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
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
2011/7/24 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
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
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
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 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
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, 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
>>
>>
>
> 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
> _
>> 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
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
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 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 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
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
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
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
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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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 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
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 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
> -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 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
>
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, 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 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 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
> 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
- 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
- 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
41 matches
Mail list logo
