whenever someone starts with "stupid" it highlights the nick. Hmm. -- #Debian On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 12:24 -0600, Chen, Helen Y wrote: > Hi, > > I am running Fedora 13 with the 2.6.33.5-112-2.2 kernel, and am trying > to make an ISO image of my hard disk for other use. Unfortunately > “mkisofs” failed because /proc/kcore exceeded its 4GB file size limit. > In fact, the size of the kcore on my system is shown to be 128TB, and > the machine itself only contains 2GB of RAM. Has anyone experienced > the same problem? BTW, the kcore files on my redhat machines reflect > the actual RAM size as it should be. Also, does anyone know why > “mkisofs” even tries to copy a virtual file into the ISO image it is > creating? > > Thanks, > H Chen > > > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Preupgrade??
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:58 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote: > That's not what I said. I said I've been using Fedora and > RedHat long > before things like LVM existed. I'm more comfortable without > them at > times, especially after I got burned by a disk failure while > using LVM. > > Oops! Disk failures happen. You had problems doing a restore? > > Whatever the case may be, it seems to me LVM shouldn't be thrown at > newbies for the desktop. I certainly will keep away from it as much as > I can. I could not disagree more. LVM is essential to solve problems like resizing issues; backup and generally solve all the problems that static partition tables has had since their inception. Generally, "users" shouldn't care about how/where things are stored. They use OpenOffice, mail, browsers and applications. It's not the users job to configure the box and do system administration. The problem here seems to be, that Fedora isn't using a Grub version that supports LVM. Is there any plans on switching to grub2 on install so we can get rid of the /boot partition and help resolve issues like upgrade needing more space temporarily. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: netgod: 8:42pm is not late. doogie: its 2:42am in Joeyland -- #Debian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: [OT] e-mail problems
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 13:41 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:16 -0400, Steve Blackwell wrote: > > I'm struggling to explain why I appear to never have problems > > when the router is taken out of the equation. How can I prove to my > > ISP > > that it is their problem? > > How can I prove that the fact that I mowed my lawn yesterday didn't > cause the pavement to collapse in front of the grocery store downtown? Make a reproducable case. Something you know will not work with your router. Test without your router. If you do manage to get the mail from the external mail server without your router, I would suspect that you're running somekind of scanning software on the router. Some have filter options, in particular the more expensive models have features where you can plug antivirus/bot scanners directly into the router and it'll not route what it considers bad data through to your network. It would also help if you described the problem in more details. For instance, is it a matter of delay or is the email lost? If lost, make sure your email client may not be moving it to another folder. So if you create the above reproducable case, turn on debugging and see what your client is doing with the mail that is missed. Finally, you could have anti-spam bots running on your host that filters out your mail. When you did the "direct attachment" you may not have been running at full speed locally. The debugging on the mail client should help you understand what module a email was sent to when it was lost. What would be very strange is if your system (router or host) doesn't see the email at all, and you see a difference in getting emails from using a direct or NAT'ed connection. > In both instances, you're looking at two things that are REALLY > unrelated to each other in any way. There's nothing to "prove". That would be my opinion too. So in order to really find out what's going on, get a reproduceable case. See if you can email yourself from a different account and have the delivery delayed or missing. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: And Bruce is effectively building BruceIX -- Alan Cox signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Testing disk I/O?
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 21:55 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > I know about the smart tools, but they run disk tests > pretty much entirely within the disk drive (I think?). > > Is there a good tool for testing the whole disk I/O > system that will wind up exercising the disk, the > controller/chipset, etc? (Hopefully available in the > fedora repos). Bonnie++ - but to get the real stats it'll need to write to the disk. Don't count on saving existing data on the disk if that's what you plan to do. The read-test from Bonnie++ can be done by smartctl too. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Not enough info, so no point
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 17:44 -0700, JD wrote: > On 05/31/11 16:25, n2xssvv.g02gfr12930 wrote: > > Sorry to say this, but after some of the jaded comments you've made in > > the past I don't hold you in high regard. > I have been seeing a lot of complaints about F15. > This tells me that this release was made in too much > of a hurry (only ~6 months after release of F14 around > near mid Nov. 2010). And that's different from the release period of 6 months from F13 to F14 how? Or F12 to F13?? Fedora is _not_ production ready. It was NEVER made to be a reliable and tested platform. It's where we live up to true open source, release often and release early. We identify the issues and work on making the software better. WE here means community - it means working together. Us that are not code contributors need to help out too. By testing, reporting our findings (not "it doesn't work" but REAL debug information); help provide documentation and in other ways help improve the quality. And you're totally right - by the time we catch up, it's time to move on. That's the nature of Fedora. We don't have a LTS of Fedora - unless you consider RHEL Workstation as such (and I don't). But as you may know, a lot of the cool NEW stuff isn't part of that distribution for the reasons I just mentioned. You can't have it both ways. Stable and tested software is not state of the art. And it takes quite a bit of resources to keep a supported LTS around and Fedora choose not to go that way. > Seems to me not enough testing was done before release. > Let's hope F16 will be more solid. There never is enough time. And that's on purpose. The release itself should be considered a QA candidate all the way to EOL. Each release builds up experience to improve the next. Each Fedora release is supported by updates for 13-some months. You do not HAVE to go directly to F15 right when it's released. It's your choice to stay on F14 for another 6-7 months - and you'll still get updates and you can still help making things better by providing feedback and fix issues on that version. It'll all help to improve F16. F16 will be better, but don't expect F16 to do things differently than things were done for F14 or F15 (or earlier). It's still going to be bleeding edge, and you'll be chancing your system failing by using it. Of course as we learn about Fedora and Linux most of us are able to diagnose (with or without community help) and find solutions or work-arounds to problems allowing us to use Fedora as our permanent desktops. But not without expecting a hickup now and then (particular on "upgrade day"). -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste -- k...@cis.ufl.edu put this on Tshirts in '93 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Not enough info, so no point
