> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Miller
> Sent: den 20 mars 2014 20:49
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: [CentOS] Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny)
> anymore?
>
> Does anyone use tcp wrapper
Dear Bonnie,
Your not getting an answer because the emails you are sending look
like spam to most email filters.
Thanks,
Andrew
On 18 March 2014 09:22, Bonnie B Mtengwa wrote:
> I have a file Server CentOS 5.10, its on the internet, so I compress all csv
> into one file using (tar -czvf co
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And, would
> you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to something
> else)?
>
> I bring this up because we are discussing dropping it from Fedora. This
> wou
On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
>
>
> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
> Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
> better replacements.
Yes. For example look how MicroSoft has improved Windows since XPsp3.
On Thu, March 20, 2014 18:52, Les Mikesell wrote:
> xml isn't intended for humans - it is supposed to be parsed and
> verified by machines. The bigger question is why the machines aren't
> managing the config files themselves yet?
>
Possibly because the machines are running programs written by h
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 08:33:19AM -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
> > Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
> > better replac
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:33 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
>> Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
>> better replacements.
>
> Ye
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:37 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 18:52, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> xml isn't intended for humans - it is supposed to be parsed and
>> verified by machines. The bigger question is why the machines aren't
>> managing the config files themselves yet?
>>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:55:33AM +, Andrew Holway wrote:
> Dear Bonnie,
>
> Your not getting an answer because the emails you are sending look
> like spam to most email filters.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 March 2014 09:22, Bonnie B Mtengwa wrote:
> > I have a file Serve
Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:33 AM, James B. Byrne
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
>>>
>>> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior
>>> products. Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction
of new and
>>>
On 03/20/2014 04:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:00:49PM -0400, John Jasen wrote:
>> Various government entities may use it extensively. I don't recall if
>> tcp_wrappers is in the USGCB baselines for RHEL, but I do believe its in
>> several CIS benchmarks.
>
> Good quest
On 03/20/2014 06:23 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Not sure there's a one-to-one mapping or even a conceptual overlap in
> what tcpwrappers and iptables do. Applications can be configured to
> use different ports than someone setting up iptables might expect -
> and how would you handle portmapper?
>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 09:29:01AM -0400, John Jasen wrote:
> https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/tools2/linux/CIS_RHEL5_Benchmark_v1.1.pdf
> Also note, agencies or groups required to implement CIS or better who
> maintain a mixed environment may also use tcp_wrappers on all their
> platforms, as fro
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Keith Keller <
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> The technical problem is that there's no maintainer. Are you
> volunteering (and capable)?
>
Then, for crying out loud... :) this discussion should have been started
with a different subject line:
"Look
Am 20.03.2014 um 22:22 schrieb Matthew Miller :
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 06:14:56PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> Please don't remove it. Why this sudden idea in software circles that
>> stuff that works properly needs to be removed for no reason whatsoever
>> other than "it's old and we think
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>> The technical problem is that there's no maintainer. Are you
>> volunteering (and capable)?
>>
>
> Then, for crying out loud... :) this discussion should have been started
> with a different subject line:
> "Looking for a new tcp wrappe
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Leon Fauster wrote:
> its just used in a multiple layer protection / security model.
Bingo! Same here. And it works well!
> well i would say its more scary when humans are editing configuration files
> :-)
I can speak for nearly 20 years of experience on this, including
bl
On 03/20/2014 12:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And, would
> you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to something
> else)?
>
> I bring this up because we are discussing dropping it from Fedora. This
> would be far e
Hey,
kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0,
oom_score_adj=0
...
kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score 361 or sacrifice
child
kernel: Killed process 27974, UID 27, (mysqld) total-vm:3804672kB,
anon-rss:2890828kB, file-rss:3324kB
rsync
I added a subject so we can track this message on the list easier. ;)
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Hey,
>
> kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0,
> oom_score_adj=0
> ...
> kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score 361
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fred Smith
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:55:33AM +, Andrew Holway wrote:
> > Dear Bonnie,
> >
> > Your not getting an answer because the emails you are sending look
> > like spam to most email filters.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
From: SilverTip257
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 5:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] rsync triggers oomkiller
>
> I added a subject so we can track this message on the list easier. ;)
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:19 PM, John Doe wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> ker
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>Larry Martell wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:33 AM, James B. Byrne
>> wrote:
...
>>> Yes. For example look how MicroSoft has improved Windows since
>>> XPsp3.;-^)
>>
>> I wouldn't know. I don't use it. I've been programming professionally
>> sinc
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014, Keith Keller wrote:
>On 2014-03-21, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> Interesting double negative. Implies that once the "technical barriers" are
>> removed, then it's OK to remove old features for change's sake. ;)
>
>If, as Matthew says, the codebase hasn't been maintained since
Hi Guys,
I have made custom Centos DVD , I have copied ks.cfg in top directory of
my DVD. and it is working fine.
My ks.cfg looks like :
%post --log=/root/my-post-log
yum remove libreoffice* -y ;
/usr/bin/wget http://210.X.X.52/LibreOffice_4.1.5_Linux_x86-64_rpm.tar.gz ;
tar -xvzf LibreOffice_
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:33 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
>> Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
>> better replacements.
>
> Yes. For example look how MicroSoft has improved Windows sin
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>>kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0, oom_adj=0,
>>> oom_score_adj=0
>>>...
