Re: [CentOS] What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream?
As a bystander who just the other day saw this, no. It doesn't appear that it will be a bleeding edge kernel. Just builds of the next kernel expected to be in the next 8.X release. So you are getting updated features earlier, but maybe before all the known issues are resolved to a state ready to be released in the main RH build. For my work use of Red Hat, this all doesn't matter. We license and pay for many copies of RHEL. It is only for home use that I've historically used CentOS. And even then I can get a personal license of RHEL. On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 9:29 AM Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming < teoenming.dec2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good day from Singapore, > > What are the differences between CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream? > > At the moment, I only know that CentOS 8 support will end on 31 December > 2021 while Red Hat Inc will shift its focus to CentOS Stream. > > Is CentOS Stream going to be very similar to Fedora Linux, shipping with > the latest Linux Kernel like 5.10.1? > > I am looking forward to hearing from you. > > Thank you. > > > -BEGIN EMAIL SIGNATURE- > > The Gospel for all Targeted Individuals (TIs): > > [The New York Times] Microwave Weapons Are Prime Suspect in Ills of > U.S. Embassy Workers > > Link: > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html > > > > > Singaporean Targeted Individual Mr. Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming's > Academic > Qualifications as at 14 Feb 2019 and refugee seeking attempts at the > United Nations Refugee Agency Bangkok (21 Mar 2017), in Taiwan (5 Aug > 2019) and Australia (25 Dec 2019 to 9 Jan 2020): > > [1] https://tdtemcerts.wordpress.com/ > > [2] https://tdtemcerts.blogspot.sg/ > > [3] https://www.scribd.com/user/270125049/Teo-En-Ming > > -END EMAIL SIGNATURE- > ___ > 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
[CentOS] PCMCIA on Centos 7
Anyone ever look into what would be required to support 16 bit PCMCIA cards on 7? There are still 64 bit computers out there with at least 1 PCMCIA slot. Thanks, Kevin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] non PAE support
On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:55 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 07/26/11 4:27 PM, Kevin K wrote: Does anyone know what I would have to modify in 6 if I wanted to run on an older Pentium M CPU without PAE? Is it just the kernel that needs to be rebuilt (maybe while installed in a system with a supported CPU)? Or are there other components that would cause problems and need to be rebuilt too? generically, you'd install the kernel srpm, and modify its rpmbuild scripts to change the HIGHMEM64G kernel configure option to HIGHMEM4G ... I would also change the name of this kernel (I'd add -noPAE to it, I think), and the builder name, then run rpmbuild. specifically, I haven't done this in quite a long time, so would have to figure out the details as I went along. Thanks. I had worried that there might be some other packages that would have to be updated. Like back in the day when OS's started to target 686's, and a few other packages like glibc would have a 686 version. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] non PAE support
On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Marc Deop wrote: On Tuesday 26 July 2011 20:55:58 John R Pierce wrote: On 07/26/11 4:27 PM, Kevin K wrote: Does anyone know what I would have to modify in 6 if I wanted to run on an older Pentium M CPU without PAE? Is it just the kernel that needs to be rebuilt (maybe while installed in a system with a supported CPU)? Or are there other components that would cause problems and need to be rebuilt too? generically, you'd install the kernel srpm, and modify its rpmbuild scripts to change the HIGHMEM64G kernel configure option to HIGHMEM4G ... I would also change the name of this kernel (I'd add -noPAE to it, I think), and the builder name, then run rpmbuild. specifically, I haven't done this in quite a long time, so would have to figure out the details as I went along. And how exactly would you do that if the installation just can't proceed if it detects you do not have a PAE processor? One way would be to move the hard drive to a supported system, install there, then move it back. I've done that before when, for whatever reason, the install program didn't like something in the computer and hung, such as during hardware detection, but the installed system ran. Kevin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] non PAE support
