Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 file system read only issue
On 22/08/19 2:20 AM, Warren Young wrote:
On Aug 21, 2019, at 7:35 AM, Xinhuan Zheng wrote:
my $s = IO::Select->new( $fh );
if ( $io->can_write( 10 ) {
That’s not designed to do what you hope. select(2) is a system call intended
for use on network socket handles, not file handles. Since socket handles and
file handles are compatible on a Unix type system (including CentOS) the call
doesn’t fail, but it *cannot* report the information you’re hoping to get.
I would first try calling the -w operator:
print_to_file() if -w $fh;
First off I would be remiss if I didn't point out that CentOS 5 has been
EOL for years, that said...
You're dealing with perl here and so this might be better off asking in
a perl list. The -X system of tests as documented with "perldoc -f -X"
do not by default test actual ability to read and write files, but
instead just check the file mode bits as returned by stat(), thus the -w
test will not reflect the filesystem being in read-only mode.
There are two ways to get around this. One is to to use the filetest
pragma which changes the behavior of the -X tests to use the access(2)
system function:
{ use filetest 'access';
print_to_file() if -w $fh;
}
The other way is to use POSIX::access() directly (this requires the file
name or path):
use POSIX qw(access W_OK);
...
print_to_file() if access($filepath, W_OK);
Note that there are caveats to either of the above approaches as per
documentation. See the following for additional info:
perldoc -f -X
perldoc filetest
access(2)
Peter
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 file system read only issue
On Aug 21, 2019, at 7:35 AM, Xinhuan Zheng wrote:
>
> my $s = IO::Select->new( $fh );
> if ( $io->can_write( 10 ) {
That’s not designed to do what you hope. select(2) is a system call intended
for use on network socket handles, not file handles. Since socket handles and
file handles are compatible on a Unix type system (including CentOS) the call
doesn’t fail, but it *cannot* report the information you’re hoping to get.
I would first try calling the -w operator:
print_to_file() if -w $fh;
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 file system read only issue
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:35 PM Xinhuan Zheng
wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> We are using CentOS 5 system for certain application. Those are VM guests
> running in VMware. There is datastore issue occasionally, causing all file
> systems becoming read only file systems.
> - Xinhuan Zheng
>
Orthogonal consideration:
I don't know the version of vSphere you are using and if you are using or
not VMware Tools inside your guests.
But installing VMware tools in vSphere 4 or higher has the effect to change
disk timeout for the guest to 180 seconds, from its default of 30 seconds
(that I think is the same for RH EL/ CentOS 5,6,7)
This may or may not help you in case of short time storage problems.
Eg on a 6.5 infrastructure with an old legacy CentOS 5.9 VM I have
VMware Tools: Running, version:8305 (Unsupported older version)
and inside guest
# service vmware-tools status
vmtoolsd is running
#
# find /sys/class/scsi_generic/*/device/timeout -exec grep -H . '{}' \;
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg0/device/timeout:180
/sys/class/scsi_generic/sg1/device/timeout:180
#
See also:
this if you have access to Red Hat Customer Portal (disk scsi timeout and
how to set it in RH EL 5):
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/301963
Similar considerations for RH EL 6 and 7:
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/2470541
This publicly accessible for RHEL 5
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Online_Storage_Reconfiguration_Guide/task_controlling-scsi-command-timer-onlining-devices.html
this related to vSphere:
https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1009465
this for APD (All Paths Down) timeout that defaults to 140 seconds for
block storage
https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2032934
HIH,
Gianluca
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS 5 file system read only issue
Hello Everyone,
We are using CentOS 5 system for certain application. Those are VM guests
running in VMware. There is datastore issue occasionally, causing all file
systems becoming read only file systems. So application stop working, and
opened files cannot be written either. We cannot even ssh login to the
system. Typically we had to power cycle the VM. We are trying to add
reliability to the application so that if files cannot be written,
application should time out. We are trying to use IO::Select to handle
timeout. Per investigation, we found below does not work as expected:
my $s = IO::Select->new( $fh );
if ( $io->can_write( 10 ) {
# print to the file
}
It seems like can_write returns true even we manually made file system
read only in our testing case.
Is this something we can accomplish using select system call with timeout
value?
Thanks in advance,
- Xinhuan Zheng
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
> Am 03.03.2017 um 13:19 schrieb James Hogarth : > > On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien wrote: >>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: >>> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would seem rather irresponsible... >>> >>> >>> Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old >>> versions of packages online either AFAIK. >>> >>> jh >>> >>> >> >> Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL >> before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel >> mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora >> releases do. > > My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so > the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: > > http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/ JFI: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YTEBPQPLP7NIVR3C533EBHEAERPH26P3/ -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 2017-03-03 14:14, Tony Mountifield wrote: > In article > , > James Hogarth wrote: >> On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth wrote: >>> On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien wrote: On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: > You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would > seem rather irresponsible... Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old versions of packages online either AFAIK. jh >>> Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL >>> before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel >>> mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora >>> releases do. >> My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so >> the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: >> >> http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/ > Cool, thanks! > > Tony I am mirroring the EPEL from official mirrors and the EPEL4 content is stills there: 1.9Gpub/mirrors/epel/4 7.3Gpub/mirrors/epel/5 15G pub/mirrors/epel/6 16G pub/mirrors/epel/7 //Zdenek ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
In article , James Hogarth wrote: > On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth wrote: > > On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien wrote: > >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: > >> > >>> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would > >>> seem rather irresponsible... > >> > >> Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old > >> versions of packages online either AFAIK. > >> > >> jh > > > > Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL > > before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel > > mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora > > releases do. > > My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so > the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: > > http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/ Cool, thanks! Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: t...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: t...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth wrote: > On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: >> >>> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would >>> seem rather irresponsible... >> >> >> Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old >> versions of packages online either AFAIK. >> >> jh >> >> > > Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL > before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel > mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora > releases do. My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien wrote: > On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: > >> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would >> seem rather irresponsible... > > > Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old > versions of packages online either AFAIK. > > jh > > Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora releases do. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would seem rather irresponsible... Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old versions of packages online either AFAIK. jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
