On 22 May 2010 00:00, Barry Brimer wrote:
>> On 21 May 2010 22:04, Ski Dawg wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Barry Brimer wrote:
As for the redirection, I would handle it with mod_rewrite as follows:
ServerName domain.tld
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !
With regard to Richard's comments, I will get in touch with my server farm
(or garden, small company) that handles the same.
Regarding Simon's comments, these DNS packets have got to be teeny tiny.
This is plain text and very little of that. Your response was full of terms
I didn't understand and
Greetings,
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Jozsi Vadkan wrote:
> I've got two pendrives.
>
> I dont know about pendrives. But I can relate my experiences with SATA
HDDs.
>
> When I pull out the other pendrive [i plug in the first one i tried] it
> say's:
>
>
Of Course. You didn't install grub
Susan Day wrote:
> With regard to Richard's comments, I will get in touch with my server
> farm (or garden, small company) that handles the same.
>
> Regarding Simon's comments, these DNS packets have got to be teeny
> tiny. This is plain text and very little of that. Your response was
> full of
yes, i tried to install it to hd1,0 too.
2010. 05. 21, péntek keltezéssel 12.43-kor Phil Schaffner ezt írta:
> Jozsi Vadkan wrote on 05/21/2010 12:29 PM:
> > I've got two pendrives.
> >
> > I want to install a Debian on them. RAID1.
>
> This is the CentOS list.
>
> ...
> > I already tried:
> >
81B
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/attachments/20100522/7830d535/attachment-0001.bin
---
Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> You have another way out. By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
>> in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
>> unused. Running fdisk in expert mode ("x" command), you can move the
>> part
2010/5/22 Jozsi Vadkan
> yes, i tried to install it to hd1,0 too.
>
do you have /boot on both drives?
--
Among the maxims on Lord Naoshige's wall, there was this one: "Matters of
great concern should be treated lightly." Master Ittei commented, "Matters
of small concern should be treated serio
Hi,
I have been trying to install CentOS 5.4 on a Intel SR1530SHS, Intel S3200SH
mainboard.. It has a 3 x 1TB sata hotswap drives with LSI software raid
onboard.
I had configured the LSI to have Sata0 and Sata1 with raid 1 and the third
drive as a hotspare drive.
Format the harddisk and installa
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Chris Geldenhuis
wrote:
>
> The records that Richard was talking about was not that of your actual
> mail, but the Domain Name Service (DNS) records required to find the
> destination server and for that server to look up your server to verify
> that the mail comes
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:40 PM, CList wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to install CentOS 5.4 on a Intel SR1530SHS, Intel S3200SH
> mainboard.. It has a 3 x 1TB sata hotswap drives with LSI software raid
> onboard.
>
> I had configured the LSI to have Sata0 and Sata1 with raid 1 and the third
Hi,
I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
is the preferred way to upgrade to each minor version? Thanks in
advance!
Relevant forum
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 08:09:22PM +0200, Aniruddha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
> every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
> CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
> is the preferred w
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Aniruddha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
> every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
> CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
> is the preferred way to up
On May 22, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
> every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
> CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years? Or
> is the preferred way to upgra
Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS 5 and all
5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
security updates? Does each point release gets itś own security
updates? In other words is it possible to install
CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updat
Aniruddha wrote:
> Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS 5 and all
> 5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
> security updates? Does each point release gets itś own security
> updates? In other words is it possible to install
> CentOS 5.5 on a server an
On 05/22/2010 11:09 AM, Aniruddha wrote:
>
> I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
> every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
> CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates for 7 years?
No. As best I understand Red Hat's model, EL 5
Coming from Gentoo -> Debian I am to trying to understand the way
CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
for a major upgrade.
In CentOS there is an yum-security plugin which allows you to install
On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Robert Nichols wrote:
>> On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>>> You have another way out. By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
>>> in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
>>> unused. Running fdisk in e
> ... I understand now ...
No, you don't.
> is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
> receiving security updates?
It's strictly linear and one-dimensional.
Point releases only mark a specific point in time, where you get a
little bit more, e.g. additional drivers,
On 5/22/2010 3:39 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
> Coming from Gentoo -> Debian I am to trying to understand the way
> CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
> use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
> for a major upgrade.
>
> In CentOS there is
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Michael Lampe
wrote:
>> ... I understand now ...
>
> No, you don't.
>
>> is it required to upgrade to each point release in order to continue
>> receiving security updates?
>
> It's strictly linear and one-dimensional.