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 18:24 +0100, n2xssvv.g02gfr12930 wrote: > For my PC > > Fedora 15 update fails > > Fedora 15 install CD fails to boot > > Fedora 15 Live KDE fails to boot Sounds like hardware/bios to me? Maybe you didn't hit the ON button? (exaggeration made on purpose here). Define "boot" better. Describe the failure with dumps and you'll be able to have a conversation in here. "Cannot boot" is not a descriptive/objective error message. Nobody can help you given that little information. The boot process is complex and has many many stages. Be specific or you get the responses you've been given here. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: I am a conscientious man, when I throw rocks at seabirds I leave no tern unstoned. -- Ogden Nash, "Everybody's Mind to Me a Kingdom Is" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Update failes
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 18:41 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > > Is there a reason why you wait until months (if not years) after a > > Fedora version reaches EOL before upgrading? > No Time Wrong distribution then. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) -- Unknown source signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: renaming files
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 14:11 +, arnaldo gomes wrote: > Hello > > Just installed fedora 14 but when I try renaming a file it includes > the extension, unlike Fedora 11. > Is this normal ? There's really no such thing as "extension" with Linux. You can easily have a file called my.very.long.file.name - the "." is just part of the file name. The last part of a filename after the last . doesn't have special meaning either. It's purely aesthetics for the user to know what type of content a file has. When you rename using mv it uses the default globbing rules. That means that *.abc matches any file that ends on .abc - even if it's named test.1.abc or file.abc. You have the option of doing very advanced matches if you want to make a difference on that "level" the . is on. Also, besides the traditional "mv" command for renaming, you have more advanced methods for mass renaming, like "rename". They too depend on simple pattern matching - so if you choose to match on the last part of a file name, they do that nicely too. None of this has changed with Fedora for a long time. With Nautilus when you select a file and choose rename, it SHOULD only highlight the first part of the filename for you (until the first .). This behavior irritates me given the nature of a Linux file system not to care about extensions, but that's the way it's been for a while. It's easy however to accidentally expand the selection to be the hole file name, and in that case you'll change the full name. I see no change in behavior there between F12 -> F14. It still only highlights until the last dot (.). -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Win95 is not a virus; a virus does something. -- unknown source signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Convert ext4 lvm to normal ext4 partition
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 10:34 -0800, Michael Miles wrote: > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On 12/11/10 1:13 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > >> Considering that the LVM is a ext4 Virtual partition it seems to me > >> that it would be easy to convert but there is no such beast out there > >> Lots of stuff for converting ext3 to ext4 but nothing for what I need. It's very easy to do; but why would you? LVM should be kept. It makes your life easier and has no impact on performance. Copying from/to an LVM is as easy/troublesome as copying to/from a partition. Use dd to copy data from one to another. Between LVs, between partitions or between LVs and partitions; both ways. In other words - there's no difference in the file system. ext4 is ext4. Whether you have it on a USB stick, scsi, sata, partition or even raw - the filesystem is the same. As long as there is room on the destination device, you can copy it from any device type to another. This is not the case for boot information (of course) but the file systems are the same. > > This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing one reason it's > > hard is that the LVM layer knows nothing about the ext4 layer. The > > ext4 layer contains lots of metadata (inodes, freelists, etc.) which > > includes pointers to disk sectors or extents. In a physical partition > > these point to real disk addresses but in an LVM partition they are > > virtual (compare real with virtual memory for an analogy). This is false and based on not understanding how device handling is done. Device mapper is involved, with or without lvm. Your partition layout is just as much an "abstract" layer as an LVM volume is. All the kernel gets is the same mapping table between the logical to physical addresses, that you do in your partition table. There's nothing in EXT* that addresses physical addresses on your desk. Pretty much nothing does these days. > > From LVM's > > viewpoint the entire ext4 fs is just disk sectors with random binary > > data. The fact that some of this stuff is fs metadata and some isn't > > means that a conversion tool would need to understand the ext4 > > metadata to convert it. Of course if it's ext3 or xfs or btrfs etc. > > then the same applies, with different rules for each one. LVM has no "opinion" about anything that is inside the volume. That's up to other layers. Just like your partition table doesn't care what file system is created in a given partition. As you know, linux does not use the MBR partition type flags at all. They're all there for your benefit - nothing code wise. > > Worse still, if you want a in-place conversion you have to be able to > > do this in such a way that it's recoverable even after a hard system > > crash in the middle of the conversion. And if you don't need it > > in-place, you already have the solution as said before. If there is a crash in the dd, you just run dd again. If you're really good, you can resume it from where it left off; worst case is you copy everything again. > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > poc > Agreed, I am just really surprised that Fedora would adopt this method > of storage as it slows down the drive by a huge margin. > That reason alone would say to me' No, don't want this" HUGE MARGIN? Got any documentation to back that one up? There is no - repeat NO - performance/difference in how the disk is addressed by LVM or a partition. It's a simple mapping between logical and physical addresses, that is done regardless of how you address your device. -- -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: I'm going to give my psychoanalyst one more year, then I'm going to Lourdes. -- Woody Allen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Convert ext4 lvm to normal ext4 partition
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 16:34 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On 12/11/10 2:04 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > >> On 12/11/10 1:13 PM, Michael Miles wrote: > >>> Considering that the LVM is a ext4 Virtual partition it seems to me > >>> that it would be easy to convert but there is no such beast out there > >>> Lots of stuff for converting ext3 to ext4 but nothing for what I need. > >> > >> This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing one reason it's > >> hard is that the LVM layer knows nothing about the ext4 layer. The > >> ext4 layer contains lots of metadata (inodes, freelists, etc.) which > >> includes pointers to disk sectors or extents. In a physical partition > >> these point to real disk addresses but in an LVM partition they are > >> virtual (compare real with virtual memory for an analogy). From LVM's > >> viewpoint the entire ext4 fs is just disk sectors with random binary > >> data. The fact that some of this stuff is fs metadata and some isn't > >> means that a conversion tool would need to understand the ext4 > >> metadata to convert it. Of course if it's ext3 or xfs or btrfs etc. > >> then the same applies, with different rules for each one. > >> > >> Worse still, if you want a in-place conversion you have to be able to > >> do this in such a way that it's recoverable even after a hard system > >> crash in the middle of the conversion. And if you don't need it > >> in-place, you already have the solution as said before. > >> > >> Just my 2 cents. > >> > >> poc > > Agreed, I am just really surprised that Fedora would adopt this method > > of storage as it slows down the drive by a huge margin. > > That reason