similar to: shutdown -h doesn't

On 01/16/2015 09:51 AM, Kay Diederichs wrote: > On 01/16/2015 05:05 AM, Devin Reade wrote: >> I've got a fresh CentOS 7 test machine, fully patched. The command: >> >> shutdown -h now >> >> surprisingly does not halt the machine. Instead it reboots it. WTF? >> >> I found the following Debian discussion which seems to be the same >>

On 01/16/2015 05:05 AM, Devin Reade wrote: > I've got a fresh CentOS 7 test machine, fully patched. The command: > > shutdown -h now > > surprisingly does not halt the machine. Instead it reboots it. WTF? > > I found the following Debian discussion which seems to be the same > issue: <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=766338> > >

Now don't go bugging people asking when CentOS 6.7 will be out. "When it's ready." In upgrading from RHEL 6.6 to 6.7, I did find that I had to disable my 3rd party repos (elrepo and epel) in order to avoid yum erroring out. Plus I did the usual "yum clean all". (I don't use the PackageKit GUI as it's been unable to complete for quite a few months without

I have a CentOS 6 machine that was initially installed as CentOS 6.4 in May of 2013. It's /boot filesystem is 200M which, IIRC, was the default /boot size at the time. The most recent kernel update (2.6.32-573.18.1.el6) fails because of lack of space in /boot. The workaround is edit /etc/yum.conf, reduce installonly_limit from 5 to something lower (I used 3), remove the oldest kernel via

I noticed that (in a case with a two disk md mirror and lvm), the CentOS 7 installer is now placing /boot as the *last* partition on the disk. I'm assuming that others are seeing this behavior. Does anyone know why it's now the last instead of the first? (Seems to work, though.) Devin

Saturday I did an upgrade from 5.3 (original install) to 5.4. Saturday night, /etc/cron.weekly reported the following: /etc/cron.weekly/99-raid-check: WARNING: mismatch_cnt is not 0 on /dev/md0 md0 holds /boot and resides, mirrored, on sda1 and sdb1. md1 holds an LVM volume containing the remaining filesytems, including swap. The underlying hardware is just a few months hold,

Hi all! I'm still on C6. I'm using a RAID1 configuration (Linux software RAID) and I'd like to either use the same one, or possibly configure it on new drives (larger) when I upgrade to C7. (I'm really feeling the need to move off C6.) But it isn't at all obvious how one would do a new RAID1 setup in Anaconda, and I don't find any user reports or other info on this in the

Does anyone have the magic incantation required to getting *independent* multi-monitors going under CentOS 7? Ideally under xfce or trinity, but I'm interested about GNOME/KDE observations as well. I'm trying to move my main workstation from CentOS5 to CentOS7 and while the spanned desktop works, not having independent monitors really cuts into my productivity. i.e.: I couldn't

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:49:43PM -0700, Devin Reade wrote: > --On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:07:12 PM -0500 Fred Smith > <fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us> wrote: > > >But it isn't at all obvious how one would do a new RAID1 setup in > >Anaconda > > Don't feel bad. The abortion that is the RHEL/CentOS 7 graphical > install interface is far too

It looks like someone pooched a domain transfer, and the whois entry for centos.org is missing its NS records. I've sent an email to the whois tech contact @redhat, but I'm sending this to the list to hopefully bring it to someone else's attention, as well. Hopefully it gets gets out before my mailserver expires its DNS cache for centos.org. Expect centos.org to be offline for a bit

Ok, trying to bypass the usual flames (I used CDE for years, then KDE until it got dumbed-down too much, and we all know how GNOME has turned out) ... I've decided to try out xfce on CentOS 7. I grabbed xfce from epel by installing the following via yum: epel-release @xfce So far it's pretty good, and is giving me the basic features I'm looking at without getting in my way.

On Sat, February 13, 2016 5:57 am, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Devin Reade wrote: > >> I have a CentOS 6 machine that was initially installed as CentOS 6.4 >> in May of 2013. It's /boot filesystem is 200M which, IIRC, was the >> default /boot size at the time. > > As a matter of interest, is there any advantage today > in having a /boot partition? > I thought

On Nov 18, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Devin Reade <gdr at gno.org> wrote: > > The one thing I would point out regarding the above link is that despite > conventional UNIX wisdom, *don't* put /usr on a separate filesystem > in CentOS 7. <sarcasm>Thank you RedHat</sarcasm> > > Flames to /dev/null. Sorry, you don?t get to throw that grenade and then run away. The

--On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:53:20 PM -0800 Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > That depends on what you mean by "support." > > It's almost certainly possible to run the binaries on CentOS, but if you > need any technical support from the vendor of that application, they > might not provide it. Your first step should be to talk to them

I'm using the MATE desktop (via 'yum groupinstall "MATE Desktop"') on CentOS 7. I'm finding the mouse to be rather flakey in the sense that: - in MATE Terminal, clicking on text and dragging the mouse (in order to highlight the text and copy it to the X cut & paste buffer) will sometimes drop the highlight (thus not copying anything), or stop and

Paul Heinlein wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> >> Question, for those that use/have used bacula: I've been setting up >> backups for one team, the server on CentOS 6, but they're on >> Windows. If we install the director on Windows, is it possible for >> the users to restore files from the server to their own machine? > >

Am 10.11.2015 um 22:36 schrieb Devin Reade <gdr at gno.org>: > > bat is a native GUI, so UNIX only. we use bat GUI on windows ... -- LF

I noticed when CentOS 6 came out that RHEL had moved to postfix vice sendmail as the default MTA. I had never heard the rationale given, it always sat on the back burner, but I was reminded of the question the other day when I was dealing with a related topic. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about how one MTA is obviously better than the other, nor why others think that I should

Has anyone had success running CentOS on Z97-based motherboards? The plan is to use CentOS 7 on this system. Devin

--On Friday, May 08, 2015 01:23:57 PM -0400 m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > I would *strongly* recommend editing your /etc/ssh/sshd_config, and > comment or delete the fallback, and replace it, like: ># Protocol 2,1 > Protocol 2 > > That way, it won't even try. While forcing protocol 2 on the server is not a bad idea, it won't help here. Remember, that's a client-side