Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Gordon Messmer wrote: On 05/07/2010 07:26 AM, Jussi Hirvi wrote: [r...@farm1 log]# ip route show 62.236.221.64/28 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 62.236.221.67 62.220.237.96/27 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 62.220.237.104 192.168.122.0/24 dev virbr0 proto kernel

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On 05/07/2010 07:26 AM, Jussi Hirvi wrote: > > [r...@farm1 log]# ip route show > 62.236.221.64/28 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 62.236.221.67 > 62.220.237.96/27 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 62.220.237.104 > 192.168.122.0/24 dev virbr0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.122.

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Am 06.05.10 20:43, schrieb Paul Heinlein: > A while back, I remember there was a problem with TCP window scaling > that would impact only some clients in a way that you describe: > >http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/ Thank you, I was searching for that a few weeks ago, but didn't find it. Bookma

Re: [CentOS] Broken upgrade to memcached

Am 05.05.10 08:32, schrieb Axel Thimm: > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: >> You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as >> ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for >> things like that when you use CentOS. > > Until

Re: [CentOS] Broken upgrade to memcached

Am 04.05.10 17:25, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us: > That seems reasonable to me. To rephrase, if I'm upgrading a CentOS 5.4 > system, and there's no CentOS 5.5, I don't see why yum should find a 5.5 > package. Because there are no 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.x packages for yum. There is only 5. Which i

Re: [CentOS] Broken upgrade to memcached

Am 04.05.10 16:24, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us: > Ralph wrote: >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, wrote: >>> I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* >>> released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, >>> glibc? >> >> 5.5 *is* released. Just not by Cen

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On 05/08/2010 12:26 AM, Jussi Hirvi wrote: > On 7.5.2010 16.40, Benjamin Franz wrote: >> Post the results for 'route -n', 'ifconfig', and >> 'arping -D 62.236.221.71' on the machine. >> > > The values in the previous message and below are from the xen host > (62.236.221.67/62.220.237.104), which

Re: [CentOS] USB key installed OS; file system goes read-only randomly...

On 05/06/2010 08:33 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote: > > Btw. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494927 The original reporter (me) and at least one other reporter tracked those problems down to bad RAID controllers. IIRC, another reporter got similar problems when the FS became 100% full. __

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

Gary Greene wrote: > On 5/7/10 10:56 AM, "m.r...@5-cent.us" wrote: > >>> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >>> > Bowie Bailey wrote: > >> >>> However, the comment about looking at the logs pointed me to a related >>> issue. I am seeing this in my logs: >>> >>> kernel: a

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

On 5/7/10 10:56 AM, "m.r...@5-cent.us" wrote: >> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Bowie Bailey wrote: > m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Brian wrote: [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey Bowie Bailey wrote: > One of my servers has recently

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >>> Bowie Bailey wrote: m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Brian wrote: >>> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey >>> Bowie Bailey wrote: >>> One of my servers has recently started giving an error every time I run "aide

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Bowie Bailey wrote: >> >>> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >>> Brian wrote: >> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey >> Bowie Bailey wrote: >> >> >>> One of my servers has recently started givi

Re: [CentOS] Newer bind for CentOS 4

Bowie Bailey writes: > CentOS 4 currently has Bind 9.2.4. Do any of the other repos have a > newer version? > > Anyone have a spec file for building an rpm from the source? The 9.6.x SRPM from Fedora 11 or 12 should build fine with no or minimal changes. ---

[CentOS] Newer bind for CentOS 4

CentOS 4 currently has Bind 9.2.4. Do any of the other repos have a newer version? Anyone have a spec file for building an rpm from the source? -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

> Bowie Bailey wrote: >> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >>> Brian wrote: > [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey > Bowie Bailey wrote: > >> One of my servers has recently started giving an error every time I >> run "aide --check". I ran it manually twice today w

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

Bowie Bailey wrote: > m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > >> Brian wrote: >> >> -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:15 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: R

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Brian wrote: > >>> -Original Message- >>> From: centos-boun...@centos.org >>> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey >>> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:15 AM >>> To: centos@centos.org >>> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Eduardo Grosclaude wrote: >>> > You could test yourself if you can see >>> >     http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) >>> >     http://62.236.221.78 (another guest on the same xen host) Sure your network masks are OK? -- Eduardo Grosclaude Universidad Nac

Re: [CentOS] Apache Tomcat/5.5.23

Thank you. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Ryan Manikowski wrote: > On 5/7/2010 8:18 AM, testwreq wreq wrote: > > I have a new instllation of tomcat on centos. My $CATALINA_HOME is > /usr/share/tomcat5 and tomcat is running. > > http://localhost:8080 brings up the tomcat page & one of the opt

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Didi Hoffmann wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 09:14 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote: >> > You could test yourself if you can see >> >     http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) >> >     http://62.236.221.78 (another guest on the same xen host) >> > >> > If someone *canno

Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow

> -Original Message- > From: Rajagopal Swaminathan > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 2:42 > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow > > Greetings, > > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Joseph L. Casale > wrote: > >>Why is my SATA drive showing up under /dev/hdb? > >

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

Brian wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: centos-boun...@centos.org >> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Bowie Bailey >> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:15 AM >> To: centos@centos.org >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV" >> >> Bowie Bailey wrote: >> > One

Re: [CentOS] installing gtkmm

Steve wrote: > On May 6, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Ming-ching Chiu wrote: > >> Now i have to move the project to CentOS 5.4. I set up rpm forge and >> installed gtkmm. Turns out that the package on rpmforge is too old that >> my project doesn't compile. I wonder if there is other way to get newer >> versio

