On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
> The settings tab allows one to change the order of devices. Looking at the
> modprobe.conf produced by this procedure yielded the following :-
>
> options snd cards_limit=8
> alias snd-card-0 snd-hda-intel
> options snd-hda-intel index=0
> ali
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Rob Kampen wrote:
I have started to setup an rpmbuild environment but need to read some more
instructions, as when I followed the wiki I got different results - not sure
if this is due to using the centosplus SRP
Dear All,
I got a little problem installing rhel 4u7. I have 4 x 146Gb disk on my server.
2 x 146 with raid 1 and 2 x 146 without raid. When I installing rhel
4u7 a got 3 disk /dev/sda, /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc
The problem is, after I finish installing the os, there are another
device appears in fdi
On Thursday 22 July 2010 13:30:49 Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> I have an HP Server w/ a Smart Array controller I need to test.
Also, don't forget to use the hpacucli tool (in order to get every detail on
the controller and disks. I recently discovered it and it's nice since you
can create scripts
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 05:52:50PM -0500, David wrote:
> That is discouraging news.
On the other hand, I've done USB installs of other distros that worked just
fine. But those weren't set up with unetbootin. You could probably get away
with, say, putting System Rescue Disk on a USB key, using that
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 23:42 +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> Hi John,
> On 22/07/10 19:56, JohnS wrote:
> > Try about 69Gbytes& What are you fiddling with? limits.conf?
> I think you read my mail too quickly and wrote a reply in similar speed.
> :) So did I read the original post too quickly and di
That is discouraging news.
I have been unsuccessful thus far in my attempts to create a USB
installer that doesn't depend on network access, which is one of my
requirements.
On 07/22/2010 05:26 PM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 05:09:22PM -0500, David wrote:
>
>> Has anyone
Hi John,
On 22/07/10 19:56, JohnS wrote:
> Try about 69Gbytes& What are you fiddling with? limits.conf?
I think you read my mail too quickly and wrote a reply in similar speed.
:) So did I read the original post too quickly and didn't realise he was
complaining about the memory hole...
You're ri
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 05:09:22PM -0500, David wrote:
> Has anyone successfully built a USB key for installing centos5.5 either
> manually or using a tool like unetbootin?
Haven't tried it for CentOS, but unetbootin hasn't worked for me for several
other distros. Not once. Not sure why I even tr
On 22/07/10 22:33, ken wrote:
> Is the 737M cached (in the output above) what is reserved for bios or
> chipset...? and what is gained back through remapping?
Nope, it simply means even if I had 2GB RAM, there'd be plenty I'm not
using for anything but cache - I don't do much on this laptop but
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:55 -0400, ken wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 05:43 PM JohnS wrote:
I'm trying to catch up...
Is the 737M cached (in the output above) what is reserved for bios or
chipset...? and what is gained back through remapping?
---
The 737 is for Programs and Applications use and not fo
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Markus Falb wrote:
> On 22/07/2010 19:07, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
>>> those exta 700MB...
>>
>> Very few programs can use PAE to get at that ext
Has anyone successfully built a USB key for installing centos5.5 either
manually or using a tool like unetbootin?
I am trying to create one using the 64bit install DVD iso and so far the
USB either won't boot (unetbootin) or the installation aborts after I
select the iso location on the USB key
On 07/22/2010 05:43 PM JohnS wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:33 -0400, ken wrote:
>> On 07/22/2010 02:39 PM Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
>>> JD,
>>> On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering i
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:33 -0400, ken wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 02:39 PM Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> > JD,
> > On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
> >> I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
> >> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gai
On 07/22/2010 02:39 PM Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> JD,
> On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
>> I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
>> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
>> those exta 700MB...
> You should use 64 bit if possi
On Tuesday, July 20, 2010 08:08:43 pm Robert Heller wrote:
> 'Little' Dell PowerEdge servers with plain (non-RAID) SATA disks
> appearently work that way too (same BIOS stupidity I guess). Once they
> see a disk, they assume it will *always* be there. If you pull the
> disk for some reason (disk
On 22/07/2010 11:25, John Doe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
> those exta 700MB...
> In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios or
> chipset
> stuff...
I installed a 32 bit centos and with the non-pae kernel
>
>
>
> Using Sernet rpms means you should be checking with the Sernet folks. I
> believe the problem may be that Centos samba looks for the tdb files in
> /var/cache/samba while Sernet looks in /var/lib/samba.
>
> Yeah Toby!
I checked in both .. / Var / lib / samba ... / Var / cache / samba ... I
On 7/22/2010 1:50 PM, Markus Falb wrote:
> On 22/07/2010 19:58, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>>> What is a program supposed to do to get at "that extra RAM" then ?
>>> Just curious ;-)
>>
>> AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
>
> I always thought PAE is quite transparent thing for user pr
>> I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
>> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
>> those exta 700MB...
> You should use 64 bit if possible but if you're seeing 3.2GB, it's more
> likely that your motherboard is not capable
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 19:43 +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> On 22/07/10 18:07, Warren Young wrote:
> > Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
> > programs you run do this?
> With PAE you can utilize all of the extra RAM but each individual
> program will be limited to 3GB
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Markus Falb wrote:
> To: centos@centos.org
> From: Markus Falb
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] To PAE or not to PAE...
>
> On 22/07/2010 19:07, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to
On 22/07/2010 19:58, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> What is a program supposed to do to get at "that extra RAM" then ?
