Re: [CentOS] using autofs on C-7
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:02:05PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote: Kenneth: thanks for the heads-up. I was stuck on looking for autofs tutorials, having forgotten (if I ever knew) that systemd had subsumed that feature. thanks again! Fred > On 6/8/2017 11:03 AM, Fred Smith wrote: > >I'm trying to set up autofs on my C7 netbook so I can automount a cifs > >share (actually two) from my NAS box, and because when I'm not at home > >I don't want it attempting to mount it. > > Automounting is now done through systemd. You just have to create > two "unit files" to describe the mount. One holds the information > for a static mount in fstab and the other is the automount entry > that launches the first when its mount point is accessed. > > http://blog.tomecek.net/post/automount-with-systemd/ > > So you'd need two files, mnt-syno\x2dfredex.mount and > mnt-syno\x2dfredex.automount, both in /etc/systemd/system. You'll > need an Options= clause in the .mount file for your CIFS mount > options. > > Note that the .mount file is not enabled, so it doesn't mount at > boot time. Enable the .automount file to start at boot and it will > start the .mount file on access. > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- --- .Fred Smith / ( /__ ,__. __ __ / __ : / // / /__) / / /__) .+' Home: fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us // (__ (___ (__(_ (___ / :__ 781-438-5471 Jude 1:24,25 - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using autofs on C-7
On 6/8/2017 11:03 AM, Fred Smith wrote: I'm trying to set up autofs on my C7 netbook so I can automount a cifs share (actually two) from my NAS box, and because when I'm not at home I don't want it attempting to mount it. Automounting is now done through systemd. You just have to create two "unit files" to describe the mount. One holds the information for a static mount in fstab and the other is the automount entry that launches the first when its mount point is accessed. http://blog.tomecek.net/post/automount-with-systemd/ So you'd need two files, mnt-syno\x2dfredex.mount and mnt-syno\x2dfredex.automount, both in /etc/systemd/system. You'll need an Options= clause in the .mount file for your CIFS mount options. Note that the .mount file is not enabled, so it doesn't mount at boot time. Enable the .automount file to start at boot and it will start the .mount file on access. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] using autofs on C-7
Hi all! I'm trying to set up autofs on my C7 netbook so I can automount a cifs share (actually two) from my NAS box, and because when I'm not at home I don't want it attempting to mount it. so I've read several howtos on it, including the one on the CentOS Wiki. but what I've got isn't working right, and I don't know why. I'm trying to follow the "even-better method", but am finding I don't understand the syntax of entries, so I'm flailing around trying different things. so, here's what I have now: in /etc/auto.master: /mnt/syno-fredex /etc/auto.syno-fredex I added /etc/auto.syno-fredex: /mnt/syno-fredex -fstype=cifs,rw,credentials=/root/.smbcred,defaults,uid=fredex,gid=fredex,noauto,users,exec,vers=3.0 ://nasbox/home my goal is to mount //nasbox/home as /mnt/syno-fredex so I do systemctl restart autofs and it appears to restart (no messages appear). when I then do "ls /mnt/syno-fredex" it doesn't appear to actually get mounted, and /var/log/messages doesn't show anything. I'd appreciate advice on this matter. thanks in advance! Fred -- Fred Smith -- fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. -- Philippians 4:13 --- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
I was sorely tempted to post saying I would initiate an empty email to the list in a week with subject systemd and see what the response would be - I'll refrain... - Original Message - From: "m roth" To: "centos" Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:32:57 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?! Mark Haney wrote: > On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote: >> I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop >> polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your >> worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. >> > Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list. If > you don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a > different OS that suits your childish attitude. Like Windows 95. > > Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them. > Maybe you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable. Folks, I'm the one who made the original annoyed throwaway remark. I've even asked that we end the incipient flamewar. Look, as much as I dislike systemd, going on and on and on just ain't of interest. Hell, I'll probably skim and delete, or just delete. Now, the information that someone posted about what might be happening to cause my original question was helpful, and in *that* context, in the same email, cmts about systemd, sure. But I dunno 'bout most of you, but a flamewar that runs for *weeks*, as we've seen here, is of no interest. Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could have alt.religion.systemd mark * vi, not emacs! Nya ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
