Vreme: 10/09/2011 02:56 AM, John R Pierce piše:
> On 10/08/11 5:47 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
>> [root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2
>> /usr/lib/librrd.so.2
>> /usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point?
>
> it appears there ar
On 10/08/11 5:47 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
> [root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2
> /usr/lib/librrd.so.2
> /usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point?
it appears there are rrdtool's in both rpmforge and epel. odds are,
these a
hello list,
I'm trying to install ganglia-gmetad on centos 5.6. rrdtool is already
installed and librrd is there. But for some reason when I go to install this
package it doesn't see that it is.
[root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #yum install ganglia-gmetad
Loaded plugins: fastestmi
On 19/06/2010 02:02, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> ganglia - I still think you don't think you what you are talking about.
s/.*/ganglia - I still think you are confused about the issue./
I blame too much mongodb in one day for crazy language skilz :! ( or in
my case, lack of )
- KB
___
On 18/06/2010 01:09, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> I should care what you believe? Stay ignorant, if you like. If not, take a
> CentOS system, add the EPEL repository for ganglia, try "yum install
> ganglia", and prepare to see all sorts of package conflicts. Plus it's not
> the current ganglia anyway. Be
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:15:41PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Up until now, I had to build the gspca driver separately, every time I
> upgraded those servers with the cameras attached. I also *always* have to
> do something - mostly reinstall - when I upgrade the boxes, mostly older,
> with
John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:41:26AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> My issues were your building from native source doing the
> standard three-step; it's wrong to do so in an rpm-managed
> distro.
>
Up until now, I had to build the gspca driver separately,
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01:38AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> "Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) is a volunteer-based community
> effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on
> ..."
>
> Enough said.
Apparently not as that bears no indication
John R. Dennison wrote:
>
>> On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look,
>> "./configure, make, make install" is _always_ a proper option. Any serious
>>
>
> No, it's not.
>
indeed, doing exactly this could very well lead to the conflicts he
reported when he trie
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:41:26AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> Now you're threatening to expel me from the community? For posting notes on
> workarounds to get a useful package to work? What's this about? Ganglia's
> working fine for me.
I'm honored that you think I have that much swa
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:25:56AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> To get 3.1.7? Disregarding that, I should jump through the hoops of
> recompiling a F13 RPM rather than just compile from the tar? Why? Every
> extra stage like that introduces the chance of incidental errors, of stuff
> that doesn
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest
> account, accusing me of making something up when I was only giving the
> facts. He was calling me a liar. He preferred to see my account as a lie so
> a
On 6/18/2010 8:20 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
>>
>>> Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a
>>> single conflict.
>>
>> Why yes, John
On 6/18/2010 9:01 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting
stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing
>>>
>>> Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently.
>
> Hey John,
>
> https://fedorap
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:19:46PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> > > If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting
> > > stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as
> > > mixing
> >
> > Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
>
> > Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a
> > single conflict.
>
> Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't beli
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>>> That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for
>>> centos-5.
>> And that would be the proper route to go i
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:19:46PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> I just tried a ganglia install from EPEL; absolutely no issues
> at all. Perhaps if you'd bother to actually document these
> conflicts one of us might be able to help. That is if we're
> still willing.
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a
> 32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of
> the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I
> can say is that, for my system, yum saw ver
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> If you want shiny and new, why not do it properly and build
>> rpms?
>
> On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look,
> "./configure, make, make install" is _always_ a proper o
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> >
> > That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for
> > centos-5.
>
> And that would be the proper route to go instead of buildi
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a
> single conflict.
Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest
account, accusing me of making something up when I was onl
From: John R. Dennison
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:09:11PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>> I should care what you believe?
> Is this vitriol really necessary?
I think it is just a reaction to the "I don't believe you at all", which some
people would take as "you are a liar"...
That's the problem
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:09:11PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> I should care what you believe? Stay ignorant, if you like. If not, take a
> CentOS system, add the EPEL repository for ganglia, try "yum install
> ganglia", and prepare to see all sorts of package conflicts. Plus it's not
> the cu
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:21:00PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> Um, that "yum install ganglia" produces a long list of package conflicts on
> a current CentOS system? Or that only 3.1.7 has a fully working multicpu
> module, plus a number of significant bug fixes?
I just tried a gangli
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
>
> That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for
> centos-5.
And that would be the proper route to go instead of building
from native source :)
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:51:52PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
> Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an
> enterprise distro.
>
> What, specifically, is wrong with the 3.0.7 in EPEL?
Um, that "yum install ganglia" produces a long list of package conflicts
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:37:11AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 17/06/2010 23:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> > - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
> > available rpms
>
> I find that very hard to believe - to the extent that I don't believe
> you at all. Or d
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 at 6:51pm, John R. Dennison wrote
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>>
>> - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
>> available rpms
>
> Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an
> ente
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
> - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
> available rpms
Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an
enterprise distro.
What, specifically, is wrong with t
On 17/06/2010 23:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
> available rpms
I find that very hard to believe - to the extent that I don't believe
you at all. Or did you mean to say that its not easy to locate a well
done rpm set for gangl
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:07:57PM +0100, Simon Billis wrote:
> Take a look at ganglia - http://ganglia.sourceforge.net/
>
> This may do what you need.
It's what I've ended up going with. (Munin also looked promising - if I
could get the syntax right to modify its CPU test for individual cores,
32 matches
Mail list logo