In article , James Hogarth wrote: > > This is especially important if you use anything from EPEL as EPEL5 will be > removed when RHEL goes EOL. You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would seem rather irresponsible... Cheers Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: t...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: t...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 03/03/17 11:59, Johnny Hughes wrote: Thanks for the advice. I'll try and set up a mirror asap, but I'd still like to know when the mirrors will be removed if anyone has that information. Before we remove it from mirror, it will all be moved here: http://vault.centos.org/5.11/ It will be there forever .. just like all the CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 trees are as well. Thanks Johnny - that's good to know. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 03/02/2017 12:42 PM, Tom Munro Glass wrote: > On 02/03/17 19:50, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 2 Mar 2017 03:49, "John R Pierce" wrote: >> >> On 3/1/2017 7:28 PM, Tom Munro Glass wrote: >>> >>> Can you say exactly when in early April the tree will be moved? I have a >>> number of installations that need to continue running CentOS 5 so I'd >>> like >>> to do a final update before the tree moves. >>> >> >> may I suggest building your own mirror well before then, update it with >> rsync or lftp weekly (or even daily), from http://mirrors.xmission.com/ce >> ntos/5 (pick your favorite mirror to make the mirror from), and replace >> your CentOS-xxx.repo files with ones that point to your private repo >> >> I use a command like this to mirror everything and incrementally update, >> you could change the last centos to centos/5 if you want to just >> fetch and >> update that... >> >>lftp -c 'open ftp://mirrors.sonic.net && lcd /mirrors && mirror >>--continue --verbose=1 -x SRPMS centos' >> >> (yes, you do need to find a ftp mirror, i had issues mirroring from an >> http >> server). >> >> >> This is especially important if you use anything from EPEL as EPEL5 >> will be >> removed when RHEL goes EOL. > > Thanks for the advice. I'll try and set up a mirror asap, but I'd still > like to know when the mirrors will be removed if anyone has that > information. Before we remove it from mirror, it will all be moved here: http://vault.centos.org/5.11/ It will be there forever .. just like all the CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 trees are as well. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 02/03/17 19:50, James Hogarth wrote: On 2 Mar 2017 03:49, "John R Pierce" wrote: On 3/1/2017 7:28 PM, Tom Munro Glass wrote: Can you say exactly when in early April the tree will be moved? I have a number of installations that need to continue running CentOS 5 so I'd like to do a final update before the tree moves. may I suggest building your own mirror well before then, update it with rsync or lftp weekly (or even daily), from http://mirrors.xmission.com/ce ntos/5 (pick your favorite mirror to make the mirror from), and replace your CentOS-xxx.repo files with ones that point to your private repo I use a command like this to mirror everything and incrementally update, you could change the last centos to centos/5 if you want to just fetch and update that... lftp -c 'open ftp://mirrors.sonic.net && lcd /mirrors && mirror --continue --verbose=1 -x SRPMS centos' (yes, you do need to find a ftp mirror, i had issues mirroring from an http server). This is especially important if you use anything from EPEL as EPEL5 will be removed when RHEL goes EOL. Thanks for the advice. I'll try and set up a mirror asap, but I'd still like to know when the mirrors will be removed if anyone has that information. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 2 Mar 2017 03:49, "John R Pierce" wrote: On 3/1/2017 7:28 PM, Tom Munro Glass wrote: > > Can you say exactly when in early April the tree will be moved? I have a > number of installations that need to continue running CentOS 5 so I'd like > to do a final update before the tree moves. > may I suggest building your own mirror well before then, update it with rsync or lftp weekly (or even daily), from http://mirrors.xmission.com/ce ntos/5 (pick your favorite mirror to make the mirror from), and replace your CentOS-xxx.repo files with ones that point to your private repo I use a command like this to mirror everything and incrementally update, you could change the last centos to centos/5 if you want to just fetch and update that... lftp -c 'open ftp://mirrors.sonic.net && lcd /mirrors && mirror --continue --verbose=1 -x SRPMS centos' (yes, you do need to find a ftp mirror, i had issues mirroring from an http server). This is especially important if you use anything from EPEL as EPEL5 will be removed when RHEL goes EOL. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 3/1/2017 7:28 PM, Tom Munro Glass wrote: Can you say exactly when in early April the tree will be moved? I have a number of installations that need to continue running CentOS 5 so I'd like to do a final update before the tree moves. may I suggest building your own mirror well before then, update it with rsync or lftp weekly (or even daily), from http://mirrors.xmission.com/centos/5 (pick your favorite mirror to make the mirror from), and replace your CentOS-xxx.repo files with ones that point to your private repo I use a command like this to mirror everything and incrementally update, you could change the last centos to centos/5 if you want to just fetch and update that... lftp -c 'open ftp://mirrors.sonic.net && lcd /mirrors && mirror --continue --verbose=1 -x SRPMS centos' (yes, you do need to find a ftp mirror, i had issues mirroring from an http server). -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 02/03/17 00:28, Johnny Hughes wrote: Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date of March 31, 2017. This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). Can you say exactly when in early April the tree will be moved? I have a number of installations that need to continue running CentOS 5 so I'd like to do a final update before the tree moves. Thanks, Johnny Hughes Thanks Tom Munro Glass ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 03/01/2017 09:52 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 03/01/2017 05:28 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date >> of March 31, 2017. >> >> This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red >> Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. > This is for their main RHEL-5 Tree. > >> Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto >> vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). >> > For CentOS-5 users that can not shift from EL5 workloads, Red Hat does > offer EUS (Extended Update Support) past the 10 year point for RHEL-5. > You can see this link for more info on EL5 EUS support: > > > https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux Actually it's called ELS - Extended Lifecycle support https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata EUS - Extended Update Support is an add-on for RHEL customers that need patches and updates for Minor releases of RHEL for up to 24 months from GA. > > Thanks, > Johnny Hughes > > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Daniel J. Pacek Strategic Market Analyst Red Hat, Inc. 314 Littleton Rd. Westford, MA 01886 dpa...@redhat.com Tel: 978-392-3138 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
