On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 21:11 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Rcpt-To:
>
> wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 12:53:21 -0500:
>
> > LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00
> >
> > LV Size10.53 GB
> >
> > > And the output of pvdisplay.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTE
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Rcpt-To:
wrote on Tue, 13 May 2008 12:53:21 -0500:
> LV Name/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00
>
> LV Size10.53 GB
>
> > And the output of pvdisplay.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# pvdisplay
> --- Physical volume ---
> PV Name /dev/
On 5/12/08, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# df
> > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
> > 10696956 4597688 5547128 46% /
> > /dev/hda3 102486 22174 75020 23% /boo
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 18:37 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Rcpt-To:
>
> wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 08:51:46 -0500:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# df
> > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
> >
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 10:52 -0400, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On 5/8/08, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> >
> > > hda3 and hda9 are your Linux LVM partitions, maybe they belong to one
> > > volume
> > > group, I don't know (your fstab would tell more, there's also a graphi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Rcpt-To:
wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 08:51:46 -0500:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# df
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
> 10696956 4597688 5547128 46% /
> /dev/hda3 102486
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Rcpt-To:
Ross S. W. Walker wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 10:52:16 -0400:
> The proper location of the grub.conf is:
>
> /mnt/hda8/grub/grub.conf
right, if that is the boot partition, there won't be a boot directory.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conac
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Rcpt-To:
wrote on Mon, 12 May 2008 08:51:46 -0500:
> > Mount it and have a look at that partition, does it contain the same stuff
> > as
> > your /boot partition?
And this question?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 5/8/08, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>
> > hda3 and hda9 are your Linux LVM partitions, maybe they belong to one volume
> > group, I don't know (your fstab would tell more, there's also a graphical
> > frontend for LVM in your desktop).
> >
> > From your grub.conf we know
On 5/8/08, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> hda3 and hda9 are your Linux LVM partitions, maybe they belong to one volume
> group, I don't know (your fstab would tell more, there's also a graphical
> frontend for LVM in your desktop).
>
> >From your grub.conf we know that it thinks it's installed on (hd0,2),
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 01:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> No, surely not. Windows installs only to one partition, the one you selected
> for installation. The other three are only NTFS partitions and can be used by
> Windows, but unless your wife installs something on them or puts data on them
>
wrote on Thu, 8 May 2008 09:39:15 -0500:
> Ah. This is where the problem on her box probably comes from! Last
> November, when I installed Windows XP, in English, my native language,
> I did not understand something in Microsoft's English. There were four
> (4) partitions for Windows (C,D,E,F) an
On 5/7/08, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Lanny Marcus wrote on Wed, 07 May 2008 15:10:58 -0500:
>> Kai: I am not using Windows Boot Manager. Grub comes up, as on the 2
>> boxes, where things are working properly.
>
> Just to be sure, it's really grub? You get a somewhat blueish screen that
> says "booting
On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 00:19 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Lanny Marcus wrote on Wed, 07 May 2008 15:10:58 -0500:
>
> You will need to make a list of all partitions. Not sure what the best way
> to do this would be. Probably fdisk. Run fdisk, then type "p" (for
> printing the partition table), th
Lanny Marcus wrote on Wed, 07 May 2008 15:10:58 -0500:
> Kai: I am not using Windows Boot Manager. Grub comes up, as on the 2
> boxes, where things are working properly.
Just to be sure, it's really grub? You get a somewhat blueish screen that
says "booting centos in x seconds, press any key to
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 3:27 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes. I woke up about 430 this morning and I realized that rpm can
> locate the file by itself. :-)However, I want to learn how to
> use find that Mark (mhr) mentioned!
