similar to: CentOS Digest, Vol 73, Issue 12

Many people seem to wait for the announcement of CentOS 6.0, so I want to share some test results I did with SL 6.0.. The actual 6.0 kernel can NOT allocate tape buffers when the server is heavily loaded at least on some LSILogic hardware. There is a big problem of slab buffer increase that can cause reboot/freeze of the server under load. Reported by many and verified by me :-( So perhaps

Are there any 64bit CentOS5 kernels available that are immune against the exploit mentioned in the subject? Turning off 32bit support is no option to me.. Gerhard Schneider P.S.: Source code can be found at http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Sep/268 and is working "well" on 2.6.18-194.11.3.el5.centos.plus -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of Lightweight Design and e-Mail: gs

After a crash I tried wget http://debuginfo.centos.org/5/x86_64/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.18-194.32.1.el5.x86_64.rpm as usual. But for 32.1 there is no kernel-debuginfo. Is there any reason for that? Thank you in advance! Gerhard Schneider -- Gerhard Schneider e-Mail:gs at ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Institute of Lightweight Design and Tel.: +43 664 60 588 3171

Are there any known race conditions with 2.6.18-194.26.1.el5 x86_64 and NFS4? Today a user managed to shut down two identical Intel servers by copying a simple text file via NFS4. Reverting back to 17.1 made the error disappear. On other non-identical hardware the error was not reproducible (so it must be a combination of hardware and this special kernel revision). Anybody interested in a

Do CentOS 5.4 users still have to use the RedHat preliminary kernels (http://people.redhat.com/jlayton/) for getting a NFSv4 safe kernel or have the patches been incorporated into CentosPlus kernels? Or is kernel-2.6.18-164.3.1.el5 somewhere in the queue? Thanks in advance! GS -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of Lightweight Design and e-Mail: gs at ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Structural

Is there any known problem with accountsservice-0.6.35-12 with NFS users? After logging in via lightdm they are not "remembered" and there is no entry created to /var/lib/AccountsService/users Downgrading to accountsservice-0.6.35-9 resolved that issue Gerhard Schneider -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of Lightweight Design and e-Mail: gs at ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Structural

An user is using 2 displays and configured Gnome to "Static Workspaces only on primary display on" using gnome-tweak-tool Till 7.2 it was working as expected. After upgrading to 7.3 the content on the primary screen gets mirrored to all workspaces. When switching to "Static Workspaces only on primary display off" everything is working as expected on 7.3, too. Any ideas?

Today we tried to update machines w/ Core2 Duo E6750 from 3.10.0-693.11.1.el7.centos.plus to 3.10.0-693.11.6.el7.centos.plus and the machines did not boot due to a kernel panic. Before we dig any further I wanted to know if the 11.6 kernel has been tested on old hardware, too, or if the problem is well known but not documented (yet). Thank you in advance! Gerhard Schneider -- Gerhard

The upstream provider decided to remove OpenGPG support in its thunderbird-78 packages, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886962 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886958 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837512 recommending to either use Mozilla binaries, use Flatpak or switch to Evolution Is there any plan to provide thunderbird-78-full packages in e.g.

After upgrading approx. 50 machines to 7.4 we discovered a reproducible SegFault of one of our commercial programs we use. This SegFault does not occur on CentOS 7.3 and it occurs only on Xeon E3-1230 V3, Xeon E5-2690 and Xeon E5-2697 v2. It does NOT occur on Xeon E5-2697 v3 and Xeon E3-1231 v3, AMD Ryzen and older Core I7-9xx. It is not dependent of the kernel, we switched back to an CentOS

https://communities.vmware.com/message/2686431 is working for me. GS -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of Lightweight Design and e-Mail: gs at ilsb.tuwien.ac.at Structural Biomechanics (E317) Tel.: +43 1 58801 31716 TU Wien / Vienna / Austria Fax: +43 1 58801 31799 A-1060 Wien, Getreidemarkt 9/BE02 http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~gs/

Hello all, In the process of building a new VM box to replace several individual CentOS servers, I've had the "interesting" experience of running both CentOS-5.5 and RHEL-6 (eval copy) as I build out the hardware based on a Supermicro motherboard. A couple of observations regarding RAID-6: - RAID-6 arrays created on RHEL-6 don't seem backward compatible with CentOS-5.5.

Hi All, I have a WD RE4-GP which dropped an Adaptec 51645 RAID controller. I ran a smartctl short test on the drive and it failed with a read error. So I ran the Western Digital's own diagnostic software (DLGDIAG), both the short and extended test on the drive and it passed with no errors. So I ran the smartctl short test again and again it failed. I then ran smartctl long test and that

Hi, Despite the mailing list and twitter I did not find any updated info on either versions regarding the current status. So, what is the current status of both versions? (like 60%) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110214/39bd18d7/attachment.html>

Hallo, actual Intel Ethernet cards PCI-E - Are normal recognized by Centos 5.5 Live CD - Not recognized by 5.2 Because of vmware, I will use 5.2 Update kernel? Update Modules? What Module? Thanks for help Helmut -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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 would run with the -br -audit 4 -s 15 options. Unfortunately in CentOS6 this is not the case. It completely ignores anything put into custom.conf as far

On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > There is no licensing issue, but

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6.

Hello All, Just a short note to add my vote for a HUGE round of applause to the CentOS team for their untiring efforts in getting releases out the door. I've just upgraded several servers to 5.6 and it all "just works". None of the team's work is easy to accomplish, especially when less-than-useful complaints keep popping up from thoughtless users who don't appreciate

On 12/18/2013, 04:00 , lists at benjamindsmith.com wrote: > I may be being presumptuous, and if so, I apologize in advance... > > It sounds to me like you might consider a disk-to-disk backup solution. > I could suggest dirvish, BackupPC, or our own home-rolled rsync-based > solution that works rather well:http://www.effortlessis.com/backupbuddy/ > > Note that with these