- Original Message -
| In CentOS5 you were able to create a server section in
| /etc/gdm/custom.conf such as
|
| [server-Standard]
| name=Standard server
| command=/usr/bin/Xorg -br -audit 4 -s 15
| chooser=false
| handled=true
| flexible=true
| priority=0
|
| After this change, Xorg woul
- Original Message -
| Ole Holm Nielsen wrote:
| > We have CentOS 6 manual installation working by PXE booting from a
| > RHEL5.6
| > PXE/TFTP server. However, when we add a Kickstart file in the PXE
| > configuration:
| >
| > kernel CentOS-6-i386/vmlinuz
| > append load_ramdisk=1 i
> I'll be moving to Ubunto. They have a 3 year window for support on a
> distribution unlike CentOS/RHEL. They seem to be more user friendly for a
> home networking environment.
RHEL is supported for 10 years on each major release.
--
Eero
___
CentOS ma
On 7/24/11 4:08 PM, Keith Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
>
>> By using a hash, we remove those constraints, and also gain
>> the virtuous effect for free of self-organizing a relatively
>> level dispersion of files to the destination directories
>
> Not followed the whole
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 19:51 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> Installing non RPM software on an RPM Distro like CentOS is frowned
> upon. That is the worst way to do it.
why?
you made a vacuous argument.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 22:20 -0400, Thomas Dukes wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> > [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Lanny Marcus
> > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:51 PM
> > To: CentOS mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Upgrading from
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 22:20 -0400, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> The compliation of ffmpeg/zoneminder seems to be an issue
> with CentOS with the outdated php/mysql and other various libs.
PHP and MySQL work fine for me. My systems depend on both these being
reliable, efficient, dependable and robust -
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:20:07PM -0400, Thomas Dukes wrote:
>
> I have never had a problem upgrading a CentOS release since I started with
> 3.x. Seems now, I can't even upgrade from 5.6 to 5.7. I have never had to do
> a complete re-install since moving from Slackware 1.x to Redhat 2.x except
>
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Lanny Marcus
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 8:51 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Upgrading from CentOS 5.6 to 6.0
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Duk
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 06:38:33AM +0530, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
>
> hmm... does mount -noatime -noadirtime help speed it up?
Just an FYI:
noatime is a superset that includes noadirtime.
John
--
You can safely assume you've cre
Greetings,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:59 PM, yonatan pingle
wrote:
> Hello,
> after looking into the website folders, i have found one folder which
> from my point of view is one of the causes for the server loads.
>
hmm... does mount -noatime -noadirtime help speed it up?
--
Regards,
Rajag
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> Just ran the installation DVD but there is no option to 'upgrade'. Looked at
> the RHEL docs,
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati
> on_Guide/ch-guimode-x86.html#id4594292 referenced off the CentOS Rel
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 17:50 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Keith Roberts wrote:
>
> >> By using a hash, we remove those constraints, and also gain
> >> the virtuous effect for free of self-organizing a relatively
> >> level dispersion of files to the destination directories
> >
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Keith Roberts wrote:
>> By using a hash, we remove those constraints, and also gain
>> the virtuous effect for free of self-organizing a relatively
>> level dispersion of files to the destination directories
>
> Not followed the whole thread, but a SQL database index of
> the
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 16:33 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Always Learning wrote:
>
> > If the pictures are named sequentially, why not store then at a 100 per
> > directory structure something like this
> >
> > /pix/0/00/pix1.jpg
> >
> > /pix/0/26/pix02614.jpg
> >
> > /pix
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
> By using a hash, we remove those constraints, and also gain
> the virtuous effect for free of self-organizing a relatively
> level dispersion of files to the destination directories
Not followed the whole thread, but a SQL database index of
the actual pi
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Always Learning wrote:
> If the pictures are named sequentially, why not store then at a 100 per
> directory structure something like this
>
> /pix/0/00/pix1.jpg
>
> /pix/0/26/pix02614.jpg
>
> /pix/6/72/pix67255.jpg
Go read Knuth
One does not do that because then one is
On Sunday 24 July 2011 22:48:23 Always Learning wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> > > then, we look to the leading letter of the hask, to design our
> > > egg carton bins. We place pix1.jpg in directory: ./f/ and
> > > pix2.jpg in directory ./1/ and pix3
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> > then, we look to the leading letter of the hask, to design our
> > egg carton bins. We place pix1.jpg in directory: ./f/ and
> > pix2.jpg in directory ./1/ and pix3.jpg in directory
> > ./b/ and so forth -- if the directories
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 15:59 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Paul,
>
> as much as I understand your point of view, I must disagree taking
> upstream's and CentOS's position. Your description reflects a home user
> or an administrator with just less than a handful of systems.
Alexander,
I have
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Rogelio wrote:
> The free DHCP solution, ISC, seems to be having scaling issues (i.e.
> handling only about 200 DHCPDISCOVER and 20 DHCPRENEW requests), and I
> was wondering if anyone had any open source suggestions of solutions
> that could scale much better?
>
>
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, yonatan pingle wrote:
>
>> the coder is not tech savvy as one might expect, so it's
>> really hard for me to explain the issue of having lots of
>> files in one folder to the site owner or to the coder.