> Am 01.03.2017 um 17:13 schrieb Johnny Hughes : > > On 03/01/2017 09:21 AM, Leon Fauster wrote: >> Am 01.03.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Johnny Hughes : >>> >>> Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date >>> of March 31, 2017. >>> >>> This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red >>> Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. >>> >>> Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto >>> vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). >> >> Will the centos-release package be updated to point to the vault tree? > > I am not sure we want to enable that by default. We want people to > understand that CentOS-5 is no longer active. > > There is a CentOS-Vault.repo file that one can use, or people can change > it manually. Ah okay, that helps. > If it happens automatically, well then people will just leave it in place. Sure, it shouldn't. More than that - if provided it should provide actively that EOL information (e.g. /etc/issue /etc/motd et cetera). -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On Wed, March 1, 2017 9:21 am, Leon Fauster wrote: > Am 01.03.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Johnny Hughes : >> Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date of March 31, 2017. >> This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. >> Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). > > Will the centos-release package be updated to point to the vault tree? It is not my place to offer opinion, but I would rather have it fail, thus prompting whoever tries to still use CentOS 5 to look deeper and find out about end of life, than quietly going to vault as if it still us usable secure supported system. Just my $0.02. Valeri > > --- > LF > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 03/01/2017 09:21 AM, Leon Fauster wrote: > Am 01.03.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Johnny Hughes : >> >> Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date >> of March 31, 2017. >> >> This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red >> Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. >> >> Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto >> vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). > > Will the centos-release package be updated to point to the vault tree? I am not sure we want to enable that by default. We want people to understand that CentOS-5 is no longer active. There is a CentOS-Vault.repo file that one can use, or people can change it manually. If it happens automatically, well then people will just leave it in place. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
Am 01.03.2017 um 12:28 schrieb Johnny Hughes : > > Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date > of March 31, 2017. > > This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red > Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. > > Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto > vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). Will the centos-release package be updated to point to the vault tree? --- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
On 03/01/2017 05:28 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date > of March 31, 2017. > > This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red > Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. This is for their main RHEL-5 Tree. > > Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto > vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). > For CentOS-5 users that can not shift from EL5 workloads, Red Hat does offer EUS (Extended Update Support) past the 10 year point for RHEL-5. You can see this link for more info on EL5 EUS support: https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS-5 End of Life
Just a message to remind everyone that CentOS-5 has an End of Life date of March 31, 2017. This means that there will be no new security updates released by Red Hat for RHEL-5 after that date. Sometime in early April, the current 5.11 tree will be moved onto vault.centos.org (like CentOS-3 and CentOS-4 have been since their EOL). Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 Log-in Screen
On Wed, December 21, 2016 3:38 am, Always Learning wrote: > I like Centos 5 so much I would like to use the same screen for log-on's > in Centos 6. > > Is this possible? My desktop is Gnome. I'm not quite certain what you like. If like me you like logical menu tree, then you probably will like Mate. Mate is GNOME fork, which stayed like older GNOME when GNOME went "iPad-like". I hope, this helps. Valeri > > Thank you. > > Merry Christmas. > > -- > Regards, > > Paul. > England, EU. England's place is in the European Union. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 Log-in Screen
On 12/21/2016 03:38 AM, Always Learning wrote: > I like Centos 5 so much I would like to use the same screen for log-on's > in Centos 6. > > Is this possible? My desktop is Gnome. > > Thank you. > > Merry Christmas. > CentOS-5 will be at End Of Life at the end of March 2017. You need to upgrade before then to at least CentOS-6 or the system will become insecure as there will be no more updates and the entire distro will be moved to vault.centos.org. As far as how to change the theme for login google searches for: "rhel 6" gdm background "centos 6" gdm background Provide relevant links for swapping the background picture. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Centos 5 Log-in Screen
I like Centos 5 so much I would like to use the same screen for log-on's in Centos 6. Is this possible? My desktop is Gnome. Thank you. Merry Christmas. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/7/2015 8:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: I tried the grub commands you gave and still got the same results. I also have a copy of the SuperGrub disc, which is supposed to be able to fix grub problems. It can boot the drive, but it can't fix it. If nothing else, I guess I could just leave that disc in the drive and use it to boot the system. I'm going to do a fresh install to the new drives and see if that works. I suppose it's worth a shot. But like I mentioned earlier, keep in mind that CentOS 5 predates AF drives, so it will not correctly partition these drives such that they have proper 8 sector alignment. The fresh install will be with CentOS 6. A quick test with a minimal install booted without any problems, so it looks like this is the solution. If you haven't already, check the logic board firmware and the HBA firmware for current updates. I try to avoid firmware updates on established systems unless absolutely necessary. Since the CentOS 6 install produces a bootable system, I'm going to leave it as-is. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > I tried the grub commands you gave and still got the same results. I also > have a copy of the SuperGrub disc, which is supposed to be able to fix grub > problems. It can boot the drive, but it can't fix it. If nothing else, I > guess I could just leave that disc in the drive and use it to boot the > system. > > I'm going to do a fresh install to the new drives and see if that works. I suppose it's worth a shot. But like I mentioned earlier, keep in mind that CentOS 5 predates AF drives, so it will not correctly partition these drives such that they have proper 8 sector alignment. If you haven't already, check the logic board firmware and the HBA firmware for current updates. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/6/2015 5:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: Ok. I'll give that a try tomorrow. Just a couple of questions. install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf It looks like this mixes paths relative to root and relative to /boot. Did your test system have a separate /boot partition? Yes. The --stage2 argument is "os stage2 file" according to my man page. Should this be relative to root even with a separate /boot partition? I think it's being treated as a directory because it's going to access this stage2 file. Also, why are the exact same root and install commands run twice in the log you show? Is that just a duplicate, or does it need to be run twice for some reason? I do not know. The whole thing is foreign to me. But both drives are bootable as hd0 (the only drive connected). So it makes sense that the configuration is treating this as an hd0 based installation of the bootloader to both drives. The part were the stage 1 and 2 are directed to separate drives must be the 'device (hd0) /dev/vdb' command. Again, I don't know why it isn't either 'device (hd0) (hd1)' or 'device /dev/vda /dev/vdb' but that's what the log sayeth. I tried the grub commands you gave and still got the same results. I also have a copy of the SuperGrub disc, which is supposed to be able to fix grub problems. It can boot the drive, but it can't fix it. If nothing else, I guess I could just leave that disc in the drive and use it to boot the system. I'm going to do a fresh install to the new drives and see if that works. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Now I get to look back at OP's first email and see > if he did this exact same thing already, and whether we've come full > circle. Shit. He did. All I can think of is that either the GRUB/BIOS device designations are wrong (they should be (hd2) or (hd3) I can't actually tell how many drives are connected to this system when all of this is happening) so the bootloader is installing to a totally different drive. Or yeah, there is in fact some goofy incompatibility with an HBA where it gets to stage 1.5 and then implosion happens. *shrug* -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > I might try nerfing the parted and grub stage 1 bootloaders on disk2, > and see if the grub shell (which I should still get to from disk 1) > will let me install grub directly on these two drives properly. OK I did that and this works. ## At the GRUB boot menu, hit c to get to a shell grub> root (hd0,0) grub> setup (hd0) grub> setup (hd1) That's it. What I did to test is was I zero'd the first 440 bytes of vdb and the the first 512 bytes of vdb1. I confirmed that this disk alone does not boot at all. After running the above commands, either drive boots. NOW, I get to say I've seen stage 1.5 get used because when it did the setup, it said it was embedding /grub/e2fs_stage1_5. In the above case hd0,0 is first disk first partition which is /boot. Anyway, this seems about 8 million times easier than linux grub-install CLI. Now I get to look back at OP's first email and see if he did this exact same thing already, and whether we've come full circle. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 08/06/2015 02:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: stage 1 cannot point to another drive at all. It's sole purpose is to find stage 2, which must be on the same drive. Stage 1.5 is optional, and I've never seen it get used on Linux, mainly because in the time of GRUB legacy, I never encountered an installer that supported XFS for /boot. Grub's documentation is slightly unclear about that. Here's a system where /boot is part of a RAID1 set on /dev/vdc1 and /dev/vdd1: [root@localhost ~]# cat /boot/grub/device.map # this device map was generated by anaconda (hd0) /dev/vda (hd2) /dev/vdc (hd3) /dev/vdd [root@localhost ~]# grub Probing devices to guess BIOS drives. This may take a long time. GNU GRUB version 0.97 (640K lower / 3072K upper memory) [ Minimal BASH-like line editing is supported. For the first word, TAB lists possible command completions. Anywhere else TAB lists the possible completions of a device/filename.] grub> root (hd2,0) root (hd2,0) Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0xfd grub> setup (hd0) setup (hd0) Checking if "/boot/grub/stage1" exists... no Checking if "/grub/stage1" exists... yes Checking if "/grub/stage2" exists... yes Checking if "/grub/e2fs_stage1_5" exists... yes Running "embed /grub/e2fs_stage1_5 (hd0)"... 27 sectors are embedded. succeeded Running "install /grub/stage1 d (hd0) (hd0)1+27 p (hd2,0)/grub/stage2 /grub/grub.conf"... succeeded Done. grub> I believe the final line can be interpreted as: 0: install: the install command 1: /grub/stage1: path to the stage1 file, relative to the root 2: d: grub will look for stage2_file at the address specified in arg 4 3: (hd0): grub will be written to the first block of (hd0), currently mapped to /dev/vda 4: (hd0)1+27: stage1_5 has been embedded to this location. It is being used as "stage2_file" 5: p: the first block of stage2 will be modified with the value of the partition where stage2_file is found 6: (hd2,0)/grub/stage2: 7: /grub/grub.conf: because this arg is present and #4 is really a stage 1.5, the stage2 config file is patched with this configuration file name. If I specify "root (hd3,0)" in the grub shell, the boot loader will differ at 0002032, where it will refer to BIOS device 3 instead of BIOS device 2 for the location of /grub/stage2. --- vda.22015-08-06 16:05:32.03919 -0700 +++ vda.32015-08-06 16:05:59.44127 -0700 @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ * 0001760 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 002 \0 \0 \0 032 \0 002 0002000 352 p " \0 \0 \0 003 002 377 377 377 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 -0002020 002 \0 0 . 9 7 \0 377 377 \0 202 / g r u b +0002020 002 \0 0 . 9 7 \0 377 377 \0 203 / g r u b 0002040 / s t a g e 2 / g r u b / g r 0002060 u b . c o n f \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0002100 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 ...unless I'm mistaken. :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Gordon Messmer > wrote: >> On 08/05/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> >>> Nothing about hd0 or hd1 gets baked into the bootloader code. It's an >>> absolute reference to a physical drive at the moment in time the >>> command is made. >> >> >> Is that true? If I have a system with two disks, where device.map labels >> one as hd0 and the other as hd1, and I swap those numbers, the resulting >> boot sector will differ by one bit. > > Hrmm I can't reproduce this in a VM with identical drives. OK I did a CentOS 5 installation to raid1s, and it also boots either drive fine. But there's no log telling me how it installed the bootloader. http://ur1.ca/ndhf4 At offset 0x1B8 you'll notice 3 bytes of difference, but this is the disk signature. But what's interesting, this is not grub stage 1. This is a simple parted boot strap code that looks for the active bit in the MBR (the boot flag). When I do this: http://ur1.ca/ndhi3 There's the grub stage1. It's embedded in /boot (vda1) and (vdb1). When dd the 1st sector of vda1 and vdb1 to files, and diff the files, they're identical. So they're both pointing to the same LBA on each disk for stage 2. It really shouldn't matter though, whether this three step jump method is used, or grub stage 1 is written to each MBR gap and from there to stage 2. I might try nerfing the parted and grub stage 1 bootloaders on disk2, and see if the grub shell (which I should still get to from disk 1) will let me install grub directly on these two drives properly. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 08/05/2015 04:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: I do not know why there's a duplication of the install command. ... : Running... ['/sbin/grub', '--batch', '--no-floppy', '--device-map=/boot/grub/device.map'] : grub> device (hd0) /dev/vdb : grub> root (hd0,1) : grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf "device (hd0) /dev/vdb" overrides the data in device.map and instructs the grub shell to examine vdb where subsequent commands refer to (hd0). "root (hd0,1)" sets the location where grub will look for the required files, probably stage1, stage2, and e2fs_stage1_5. "install ..." checks for required files and writes a modified copy of stage1 to the first block of the device following 'd'. In your case, that should be the first partition on vdb. https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/grub.html#install : Running... ['/sbin/grub', '--batch', '--no-floppy', '--device-map=/boot/grub/device.map'] : grub> root (hd0,1) : grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf This will do the same thing, except that it will operate on /dev/vda. In both cases, stage1's block list will refer to BIOS device 0 for the location of stage2, so that if the BIOS boots from that drive, grub will load stage2, and then the kernel and initrd from the same drive. That's not necessarily the case, though. Stage 2 could be on a different drive. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 08/05/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> Nothing about hd0 or hd1 gets baked into the bootloader code. It's an >> absolute reference to a physical drive at the moment in time the >> command is made. > > > Is that true? If I have a system with two disks, where device.map labels > one as hd0 and the other as hd1, and I swap those numbers, the resulting > boot sector will differ by one bit. Hrmm I can't reproduce this in a VM with identical drives. Are you sure stage 2 is in an identical location on both drives? That would account for a one bit (or more) of difference since GRUB's stage 1 contains an LBA to jump to, rather than depending on an MBR partition active bit (boot flag) to know where to go next. > My understanding was that those IDs are used to map to the BIOS disk ID. > Stage 2 will be read from the partition specified to the grub installer at > installation, as in: > grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1)/grub/stage2 > p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf > > Stage 1 and 1.5 will, as far as I know, always be on (hd0), but stage2 might > not be. If the BIOS device IDs specified in device.map weren't written into > the boot loader, how else would it know where to look for them? stage 1 cannot point to another drive at all. It's sole purpose is to find stage 2, which must be on the same drive. Stage 1.5 is optional, and I've never seen it get used on Linux, mainly because in the time of GRUB legacy, I never encountered an installer that supported XFS for /boot. https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/legacy/grub.html#Images -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/6/2015 4:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >>> >>> On 8/6/2015 4:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that > works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then > try > to > figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. >>> >>> >>> I'm not familiar with that. How would I go about adapting the CentOS 6 >>> program.log commands? >> >> I mentioned it in the last two posts yesterday on this subject. > > > Ok. I'll give that a try tomorrow. Just a couple of questions. > > install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p > (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf > > It looks like this mixes paths relative to root and relative to /boot. Did > your test system have a separate /boot partition? Yes. > The --stage2 argument is > "os stage2 file" according to my man page. Should this be relative to root > even with a separate /boot partition? I think it's being treated as a directory because it's going to access this stage2 file. > > Also, why are the exact same root and install commands run twice in the log > you show? Is that just a duplicate, or does it need to be run twice for > some reason? I do not know. The whole thing is foreign to me. But both drives are bootable as hd0 (the only drive connected). So it makes sense that the configuration is treating this as an hd0 based installation of the bootloader to both drives. The part were the stage 1 and 2 are directed to separate drives must be the 'device (hd0) /dev/vdb' command. Again, I don't know why it isn't either 'device (hd0) (hd1)' or 'device /dev/vda /dev/vdb' but that's what the log sayeth. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Am 06.08.2015 um 22:43 schrieb Chris Murphy : > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Leon Fauster > wrote: >> Am 06.08.2015 um 22:21 schrieb Chris Murphy : >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log >>> commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. >>> >>> Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage >>> 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for >>> some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed >>> correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not >>> like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in >>> between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a >>> problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the >>> bootloader gets loaded. >> >> >> on which OS (eg. c5, c6) was the partition created? > > For the OP, I think it was CentOS 5, but he only said it's running CentOS 5 > now. > > For my test, it was CentOS 6, but that uses the same version of GRUB > legacy so the bootloader installation method for raid1 disks should be > the same. C6's grub has large inode support (and for sure a couple of others patches) which is missing in C5's grub. Not sure if this is here the case but i got triggered while reading this thread because we had here problems with filesystems that where "premastered" on C6 systems to install C5 on it (KVM). The above mentioned missing large inode support was the problem. -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 08/05/2015 10:23 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: Nothing about hd0 or hd1 gets baked into the bootloader code. It's an absolute reference to a physical drive at the moment in time the command is made. Is that true? If I have a system with two disks, where device.map labels one as hd0 and the other as hd1, and I swap those numbers, the resulting boot sector will differ by one bit. My understanding was that those IDs are used to map to the BIOS disk ID. Stage 2 will be read from the partition specified to the grub installer at installation, as in: grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1)/grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf Stage 1 and 1.5 will, as far as I know, always be on (hd0), but stage2 might not be. If the BIOS device IDs specified in device.map weren't written into the boot loader, how else would it know where to look for them? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/6/2015 4:55 PM, Leon Fauster wrote: Am 06.08.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Leon Fauster : Am 06.08.2015 um 22:21 schrieb Chris Murphy : On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the bootloader gets loaded. on which OS (eg. c5, c6) was the partition created? s/partition/filesystem/ This is CentOS 5. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/6/2015 4:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: On 8/6/2015 4:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. I'm not familiar with that. How would I go about adapting the CentOS 6 program.log commands? I mentioned it in the last two posts yesterday on this subject. Ok. I'll give that a try tomorrow. Just a couple of questions. install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf It looks like this mixes paths relative to root and relative to /boot. Did your test system have a separate /boot partition? The --stage2 argument is "os stage2 file" according to my man page. Should this be relative to root even with a separate /boot partition? Also, why are the exact same root and install commands run twice in the log you show? Is that just a duplicate, or does it need to be run twice for some reason? grub> root (hd0,1) grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf grub> root (hd0,1) grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Am 06.08.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Leon Fauster : > Am 06.08.2015 um 22:21 schrieb Chris Murphy : >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >> >>> Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that >>> works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to >>> figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. >> >> Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log >> commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. >> >> Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage >> 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for >> some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed >> correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not >> like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in >> between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a >> problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the >> bootloader gets loaded. > > > on which OS (eg. c5, c6) was the partition created? s/partition/filesystem/ -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Leon Fauster wrote: > Am 06.08.2015 um 22:21 schrieb Chris Murphy : >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >> >>> Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that >>> works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to >>> figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. >> >> Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log >> commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. >> >> Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage >> 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for >> some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed >> correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not >> like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in >> between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a >> problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the >> bootloader gets loaded. > > > on which OS (eg. c5, c6) was the partition created? For the OP, I think it was CentOS 5, but he only said it's running CentOS 5 now. For my test, it was CentOS 6, but that uses the same version of GRUB legacy so the bootloader installation method for raid1 disks should be the same. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > Definitely a strange problem. I'm hoping that doing a new install onto > these drives rather than trying to inherit the install used on the smaller > drives will work better. The CentOS installer, and parted, predate AF drives, so the partitioning will not be correct with a new installation. There's no way to get the installer to do proper alignment. You can partition correctly in advance, and then have the installer reuse those partitions though. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/6/2015 4:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >> >>> Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that >>> works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try >>> to >>> figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. >> >> Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log >> commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. > > > I'm not familiar with that. How would I go about adapting the CentOS 6 > program.log commands? I mentioned it in the last two posts yesterday on this subject. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Am 06.08.2015 um 22:21 schrieb Chris Murphy : > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > >> Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that >> works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to >> figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. > > Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log > commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. > > Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage > 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for > some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed > correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not > like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in > between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a > problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the > bootloader gets loaded. on which OS (eg. c5, c6) was the partition created? -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/6/2015 4:21 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. I'm not familiar with that. How would I go about adapting the CentOS 6 program.log commands? Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the bootloader gets loaded. Definitely a strange problem. I'm hoping that doing a new install onto these drives rather than trying to inherit the install used on the smaller drives will work better. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that > works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to > figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. Sounds like a pain. I would just adapt the CentOS 6 program.log commands for your case. That's a 2 minute test. And it ought to work. Clearly the computer finds the drive, reads the MBR and executes stage 1. The missing part is it's not loading or not executing stage 2 for some reason. I'm just not convinced the bootloader is installed correctly is the source of the problem with the 2nd drive. It's not like the BIOS or HBA card firmware is going to faceplace right in between stage 1 and stage 2 bootloaders executing. If there were a problem there, the drive simply doesn't show up and no part of the bootloader gets loaded. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/6/2015 3:56 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: On 08/05/2015 08:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. Why "extra"? Are there drives connected to this system other than the two you're discussing for the software RAID sets? I know you said that you can't take the system down for an extended period of time. Do you have enough time to connect the two 1TB drives and nothing else, and do a new install? It would be useful to know if such an install booted, to exclude the possibility that there's some fundamental incompatibility between some combination of the BIOS, the Highpoint boot ROM, and the 1TB drives. If it doesn't boot, you have the option of putting the bootloader, kernel, and initrd on some other media. You could boot from an optical disc, or a USB drive, or CF. To be honest, I don't remember why the Highpoint card was used. It could be that I had originally intended to use the raid capabilities of the card, or maybe I just didn't want the two members of the mirror to be master/slave on the same IDE channel. Doing a new install on the two 1TB drives is my current plan. If that works, I can connect the old drive, copy over all the data, and then try to figure out what I need to do to get all the programs running again. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 08/05/2015 08:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. Why "extra"? Are there drives connected to this system other than the two you're discussing for the software RAID sets? I know you said that you can't take the system down for an extended period of time. Do you have enough time to connect the two 1TB drives and nothing else, and do a new install? It would be useful to know if such an install booted, to exclude the possibility that there's some fundamental incompatibility between some combination of the BIOS, the Highpoint boot ROM, and the 1TB drives. If it doesn't boot, you have the option of putting the bootloader, kernel, and initrd on some other media. You could boot from an optical disc, or a USB drive, or CF. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Rats. That wrapped ugly. Here's that section in the log using fpaste. http://fpaste.org/252028/88181881/ Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
I never thought I'd say this, but I think it's easier to do this with GRUB 2. Anyway I did an installation to raid1's in CentOS 6's installer, which still uses GRUB legacy. I tested removing each of the two devices and it still boots. These are the commands in its log: : Running... ['/sbin/grub-install', '--just-copy'] : Running... ['/sbin/grub', '--batch', '--no-floppy', '--device-map=/boot/grub/device.map'] : grub> device (hd0) /dev/vdb : grub> root (hd0,1) : grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf : Running... ['/sbin/grub', '--batch', '--no-floppy', '--device-map=/boot/grub/device.map'] : grub> root (hd0,1) : grub> install --stage2=/boot/grub/stage2 /grub/stage1 d (hd0,1) /grub/stage2 p (hd0,1)/grub/grub.conf I do not know why there's a duplication of the install command. It also looks like the way it knows it's supposed to install two bootloader stage1 and stage2 to two different devices is with devices (hd0) /dev/vdb I don't know why the split referencing. (hd0) is /dev/vda and (hd1) is /dev/vdb. Weird. But it does work. hd0,1 in my case is /boot, but yours is hd0,0 since it's the first partition. So anywhere the steps above say hd0,1 you probably need hd0,0. Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 13:11 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote: > > # smartctl -i /dev/hdg | grep -i sector > > Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical > I don't get a "Sector Size" line. > > smartctl version 5.38 [i686-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce > Allen On the latest Centos 5 = Centos 5.11 ~ smartctl -v smartctl 5.42 2011-10-20 r3458 [x86_64-linux-2.6.18-406.el5] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net ~ Why not do: YUM UPDATE ??? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > That's because I'm intending to increase the size of that filesystem. The > raid should work as long as the new partition is at least as big as the old > one. Once I get this working, I will remove the original drive and add > another 1TB drive so both partitions are the same (larger size) and extend > the filesystem into the new space. Got it. OK then it all comes down to the workload and whether 4KiB alignment is worth changing the partitioning. If it is, quite honestly I'd just start over with this 1TiB drive: i.e. fail and remove all three partitions, and then wipe the superblock off each partition too (I don't know if CentOS 5 has wipefs but if it does use that with -a switch, e.g. 'wipefs -a /dev/hdg[123]' and then ;wipefs -a /dev/hdg' which will remove the ext3, swap and mdadm signatures and avoids problems down the road; then repartition doing two things: start the first partition at sector 2048, and only specify the size in whole megabytes. 2048 is aligned, and by making each partition increment 1MB each partition is also aligned. > >> - Also, 401625 is not 8 sector aligned. So it's a double whammy and >> since it has to be repartitioned anyway you might as well fix the >> alignment also. >> >> First off fail+remove hdg2 (you need to confirm I've got the devices >> and commands right here): >> mdadm --manage /dev/md2 -f /dev/hdg2 -r /dev/hdg2 >> mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdg2 >> >> Using fdisk delete hdg2, then make a new primary partition (partition >> 2) and hopefully figure out how to get it to do LBA rather than CHS >> entry; or use parted which can but it's UI is totally unlike fdisk. >> The start sector for hdg2 should be 401623 which is 8 sector aligned, >> and the end value should be 975691717 in order to make it the same as >> hde2. And change the type to 0xfd. >> >> Now you probably have to reboot because the partition map has changed, >> I'm not sure if partprobe exists on CentOS5, could be worth a shot >> though and see if the kernel gets the new partition map. Check with >> blkid. >> >> And then finally add the "new" device. >> mdadm --managed /dev/md2 -a /dev/hdg2 >> >> And now it should be resyncing... >> cat /proc/mdstat > > > But if both hde and hdg are using 401625, then wouldn't I have to > repartition both drives so the sizes match? No because as you said, the replacement just needs to be same or larger sized. mdadm does not care if member device partitions have different start sectors. > I'm still not sure that this is a partitioning problem. I did not have any > problems create the partitions or syncing the three raid devices. It's not a partitioning problem. But there's no point in proceeding with the bootloader stuff until you've settled on the partition layout. If you want, in the meantime, you could test if 'grub-install --recheck /dev/hdg' is at least accepted, and if that changes the outcome of either the bootinfoscript's bootloader section or actually test if it boots. The misalignment is a performance penalty, it's not a whether it works or not penalty. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/5/2015 3:59 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Dumb thought: I don't remember how, other than from a grub menu, but I'm >> pretty sure there's a way to default boot into a grub shell. Once there, >> you can see, using file completion, the drives, and where your initrd >> is. > > Good thought. I went into the grub.conf, commented out the "hiddenmenu" > option and increased the timeout to 10 seconds. This works if I boot > from the original drive, but it doesn't help with the new drive. It's > not getting that far. > I *think* what you may have to do is: 1. use mdadm to remove the new drive from the RAID. 2. use it to create a new md drive with *just* the new drive. 