Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
On Friday 11 November 2011 07:44, John Hodrien wrote: > grub in EL6 can boot of ext4, and that's grub-0.97-68.el6.x86_64. Grub (version 1) from CentOS 6 has apparently been patched to be able to handle ext4. There's no doubt that Grub 1 by itself can't boot an ext4 file system. There's a little more information in my How-To in progress at: http://wiki.centos.org/YvesBellefeuille/Grub_Installation -- Yves Bellefeuille "La Esperanta Civito ne rifuzas anticipe la kunlaboron de erarintoj, se ili konscias pri sia eraro." -- Heroldo Komunikas, n-ro 473. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Misterious hang
> 2. It's just hang. Not reboot. I have to power off the VM and power on. > The ESXi host has many VM in it and only my that VM has problem. If you can't trace your problem to anything else, then I would look at the ESXI configuration for that VM. If there are other CentOS/Redhat 5 VM's on the ESXI server, check the vmware configuration to see that they are the same. In particular, make sure the OS is set to the correct thing for Redhat 5. VMware, in its hardware emulation, makes assumptions about clocking and possibly other kernel options and if the VM config does not agree with the running kernel, you can have problems. Nataraj ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
Vreme: 11/12/2011 03:08 PM, Christopher Chan piše: > Using your own scripts is the only sane way to do things...ufw, > fwbuilder, even shorewall are just either inadequate, inflexible or way > too complicated to trace/optimize things. I use shorewall for several years now. It is very flexible and manageable system. Especially if you use Webmin to manage it as I do. It is then fairly ease to setup even complicated stuff like multiple outgoing interfaces based on the rules. There are also templates most used. Shorewall is also able to configure "tc" or bandwidth control. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 09:25 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: > However, if you are Fedora, RHEL, CentOS only with respect to what you > have managed in the past, then there is a learning curve to get > proficient at doing Debian/Ubuntu. the discussion of which distribution is better is a fool's game - much like KDE vs. GNOME or vi vs. emacs. There's only what you know, how you can adapt what you know and how well you can make it work for you and how much time you are willing to give to learning something new. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Postfix mail server procedure
On Sat, 2011-11-12 at 21:53 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Saturday, November 12, 2011 01:01 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > > People with bad hardware can break anything; and you're probably talking > > about old versions anyway [anything with indexes/databases can corrupt]. > > You should be right on that score...this was circa 2003/2004. > > > > > Cyrus is incredibly reliable, stable and fast. And the latest 2.4.x > > series closes numerous potential issues with how databases are managed. > > > > Oh, so Cyrus is another 'use a database as a mail store'? The other one > that I know of but cannot remember the name of uses postgresql for its > mailstore. not at all - the mailstore itself is simply flat files - essentially a maildir type but all within specified director[y|ies] There were a number of db's that traditionally were berkeley db's but now the recommended method, as Adam pointed out is to use skiplist. This is what my /etc/imapd.conf (cyrus configuration) contains for db list at this point... annotation_db: skiplist duplicate_db: skiplist mboxkey_db: skiplist mboxlist_db: skiplist ptscache_db: skiplist quota_db: quotalegacy seenstate_db: skiplist subscription_db: flat statuscache_db: skiplist tlscache_db: skiplist userdeny_db: flat Actually though, berkeley db is used by an awful lot of daemons such as OpenLDAP, Netatalk and is reasonably durable and to be honest, I've been using Cyrus w/ berkeley db's since the early 2000's and never had a problem whereas there have been times when I've had to slapd_db_recover berkeley db's from OpenLDAP. I gather that by comparison, PostgreSQL and MySQL are considered comparatively much slower and never used for these servers. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Trouble with Mailman
On 11/12/2011 09:07 AM, John J. Boyer wrote: > I have set up Mailman on a virtual private server from 1and1 running > Centos, though I can't tell which version. The system has 2 GB of > memory. Mailman is receiving posts, but it is not sending them out to > everybody. It is also getting some out-of-memory errors. The server is > also runing Plesk for Web hosting. Something on the server is leaking > memory. When first booted it has nearly 1.5 GB of free memory. Now this > is down to .75 GB. Any hints will be appreciated. > Linux puts things in cache using extra (unused) memory. It is absolutely normal to have "Free Memory" go down to a fairly small level and have Buffers and Cache grow. If you are getting out of memory errors, you can tweek the amount of memory that they system keeps in reserve using "vm.min_free_kbytes" in /etc/sysctl.conf http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-December/030761.html This is a good article that discusses how to adjust this too: http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_tuning_linux_kernel_2_6_oracle.htm As far as what version of CentOS you have ... you can figure that out with: cat /etc/redhat-release signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