Mark Haney wrote: > On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote: >> I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop >> polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your >> worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. >> > Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list. If > you don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a > different OS that suits your childish attitude. Like Windows 95. > > Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them. > Maybe you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable. Folks, I'm the one who made the original annoyed throwaway remark. I've even asked that we end the incipient flamewar. Look, as much as I dislike systemd, going on and on and on just ain't of interest. Hell, I'll probably skim and delete, or just delete. Now, the information that someone posted about what might be happening to cause my original question was helpful, and in *that* context, in the same email, cmts about systemd, sure. But I dunno 'bout most of you, but a flamewar that runs for *weeks*, as we've seen here, is of no interest. Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could have alt.religion.systemd mark * vi, not emacs! Nya ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:15:23AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote: > Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list. If you > don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a different > OS that suits your childish attitude. Like Windows 95. > > Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them. Maybe > you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable. I certainly would not suggest anyone leave this list or stop using CentOS. While I don't think we need to be yelling at each other, I do sympathize with anyone frustrated by the continued ignorance of some of the more vocal proponents of the systemd-haters crowd. The CentOS list continues to be a good resource, even if it's learning about systemd. Sometimes the complaints about systemd can be turned into a learning experience (such as how fstab works). I think that if we can attempt to frame questions about systemd in a more positive way, everyone would get more out of it. -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote: I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list. If you don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a different OS that suits your childish attitude. Like Windows 95. Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them. Maybe you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it. On 8 June 2017 at 14:51, John Hodrien wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jonathan Billings wrote: > > Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh >>> >>> yes, 6.6 and above >>> >> >> RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL >> 6.9. I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information. >> > > If you really thought Redhat would switch from upstart of systemd, within a > major release, I have no idea why you'd want to use anything based on > Redhat. > > jh > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jonathan Billings wrote: Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh yes, 6.6 and above RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL 6.9. I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information. If you really thought Redhat would switch from upstart of systemd, within a major release, I have no idea why you'd want to use anything based on Redhat. jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 05:02:38AM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > > > > > Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific > > > Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. > > > > Upstream 6 uses systemd? > > > > jh > > yes, 6.6 and above RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL 6.9. I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information. -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On 8 June 2017 at 13:02, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > On 06/08/2017 04:59 AM, John Hodrien wrote: >> >> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: >> >>> Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific >>> Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. >> >> >> Upstream 6 uses systemd? >> >> jh >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > yes, 6.6 and above > > Uh I'd urge you to recheck your sources as EL6 has never in any part of its lifespan made use of systemd ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On 06/08/2017 04:59 AM, John Hodrien wrote: On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos yes, 6.6 and above ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote: Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. Upstream 6 uses systemd? jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On 6/8/17 1:15 AM, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote: On 7.6.2017 23:40, Bruce Ferrell wrote: On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all configured to use systemd. That’s just skimming