On 06/15/2011 07:04 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> Looking at some very sparse notes I made on the decision, I think what
> tipped the choice was that both qcow2 and lvm added overheads, but lvm
> was on the whole system i.e. the host has additional processing on
> every i/o whereas qcow2 overhead
On 6/16/11, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I think you were misinformed, or misled.
That wouldn't be new for me as far as system administration is concerned :D
>LVM should not present any
> noticeable overhead on the host. Using "raw" files to back VMs presents
> a significant overhead to guests; the
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:56 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 06/15/11 9:44 PM, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Mike Williams
>> wrote:
>>> "Low humidity would be my first guess. The relative humidity in your
>>> server room should be between 50% +/- 10%. Too high and
James A. Peltier wrote:
> BTW: Can anyone try this to see if it is in fact a bug or not?
>
> Create a file called
>
> /etc/udev/rules.d/99-udev-override.rules
>
> that contains
>
> KERNEL=="tty[A-Z]*", GROUP="some_other_group_than_uucp", MODE="0660",
> OPTIONS="last_rule"
>
> with mode of 06
On 6/16/11, John R Pierce wrote:
> actually, its 40-60%, I believe. and you should have a humidifier as
> part of your A/C, since cooling air sucks the moisture out of it. I
> would NOT rely on a fishtank to provide any significant humidity.
Well, can't be so sure the fish tank won't do the j
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>>
>>> Mint/Ubuntu don't have an easy way to boot into the command line.
>>
>> To boot into "everything but X", you can append "text" to t
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Craig White wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>>
>>> Like RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu LTS is absolutely appropriate for server use.
>>> In fact, it's sort of refreshing to set up a new server that i
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Craig White wrote:
>
> those days will be over soon as even fedora has now switched to upstart
>
> CentOS 7 (based on upstream 7) will be a vastly different beast
CentOS 7 will most probably have systemd not upstart.
___
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>
> Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
> command line (which you can reach via -f1) or I think you can
> append 3 to the kernel line...
That doesn't work on Debian/Ubuntu because runlevels 2-5 are the same.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
> >
> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
> > command line (which you can reach via -f1) or I think you can
> > append 3 to the kernel line...
>
> That doesn't work
On 6/16/11 1:56 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 05:52 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Drawback is that such KVM guest is not as easy to move to another host
>> if current host can not boot. Copying image and config files will be
>> much faster.
>
> There is no reason that should be true
Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
>> > command line (which you can reach via -f1) or I think you
>> > can append 3 to the kernel lin
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 10:41 PM, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>> Personally, I find that indenting config files by 3 spaces has a lot
>> of advantages to indenting them by 4 spaces although conventional
>> wisdom might suggest otherwise. Who's with me on this?
>
> Three is evil
- Original Message -
| James A. Peltier wrote:
|
| > BTW: Can anyone try this to see if it is in fact a bug or not?
| >
| > Create a file called
| >
| > /etc/udev/rules.d/99-udev-override.rules
| >
| > that contains
| >
| > KERNEL=="tty[A-Z]*", GROUP="some_other_group_than_uucp",
| > MODE=
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Scott Robbins wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 from the
> >> > command line (w
Laurence Hurst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 02:15:28PM +0100, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Scott Robbins wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Or edit /etc/inittab to boot to runlevel 3, or just init 3 fr
On 06/16/2011 05:59 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> What about the destination? Wouldn't it likely be harder to find a place to
> put
> the LV copy than space to write a file? Or can you copy back and forth?
Yes, you can copy the content of a partition to a file and use it that
way, or the reverse.
On 06/16/2011 06:15 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> 2 isn't much used, except as a set of steps
I think you're referring to Solaris' init. I'm not aware of any Linux
init systems that start up by stepping through runlevels.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
>
> In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
> OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
> while () {
>crash
>respawn
>
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can remember putting things into 3, because X would
wh
On 06/16/2011 12:58 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/16/2011 12:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/16/2011 10:43 AM,m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
runlevels, traditionally, have not been defined (although the LSB has
In Linux? I mean, runlevel 3 was multi-user text mode as far back as Sun
OS - I can rememb
No. I worked with both SCO and ISC linux in the late 80's and early 90's and
run level 5 was used for X. In fact I think
it was used also in DGUX for X.
I don't know about ISC UNIX (aka Interactive UNIX) but SCO did not use run
level 5 for X. I cut my teeth on System V UNIX including SC
22 matches
Mail list logo