On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Always Learning wrote: On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 10:15 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: you can build the kernel RPM on any other similar environment, and WHY ARE YOU/WE WASTING Y/OUR TIME ON A 6 YR OLD LAPTOP??? Get over it. Either run what works on it, or get suitable hardware to run what you need. Merely because something, or indeed someone, is old but still capable of functioning should not mean it, or they, are discarded. Last night I was watering the rear garden with attachments brought (I recorded the date and price underneath) 22 years ago AND those spraying attachments worked perfect. The 26 66cm television is my bedroom is 14 years old. A six year old laptop, which works, is an interesting candidate for exploring Centos and EVERYONE should be encouraged not to throw away functioning items simply because they are 'old'. When a Centos user wants to explore the richness of the many facilities in Centos on an old laptop it shows the person has an enquiring mind. Such people should be encouraged not ridiculed. Yet another decision made by Intel at some point that comes back to haunting us. Pentium Pro supports PAE. Pentium II, Pentium III. Pentium 4. But not some early Pentium M's. Then supported again. (I haven't checked the Atom). I'm guessing that, even though the Pentium M was based on the Pentium III, someone thought that, since it was targeting laptops, who would ever need more than 4GB of RAM. So why have include it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] non PAE support
Does anyone know what I would have to modify in 6 if I wanted to run on an older Pentium M CPU without PAE? Is it just the kernel that needs to be rebuilt (maybe while installed in a system with a supported CPU)? Or are there other components that would cause problems and need to be rebuilt too? Thanks, Kevin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
On May 26, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: On 5/26/11, Kevin K kevi...@fidnet.com wrote: Though thumb drives are flash, they tend to use a slower flash than what is used in hard drive replacement units. No actual industry facts for this, but I think the Flash used in thumb drives are not really any slower by nature/design. This is because I see that the fastest SSD currently tend to use 8 channel controllers for 200+ MB/s performance which translate to 20~30MB/sec per channel. The better USB 2.0 thumb drives can do about 20+ MB, Kingston even has a new one that will supposedly do 70+ when connected via USB 3.0. If we take 8 of these and RAID 0 them which is pretty much what the 8-channel controller is doing, we're looking at pretty similar numbers between the flash cells in thumb drives and SSD. I think that many people, when talking about SSD, may be thinking of drives in the form factor of a hard drive. Either 2.5 or 3.5. Which would probably not be called a thumb drive :) Only because it doesn't come with a USB connector! ;) OK. Not really slower for the flash, but still slower than what an USB based SSD drive would be. But since they are designed for USB, performance can be lower. Especially for the cheaper drives. I would assume, but don't know, that those drives marketed as ReadyBoost (?) for Vista or later may be faster . Another thing that probably makes them seem slow is when some systems default to write cache disabled. For protection on systems like Windows where people might not remember to safely remove. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
On May 26, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: On 5/26/11, John Hodrien j.h.hodr...@leeds.ac.uk wrote: Spinning disks seem an awful lot like victorian technology taken too far. In the long term, what's *not* to like about the idea of fully solid state storage? Personally, I'm averse to using SSD with any important long term data is the nightmare that I could one day wake up to find everything gone without any means of recovery. Compared that to a hard disk, which barring catastrophic physical damage, I could pay somebody to just read the data off the platter. As a performance boosting intermediary storage, yes, long term... maybe not quite yet multiple layers of backup. My main system has a main system. With scheduled backups to an external hard drive, and online. I have a lot of data on it like pictures that I wouldn't want to lose. A SSD would replace my main boot drive, with faster access to data as used. But the external drive would still be there for backup. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
On May 26, 2011, at 8:12 AM, John Hodrien wrote: On Thu, 26 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Unless you are away on important business trip and you loose your system just minutes before the meeting. Yes, it can happen to regular HDD, it's much lesser probability for now. If I'm going to a meeting where I've got documents I need, they'll be on the laptop, on a USB stick, and probably on a network accessible store as well. I doubt an SSD is likely to be the least reliable part of a laptop. I've done that too. Travel, with data or code on hard drive, backup USB drive, and also burned to DVD or CD. I may ship the computer, but hand carry the DVD or thumb drive. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
To bad I don't make purchasing decisions at work, or I would like a SSD for my Linux system, probably to be upgraded to 6 later in the year. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