>
Lanny (offlist):
Thanks - I really did mean that in a
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 21:38 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Lanny Marcus wrote on Wed, 07 May 2008 13:13:13 -0500:
>
> > On
> > compaq1300, I do *not* have the three boot options (original kernel,
> > latest kernel and Windows XP). I have two (2) options, if I interrupt
> > grub: (a) the original ke
Lanny Marcus wrote on Wed, 07 May 2008 13:13:13 -0500:
> On
> compaq1300, I do *not* have the three boot options (original kernel,
> latest kernel and Windows XP). I have two (2) options, if I interrupt
> grub: (a) the original kernel (b) other, which is Windows XP
Ok, that explains it. I bet yo
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 18:30 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> -rw--- 1 root root816 May 7 05:08 grub.conf
>
> got changed 5:08 today. Are you sure you booted after that? What does uname
> -a show now?
Kai: Yes, I rebooted, very early this morning. I just tried it again. My
wife had been using
wrote on Wed, 7 May 2008 08:53:01 -0500:
> -rw--- 1 root root816 May 7 05:08 grub.conf
got changed 5:08 today. Are you sure you booted after that? What does uname
-a show now?
> default=0
> timeout=5
> splashimage=(hd0,2)/grub/splash.xpm.gz
> hiddenmenu
> title CentOS (2.6.18-53.1.14.
On 5/7/08, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wrote on Wed, 7 May 2008 05:27:25 -0500:
> > I just installed kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 again. Was that
> > correct or not?
>
> As you removed it earlier, yes. There doesn't seem to be any dependancy
> for it. AFAIK it's not necessary fo
Michael Simpson wrote on Wed, 7 May 2008 12:15:35 +0100:
> do you have any mention of the new kernel in /etc/grub.conf?
Note, this is only a symlink to /boot/grub/grub.conf !
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
__
wrote on Wed, 7 May 2008 05:27:25 -0500:
> I just installed kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 again. Was that
> correct or not?
As you removed it earlier, yes. There doesn't seem to be any dependancy
for it. AFAIK it's not necessary for operation, anyway, it's only
necessary if something has t
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
> Linux compaq1300.HOMELAN 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 SMP Thu Mar 15 19:57:35 EDT
> 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$
>
> After rebooting the box, it is still on the original kernel, rather
> than on the new kernel.
>
> I just installed kernel-headers-2.6.1
On 5/7/08, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > Scott: Great! If I can locate kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 and
> > kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 I can use the rpm -e command to remove them
> > and then yum update again and that should update the kernel in her box.
> > How do I locate
On 03 May 2008, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>Message: 61
>Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 13:31:14 +0200
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>*Have* you verified that you are not already on the latest kernel?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
Linux compaq1300.HOMELAN 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 SMP Thu Mar 15 19:57:35 EDT
200
*Have* you verified that you are not already on the latest kernel?
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/li
On 02 May 2008, Erek Dyskant erek at blumenthals.com wrote:
>
> __
> On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 08:39 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > This morning, I did "yum update" on my wife's box. It did not update the
> > kernel. I ran the comman
On 02 May 2008, Michael Simpson mikie.simpson at gmail.com wrote:
>
> __
> On 5/2/08, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > This morning, I did "yum update" on my wife's box. It did not update the
> > kernel. I ran the command again, and there
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 08:19 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:56 -0400, Erek Dyskant wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 08:39 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > > > This morning, I did "yum updat
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:56 -0400, Erek Dyskant wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 08:39 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > > This morning, I did "yum update" on my wife's box. It did not update the
> > > kernel. I ran t
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 09:56 -0400, Erek Dyskant wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 08:39 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > This morning, I did "yum update" on my wife's box. It did not update the
> > kernel. I ran the command again, and there is a response that no updates
> > are available.
>
> Ch
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 08:39 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> This morning, I did "yum update" on my wife's box. It did not update the
> kernel. I ran the command again, and there is a response that no updates
> are available.
Check /etc/yum.conf and see if there's an exclude=kernel line
Regards,
On 5/2/08, Lanny Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This morning, I did "yum update" on my wife's box. It did not update the
> kernel. I ran the command again, and there is a response that no updates
> are available. Her box is a Compaq Evo D300v Celeron. During the past
> couple of days, when I d
34 matches
Mail list logo