>>>kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score 361 or
>>> sacrifice child
>>>kernel: Killed process 27974, UID
Hi all,
Has anyone installed mellanox ofed on linux kernel 3.x?
Regards
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 21 March 2014 18:08, Robert Clove wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Has anyone installed mellanox ofed on linux kernel 3.x?
I hear those guys over in Ubuntu land do that kind of thing a lot. Why
Mellanox OFED and non OFED OFED?
Ta
Andrew
>
>
> Regards
> ___
>
Will non ofed also work as mellanox ofed or any other difference will I
face ?
Where to get other ofed ?
On Friday, March 21, 2014, Andrew Holway wrote:
> On 21 March 2014 18:08, Robert Clove >
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Has anyone installed mellanox ofed on linux kernel 3.x?
>
> I hear those
On 21 March 2014 18:24, Robert Clove wrote:
> Will non ofed also work as mellanox ofed or any other difference will I
> face ?
The Mellanox OFED stack is a development version maintained by
Mellanox whereas the "OFED OFED" is maintained by the OpenFabrics
Enterprise Distribution which is a consor
- Original Message -
| Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And,
| would
| you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to
| something
| else)?
|
Yes, we do use TCP Wrappers. We also use IPTables, edge gateway firewalls,
VPNs and other tools. T
I have an VPI card and will ofed ofed convert the infiniband ports to
Ethernet ports.
On Saturday, March 22, 2014, Andrew Holway wrote:
> On 21 March 2014 18:24, Robert Clove >
> wrote:
> > Will non ofed also work as mellanox ofed or any other difference will I
> > face ?
>
> The Mellanox OFED s
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
> I'd love to hear about the "old and unmaintainable code". It's open
> source code. If somethings broken you can fix it right!?! That's the open
> source mantra! Either provide a set of reasons why it should be removed
> and the alter
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd love to hear about the "old and unmaintainable code". It's open
>> source code. If somethings broken you can fix it right!?! That's the open
>> source mantra! Either provide a set
On 21 March 2014 19:03, Robert Clove wrote:
> I have an VPI card and will ofed ofed convert the infiniband ports to
> Ethernet ports.
I'm pretty sure it will. Check the docs!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/list
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
>>
> The case is being made to remove a tool that is considered to be legacy.
> While it is understood that legacy = old/unmaintained/crap,
No, legacy = the foundation everything else builds on. Change it at
the risk of forcing everyone
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but that reason is generally that someone changed the language
> syntax underneath it instead of settling on simple working APIs.
> What has actually stayed stable and backwards compatible over the
> years other than bourne shell syntax
On 3/19/2014 2:50 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
> Just to add, I'm sure everyone has already read and implemented many of
> the suggestions here:
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH
>
> Numbers 2 and 7 have already been highlighted in this thread.
>
#1 These days I would say that
Thomas Harold wrote:
> On 3/19/2014 2:50 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>> Just to add, I'm sure everyone has already read and implemented many of
>> the suggestions here:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH
>>
>> Numbers 2 and 7 have already been highlighted in this thread.
>
> #1 Th
Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just dunno
'bout this one.
mark
___
On 21/03/14 05:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
> build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
> this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just dunno
> 'bout this one.
>
>
Digimer wrote:
> On 21/03/14 05:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
>> build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
>> this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just
>> dunno 'bou
On 3/21/2014 2:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Does anyone know if a PERC H200 is a real RAID controller? I'm about to
> build a box to CentOS 6.5 (it was Windows...) with RAID 6 on Monday, and
> this PE R610 has this I'm familiar with PERC 6 and 7s, but just dunno
> 'bout this one.
if it do
On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
> And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC.
> THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was
> detected as p5p1.
Just because the MAC chip is soldered to the motherboard doesn't mean it
can't be on the P
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM, John Doe wrote:
>
> >>>kernel: rsync invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x200da, order=0,
> oom_adj=0,
> >>> oom_score_adj=0
> >>>...
> >>>kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 27974 (mysqld) score
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
> >
> > And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC.
> > THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was
> > detected as p5p1.
>
> Just because the MAC ch
On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 08:33 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, March 20, 2014 17:34, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > Nothing remains static. Software evolves into usually superior products.
> > Sentimentally longing for the past hampers the introduction of new and
> > better replacements.
>
>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:31 PM, SilverTip257 wrote:
>
>> Before very recent versions of rsync (not sure exactly when it
>> changed), it would load the entire tree listing from both sides into
>> memory before walking them for the comparison. What's the destination
>> side look like? Maybe you
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:18 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the massively
> > increased complexity of grub2? And why do all configuration files
> suddenly
> > *desperately* ne
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:18 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > > On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the massively
> > > increased complexity of grub2? And why do all configuration files
> > > suddenly *desperately* need to be xml?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Always Le
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:14:56 -0300
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Does anyone use tcp wrappers (hosts.allow/hosts.deny) anymore? And, would
> you care strongly if it went away (or would you just migrate to something
> else)?
>
Please don't remove it. Why this sudde
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:18 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> > > > On the other hand, what justifiable reason was there for the
> massively
> > > > increased complexity of grub2? And why do all configuration files
> > > > suddenly *des
53 matches
Mail list logo