On 11/12/2011 08:08 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: > On Saturday, November 12, 2011 03:59 PM, Nataraj wrote: Not to necessarily feed this thread ... but the last 2 posts have been sane and relevant (as much as this topic can be). I used to use Debian as my distribution of choice before RHEL came out and I was on the staff at: http://www.linuxhelp.net/ There is nothing inherently WRONG with Debian and/or Ubuntu. They are just different. If I had to choose between the two to use as a stable server, I would pick Debian ... but both can be good distros. However, if you are Fedora, RHEL, CentOS only with respect to what you have managed in the past, then there is a learning curve to get proficient at doing Debian/Ubuntu. >> I believe the standard desktop uses Ubuntu's own installer. The Ubuntu >> server and the 'alternative' distribution use the debian installer. I >> fought with it at first, but it is much more flexible than the redhat >> installer. You can build arbitrary LVM/raid configurations with it and >> you can also go into the shell from the installer and customize things >> that you can't with the redhat installer. > > Last time I tried, you could not do lvm on raid and it was acknowledged > as such on the ubuntu-installer/ubuntu-devel-discuss list. Arbitrary > lvm/raid and lvm on raid has been possible on anaconda for quite a while. > >>> 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the >>> internet before you can even begin to secure >>> it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til you >>> see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too.. >> I've not experienced any distribution to provide a great default >> firewall setup. What I do notice about Ubuntu server is there are very >> few services running in the default install, so if you probe a newly >> installed machine, it's not very vulnerable. I usually run new installs >> behind my Internet firewall anyway. I like doing a basic install and >> then adding the services that I want to enable, rather then a server >> install that comes up with dozens of services that you may not need and >> you have to turn them all off to secure the machine. > > Nobody said anything about any distribution providing a 'great' default > setup. Someone said something about dozens of firewall management tools > but in reality, they were all solutions that drive you insane. > > Redhat/Centos = service iptables save. End of story. > I agree with this too. > >>> 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest >>> OS's (presumably ubuntu). >> I do like CentOS/Redhat 6 better as a virtualization server. Thing to >> realize here is that Redhat is leading the development effort for KVM, >> libvirt etc, so Ubuntu's code lags behind redhat. For the current >> stable Ubuntu 10.04 LTS release Ubuntu lags behind redhat 6 and since >> 10.04 LTS is a stable release it doesn't just get arbitrary updates >> unless they are security fixes. > > Sometimes stuff don't get updates at all. Even when working patches have > been provided. Maybe only some Canonical maintained packages get backports. This is one thing I have noticed as well. They do not NECESSARILY backport all security (or otherwise) updates. >> >> One thing I like about Ubuntu/debian is the /etc/network/interfaces file >> over /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts /etc/sysconfig/network. > > I must say that that is one thing among others nice in Debian. Just like > runparts is from Debian. > I like the Red Hat way now ... but that is because it is what I know now, not because it is necessarily better or worse. >> Just another flavor of linux. There are various packages that can be >> installed to do this for you. ufw is one of them. I prefer to use my >> own scripts though. > > Using your own scripts is the only sane way to do things...ufw, > fwbuilder, even shorewall are just either inadequate, inflexible or way > too complicated to trace/optimize things. Agreed. == The bottom line is this. Debian is a solid Linux distribution and it can be used to do anything you want to do. Ubuntu is also a solid Linux distribution. They are both quite good. If either of them work better for "YOU" (meaning a generic you and not specifically anyone in this thread) then by all means use them. Fedora is also a solid (and cutting edge) distribution ... test it and use it if it meets "YOUR" requirements. Scientific Linux is a very good distribution. If "YOU" like it, use it. If I was not using CentOS, I would be using Scientific Linux. Heck ... some people even like SUSE. We provide CentOS for people who want to use it ... for people who don't want too ... GREAT ... use what you want to use. That said, this list is for CentOS general discussions. Lets try to keep the discussion sane and somewhat on topic to the purpose of the list ... which, in case someone may not kno
[CentOS] Trouble with Mailman
I have set up Mailman on a virtual private server from 1and1 running Centos, though I can't tell which version. The system has 2 GB of memory. Mailman is receiving posts, but it is not sending them out to everybody. It is also getting some out-of-memory errors. The server is also runing Plesk for Web hosting. Something on the server is leaking memory. When first booted it has nearly 1.5 GB of free memory. Now this is down to .75 GB. Any hints will be appreciated. Thanks, -- John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer Abilitiessoft, Inc. http://www.abilitiessoft.com Madison, Wisconsin USA Developing software for people with disabilities ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 03:59 PM, Nataraj wrote: > I believe the standard desktop uses Ubuntu's own installer. The Ubuntu > server and the 'alternative' distribution use the debian installer. I > fought with it at first, but it is much more flexible than the redhat > installer. You can build arbitrary LVM/raid configurations with it and > you can also go into the shell from the installer and customize things > that you can't with the redhat installer. Last time I tried, you could not do lvm on raid and it was acknowledged as such on the ubuntu-installer/ubuntu-devel-discuss list. Arbitrary lvm/raid and lvm on raid has been possible on anaconda for quite a while. >> 3- I don't know about having a server being forced to connect to the >> internet before you can even begin to secure >> it up. But the only way to really install it is to do that. Wait til you >> see the insecure firewall setup if gave me too.. > I've not experienced any distribution to provide a great default > firewall setup. What I do notice about Ubuntu server is there are very > few services running in the default install, so if you probe a newly > installed machine, it's not very vulnerable. I usually run new installs > behind my Internet firewall anyway. I like doing a basic install and > then adding the services that I want to enable, rather then a server > install that comes up with dozens of services that you may not need and > you have to turn them all