>
> Point releases only mark a specific point
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:52 PM, William Warren
wrote:
> On 5/22/2010 3:39 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
>> Coming from Gentoo -> Debian I am to trying to understand the way
>> CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
>> use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-ge
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
> I can imagine this works fine with vanilla CentOS, however is this
> still possible when you enable third party repositories such as epel?
It varies on the repository, but for the most part the existing
repositories try to keep their packages u
On May 22, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 11:09 AM, Aniruddha wrote:
>>
>> I've read some posts in the forums which seems to indicate that not
>> every CentOS version is well supported. Is it possible to install
>> CentOS 5.5 on a server and only apply security updates f
At Sat, 22 May 2010 21:39:46 +0200 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Coming from Gentoo -> Debian I am to trying to understand the way
> CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in stable releases and you
> use apt-get update to apply security updates and apt-get dist-upgrade
> for a major upgr
At Sat, 22 May 2010 21:03:49 +0200 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS 5 and all
> 5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
> security updates? Does each point release gets itÅ own security
> updates? In other words i
At Sat, 22 May 2010 22:02:34 +0200 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:52 PM, William Warren
> wrote:
> > On 5/22/2010 3:39 PM, Aniruddha wrote:
> >> Coming from Gentoo -> Â Debian I am to trying to understand the way
> >> CentOS works. In Debian very little happens in sta
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
> numbered. Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
> release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010, it is
> NOT the 4th point release of
Another issue with trying to apply just security updates for older point
updates is that newer updates may be built differently. On 5.3, a package may
not require another package be installed. But at some point later on, say,
5.5, it may gain a dependency. So if you try to install it, it may
At Sat, 22 May 2010 16:49:49 -0400 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> >
> > Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
> > numbered. Â Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
> > release: Ubuntu 10.4
Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Robert Nichols wrote:
>>> On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
You have another way out. By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the remainder of the MBR track
>>>
Aniruddha wrote:
> Thanks for the quick replies. I understand now that CentOS 5 and all
> 5.? versions are supported until 2014. How does this work with
> security updates? Does each point release gets itś own security
> updates? In other words is it possible to install
> CentOS 5.5 on a server an
On Saturday 22 May 2010 16:36:18 Robert Heller wrote:
> Base Ubuntu 'version' numbers are just the year.month of the
> release: Ubuntu 10.4 is just the base release of April of 2010
I didn't know that one! Interesting. Thanks Robert.
___
CentOS mailing
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Robert Nichols wrote:
>> On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Robert Nichols wrote:
On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
> You have another way out. By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
> in DOS compatibility mode, which leaves the rem
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:09 +0100, Lars Hecking wrote:
> lheck...@users.sourceforge.net writes:
> > Ian Forde writes:
> > > I upgraded one of my servers to CentOS 5.4 today. The freeradius
> > > service (radiusd) didn't start up due to permissions errors. I tracked
> > > it to the permissions on
On 05/22/2010 05:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Robert Nichols wrote:
>>> On 05/22/2010 11:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 05/21/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> You have another way out. By my calculation, that drive is partitioned
>>
On 05/22/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 05:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Does the 4K sector size mean that the drive is going to read the 4K chunk
>> then
>> merge in the 512 bytes you wrote, the wait for the sector come around again
>> to
>> write it back? I guess that cou
Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 05/22/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> On 05/22/2010 05:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Does the 4K sector size mean that the drive is going to read the 4K chunk
>>> then
>>> merge in the 512 bytes you wrote, the wait for the sector come around again
>>> to
>>> wr
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sat, 22 May 2010 16:49:49 -0400 CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> >
>> > Note: this is *very* different from how Ubuntu (for example) is
>> > numbered. Base Ubuntu 'version' num
2010/5/21 Jakub Jedelský :
> Hi all,
>
> I changed a bad disk (automaticly disabled from software raid1 and system
> for I/O error) in one of our servers and now have problem with adding new
> one to system without reboot. Does anybody have an experience with this? Or
> is it possible? :) We're usi
On 05/22/2010 08:40 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Robert Nichols wrote:
>> On 05/22/2010 07:39 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> I should add that the kernel normally will do I/O in multiples of its 4KB
>> (typical) page size where possible, but I have no idea whether any effort
>> is made to align those wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I've got a problem with kerberoized NFS server , i can't start
rpc.svcgssd daemon on my server.
shaver ~ # rpc.svcgssd -fvvv
ERROR: GSS-API: error in gss_acquire_cred(): Unspecified GSS failure.
Minor code may provide more information - No p
44 matches
Mail list logo