alone would say to me' No, don't want this" > > Perhaps there are other benchmarks with different results, I don't know. > In any case, Fedora presumably decided that the gain in flexibility was > worth it. The irony is that there *is* a considerable gain for people > with large systems, server farms, clusters and what have you. For the > ordinary desktop user it's much more open to question, particularly as > some tools (notably parted) don't support it. Case in point: my F13 LVM > layout suffered a number of changes during its life, basically because I > needed to expand / at the expense of /home. The upshot was that the LV > containg / was physically (but not logically) split in two > non-contiguous regions. Then I decided to expand the /boot partition, > which of course is not in LVM. This meant resizing /, freeing space at > the end of the disk and moving the physical partition where LVM lived, > but of course parted refused since it doesn't understand LVM. So you're opposed to LVM because you resizing physical partitions is a problem?? You lost me. As you point out, you have been able to resize and move things around easily with LVM. There's a lot of other advantages, but that should sell it for most desktop users. > I consulted Google, and this list, and a very knowledgeable friend, and > the LVM docs, and concluded that there was no avoiding messing with the > disk partition table via fdisk. Needless to say I lost everything. > Luckily I have a nightly backup to a NAS so the day was saved, and I > then got to do a completely clean install of F14. So maybe LVM is a Good > Thing after all :-) Right - using hard partitions limits you. Getting rid of the hard partitions is the goal. Once grub2 is the default boot manager for Fedora we no longer need a /boot in a separate partition and these problems are history. -- -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Fairlight: udp is the light margarine of tcp/ip transport protocols :) -- Seen on #Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Convert ext4 lvm to normal ext4 partition
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:57 -0800, Michael Miles wrote: > Peter Larsen wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 10:34 -0800, Michael Miles wrote: > > > I was running bench mark software (Seeker) which showed the huge > difference from benching the boot (187 seeks/second) to the lvm on the > same disk at 66 seeks/second > > That's a pretty big difference and it should not be Next time run your test on the same location on the disk. Your /boot would usually be created on the inner most tracks - the fastest tracks - where as your LVM would be elsewhere - depending on your setup, maybe far behind windows etc. So create a partition, test it without lvm. Then add it as a pv, and do the same test on the lvm on the same implementation. -- -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: /* * Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently * -- Alan */ -- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: partition table
No such thing as lvm partition unless you're talking the pv. Fdisk shows your where it is, and pvdisplay gives you the details of the pv. Similar vgdisplay and lvdisplay gives you details of the logical volumes. Patrick Dupre wrote: >Hello, > >How can I display the partition table with lvm partitions. >fdisk only give the lvm partition, not the details. > >Thank. > >-- >--- >== > Patrick DUPRÉ | | > Department of Chemistry| | Phone: (44)-(0)-1904-434384 > The University of York | | Fax: (44)-(0)-1904-432516 > Heslington | | > York YO10 5DD United Kingdom | | email: patrick.du...@york.ac.uk >== >-- >users mailing list >users@lists.fedoraproject.org >To unsubscribe or change subscription options: >https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users >Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: partition table
You shouldn't name your lvs like pathnames as you did. It is just going to confuse you down the road. A common naming is lv_. Ie lv_root. So to address the lv from lvdisplay you do vg-name/lv-name. It is not a path to a file system location. Lvdisplay only worls from that naming convention. Patrick Dupre wrote: >Thank. > >Can you do something with this: > > > > >lvdisplay /dev/VolGrpSys0/ > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 11534270464: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 11534327808: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Input/output >error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 4096: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_lib: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 3145662464: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_lib: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 3145719808: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_lib: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_lib: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 4096: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_local: read failed after 0 of 4096 at >13627228160: Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_local: read failed after 0 of 4096 at >13627285504: Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_local: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_local: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 4096: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_src: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 6291390464: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_src: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 6291447808: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_src: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: >Input/output error > /dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_src: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 4096: >Input/output error > One or more specified logical volume(s) not found. > >and this ! > > > --- Logical volume --- > LV Name/dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr > VG NameVolGrpSys0 > LV UUIDAdPmoo-VyKK-3wk9-yn3u-6fTV-qdFq-2nXpel > LV Write Accessread/write > LV Status available > # open 2 > LV Size10.74 GiB > Current LE 2750 > Segments 1 > Allocation inherit > Read ahead sectors auto > - currently set to 256 > Block device 253:16 > > --- Logical volume --- > LV Name/dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_lib > VG NameVolGrpSys0 > LV UUIDVcPp7o-UrE4-7Ubb-CaYd-ZIbJ-VcbI-sv362Z > LV Write Accessread/write > LV Status available > # open 2 > LV Size2.93 GiB > Current LE 750 > Segments 1 > Allocation inherit > Read ahead sectors auto > - currently set to 256 > Block device 253:17 > > --- Logical volume --- > LV Name/dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_local > VG NameVolGrpSys0 > LV UUIDkXzQq6-Ikzk-xn0O-LLQu-fS0g-6Cmn-O6u0nJ > LV Write Accessread/write > LV Status available > # open 2 > LV Size12.69 GiB > Current LE 3249 > Segments 3 > Allocation inherit > Read ahead sectors auto > - currently set to 256 > Block device 253:18 > > --- Logical volume --- > LV Name/dev/VolGrpSys0/root_usr_src > VG NameVolGrpSys0 > LV UUIDZcDrCr-MHlb-JN1b-12B1-FTu3-qzri-Z6dqd0 > LV Write Accessread/write > LV Status available > # open 2 > LV Size5.86 GiB > Current LE 1500 > Segments 1 > Allocation inherit > Read ahead sectors auto > - currently set to 256 > Block device 253:19 > > > > >> No such thing as lvm partition unless you're talking the pv. Fdisk shows >> your where it is, and pvdisplay gives you the details of the pv. Similar >> vgdisplay and lvdisplay gives you details of the logical volumes. > >Patrick Dupre wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>How can I display the partition table with lvm partitions. >>fdisk only give the lvm partition, not the details. >> >>Thank. >> >>-- >>--- >>== >> Patrick DUPRÉ | | >> Department of Chemistry| | Phone: (44)-(0)-1904-434384 >> The University of York | | Fax: (44)-(0)-1904-432516 >> Heslington | | >> York YO10 5DD United Kingdom | | email: patrick.du...@york.ac.uk >>== >>-- >>users mailing list >>users@lists.fedoraprojec
Re: Computer transplant -