off to secure the machine. Nobody said anything about any distribution providing a 'great' default setup. Someone said something about dozens of firewall management tools but in reality, they were all solutions that drive you insane. Redhat/Centos = service iptables save. End of story. >> 4- I picked the virtual host package, as the machine will hold guest >> OS's (presumably ubuntu). > I do like CentOS/Redhat 6 better as a virtualization server. Thing to > realize here is that Redhat is leading the development effort for KVM, > libvirt etc, so Ubuntu's code lags behind redhat. For the current > stable Ubuntu 10.04 LTS release Ubuntu lags behind redhat 6 and since > 10.04 LTS is a stable release it doesn't just get arbitrary updates > unless they are security fixes. Sometimes stuff don't get updates at all. Even when working patches have been provided. Maybe only some Canonical maintained packages get backports. > > One thing I like about Ubuntu/debian is the /etc/network/interfaces file > over /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts /etc/sysconfig/network. I must say that that is one thing among others nice in Debian. Just like runparts is from Debian. > Just another flavor of linux. There are various packages that can be > installed to do this for you. ufw is one of them. I prefer to use my > own scripts though. Using your own scripts is the only sane way to do things...ufw, fwbuilder, even shorewall are just either inadequate, inflexible or way too complicated to trace/optimize things. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Postfix mail server procedure
Am 12.11.2011 14:53, schrieb Christopher Chan: > Oh, so Cyrus is another 'use a database as a mail store'? The other one > that I know of but cannot remember the name of uses postgresql for its > mailstore. the only REAl db-driven mailservr is dbmail and in combination with postfix-mysql-configuration a perfect way to get a self developed web-backend ehich does exavtly what you need it can also use mysql with innodb not to forget that you can use replications-slaves for consistent-backups and even use zhem readomly as fallback for postfix-lookups no idea why so many people complain mailservers with databases are bad instead taking the time and look what benefits it can bring signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Postfix mail server procedure
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 01:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > +1 The shipped packages on most distributions are a bit lame; Simon's > packages are the way to go. They also provision everything as Skiplist > [Cyrus' preferred DB format] avoiding the ugliness that is Berkley DB > [issue with which Cyrus has take a fair amount of the blame; most > 'corrupt Cyrus databases' are corrupt BDB databases]. > Ah, this must be the database you referred to. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Postfix mail server procedure
On Saturday, November 12, 2011 01:01 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 13:23 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > You don't mention a mail store [IMAP Server]? Such as Cyrus IMAP. > Something for Postfix to deliver the mail too. Mail store != imap server. Mail store = structure for mboxes/maildirs. >>> Cyrus is sort of its own thing with its own mail store. >> Sorry, I keep forgetting about that crap... >> Never touched it and never wanted to after I heard the screams from a >> friend who used cyrus and swore by it until he got corrupt mailboxes. >> Had to help setup postfix, dovecot and vpopmail iirc. > > People with bad hardware can break anything; and you're probably talking > about old versions anyway [anything with indexes/databases can corrupt]. You should be right on that score...this was circa 2003/2004. > > Cyrus is incredibly reliable, stable and fast. And the latest 2.4.x > series closes numerous potential issues with how databases are managed. > Oh, so Cyrus is another 'use a database as a mail store'? The other one that I know of but cannot remember the name of uses postgresql for its mailstore. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Redhat vs centos vs ubuntu
Vreme: 11/12/2011 07:46 AM, Errol Mangwiro piše: > Hi, > > Sorry about the top-posting, I'm replying from my blackberry. > > I've been following this thread for a while and really don't see why people > respond so rabidly to criticism. If something bothers/bores me about a thread > I just Ignore the thread/user. If no one is interested the thread dies out on > its own. However, let if someone has something to say let them. The people > who reply/comment *want* to talk about it. No one forces anyone to *read* the > thread. Just ignore it. It's that simple. Going as far as threatening to ban > a user for commenting negatively or positively or. even "off-topic" (this is > relative, e.g., I found the discussion on the strengths& weaknesses of > ubuntu/centos/redhat el interesting& in some cases informative as the > various issues were debated). I would think that there's nothing wrong with > allowing people the freedom to discuss centos-related stuff on the centos > list. As I mentioned earlier it's as simple as ignoring a thread if don't > like it. There's no need to flame, ban or go on a rant just because someone > says s omething you don't like about your favourite OS has been attacked. > For the record I *like* centos& am in the process of replacing some of my > fedora& ubuntu server installations *with* centos. > Hi Errol. It is not about freedom of speech. We passed that threshold months ago. Note that complaining and warning have only started after 10 days of non-stop discussion and almost *90* messages! I found discussion interesting, but *up to a point*. It stopped being interesting only after *repeated* statements. And this argument goes back several months back in various threads. Also, those "Ubuntu is better" statements are mostly written by same 5-8 people, over and over again, always saying the same thing. *That* is what is tiresome. There are countless mailing list and forums available and open for "beat a dead horse" games. All some of us asked is that they do not play those loud games in front of *our* bedroom windows. I hope this clears it up a little. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