>
> I do not expect
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:02 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:53:46PM +0300, yonatan pingle wrote:
>>
>> Yes Ryan, that exactly what i have done.
>> he will get the log shortly and i will get some not free beer.
>
> While I'm all for mysql optimization it's clearly evident
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, yonatan pingle wrote:
> the coder is not tech savvy as one might expect, so it's
> really hard for me to explain the issue of having lots of
> files in one folder to the site owner or to the coder.
I do not expect coders to remain 'not tech savvy'
If the coder is not willi
Am 24.07.2011 14:04, schrieb Always Learning:
>
> On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 08:30 -0300, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
>
>> My point is that big changes happen in Linux much frequently than in
>> Solaris and even Solaris sometimes doesn't support these kinds of
>> upgrades.
>
> It is the inevitable and ti
2011/7/24 yonatan pingle :
>
> there is no caching system, its a " home made" CMS.
>
>
You can use an accelerator too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_accelerator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PHP_accelerators
Please, make a big backup before this! (I nevever had a problem,
but... why te
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 03:53:46PM +0300, yonatan pingle wrote:
>
> Yes Ryan, that exactly what i have done.
> he will get the log shortly and i will get some not free beer.
While I'm all for mysql optimization it's clearly evident from an
earlier posting that your disks are thrashing with insane
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:26 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 07/23/11 12:09 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> Even after this explanation I don't understand your objection to
>> helping someone with a firewall and routing issue on a CentOS box. You
>> might have a point if the executables didn't come from pack
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM, yonatan pingle
> wrote:
>> im good with mysqltuner.pl,
>> as it seems there are slow queries on mysql and i have adjusted all
>> values in my.cnf according to the application needs.
>>
>> looks like it's all i
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM, yonatan pingle
wrote:
> im good with mysqltuner.pl,
> as it seems there are slow queries on mysql and i have adjusted all
> values in my.cnf according to the application needs.
>
> looks like it's all in the code and the way the CMS handles the files
> from that up
>> RHCT | RHCSA | CCNA1
>
> If you are using phpMyAdmin the status page will aid you in tuning
> mySQL. Look for values in red. The description will usually tell you
> what to adjust to improve performance.
>
> Ryan
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@ce
>>
>>
>
> Do you have cahcing turned on in CMS? That could help.
>
> --
>
> Ljubomir Ljubojevic
> (Love is in the Air)
> PL Computers
> Serbia, Europe
>
> Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
> trusty Spiderman...
> StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
> _
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 7:52 AM, yonatan pingle
wrote:
> Hi, Alexander
> good suggestions, ill monitor I/O and mysql code, sounds like a code
> related issue and not a centos issue after all.
>
> it runs on ext3 ,i could only guess how to code deals with the dir,
> as it seems to be the site buil
yonatan pingle wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>> Am 24.07.2011 13:03, schrieb Eero Volotinen:
>>> 2011/7/24 yonatan pingle :
uploads]# ls | wc -l
3123
>>> I assume that you are using ext3 or ext4 filesystems? Both ext3 and
>>> ext4 slows down, if there
On Sun, 2011-07-24 at 08:30 -0300, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> My point is that big changes happen in Linux much frequently than in
> Solaris and even Solaris sometimes doesn't support these kinds of
> upgrades.
It is the inevitable and time-consuming upheaval which many will
probably find dauntin
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 24.07.2011 13:03, schrieb Eero Volotinen:
>> 2011/7/24 yonatan pingle :
>
>>> uploads]# ls | wc -l
>>> 3123
>
>> I assume that you are using ext3 or ext4 filesystems? Both ext3 and
>> ext4 slows down, if there is too much files in same
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Thomas Dukes wrote:
> Red Hat does not support upgrades between major versions (doesn't necessarily
> mean it's not possible)
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installation_Guide/ch-upgrade-x86.html
> http://linsec.ca/blog/2011/02
Am 24.07.2011 13:03, schrieb Eero Volotinen:
> 2011/7/24 yonatan pingle :
>> uploads]# ls | wc -l
>> 3123
> I assume that you are using ext3 or ext4 filesystems? Both ext3 and
> ext4 slows down, if there is too much files in same directory.
> XFS-fs is solution to fix this problem.
> Eero
Serio
2011/7/24 yonatan pingle :
> Hello,
> I have a rather annoying issue on going with one of my centos virtual servers.
> the server hosts a website using apache and mysql ,there are three
> persons involved with keeping the site up and running.
> and i am his root due to the fact he does not know any
Hello,
I have a rather annoying issue on going with one of my centos virtual servers.
the server hosts a website using apache and mysql ,there are three
persons involved with keeping the site up and running.
and i am his root due to the fact he does not know anything with about Linux.
there is an p
2011/7/22 thomas veymont :
>> hello,
>>
>> after a Centos 6 fresh install, I don't see any run-parts scripts in
>> /etc/contab
>> like in the 5.x releases :
>>
>> # run-parts
>> 01 * * * * root run-parts /etc/cron.hourly
>> 02 4 * * * root run-parts /etc/cron.daily
>> 22 4 * * 0 root run-parts /etc
41 matches
Mail list logo