On May 25, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: I don't know... SSD drive with a USB interface sounds a big mouthful... most people I know just call thumb drives :D Though thumb drives are flash, they tend to use a slower flash than what is used in hard drive replacement units. I think that many people, when talking about SSD, may be thinking of drives in the form factor of a hard drive. Either 2.5 or 3.5. Which would probably not be called a thumb drive :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
On May 24, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: But don't you think that a SSD, or rather Solid State Drive, would still be seen as a different type of drive than a SATA drive, even though they share the same type of bus connector + power cable? I know you get some USB type SSD's, but people still refer to them as SSD drives, and not USB drives Depends on what level you are looking. Generically, it is a sequence of blocks, just like a rotating hard drive appears. Proper ID commands can find out more detailed information on it. Some computers, like the Macbook Air, have SSD but it is NOT SATA. It is plugged into an expansion slot. I have also seen other SSDs that plug into PCI Express slots.___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SSD for Centos SWAP /tmp /var/ partition
On May 23, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Kevin Thorpe kevin.tho...@pibenchmark.com wrote: Just be aware that SSDs wear out. They have a limited number of write cycles. Nowadays they all do 'wear levelling' to even the writes across the drive but even so they don't last very long in heavy write usage. Doesn't SATA and SAS drives also wear out? A SSD drive can be a SATA drive. SATA is the connection/protocol between the drive and the computer. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RHEL 6/CentOS
If I had to guess, it would be that the OS is considered an enterprise OS, and that the CPU is too low end, now, to be considered that. It is kind of low end now for even personal use. Not that people only use the OS for high end server hardware :) At work, we still have to support 500MHz Pentium IIIs with 128MB of RAM. Hopefully that requirement will be dropped before we migrate to 6. We had to make kernel modifications to even get the PCMCIA support to work on it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] virtualization on the desktop a myth, or a reality?
On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:38 AM, Always Learning wrote: On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 19:18 -0800, Dr. Ed Morbius wrote: It far and away already has. Dual-booting is a bastard compromise which forces you to select between altnernative OSs, doesn't allow for simultaneous access to features (and storage) of both, and generally necessitates use of some low-standard transfer storage partition (e.g.: vfat). My dual-booting, actually tri-booting, with Vista (ugh!), Centos (brilliant) and Fedora 14 (not keen and a bit seriously buggy) allows me in Linux to access and change the file space content used by the other two operating systems. Surely that constitutes simultaneous access to storage? If you are tri-booting, how are you accessing the file systems of the other OS's at the same time? Don't you have to reboot to change OS's? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] IP6 Anyone?
2 hex digits is 1 octet (or byte). On Feb 26, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Always Learning wrote: On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 20:58 +, sheraz...@yahoo.com wrote: IPv6 has twice (8) segments compared to IPv4 however each segment is 2 octets making IPv6 address space 4 times (128 bits) compared to IPv4 (32 bits). Oct... means 8. Each segment of an IP6 segment can contain 4 hexadecimal digits. Hexadecimal means 0 to F. Are you sure 'octets' is correct? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RAID support in kernel?
On Jan 30, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Robert Heller wrote: At Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:33:50 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote: Many of the SATA (so-called) hardware raid controllers are not really hardware raid controllers, they are 'fakeraid' and requires lots of software RAID logic. You are generally *better off* to *disable* the motherboard RAID controller and use native Linux software RAID. The only caveat I can think of is if you wanted to BOOT off of the raid configuration. The BIOS wouldn't understand the Linux RAID implementation. But for RAID 1, especially, you probably want a minimum of 3 drives. A boot drive with Linux, and the other 2 RAIDed together for speed. That way, the logic to handle the failure of one of the drives isn't on the drive that may have failed. Of course, if it is the Linux drive that failed, you replace that (from backup?) and your data should all still be available. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] RAID support in kernel?