the surface. The real hard bits come from the way systemd hooks into the whole FreeDesktop infrastructure and vice versa. (e.g. dbus is now inextricably part of systemd, and many FreeDesktop interactions happen via dbus.) This is why the BSDs are either dropping GNOME and KDE (e.g. Lumina in TrueOS) or have badly lagging ports compared to the upstream version. I suspect it’s probably easier to start with C6, then backport as much as is possible without dragging in any systemd stuff, the same way the BSDs are doing. Good luck to y’all. Sincerely. I plan to keep on using C7, warts and all. As I mentioned previously. Scientific Linux (another RHEL clone) HAS solved those issues. Centos isn't running the latest KDE/Plasma5 junk. How they have solved it? According SL7 release notes in: http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/7.0/x86_64/release-notes/ They say following: "Following upstream SL7 uses systemd as its init system. The System’s Administrators Guide published by upstream provides a helpful introduction to systemd commands." -vpk Yes, 7 does track upstream. upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific Linux 6 does not. I would say that indicates a solution. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] kvm/qemu and CPU load
Gordon Messmer wrote: On 06/02/2017 04:32 AM, hw wrote: What may cause the high CPU load? Offhand, it's hard to say. I don't see similar behavior. Can you post the libvirt XML definitions for those VMs somewhere? pastebin maybe? What's the output of "rpm -qa qemu\*"? qemu-img-1.5.3-126.el7_3.6.x86_64 qemu-kvm-tools-1.5.3-126.el7_3.6.x86_64 qemu-kvm-common-1.5.3-126.el7_3.6.x86_64 qemu-kvm-1.5.3-126.el7_3.6.x86_64 The definitions aren´t too long, I could post them here. There´s nothing special about them AFAICT; I disabled USB and am trying to use kvmclock. I´m finding the number of "Local timer interrupts" suspicious. From 'cat /proc/interrupts' for CPU0: Tue Jun 6 20:01:53 CEST 2017: 217433736 Thu Jun 8 13:23:04 CEST 2017: 350172149 That seems an awful lot of interrupts. Is this normal? There´s also a huge amount of "Rescheduling interrupts" (102113959 earlier, now 209740910). The VMs are pinned to CPUs, so what´s being rescheduled so frequently? I can observe that CPU load of the host goes up with increases in network traffic of the guest. Is it a bad idea to assign a bonding interface to a bridge? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!
On 7.6.2017 23:40, Bruce Ferrell wrote: On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote: On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote: every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all configured to use systemd. That’s just skimming the surface. The real hard bits come from the way systemd hooks into the whole FreeDesktop infrastructure and vice versa. (e.g. dbus is now inextricably part of systemd, and many FreeDesktop interactions happen via dbus.) This is why the BSDs are either dropping GNOME and KDE (e.g. Lumina in TrueOS) or have badly lagging ports compared to the upstream version. I suspect it’s probably easier to start with C6, then backport as much as is possible without dragging in any systemd stuff, the same way the BSDs are doing. Good luck to y’all. Sincerely. I plan to keep on using C7, warts and all. As I mentioned previously. Scientific Linux (another RHEL clone) HAS solved those issues. Centos isn't running the latest KDE/Plasma5 junk. How they have solved it? According SL7 release notes in: http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/7.0/x86_64/release-notes/ They say following: "Following upstream SL7 uses systemd as its init system. The System’s Administrators Guide published by upstream provides a helpful introduction to systemd commands." -vpk ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6 or C7 for an old netbook
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Robert Moskowitz wrote: I might add that NOT using GNOME on a notebook is a big processor/battery win. I switched to Xfce some years ago. I get far more hours out of this old NC10 with C6 and Gnome than I can cope with the cramped keyboard, so I don't need to tweak anything. jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6 or C7 for an old netbook
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 06/06/2017 02:53 AM, John Hodrien wrote: On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Mmmm... looks like I may go for C6, then, since unlike that Ubuntu, I will want to do updates at least every time I get ready for a trip (other times, it sits in the closet turned off). I went for C6 on a Samsung NC10 (1.6GHz Atom N270 1GB RAM), only because it refused to boot off the C7 ISO for some reason, and I didn't want to waste time tracking down why. Because that is a 32-bit (not 64-bit) processor. There is an AltArch 32-bit CentOS-7 distro as well: http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/i386/ I was using the AltArch i386 release. I put it down to a grumbly BIOS not liking the ISO I'd put on a USB stick, but couldn't be bothered to sort out a 32bit PXE install. C6 went on just fine, and given what I'm using the netbook for, wasn't really a worse option. jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