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 10:01 -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote: > This computer has developed problems and I have elected to replace > it with another used computer which FedEx should deliver in a few > days. I know I can transfer file from one to the other but is there > any hope I could simply install these hard drives and boot from > them. That would save me the effort of a lot of configuration. This is a hard question to answer without a lot of details - in short, the answer is always "it depends". But presuming your old and new computer can interface to the same type of harddrives - for instance most modern computers have both SATA and PATA on the mobo. So if your old computer is PATA and new computer SATA, simply take the hard-drive out of the old computer and install it in the new one. Do this AFTER you have installed an OS and otherwise got your new system ready. After this, it's a simply matter of copying files from the old to the new drive. Once done, you can disconnect the old drive fully and simply use the new system. If the two computers are 100% compatible in hardware - cpu, ram, cards etc. an option is to simply install the old drive in the new machine and boot. But that is rarely possible. Also, your old computer may not be the newest OS and by trying to use old releases you may not find it very easy to use your newer hardware. So it's better to simply install F14 on the new box and transfer your /home files over after the fact. It's a bit of work, yes - but it's worth it. If your old hdd has a separate partition/volume for /home you can dd it over instead of copying it. The danger here is, that your new system may want different security labels and you may take advantage of the situation and want to clean things up a bit; dd takes everything dirt and good stuff alike. But dd sure makes moving from one hdd to another easy. If the first assumption is wrong - that you cannot install the old hdd in the new box, you can do one of the following: use the old computer networked to the new one, and transfer files that way or get an external enclosure that's compatible with your old drive, and mount the drive via USB to your computer. This is rather slow but will work. > I suspect not but wanted to ask before doing anything else. Better safe than sorry. > I hesitate to shut this computer off, It comes on sounding like a > jet engine in my quiet room, fans running full bore and does not > POST. I changed the power supply, it ran ok for a week or more, I > figured I had it fixed until the problem returned with a vengeance. > I can get it to run by pulling off a fan plug and reinserting it > although that fan does not appear to be the problem. Too much, > simpler to buy another used box. Sounds like a heat issue? Keep the box turned off for longer periods and see if it solves anything. Remember, you can also take the hdd out and install it elsewhere and bypass that problem all together. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) -- Unknown source signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Lenovo IdeaPad S10-3t
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 12:37 -0700, CS DBA wrote: > Hi all; > > I'm thinking about buying a Lenovo IdeaPad S10-3t and running Fedora14 > on it. Anyone know if it's compatible? Web searches seem to indicate > that the wireless may be an issue. Any thoughts on if Fedora14 works > well with this card: > > BCM 4313 BGN Wireless I have one of those and yes, Fedora runs on it. However there's a few kinks - but not with the wireless. Mouse clicks is the largest one - Fedora (out of the box) doesn't support the touch-pad for clicking. I wasn't able to find a solution to that straight forward, so I have used it with a USB mouse. Also, I need to find something on Fedora to run the OS as a touch-pad - instead of having to click on things on the screen, that simply touching areas with the finger activates things. I'm running MeeGo on it as primary OS right now and it works very well actually. I know there's a MeeGo effort under Fedora right now and once I get on the other side of January I plan to join that effort to help getting things put together for Fedora. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: We come to bury DOS, not to praise it. -- Paul Vojta, vo...@math.berkeley.edu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: java problem
On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 22:53 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote: > hi, > > I have installed the java (by searching at the net) and just did as > directed. As follows: I wonder what problem is preventing you from simply: yum install @java ?? openjdk/icedtea works fine. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: > 1. is qmail as secure as they say? Depends on what they were saying, but most likely yes. -- Seen on debian-devel signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: abrt making no sense
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:44 +, BeartoothHOS wrote: > It alerts me, and shows a bug unreported. I tell it to report. It > churns through seventy downloads, or so it says. It's getting debug information necessary for any developer to respond to your issue. > When it thinks it's ready, I fill out its question as to what I > was doing, and tell it to go. That's the most important part. Without you explaining what you were doing the developer will be very much in the dark on where to look. In essence, a developer wants to replicate your problem and your description is key to do that. > One is called Bugzilla, with the rest in red, "Can't login. Check > Edit->Plugins->Bugzilla and /etc/abrt/plugins/Bugzilla.conf. Ser" This means you have not registered with bugzilla. What's going on is, that abrt is creating a bug-report on your behalf. It will look for existing bugs and add your information to it if it finds it, or it will create a new issue if that's needed. But you need to be registered - and the very first time abrt ran, you were asked for your credentials. You need to goto buzilla.redhat.com and register for an account. Add that to the abrt preferences, and go back and resend your information, so YOUR PROBLEM can become a task for a developer. > The other is called Logger, and reads "file:///var/log/abrt- > logger" That's where it stored the information it wants to send to buzilla and it's also where it stores the error it received from bugzilla. Look in the file and see if it doesn't tell you more details about why it cannot login. > The first seems to expect me to read its mind, perhaps by going > to the redhat bugzilla site and hitting Edit. I go, I login, and there is > no Edit -- nor anything else I can find that makes any sense. https://bugzilla.redhat.com It's a database front-end. You can run "reports" where you search for existing reports, or see/manage the reports you've created. You can actually do quite a bit, but you need to either create a bug or work on an existing one. Bugzilla does take a while to get used to though - no arguing there. > I do edit /etc/abrt/plugins/Bugzilla.conf (That "Ser" makes no > sense.) I give it my login and password. Next time abrt runs, I get the > same error again. If you open abrt (Automatic Bug Report Tool - see it in your "System Tools" menu and choose plugins, then find "bugzilla" and hit configure, you may find it easier to manage. Make sure case and username are spelled exactly the same. And make sure it's the same address (as above) that is used by bugzilla. > Seems to me abrt needs a technical writer who knows English. > Badly. I'm sure the project would appreciate your help; ABRT is an application like any others; use bugzilla to suggest your language changes. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: A possum must be himself, and being himself he is honest. -- Walt Kelly signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: firewall configuring
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 02:47 +1030, Tim wrote: > Why isn't there a thingy for configuring the firewall in the "system > settings" collection of configurators for Fedora 17? Not sure about a gui - lokkit is the tool I use. Commandline yes, but it's a lot easier to use than editing /etc/sysconfig/iptables. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: A Linux machine! Because a 486 is a terrible thing to waste! -- Joe Sloan, j...@wintermute.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can I list all users defined in LDAP (on RHEL6 or Fedora) ?