Thanks. I hadn't really looked in any of this for a few years since I used RAID to combine 2 smaller hard drives into one larger volume. At work, I'm either just a user of a remote server that uses netapp filers for storage, or am running more disposable installs on lower end systems (with 1 hard drive) that can be wiped and reinstalled easily. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] latest kernel - version question
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Santi Saez wrote: El 09/01/2011 16:31, Robert Heller escribió: The kernel itself is optimized for the i686 processor. It is possible to custom build a kernel for the i586, i486, or i386 if you really have a processor that old. What is the sense of optimize a kernel for i686 and then distribute most of packages for i386? For example in CentOS-5: kernel-2.6.18-194.el5.i686.rpm php-5.1.6-27.el5.i386.rpm httpd-2.2.3-43.el5.centos.i386.rpm mysql-server-5.0.77-4.el5_4.2.i386.rpm Most packages don't necessarily require the extra instructions in the 686. Routines like glibc, which are linked in at runtime, do get compiled for the 686. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] latest kernel - version question
Don't forget AMD's K6 processors -- these are also i586 processors. I have an AMD K6 that won't boot Fedora 7 (or later) due to missing some bit of architecture (I forget specifics, sorry...). So I suspect it's not truly an i586 processor? (fwiw, It did boot and install Linux Mint 9, LXDE however.) I didn't know the difference 10 years ago when I bought it, though it had Win98 installed which was fine back then... Now it's barely adequate as a print server. My last attempt to run a later kernel on a 586 or older was with EL 3. But if the system was rebuilt, it lost the updated native threads introduced in 3 (RH 9). The GLIBC apparently required a 686 or later to support it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS 5.5 X86 continue get out of memory error?????
On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:27 PM, mcclnx mcc wrote: Thank you for answer. This server used to run under CENTOS 3.9 X86 and No problem. Due to application can not use CENTOS 3.9 we need upgrade to CENTOS 4 or 5. If I re-install it and use CENTOS 4.8 X86, will problem gone or not? A few options. You might test the program on a 64 bit OS. The 64 bit version of CentOS should be able to run many 32 bit programs. It would depend on dependencies in the program whether it would have issues or not. In fact, other changes since 3.9 may be more of an issue than the 64 bitness of the OS. It is possible to limit the amount of RAM that the OS will recognize by passing options to the kernel in grub. You also may be able to run a 32 bit version of the OS in virtualization under a 64 bit OS, leaving the rest of the RAM available for the main system. 2 computers in 1. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
RE: [CentOS] centos 4.6 - 586 install - how to get that to a 486 level if possible
I tried RHEL 3 (I believe) on a Pentium class system, and that did not work well. For everything but the kernel, there was a 386 version available (glibc, ssl, etc), so we recompiled the kernel for the 586. Unfortunately, glibc, when you compile it for anything below a 686, did not support NTPL threads, causing nothing but heartache. Luckily, before we got too far, we learned we didn't have to target the Pentium based computer anymore. I am happy we didn't have to validate everything still worked when something as major as glibc is rebuilt (since I started looking whether it was possible to rebuild glibc for 586 and NTPL). Kernels are less risky, since people rebuild them more frequently. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:49 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] centos 4.6 - 586 install - how to get that to a 486 level if possible Jerry Geis wrote: Is there a method to get a 586 (i586 text) install to a 486 level? I am looking for information guidance on this. I have looked into using debian/386 which stinks in my opinion, slackware doesnt quite have it either. So I am wishing/hoping there is a NOT TO painful way to get a 586 install to run on a 486 chip. This would be almost impossible with centos. The reason is that there are things that glibc will compile in that are not i486 compatible You would be much better off trying to do this with debian I think. If it were possible, it would be by installing the i386 glibc, i386 openssl and editing the kernel spec file and the config file. You can try to change the processor type to i386 or i486 and see if it will work ... however I do not think it is possible on other than centos-3 to get an i386 compile. I have been searching but havent found anything useful. If anyone knows what might need to be done I would appreciate it. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1511 - Release Date: 6/20/2008 11:52 AM ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
