similar to: Fedora Server - as an alternative ?

On 20/12/2018 15:33, mark wrote: > lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >> hi guys >> >> I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than only >> contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in test/production >> envs. >> >> If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it to >> be a viable option to put it on

On 12/20/18 10:07 AM, Patrick B?gou wrote: > Le 20/12/2018 ? 14:11, lejeczek via CentOS a ?crit?: >> hi guys >> >> I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than only >> contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in >> test/production envs. >> >> If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it

lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > On 20/12/2018 15:33, mark wrote: > >> lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >>> hi guys >>> >>> I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than >>> only contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in >>> test/production envs. >>> >>> If here are some folks who have done it I

lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > hi guys > > I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than only > contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in test/production > envs. > > If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it to > be a viable option to put it on at least portion of servers stack. > > Anybody? > I would

Robert Moskowitz wrote: > On 12/20/18 10:33 AM, mark wrote: >> lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >>> >>> I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than >>> only contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in >>> test/production envs. >>> >>> If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it

On 12/20/18 5:11 AM, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > hi guys > > I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than only > contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in > test/production envs. > > If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it to > be a viable option to put it on at least portion of servers stack. >

Le 20/12/2018 ? 14:11, lejeczek via CentOS a ?crit?: > hi guys > > I wonder if any Centosian here have done something different than only > contemplated using Fedora Server, actually worked on it in > test/production envs. > > If here are some folks who have done it I want to ask if you deem it > to be a viable option to put it on at least portion of servers stack. >

On 13/09/17 06:21, Gaurav Yadav wrote: > Please provide the output of gluster volume info, gluster > volume status and gluster peer status. > > Apart? from above info, please provide glusterd logs, > cmd_history.log. > > Thanks > Gaurav > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:22 PM, lejeczek > <peljasz at yahoo.co.uk <mailto:peljasz at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:

Please send me the logs as well i.e glusterd.logs and cmd_history.log. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, lejeczek <peljasz at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 13/09/17 06:21, Gaurav Yadav wrote: > >> Please provide the output of gluster volume info, gluster volume status >> and gluster peer status. >> >> Apart from above info, please provide glusterd logs,

Additionally the brick log file of the same brick would be required. Please look for if brick process went down or crashed. Doing a volume start force should resolve the issue. On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 16:28, Gaurav Yadav <gyadav at redhat.com> wrote: > Please send me the logs as well i.e glusterd.logs and cmd_history.log. > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, lejeczek

On 13/08/2019 13:33, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:02:58PM +0100, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > >> I wonder if anybody might version of freeIPA in RHEL? >> >> I hear it's 4.6.6 and if that's true then when will Centos get it I >> might ask. > RHEL 7.7 has FreeIPA 4.6.5, and eventually CentOS will get that > version, but it's

.. what is? fellow centosians. how to you mount your loopback targets? I'm trying lvm backstore, I was hoping I would do it with uuid, but it's exposed more than once and how would kernel decide which device to use I don't know. thanks

hi everyone I have 3-peer cluster with all vols in replica mode, 9 vols. What I see, unfortunately, is one brick fails in one vol, when it happens it's always the same vol on the same brick. Command: gluster vol status $vol - would show brick not online. Restarting glusterd with systemclt does not help, only system reboot seem to help, until it happens, next time. How to troubleshoot this

hi guys I wonder if anybody might version of freeIPA in RHEL? I hear it's 4.6.6 and if that's true then when will Centos get it I might ask. many thanks, L.

On 13/09/17 20:47, Ben Werthmann wrote: > These symptoms appear to be the same as I've recorded in > this post: > > http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2017-September/032435.html > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Atin Mukherjee > <atin.mukherjee83 at gmail.com > <mailto:atin.mukherjee83 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Additionally the

Please provide the output of gluster volume info, gluster volume status and gluster peer status. Apart from above info, please provide glusterd logs, cmd_history.log. Thanks Gaurav On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:22 PM, lejeczek <peljasz at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > hi everyone > > I have 3-peer cluster with all vols in replica mode, 9 vols. > What I see, unfortunately, is one brick

These symptoms appear to be the same as I've recorded in this post: http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2017-September/032435.html On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Atin Mukherjee <atin.mukherjee83 at gmail.com> wrote: > Additionally the brick log file of the same brick would be required. > Please look for if brick process went down or crashed. Doing a volume start

On 2020-02-24 14:37, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > > > On 24/02/2020 10:26, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> On 2020-02-24 10:51, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >>> g) remember!! still at least (depending how you mount it) >>> the 'root' will have access to that data while mounted, >>> obviously! >> >> More than that: the root user will be able to

Hello all, After a hectic month in private life, as a byproduct I've got a viable merger of last released NUT 2.6.5 based Windows-ready codebase (thanks to the giants active a dozen years ago, on whose shoulders I stood today) and modern 2.8.x/master, fixing the merge conflicts and build warnings. Some details were tracked in discussion of https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/5

Hello all, After a hectic month in private life, as a byproduct I've got a viable merger of last released NUT 2.6.5 based Windows-ready codebase (thanks to the giants active a dozen years ago, on whose shoulders I stood today) and modern 2.8.x/master, fixing the merge conflicts and build warnings. Some details were tracked in discussion of https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/5