Pavel, Are you sure the LDAP server allows listing all users? It's quite normal to turn that off. On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 13:00 +0100, Pavel Lisy wrote: > Hello > > in newest version of getent (on RHEL6 or Fedora) > > $ getent passwd > returns only local users not users defined in LDAP. > > When I run > $ getent passwd login_in_ldap > it works the same like before. > > But I have many scripts where I get list of all users by this command > $ getent passwd > > Can I list all users defined in LDAP? > > -- > Pavel Lisy > T-MAPY spol. s r.o. > -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Netscape is not a newsreader, and probably never shall be. -- Tom Christiansen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: sudoers file
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 05:28 +0530, Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > Hi, > > > Any documentation to set up sudoers file apart from man sudoers ? Take a look in /usr/share/doc/sudo* Several examples, read-mes etc. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: * Jes wonders why so many people in here uses fooZ and foo_sleeping nicks Jes: Because they are sleeping? -- Seen on #Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: lvm
Patric, fdisk (you have to start using -cul instead of -l) reports what-ever the partition table contains. It's utterly ignorant to what's on the actual partition. So simply login with fdisk, do a "t" and change the partition type to what-ever you want. Be aware that linux ignores those types - they have absolutely no impact on how your system works. Regards Peter Larsen On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 10:54 +, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > fdisk -l gives: > /dev/sda9 174809088 2055290871536 83 Linux > /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux > /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux > /dev/sda12 221304832 29196083135328000 83 Linux > > while > pvscan >PV /dev/sda12 VG VolGrpSys2 lvm2 [33.69 GiB / 0free] > > So sda12 is a lvm partition, but not recognized by fdisk > > How can I fix this issue? > > Thank. > -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: I'm not afraid of death -- I just don't want to be there when it happens. -- Woody Allen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: cant ping from behind proxy box
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 18:28 +0200, Zoltan Szecsei wrote: > Hi, > Sorry - newbie to fedora, and google is driving me mad ! > > I've just setup up a F17alpha box, and am trying to ping the internet > from behind my Ubuntu proxy server, which also runs bind. > > I have set GATEWAY in /etc/sysconfig/network > I have put nameserver 192.168.0.1 into /etc/resolv.conf > I have done a export http_proxy=http://192.168.0.1:3128 > > I have done a /etc/init.d/network restart > > and I still cannot ping by IP nor by dnsalias name Ping what?? You won't be able to ping outside your proxy at all unless you allow your hosts to bypass the proxy (which would sorta elliminate the idea of the proxy in the first place). What IP and network did you give your fedora box? Setting up the proxy cannot be done until you have basic networking up. In other words, based on the above, your fedora box need to have an address in 192.168.0.x - and it needs to then be connected to a hub/switch that allows access to 192.168.0.1. Once done, you test with ping to 192.168.0.1. There's a chance you run with a "angry" firewall on 192.168.0.1 which could be blocking your pings, but if you say you can ping it from other hosts, that's obviously not the case. > > but this all works from other ubuntu boxes, and of course from the > server machine itself. > I can also ping all the PCs on my internal network. That includes the proxy server? If so, everything is working according to the setup. > > Please can someone tell me my deliberate mistake in this regard. Proxy servers blocks you from direct access to the outside network. It's why proxy servers are mostly used - to deny direct access to the workstations. That means pings too. > TIA, > Zoltan > > > > > > -- > > === > Zoltan Szecsei PrGISc [PGP0031] > Geograph (Pty) Ltd. > P.O. Box 7, Muizenberg 7950, South Africa. > > 65 Main Road, Muizenberg 7945 > Western Cape, South Africa. > > 34° 6'16.35"S 18°28'5.62"E > > Tel: +27-21-7884897 Mobile: +27-83-6004028 > Fax: +27-86-6115323 www.geograph.co.za > === > -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Now is the time for all good men to come to. -- Walt Kelly signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: cant ping from behind proxy box
"ping" doesn't use proxies. Again, you're blocked by the proxy server on purpose. Put in another way, you have to provide a router to do that. Not a proxy server. On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 18:51 +0200, Zoltan Szecsei wrote: > On 2012/03/04 18:44, Peter Larsen wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 18:28 +0200, Zoltan Szecsei wrote: > >> Hi, > >> Sorry - newbie to fedora, and google is driving me mad ! > >> > >> I've just setup up a F17alpha box, and am trying to ping the internet > >> from behind my Ubuntu proxy server, which also runs bind. > >> > >> I have set GATEWAY in /etc/sysconfig/network > >> I have put nameserver 192.168.0.1 into /etc/resolv.conf > >> I have done a export http_proxy=http://192.168.0.1:3128 > >> > >> I have done a /etc/init.d/network restart > >> > >> and I still cannot ping by IP nor by dnsalias name > > Ping what?? > anything that starts with www. > Even if I get their IP address and ping with the IP address, it still > times out. > > You won't be able to ping outside your proxy at all unless you allow > > your hosts to bypass the proxy (which would sorta elliminate the idea of > > the proxy in the first place). > > > > What IP and network did you give your fedora box? Setting up the proxy > 192.168.0.143 > > cannot be done until you have basic networking up. In other words, based > > on the above, your fedora box need to have an address in 192.168.0.x - > > and it needs to then be connected to a hub/switch that allows access to > > 192.168.0.1. Once done, you test with ping to 192.168.0.1. There's a > > chance you run with a "angry" firewall on 192.168.0.1 which could be > > blocking your pings, but if you say you can ping it from other hosts, > > that's obviously not the case. > yes, and I put an ALLOW in the squid ACL for that IP address. Firefox > works from this F17a box. > Anything from the CLI fails. > > > >> but this all works from other ubuntu boxes, and of course from the > >> server machine itself. > >> I can also ping all the PCs on my internal network. > > That includes the proxy server? If so, everything is working according > > to the setup. > yes > > > >> Please can someone tell me my deliberate mistake in this regard. > > Proxy servers blocks you from direct access to the outside network. It's > > why proxy servers are mostly used - to deny direct access to the > > workstations. That means pings too. > correct, but I have a working ACL for this IP address. > > > > > >> TIA, > >> Zoltan > >> -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Linux: the operating system with a CLUE... Command Line User Environment. -- seen in a posting in comp.software.testing signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: lvm
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 18:27 +, mike cloaked wrote: > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Peter Larsen > wrote: > > Patric, > > fdisk (you have to start using -cul instead of -l) reports what-ever the > > partition table contains. It's utterly ignorant to what's on the actual > > partition. So simply login with fdisk, do a "t" and change the partition > > type to what-ever you want. > > > > Be aware that linux ignores those types - they have absolutely no impact > > on how your system works. > > > > I guess that creating a partition type using a disk partitioning tool > like gparted or fdisk is different, and independent, to the filesystem > that is subsequently generated inside the partition! Absolutely. The "partition type" is something DOS/Windows uses (to a degree) and for backwards compatability reasons, you still see MS products use these labels. Linux, however, does not adhere to or use the partition types at all. > This is a piece > of knowledge, or lack of, that leads to quit a lot of confusion! It's been this way for ages with Linux. To be frank, I don't recall a type where the partition types meant anything. The boot flag did before grub have a meaning, but since legacy grub came around (even lilo if I remember right) it's also being ignored. > > So you can make a dos partition but then put a filesystem in it that > is ext4 or LVM for example.I wonder if there is a good simple > tutorial around that explains disk partitioning and filesystems? The fedora project has some very good documentation on LVM: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/Storage_Administration_Guide/ch-lvm.html To be honest, partitions are really a thing of the past. As we move away from the DOS partition tables, the last fight is really about boot security than anything else. Only on systems that are dual-booted does partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the bios needs during boot. But in essence all we need is a pointer to a location on the drive where the file-system begins. With LVM we then divide things up in smaller pieces that can will serve you a lot better than partitions will. In other words - you shouldn't have 10,11 or 12 partitions. http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#ch-partitions-x86 There's plenty of documents in the fedoraproject and while there is room for improvements you should be able to use the links provided here to dive a bit into the wonderful world of file systems. > > Anyone know? > -- > mike c -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: I could dance with you till the cows come home. On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows till you come home. -- Groucho Marx signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: lvm