3. copy from the remaining old RAID drive to the new. 4. remove the old RAID drive, then put in a new large drive. 5. add the new drive to the new array. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, wrote: Dumb thought: I don't remember how, other than from a grub menu, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to default boot into a grub shell. Once there, you can see, using file completion, the drives, and where your initrd is. It's definitely not an initrd problem. a.) the failure happens before the GRUB menu appears so it hasn't even gone looking for an initrd, b.) the initrd is technically on an array not a device, and as long as the array is sync'd on both devices, it's the same, and since it works on one device, it should work on the other and c.) it's v0.9 mdadm metadata which is kernel autodetect so the initrd doesn't do the assembly. I think once the partition stuff is fixed, and synced, then it will be more reliable to do this because GRUB is after all being pointed to member devices, not the array. There might be more luck using this command at command prompt: grub-install --recheck /dev/hdg See if that repopulates the device.map correctly. It should use /boot (/dev/md0) automatically for stage2. Can't risk killing the system at the moment. I'll give it a try tomorrow. However, I do note that the man page for grub-install has a comment about --recheck stating "This option is unreliable and its use is strongly discouraged." -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 3:59 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Dumb thought: I don't remember how, other than from a grub menu, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to default boot into a grub shell. Once there, you can see, using file completion, the drives, and where your initrd is. Good thought. I went into the grub.conf, commented out the "hiddenmenu" option and increased the timeout to 10 seconds. This works if I boot from the original drive, but it doesn't help with the new drive. It's not getting that far. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 4:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: - Ahh OK now I see why I was confused. The originally posted partition map uses cylinders as units, not LBA. I missed that. Cylinder 1 is the same as LBA 63. And that is sufficiently large for a GRUB legacy stage 2. - OK this is screwy. Partitions 1 and 3 on both drives have the same number of sectors, but partitions 2 differ: /dev/hde2 401,625 975,691,709 975,290,085 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/hdg2 401,625 1,952,491,904 1,952,090,280 fd Linux raid autodetect That can't work as these are two partitions meant to form /dev/md2 and need to be the same size. That's because I'm intending to increase the size of that filesystem. The raid should work as long as the new partition is at least as big as the old one. Once I get this working, I will remove the original drive and add another 1TB drive so both partitions are the same (larger size) and extend the filesystem into the new space. - Also, 401625 is not 8 sector aligned. So it's a double whammy and since it has to be repartitioned anyway you might as well fix the alignment also. First off fail+remove hdg2 (you need to confirm I've got the devices and commands right here): mdadm --manage /dev/md2 -f /dev/hdg2 -r /dev/hdg2 mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdg2 Using fdisk delete hdg2, then make a new primary partition (partition 2) and hopefully figure out how to get it to do LBA rather than CHS entry; or use parted which can but it's UI is totally unlike fdisk. The start sector for hdg2 should be 401623 which is 8 sector aligned, and the end value should be 975691717 in order to make it the same as hde2. And change the type to 0xfd. Now you probably have to reboot because the partition map has changed, I'm not sure if partprobe exists on CentOS5, could be worth a shot though and see if the kernel gets the new partition map. Check with blkid. And then finally add the "new" device. mdadm --managed /dev/md2 -a /dev/hdg2 And now it should be resyncing... cat /proc/mdstat But if both hde and hdg are using 401625, then wouldn't I have to repartition both drives so the sizes match? I'm still not sure that this is a partitioning problem. I did not have any problems create the partitions or syncing the three raid devices. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, wrote: > Dumb thought: I don't remember how, other than from a grub menu, but I'm > pretty sure there's a way to default boot into a grub shell. Once there, > you can see, using file completion, the drives, and where your initrd is. It's definitely not an initrd problem. a.) the failure happens before the GRUB menu appears so it hasn't even gone looking for an initrd, b.) the initrd is technically on an array not a device, and as long as the array is sync'd on both devices, it's the same, and since it works on one device, it should work on the other and c.) it's v0.9 mdadm metadata which is kernel autodetect so the initrd doesn't do the assembly. I think once the partition stuff is fixed, and synced, then it will be more reliable to do this because GRUB is after all being pointed to member devices, not the array. There might be more luck using this command at command prompt: grub-install --recheck /dev/hdg See if that repopulates the device.map correctly. It should use /boot (/dev/md0) automatically for stage2. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Dumb thought: I don't remember how, other than from a grub menu, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to default boot into a grub shell. Once there, you can see, using file completion, the drives, and where your initrd is. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
- Ahh OK now I see why I was confused. The originally posted partition map uses cylinders as units, not LBA. I missed that. Cylinder 1 is the same as LBA 63. And that is sufficiently large for a GRUB legacy stage 2. - OK this is screwy. Partitions 1 and 3 on both drives have the same number of sectors, but partitions 2 differ: /dev/hde2 401,625 975,691,709 975,290,085 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/hdg2 401,625 1,952,491,904 1,952,090,280 fd Linux raid autodetect That can't work as these are two partitions meant to form /dev/md2 and need to be the same size. - Also, 401625 is not 8 sector aligned. So it's a double whammy and since it has to be repartitioned anyway you might as well fix the alignment also. First off fail+remove hdg2 (you need to confirm I've got the devices and commands right here): mdadm --manage /dev/md2 -f /dev/hdg2 -r /dev/hdg2 mdadm --zero-superblock /dev/hdg2 Using fdisk delete hdg2, then make a new primary partition (partition 2) and hopefully figure out how to get it to do LBA rather than CHS entry; or use parted which can but it's UI is totally unlike fdisk. The start sector for hdg2 should be 401623 which is 8 sector aligned, and the end value should be 975691717 in order to make it the same as hde2. And change the type to 0xfd. Now you probably have to reboot because the partition map has changed, I'm not sure if partprobe exists on CentOS5, could be worth a shot though and see if the kernel gets the new partition map. Check with blkid. And then finally add the "new" device. mdadm --managed /dev/md2 -a /dev/hdg2 And now it should be resyncing... cat /proc/mdstat Something like that. Proof read it! --- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 1:30 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Please, download this. http://sourceforge.net/projects/bootinfoscript/ Run it: http://bootinfoscript.sourceforge.net/ Post a URL to the resulting file somewhere. I suggest having the entire computer assembled as it should be in normal use, rather than simulating device failure by removing a device. http://pastebin.com/sgWTYpp4 -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Please, download this. http://sourceforge.net/projects/bootinfoscript/ Run it: http://bootinfoscript.sourceforge.net/ Post a URL to the resulting file somewhere. I suggest having the entire computer assembled as it should be in normal use, rather than simulating device failure by removing a device. --- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/5/2015 1:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Bowie Bailey >> wrote: >>> >>> How would I go about pointing it at the partition? >>> >>> What I am currently doing is this: >>> device (hd0) /dev/hdg >>> root (hd0,0) >>> setup (hd0) >> >> >> setup (hd1,0) >> >> It's hd1 if your device map is correct and hdg is hd1. And then ,0 is >> for the first partition assuming that's an ext3 boot partition. > > > What I am doing on my other system (where everything is working), is forcing > grub to install to both drives as hd0. I found that when the first drive > dies and I remove