>> Just curious ;-)
>
> AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
I always thought PAE is quite transparent thing for user programs. PAE
is a hardware feature and hardware ma
On 22/07/10 18:07, Warren Young wrote:
> Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
> programs you run do this?
With PAE you can utilize all of the extra RAM but each individual
program will be limited to 3GB user space, you can fit a more of them
into 16GB, still using 32 b
JD,
On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
> those exta 700MB...
You should use 64 bit if possible but if you're seeing 3.2GB, it's more
likely that
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:58 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> >What is a program supposed to do to get at "that extra RAM" then ?
> >Just curious ;-)
>
> AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
---
A PAE enabled Kernel:
NO. It is dependent on the mmap() call in the program as in how t
Hi all,
Not sure how to start but I have an automount map tripping as soon as
automount starts.
I've no services that use that mount point and am baffeled as to why
its mounted.
When I remove the map entry fro that mount point, I get complaints in /
var/log/messages from automount about the
>What is a program supposed to do to get at "that extra RAM" then ?
>Just curious ;-)
AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 22/07/2010 19:07, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>
>> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
>> those exta 700MB...
>
> Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
> programs you run do this?
What is a progr
>I have an HP Server w/ a Smart Array controller I need to test. I always
>used to use Inquisitor for this, but the hd tests are flaking out on the
>cciss syntax and I don't have time to dig into it, the machine is essential
>and I need to know whats needing to be replaced asap.
>
>Anyone know a li
But it would allow other usages of that RAM. cache. Other programs with great
memory usage.
Of course, as mentioned earlier, you would have to test with your workload
whether the extra overhead is more than made up with the extra memory
availability.
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Warren Youn
I have an HP Server w/ a Smart Array controller I need to test. I always
used to use Inquisitor for this, but the hd tests are flaking out on the
cciss syntax and I don't have time to dig into it, the machine is essential
and I need to know whats needing to be replaced asap.
Anyone know a live cd
On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
>
> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
> those exta 700MB...
Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
programs you run do this?
Is your CPU 64-bit capable? That's generally a better idea than
On 7/22/2010 11:07 AM, camun wrote:
> Yes!
> I posted on the samba list and found that there is a patch for version
> 3.3. However, the patch must be applied in the / source then be
> compiled. The procedure and did not get the expected result. Do the
> developers forgot to apply this patch to
Hey
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:07 PM, camun wrote:
> Yes!
> I posted on the samba list and found that there is a patch for version
> 3.3. However, the patch must be applied in the / source then be
> compiled. The procedure and did not get the expected result. Do the
> developers forgot to app
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 07/21/2010 08:30 AM, Ski Dawg wrote:
>> OK, my question from all of this is what is the difference between
>> 0600 and 0700 for a directory that is owned by root?
>
> For a directory, there's effectively no difference because the Linux
>
Yes!
I posted on the samba list and found that there is a patch for version
3.3. However,
the patch must be applied in the / source then be compiled. The
procedure and did not get the expected result. Do the developers forgot to
apply this patch to versions rpms??
2010/7/22 John Doe
> From:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:30 -0400, JohnS wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:13 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > Is there an xguest package for CentOS? I've been googling, but haven't
> > found one yet.
> >
> > mark
> ---
> http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/xguest/xguest.spec
>
> J
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:13 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Is there an xguest package for CentOS? I've been googling, but haven't
> found one yet.
>
> mark
---
http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/xguest/xguest.spec
John
Roll your own? Rebuild Fedora One?
Is there an xguest package for CentOS? I've been googling, but haven't
found one yet.
mark
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thursday 22 July 2010, John Doe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
> I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
> those exta 700MB...
> In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios o
From: camun
>after several days of searching, I have not found a definitive answer to the
>problem samba Migrating from 3.0.x to 3.3.x. (Migrating from 3.0.x to 3.3.x
>Can
>Fail to Update passdb.tdb Correctly (bug # 6195) .
>passdb.tdb break occurs in the file where the new samba starts.
>Any
I'm still exploring options for a similar situation and at the moment
gluster seems to fit the requirements.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios or
chipset
stuff...
And that running in PAE would s
On 07/22/2010 10:38 AM, Jussi Hirvi wrote:
...
> I still don't know why fsck from the rescue dvd does not work.
You could try to let the rescue dvd mount the partitions.
Then you can umount them and fsck.
I don't think that the rescue disk assembles the RAID partitions
unless they are going to b
Jussi Hirvi schrieb:
> Something seems to be wrong with my file systems, and I want to fsck
> everything. But I cannot.
>
> The setup consists of 2 hds, carrying 3 raid1 (ext3) file systems (boot,
> /, swap). OS is up-to-date CentOS 5.
>
> So I boot from CentOS 5.3 dvd in rescue mode, do not mo
> Are you using lvm on top of the mdraid?
>
> If so you need to fsck the lvs not the mds.
No lvm's.
I can boot the raid system, and
cat /proc/mdstat
shows clean arrays.
The automatic fsck reported problems a while ago, and corrected them.
When I now try to run certain rsync script, I ge
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Sameer Oak wrote:
> I've HP 520 laptop. I installed CentOS 5.5 a few days back. The laptop has
> some weird placing of touchpad that is frustrating me while typing.
>
> Please advise me how to disable touchpad on CentOS 5.5.
>
> --
> Regards,
> - samoak.
>
> __
49 matches
Mail list logo