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 21:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen: > > Only on systems that are dual-booted does > > partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for > > everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the > > bios needs during boot. > > is this a joke? Nope. > > you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same > partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a > smart setup-design! Have you looked at a Fedora installation since F12? That's the default setup. Your full OS and home and /var and /lib etc. are all on the same LVM physical partition. The only reason /boot is separate is due to legacy grub didn't support ext3 or 4, and that some very old bios's have some limitations on where the boot partition can be and what size it can have. With grub2 we now can boot directly from an LVM or MD device - there's no longer a need to separate system out. I for one cannot get why you distinguish between them. Whether the offset comes from a partition table or an LVM map, the result is the same - it's located on the same device and very very close to the root partition. > > if anything goes terrible wrong with your OS you want to care about > your data? your decision! most people would not if they have > any knowledge Tell me how your data is separated from your OS - and remember to include your logs, security settings, raid settings etc in that. They all live on the same PARTITION on a standard Fedora install. I think you're confusing a partition with a volume. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Oh, I've seen copies [of Linux Journal] around the terminal room at The Labs. -- Dennis Ritchie signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: lvm
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 12:44 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 03/04/2012 12:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 04.03.2012 21:13, schrieb Peter Larsen: > >> > Only on systems that are dual-booted does > >> > partitions make sense. With Grub2 we can now have a single partition for > >> > everything - and the reason we have the partition table is due to the > >> > bios needs during boot. > > > > is this a joke? > > No. I think that Mr. Larsen simply misunderstood, or generalized too > far. That wasn't my intention. I did go a bit further since the following list from the original email is quite scary reading today: > /dev/sda9 174809088 2055290871536 83 Linux > /dev/sda10 205531136 208603135 1536000 83 Linux > /dev/sda11 208605184 221302783 6348800 83 Linux > /dev/sda12 221304832 29196083135328000 83 Linux > Nothing except (maybe) Windows cares about partition types or the > boot flag, and starting from there he landed on the Island of > Conclusions and decided that that meant that if you're not dual booting, > you don't ever need multiple partitions. lol - "Island of Confusions" - I like that! It is Sunday after all and time to relax a bit. I wanted to have a dialog about the number of partitions in the first place. > I know -- Oh Ghod, how well I know! -- how easy it is to forget that > most people don't have decades of computer experience and that things > that are intuitively obvious to those of us who do are sometimes > incomprehensible to the less experienced. And, of course, the > requirements of those of us using Linux only at home aren't the same as > for those using it professionally, especially when it comes to backups > and security. Still, it's good to have some insight from the > professional side if only to show us how different the two environments > are and what we'd have to take into account if we were using Linux to > run even a small business. Personally I have run all Linux systems that's been "mine" for the last 15 years a single OS systems. Dual boot is for desktops, not for servers. And for servers today, I see little to no roles for the traditional partition. Only system disks gets partitioned on my systems - all other disks don't even have a partition table. Absolutely no need for it. And no, that doesn't mean I have "data" on the same disk as "system". I just don't use partitions to make that separation - because they cannot. The data and system would still be on the same physical disk, defeating the purpose of the original contempt of my statement. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: abuse me. I'm so lame I sent a bug report to debian-devel-changes -- Seen on #Debian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: lvm
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 22:57 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 04.03.2012 22:20, schrieb Peter Larsen: > > On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 21:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> is this a joke? > > > > Nope. > > > >> > >> you really want to install a OS and put systema nd data on the same > >> partition? do this if you want but do not tell anybody this is a > >> smart setup-design! > > > > Have you looked at a Fedora installation since F12? > > That's the default setup. > > so what, tehre are many not smart defaults > that is why "customize layout" exists Yet the default is there as it's the one configuration that covers the majority of installations. You're confusing the exceptions with the rule. > > i can even not imagenien how many people lost their > data because this dumb defaults after messed up > their installation and missing knowledge how to > save their data before If you override your LVM, sure that'll happen. But who does that? > nor is it smart to use LVM as default as > example on a notebook where you never can > install a additional disk and expand the LVM Rubbish. I've been using Fedora as my permanent workstation since around F8. LVM has been a part of most of the installations, and for good reasons. Adding additional drives, doing backups, doing VM snapshots etc. are all features founded on LVM. There's no overhead with LVM, and it's beats having fixed and static partitions. It makes absolutely no sense not to use LVM by default. Even if you only need to change your filesystem setup once, it's well worth it using volumes instead of physical partitions. > > it only makes additional layers and let pepople > run in troubles if things running not perfect Go back and read about LVM. There are no extra "layers". It's using the same device mapper your partition system is. > > > Your full OS and home and /var and /lib etc. are all on the same > > LVM physical partition. T > > as said - a dumb dfeault That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree (see above as to why). > > > he only reason /boot is separate is due to > > legacy grub didn't support ext3 or 4 > > well, and that is why it would be REALLY idiotic to > say "hey now all supports each FS, we do not need /boot" We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability for a long time now. > as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there > was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the > future, but as it was released it was easy to use > it for system/data And the fact that we increased the requirement from 200 to 500MB never caused you issues? I saw lots of people on IRC who were in a jam because of that - and because /boot was a physical partition expanding it's size was/is quite a hazzle. It's the perfect reason for using LVM to begin with - even for /boot. > believe it or not - history will happen again > we all do not know about future development So because of this uncertainty, you want to pick the least flexible setup as default and "not dumb"? Seems to me, that it should be the other way around. > but you can setup your systems with the expierence > of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine I'm not ignoring anything. You seem to be though. > i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made > for "click, next,c lick, next" users You've yet to explain why it's smarter to be static and unflexible, on top of not having the availability of snapshot backups and other features provided by LVM. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: This land is full of trousers! this land is full of mausers! And pussycats to eat them when the sun goes down! -- Firesign Theater signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: lvm
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 00:56 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 05.03.2012 00:35, schrieb Peter Larsen: > > We're not longer using legacy grub. Even with F14 we shipped Grub2 (it > > may even have been included earlier - not sure). We've had this ability > > for a long time now. > > uninteresting in this context > you shipped and it was good to have a sepearte /boot Let's try to keep to the subject. We're talking about a current Fedora - to understand why we did things we did in the past, we need to know what changed. So it's definitely on topic to discuss the difference between legacy grub and grub2. > > you and i do not know the future and somewhere in > time there will be ext5 and GRUB2 not support it > who knows? Again, if we stick to the subject of talking about the current release, we have a very defined abilities and consequences. Trying to plan for something you and I don't know about is quite fruitless. > > i am one of the people not reinstall their systems > because i am moving around disks between new and old > and the most interesting ones re even not physicasl In that you're definitely in the minority. In particular when it comes to Fedora. Going from one major version to another on the OS means you have to rethink what you're doing. What worked yesterday may not be what works today. There was a time I formatted everything with FAT; there was another time where ext2 was good enough - but as we have progressed and our technology gets better, I've adapted. To me that's what Fedora is all about. It would defeat the purpose of using Fedora if I didn't adapt to the "new way" of doing things. Otherwise, how would we find out what works and what doesn't? > > >> as i installed my systems with a 500 MB /boot there > >> was no imagination that ext4 can be relevant in the > >> future, but as it was released it was easy to use > >> it for system/data > > > > And the fact that we increased the requirement from 200 to > > 500MB never caused you issues? > > which requirement? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_PreUpgrade#Not_enough_space_in_.2Fboot That requirement. > /dev/sda1 ext4189M 40M 150M 21% /boot > 2.6.42.7-1.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Feb 21 01:22:05 UTC 2012 I may suggest you try a new install now and then and see what has changed. 500MB is the default size for /boot and has been for the last few releases. And yes, it has to do with pre-upgrade requirements. Personally I think it could have been solved in a different manner, but it's what we ended up with. > > well, majority of my machines are VMware ESX guests > /boot is there even a own disk And with that you certainly got far from what the average Fedora user does. > so increase what you like > > * shutdown > * klick -> drag > * gparted > * upgrade Well, with LVM you don't even have to shutdown. lvresize is all you need. > > So because of this uncertainty, you want to pick the least flexible > > setup as default and "not dumb"? Seems to me, that it should be the > > other way around. > > /boot is for the fucking bootloader and the kernel > this is not for a entire operating system > so if this needs ever more than 500 MB some > poor people made big mistakes We're not in total disagreement there. But it's where we are now. Every new install will default to 500MB for /boot - and if you try to run an upgrade and only have 200MB you're more than likely end up with problems. It's quite a common issue on #fedora. > > >> but you can setup your systems with the expierence > >> of the past or ignore it and hope all will be fine > > > > I'm not ignoring anything. You seem to be though. > > i am the one who upgraded his last machine > from Fedora 5 until Fedora 14 and maintaining > 20 servers originally installed with F9, currently > on F15 Well, I'm happy that succeeded for you. I've not always been that lucky. So today I find myself wiping all by /home and reinstalling. Although I have a F14->F16 upgrade where I didn't do that and it almost runs with no hitches - almost :) > > >> i chose smater setups and ignoring defaults made > >> for "click, next,c lick, next" users > > > > You've yet to explain why it's smarter to be static and unflexible, on > > top of not having the availability of snapshot backups and other > > features provided by LVM. > > because my snapshots are mostly done on VMware ESX level and > on workstations i am pretty fine with my RAID10, complexer > things are even their in virtual machines because the have > much more snapshot/bac
Re: lvm
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 17:12 +1030, Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 15:13 -0500, Peter Larsen wrote: > > The "partition type" is something DOS/Windows uses (to a degree) and > > for backwards compatability reasons, you still see MS products use > > these labels. Linux, however, does not adhere to or use the partition > > types at all. > > I do not think so. As I recall, set a partition up as being "swap" and > the system automatically finds it as a swap partition. Also, formatting > tools can read the partition type, and automatically choose the same > file system, when formatting it. Anaconda may use it - but I doubt it. It's a lot safer to simply look for the signature of the partition content to see what it is. It's how md and lvm is detected, so why not swap and ext2/3/4? What "format" (presuming you mean mkfs) reads the partition type? I cannot find anything in man pages or anything that indicates it reads anything to determine the filesystem type. Ie. how would it access the partition table if you do "mkfs /dev/sda2"?? The table is on /dev/sda not 2. > Of course one can create a DOS partition, for example, then reformat it > as a Linux one using an EXT3 file system, as an override, and the system > won't care what the partition type was. But that doesn't fit into Linux > not using the partition types at all. I've not seen it use - not even during installation. It would be interesting to see an example - so far I've never seen any indication it uses it, not even during upgrade/installation. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: I have a map of the United States. It's actual size. I spent last summer folding it. People ask me where I live, and I say, "E6". -- Steven Wright signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Starting postgres at boot time
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:27:35PM +0100, Emilio Lopez wrote: > Hello, > > I usually start postgresql database by running > > root@fedora>su postgres -c "postgres -D /home/postgres &" Bad idea. > > I'm trying to do it automatically at boot time, so I added that line > to /etc/rc.d/rc.local. However database doesn't start. > > Any Ideas? For Fedora older than F15, use chkconfig - for releases since then, systemctl. Regards Peter Larsen -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Blocked Ports
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 09:21:03PM -0700, Mike Dwiggins wrote: > I need to use Ports 27177 and 27178 but, every Port Checker I can find > says they are blocked. You need to explain a bit more about your setup. What does the network you're on look like, from which system to what system are you trying to connect, and does "netstat" report the ports open on the host you want to connect to? > My iptables setup ( for ) now is: > > Incoming Packages- Accept > Forwarded Packets- Accept > Outgoing Packets- Accept Yes, this means iptables is turned off (or allowing everything - you can't really turn it off). But that's just on that host. It doesn't count for any other system in between, firewalls, routers etc. > The way I understand it, that means NO Ports should be blocked. Am I > barking up the wrong tree and need to be checking with my ISP? If you're bringing your ISP into this, then your personal home firewall is the least of your problems. Most ISPs will block some traffic but they rarely block everything. That said, if you're using a standard NAT setup, then you're blocking yourself unless you setup some port-forwarding rules. And even then, you may have issues depending on the protocol you want to use on those ports. > I think I should be but am just looking for a sanity check! I think you're looking at this in the wrong place. If you want remote access to your network, it's your gateway/firewall that's important. Yes, the ISP may also be blocking you - there are ways to test that too. Be aware, that most ISP/'s condition of use makes it very clear they can disconnect you if they find you're hosting services. Of couse the key word here is "find". Regards Peter Larsen -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing From email list
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 14:32 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 10/03/2011 02:17 PM, kritte...@verizon.net wrote: > > I did, about a hundred times in response to all the emails I have > > gotten. Now I am frustrated having to just delete 10's of emails from > > everyone. Could you please do something about it. > > We can't. Only you can. When you ask to be removed from this list, > you're sent an email to confirm your request. If, and *only* if you > click on the link in that confirmation email, you're removed from the > list. If you ignore the confirmation or delete it without clicking on > the link, you're not removed. Well, that and click on unsubscribe on the page-page that shows up. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: NEVER RESPOND TO CRITICAL PRESS. IT IS A GAME YOU CAN ONLY LOSE, AND IT MAKES US LOOK BAD. -- Bruce Perens signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Copyright notice on fedoraproject.org
Does the year in the copy right notice mean anything these days? I've noticed on some fedoraproject.org pages the (c) notice still say 2010 - even though we're about done with 2011. Example (bottom/footer of the page): http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/ https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb etc. Not a biggie - to my knowledge the copyright laws were change decades ago doing away with the need for the (c) notice in the first place. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere near the place. -- Steven Wright signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Copyright notice on fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 05:12 +1030, Tim wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 09:06 -0500, Peter Larsen wrote: > > Does the year in the copy right notice mean anything these days? I've > > noticed on some fedoraproject.org pages the (c) notice still say 2010 - > > even though we're about done with 2011. > > > > Example (bottom/footer of the page): > > http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/ > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb > > Well, if the information on the pages hasn't been changed since the date > was written on them, then there's no reason to change the date. And, > really speaking, it'd be dishonest to keep changing the date on static > pages. The date merely points out when the information was copyrighted. I can't speak for the admin/pkgdb page, but we just posted new torrents for F16. And since 2010 we did that for F15 too. That would be changes? Anyway - I don't know the legal implications. I suspect there are none here and the year doesn't matter at all. I just wanted to report the 'issue'. -- Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: /* * Please skip to the bottom of this file if you ate lunch recently * -- Alan */ -- from Linux kernel pre-2.1.91-1 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Trends - how to save Fedora ?
