Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 07:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> I have just completed building the RPMS for the CentOS Enterprise IPA
>> (Identity, Policy, and Audit) Server.
>>
>> This is based on the sources from the Red Hat Enterprise IPA server.
>>
>> Documentation can be downloaded here
> It's still a one-way trip, though, where with clonezilla you can restore back
> to the hardware.
>
Exactly. Once I do this type of operation I've made the decision that
the OS will never need to run on physical hardware again.
___
CentOS mailing li
Scott McClanahan wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:15 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>> ML wrote:
>>> HI All,
>>>
>>> So I have 5 1U servers (running Windows) that have Ultra 320 SCSI
>>> Drives in them.
>>>
>>> The owner of these boxes wants the drives captured in their current
>>> states to .is
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:15 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> ML wrote:
> > HI All,
> >
> > So I have 5 1U servers (running Windows) that have Ultra 320 SCSI
> > Drives in them.
> >
> > The owner of these boxes wants the drives captured in their current
> > states to .iso or .cdr or something wher
ML wrote:
> HI All,
>
> So I have 5 1U servers (running Windows) that have Ultra 320 SCSI
> Drives in them.
>
> The owner of these boxes wants the drives captured in their current
> states to .iso or .cdr or something where if the need arises the data
> can be viewed, used again, etc.
>
> So
ML wrote:
> HI All,
>
> So I have 5 1U servers (running Windows) that have Ultra 320 SCSI
> Drives in them.
>
> The owner of these boxes wants the drives captured in their current
> states to .iso or .cdr or something where if the need arises the data
> can be viewed, used again, etc.
>
>
HI All,
So I have 5 1U servers (running Windows) that have Ultra 320 SCSI
Drives in them.
The owner of these boxes wants the drives captured in their current
states to .iso or .cdr or something where if the need arises the data
can be viewed, used again, etc.
So what is the best approach?
Robert Heller wrote:
>
>> Seems odd that caching wouldn't just happen naturally in the nfs client.
>
> I am not sure if it even makes sense to cache NFS files on a nfs client
> -- how does the client know that the file might not have changed on the
> server? At the very least it has to check th
This is quite possible, and having just gone thru this recently a few
weeks ago, I thought I post a warning here to hopefully save someone
else from the brain-fart I suffered a few weeks ago. I needed to change
the mount point permissions w/out umounting the filesystems in a few
places, so I r
At Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:57:16 -0500 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Robert Heller wrote:
> >
> >>
> This is definitely a weird interaction, as neither the screensaver nor
> its
> components actually run on the CentOS machine. I have not checked
> whether
> any oth
Robert Heller wrote:
>
>>
This is definitely a weird interaction, as neither the screensaver nor its
components actually run on the CentOS machine. I have not checked whether
any other activities in a vnc session cause similar behaviour.
>>> Where does the screensaver's data fi
At Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:55:51 +0100 CentOS mailing list wrote:
>
>
> > > This is definitely a weird interaction, as neither the screensaver nor
> > > its
> > > components actually run on the CentOS machine. I have not checked whether
> > > any other activities in a vnc session cause similar
Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf
>> Of Dick Roth
>> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:44 PM
>> To: CentOS List
>> Subject: [CentOS] GnuPG for CentOS 5.3?
>>
>> Good Morning--
>>
>> I'm looking to shore
> > This is definitely a weird interaction, as neither the screensaver nor its
> > components actually run on the CentOS machine. I have not checked whether
> > any other activities in a vnc session cause similar behaviour.
>
> Where does the screensaver's data files (eg where are the quotes
At Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:11:19 +0100 CentOS mailing list wrote:
>
> lheck...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
> [...]
> > A single CentOS 5.2 x86_64 machine here is overloading our NetApp filer
> > with
> > excessive NFS getattr, lookup and access operations. The weird thing is
> > that
> > the
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Brian Mathis
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Not connected to the Internet", and "not connected to a LAN" are very
>>> different things. I doubt VOIP would work if the server was not
>>> conne
lheck...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
[...]
> A single CentOS 5.2 x86_64 machine here is overloading our NetApp filer with
> excessive NFS getattr, lookup and access operations. The weird thing is that
> the number of these operations increases over time. I have an mrtg graph
> (which I didn'
>-Original Message-
>From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf
>Of lheck...@users.sourceforge.net
>Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 1:29 PM
>To: centos@centos.org
>Subject: Re: [CentOS] GnuPG for CentOS 5.3?
>
>
>> IMO the default install of gpg is good enou
> IMO the default install of gpg is good enough. Remember, you break it, you
> get to keep the pieces.
"Good enough" is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to use gpg-agent
and pinentry, you need gpg2.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
h
>-Original Message-
>From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf
>Of Dick Roth
>Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:44 PM
>To: CentOS List
>Subject: [CentOS] GnuPG for CentOS 5.3?
>
>Good Morning--
>
>I'm looking to shore up security in my system and with comm
Dick Roth wrote:
> Good Morning--
>
> I'm looking to shore up security in my system and with communications.
> Can you point me to the proper version of GnuPG for CentOS 5.3 (Final)?
>
>From my fully patched box:-
2.6.18-128.4.1.el5[r...@www CentosIKEL]# yum info gnupg
Loaded plugins: fastestmir
Good Morning--
I'm looking to shore up security in my system and with communications.
Can you point me to the proper version of GnuPG for CentOS 5.3 (Final)?
Thanks,
Dick
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thus Giovanni Tirloni spake:
| On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Timo Schoeler
| wrote:
|
|> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|> Hi list,
|>
|> I have a weird (?) problem here on a setup running CentOS 5.3 x86_64
|> (and OpenVZ, and so
23 matches
Mail list logo
