Re: [CentOS] Is ext4 safe for a production server?

2009-12-15 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Morten Torstensen wrote: > On 05.12.2009 18:15, Miguel Medalha wrote: >>> And, as of CentOS 5.4, xfs is now enabled in the kernel, so >>> no need for any external kernel module. But yes, this is available for >>> x86_64 only >> >> ... a decision that many people h

Re: [CentOS] large numbers of linux system user for postfix

2010-11-08 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote: > Assuming that Virtualmin doesn't have support for real virtual users > or redirecting to MySQL for that then you have three basic choices: > > 1a) Use a different management interface for managing the > Postfix/Dovecot configuration. > > 1b) Wr

[CentOS] nspluginwrapper rpms on x86_64? (was: firefox. java. 64 bit. bleah!)

2010-11-20 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Lars Hecking wrote: >  Possibly. Or possibly not. On a closely related topic, can you comment on >  whether or not it's a good idea to install the nspluginwrapper rpms on > x86_64? >  They seem to be fundamentally broken. > I don't think you need it anymore with

Re: [CentOS] Postfix - message queue filling with Host or name not found - try again

2010-11-26 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: > Hi list, > I have noted over the last week or so my DNS servers are dumping lots of > messages for bogus domain lookups. Examining the postfix queue with > postqueue -p:  I see many > (Host or domain name not found. Name service error for > nam

Re: [CentOS] Weird performance problem

2009-04-22 Thread Mike Fedyk
Can you find the first time this problem occoured? How about trying older kernel versions? You are either dealing with misbehaving hardware/driver or you need to tweak the settings on your clock source. Believe it or not but good sources of info to fix this affect vmware also so read those docs.

Re: [CentOS] RHEL 6 Beta available for public download

2010-05-15 Thread Mike Fedyk
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Kwan Lowe wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Michael Simpson > wrote: >> sorry for bumping the thread, >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589332 >> >> not bug but feature. Interesting, I didn't realize the Pentium M didn't have PAE support.