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:58 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > yes, this should be only a option and never made as default > > LVM is for most peopole not useful especially on a notebook > where you have nothing to extend with a second disk and > remember that you have lost the game if you extend a LVM o > over several disks and of them dies without RAID Rubbish. I've use LVM on notebooks for years now and used it with success. LVM is more than a "partition emulator". It gives you cloning, snapshots and much more at your finger tips, to make creating VMs and backups a lot easier. I've seen so many misconceptions being communicated about LVM here and other mailing lists. Usually done in ways that directly contradicts basic features of LVM. Some features that you may not be aware of: Striping and mirroring can be done through LVM alone. Another misconception is performance is degregated. No - LVM is not "another" layer. It's replacing the layer you have. There's no new layer with the device mapper - it doesn't first map LVM then your partition. Performance numbers being publishes have proven that you're not having a penalty. And if the benchmark for usability ARE laptops - what IO performance are you talking about that can be measured? http://lists-archives.org/linux-kernel/27323152-ext4-is-faster-with-lvm-than-without-and-other-filesystem-benchmarks.html All in all - I'm not opposed to having LVM as an option. But it should be discouraged. There's no real penalty of using LVM but there's a lot by NOT using it. From better backups, to being able to test changes without risking loosing it all. I would argue that anaconda by default shouldn't allocate the whole VG but leave some room for snapshots. Otherwise you don't give people the chance of actually using some of the very cool LVM features that help even us laptop users. -- Best Regards Peter Larsen Wise words of the day: Problem solving under Linux has never been the circus that it is under AIX. -- Pete Ehlke in comp.unix.aix signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: partition question
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 08:45:45PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > > so as I understand it, my two viable options are a non-destructive > resize or a clean install & use Anaconda to create a blank partition for > use as the second OS (well, I do have a third: I have a brand new 60GB > USB HD that could be used but I don't really want to go down that road). Well, another option is to use the same volume group for both installations? As long as you're not playing with clusterable volumes that should be safe enough. In other words, keep your partition layout and pv as configured, make sure you have 10-20GB free space in volume group and simply install CentOS to it. Do a custom layout when you install CentOS and specify the volume group you already have, and simply add a volume for / and swap. Grub will handle both OS'es just fine. You may consider your /boot size since you'll have two system's kernels etc. there - but if you're using the standard 512MB setup for /boot, you will most likely be more than fine. > The disk is 80GB & I have a 3.91GB swap, a 23.38GB home & root is 46.75. > Total disk space that is actually used is minimal, less than 10 GBs. USB disks are pretty slow. I would do my best to avoid using that as your / and swap drive. > > Possibly the easiest route would be to do a clean install but I'd really > like to try to see if I can successfully resize it as I've never tried > it before. That should not be necessary. You can do pvresize too if you wish but why bother? You'll just end up with both systems seeing the other systems VG anyway, so you still need to keep things separate. By putting it all on the same VG you can always and easy resize one system and give the space to the other without worrying about partititions etc. > > Any opinions would be gratefully received. > > Cheers, > > Phil... > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: resolv.conf ??
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 08:19:19PM -0400, Jim wrote: > F17 > > How do I LOCK-IN namserver ijn resolv.conf so it cannot be changed by > Fedora ? You need to be a bit more specific. "Fedora" doesn't do anything, a particular package does. For DHCP client connections (controlled/managed by dhclient) it is ORDERED by the dhcp server to configure the client in a certain way. That includes nameserver etc. You can override that with the dhclient.conf file - where you can specify to ignore certain "orders" or you can tell it to add constant definitions you want added in all cases. For instance, you may want to use your local caching nameserver instead of the one your dhcp server tells you to do - you would do that by adding "option domain-name-servers " to the dhclient file under the correct lease section. It's quite more complex that that - check out the dhclient.conf man file and the /usr/share/docs/dhclient*/ sample files. If you instead use static IP setup, then dhclient is not going to be used. And your /etc/resolv.conf and other changes that dhclient makes, will not take place. But now you have to do a static setup either in NetworkManager or the old way in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts (system-config-network). Things tends to also go bad if you have multiple networks configured. Ie. your laptop has a wired network connection and a wireless connection. Both connect using dhcp and if not configured right, they are two different dhcp servers. In that case, who-ever gets the IP LAST wins when it comes to /etc/resolv.conf. The solution to this is to either use the same dhcp server (tell the wireless router to turn off it's dhcp server and don't use it as a router) or you need to use dhclient.conf and specifically tell it, not to modify /etc/resolv.conf for one of the interfaces. And as you can figure that means if you only connect the one interface that you're telling it to ignore, well, things won't really work. For that reason I try to never use multiple interfaces where dhclient is active. I hope this helps. The simple way is to not use dhcp - but that puts the ownership on you to configure dns, ip, masks, routing, ntp etc. Regards Peter Larsen -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