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

Suggest: Rename your current database, and aide -i to build a new one, the aide -c to check it. If that works (aide -c on new database) I'd suspect (pulling stray thoughts out of /dev/chaos) that your current data base is corrupt enough that you can't check it. > -Original Message- > Fr

Re: [CentOS] installing gtkmm

On May 6, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Ming-ching Chiu wrote: > Now i have to move the project to CentOS 5.4. I set up rpm forge and > installed gtkmm. Turns out that the package on rpmforge is too old that my > project doesn't compile. I wonder if there is other way to get newer version > of gtkmm and a

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On 7.5.2010 16.40, Benjamin Franz wrote: > Post the results for 'route -n', 'ifconfig', and > 'arping -D 62.236.221.71' on the machine. > The values in the previous message and below are from the xen host (62.236.221.67/62.220.237.104), which displays just the same errors as the xen guest (62.23

Re: [CentOS] Apache Tomcat/5.5.23

On 5/7/2010 8:18 AM, testwreq wreq wrote: > I have a new instllation of tomcat on centos. My $CATALINA_HOME is > /usr/share/tomcat5 and tomcat is running. > > http://localhost:8080 brings up the tomcat > page & one of the option is "Administration". I would like to use th

Re: [CentOS] Aide error "Caught SIGBUS/SEGV"

Bowie Bailey wrote: > One of my servers has recently started giving an error every time I run > "aide --check". I ran it manually twice today with the same results. > The second time, I added the -V flag, but that didn't give me anything > useful. The system is currently running CentOS 5.3. > >

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Ok, I have now ssh account with which I can reproduce the errors. The error is now narrowed down to inside the box: tcpdump shows that data is coming in, but nothing is leaving. The box is a xen system with 2 if-cards which are shared with xen guests. The error is connected to eth0 (not eth1) a

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On 05/06/2010 09:38 PM, Jussi Hirvi wrote: > Does the problem affect other xen systems on the same box? I haven't > tested this yet (I cannot reproduce the error). > > You could test yourself if you can see > http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) > http://62.236.221.78 (another gues

[CentOS] Apache Tomcat/5.5.23

I have a new instllation of tomcat on centos. My $CATALINA_HOME is /usr/share/tomcat5 and tomcat is running. http://localhost:8080 brings up the tomcat page & one of the option is "Administration". I would like to use this web interface and even give some of the test webapp users ability to restar

Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow

> -Original Message- > From: Tsuyoshi Nagata > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:32 > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow > > > >> MB=Jetway J7F5M1G2E-VHE-PB > >>> > >>> Why is my SATA drive showing up under /dev/hdb? > >> > >> Your motherboard is running in

Re: [CentOS] bridge :: kernel panic

On 05/06/2010 03:46 PM, Wahyu Darmawan wrote: > Hi, Hi, > Please see the /var/log/messages and compare it with time that you have > crash in your machine. I have nothing in messages regarding that kernel panic ... any other idea? Thanks, Adrian > > Rgds, > > > On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:26 PM,

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 09:14 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote: > > You could test yourself if you can see > > http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) > > http://62.236.221.78 (another guest on the same xen host) > > > > If someone *cannot* see the 1st one, then it would be interesting to > > know

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Thanks everyone for feedback. This could be something weird with the xen network-interface bridging. This problematic server-system is the only xen guest that shares *both* network cards on the machine. I asked my upstream ISP to check things from their side. I hope I will soon get a ssh accou

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Le Fri, 7 May 2010 09:01:17 +0100, "Simon Billis" a écrit : > Can you confirm the routing on the two boxes - is there anything different? > I would also check the routing on the upstream routers - it is possible that > one of your ingress/egress routers has a static entry that is causing > issues

Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow

On 05/07/2010 08:41 AM, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote: ... > I have seen this problem solved by just adding ide0-noprobe ideprobe=0 > to the kernel line in the menu.lst of grub at least in in some model > of HP desktops. adn a reboot of course. > > I have seen performance jump from 10MB/s to 50+MB/s

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On Friday 07 May 2010 05:38:45 Jussi Hirvi wrote: > Ok, thanks for ideas - many new things to test. So far no luck. > > Too bad i don't have first-hand access to any of the client machines who > *do* have this problem. > > Next, I will go and switch the ethernet cable to a different slot on the >

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Hi, Philippe Naudin sent a missive on 2010-05-07: > Le Fri, 07 May 2010 07:38:45 +0300, > Jussi Hirvi a écrit : > >> ... >> You could test yourself if you can see >> http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) >> http://62.236.221.78 (another guest on the same xen host) >> >> If someone

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 07:38 +0300, Jussi Hirvi wrote: > You could test yourself if you can see > http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) > http://62.236.221.78 (another guest on the same xen host) > > If someone *cannot* see the 1st one, then it would be interesting to > know if (

Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow

>> MB=Jetway J7F5M1G2E-VHE-PB >>> >>> Why is my SATA drive showing up under /dev/hdb? >> >> Your motherboard is running in IDE emulation mode and >> exposing the SATA drives as IDE drives. How about this instruction? This MB uses AWARD bios with via CX700M (same as your MB). See the page 3-

Re: [CentOS] Not firewall, but what?

Le Fri, 07 May 2010 07:38:45 +0300, Jussi Hirvi a écrit : > ... > You could test yourself if you can see > http://62.236.221.71 (the problem system) > http://62.236.221.78 (another guest on the same xen host) > > If someone *cannot* see the 1st one, then it would be interesting to >

Re: [CentOS] Install of 5.4 i386 formatting is very slow

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 22:40 -0400, Jason Pyeron wrote: > > > > Why is my SATA drive showing up under /dev/hdb? > > > > Your motherboard is running in IDE emulation mode and > > exposing the SATA drives as IDE drives. Many motherboards > > have this mode to make things 'easier' for certain ol