it from the system, grub will see the remaining drive as > hd0, regardless of what it was before. So if I install grub to the second > disk as hd1, then it won't boot as a single drive. Nothing about hd0 or hd1 gets baked into the bootloader code. It's an absolute reference to a physical drive at the moment in time the command is made. If there is only one drive connected when you initiate this command, then it's hd0. Almost invariably hd0 is the current boot drive, or at least it's the first drive as enumerated by the BIOS. So long as the drive in question gets a bootloader, it'll boot regardless of what hdX designation it takes. I'm just not totally convinced the designation is correct here because I really don't see how 'setup hd0' works on a drive that has no MBR gap. > > And to get this back to a single thread: > > On 8/5/2015 1:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bowie Bailey >> wrote: >> >>> I tried 'smartctl -a' and 'hdparm -I', but I don't see anything about >>> Advanced Format. What am I looking for? >> >> # smartctl -i /dev/hdg | grep -i sector >> Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical > > > I don't get a "Sector Size" line. > > smartctl version 5.38 [i686-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce OK that version predates sector size info. See if your version of hdparm will do it: # hdparm -I /dev/hdg | grep -i sector That spits out several lines for me, including Physical Sector size: 512 bytes Another one is: # parted -l /dev/hdg | grep -i sector I'm willing to bet that physical sector size is 4096 bytes > Allen > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ > > === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === > Device Model: WDC WD10EZEX-60M2NA0 I looked this up and found this: http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/SpecSheet/ENG/2879-771436.pdf That lists the 1TB as being advanced format. If that's the correct spec sheet then the next question is what is the workload for this drive? If it's just a boot drive and performance is not a consideration then you can leave it alone, the drive firmware will do RWM internally for the wrong alignment. But if performance is important (file sharing, database stuff, small file writes including web server), then this needs to get fixed... -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 1:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: How would I go about pointing it at the partition? What I am currently doing is this: device (hd0) /dev/hdg root (hd0,0) setup (hd0) setup (hd1,0) It's hd1 if your device map is correct and hdg is hd1. And then ,0 is for the first partition assuming that's an ext3 boot partition. What I am doing on my other system (where everything is working), is forcing grub to install to both drives as hd0. I found that when the first drive dies and I remove it from the system, grub will see the remaining drive as hd0, regardless of what it was before. So if I install grub to the second disk as hd1, then it won't boot as a single drive. And to get this back to a single thread: On 8/5/2015 1:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: I tried 'smartctl -a' and 'hdparm -I', but I don't see anything about Advanced Format. What am I looking for? # smartctl -i /dev/hdg | grep -i sector Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical I don't get a "Sector Size" line. smartctl version 5.38 [i686-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce Allen Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Device Model: WDC WD10EZEX-60M2NA0 Serial Number:WD-WCC3F6AX0119 Firmware Version: 03.01A03 User Capacity:1,000,204,886,016 bytes Device is:Not in smartctl database [for details use: -P showall] ATA Version is: 9 ATA Standard is: Not recognized. Minor revision code: 0x1f Local Time is:Wed Aug 5 13:09:16 2015 EDT SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > > I tried 'smartctl -a' and 'hdparm -I', but I don't see anything about > Advanced Format. What am I looking for? # smartctl -i /dev/hdg | grep -i sector Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical That's what I get, but it's an SSD so it's a lie. > I can redo the partitions, but I'm not sure how to tell fdisk to start a > partition at LBA 2048. Let's figure that out only if it's an AF disk... -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > > On 8/5/2015 12:34 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >>> >>> I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. >> >> I'm going to guess that there are no IDE drives that have 4096 byte >> physical sectors, but it's worth confirming you don't have such a >> drive because the current partition scheme you've posted would be >> sub-optimal if it does have 4096 byte sectors. > > > The partition table was originally created by the installer. Well, the CentOS5 installer and partitioning utility (parted) predate Advanced Format drives. I'd check to see whether you have such a drive. > Version : 0.90.00 Therefore 0xfd is correct. > I'm willing to give that a try. The device.map looks good to me: > (hd0) /dev/hde > (hd1) /dev/hdg > > It is old, but the drives are still connected to the same connectors, so it > should still be valid. I think you need to confirm that the device.map is correct. I just don't remember the command to figure out the mapping. > > How would I go about pointing it at the partition? > > What I am currently doing is this: > device (hd0) /dev/hdg > root (hd0,0) > setup (hd0) setup (hd1,0) It's hd1 if your device map is correct and hdg is hd1. And then ,0 is for the first partition assuming that's an ext3 boot partition. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 12:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I'm going to guess that there are no IDE drives that have 4096 byte physical sectors, but it's worth confirming you don't have such a drive because the current partition scheme you've posted would be sub-optimal if it does have 4096 byte sectors. Oops. I just reread that this is now SATA. New versions of hdparm and smartctl can tell you if the drive is Advanced Format, and if it is, then I recommend redoing the partition scheme so it's 4K aligned. And so that it has an MBR gap. The current way to do this is have the 1st partition start at LBA 2048. I tried 'smartctl -a' and 'hdparm -I', but I don't see anything about Advanced Format. What am I looking for? I can redo the partitions, but I'm not sure how to tell fdisk to start a partition at LBA 2048. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 12:34 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I'm going to guess that there are no IDE drives that have 4096 byte physical sectors, but it's worth confirming you don't have such a drive because the current partition scheme you've posted would be sub-optimal if it does have 4096 byte sectors. The partition table was originally created by the installer. I was able to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive to boot. This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. Partitions: Disk /dev/hdg: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdg1 1 25 200781 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/hdg2 26 121537 976045140 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/hdg3 121538 121601 514080 fd Linux raid autodetect In the realm of totally esoteric and not likely the problem, 0xfd is for mdadm metadata v0.9 which uses kernel autodetect. If the mdadm metadata is 1.x then the type code ought to be 0xda but this is so obscure that parted doesn't even support it. fdisk does but I don't know when support was added. This uses initrd autodetect rather than the deprecated kernel autodetect. It's fine to use 0.9 even though it's deprecated. You can use mdadm -E on each member device (each partition) to find out what metadata version is being used. Version : 0.90.00 Normally GRUB stage 1.5 is not needed, stage 1 can jump directly to stage 2 if it's in the MBR gap. But your partition scheme doesn't have an MBR gap, you've started the first partition at LBA 1. So that means it'll have to use block lists... I installed grub on the new drive: grub> device (hd0) /dev/hdg grub> root (hd0,0) Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0xfd grub> setup (hd0) Checking if "/boot/grub/stage1" exists... no Checking if "/grub/stage1" exists... yes Checking if "/grub/stage2" exists... yes Checking if "/grub/e2fs_stage1_5" exists... yes Running "embed /grub/e2fs_stage1_5 (hd0)"... 15 sectors are embedded. succeeded Running "install /grub/stage1 (hd0) (hd0)1+15 p (hd0,0)/grub/stage2 /grub/grub.conf"... succeeded Done. I'm confused. I don't know why this succeeds because the setup was pointed to hd0, which means the entire disk, not a partition, and yet the disk doesn't have an MBR gap. So there's no room for GRUB stage 2. I'm not sure. It's been so long that I don't remember what I did (if anything) to get grub working on the second drive of the set. The first drive was configured by the installer. What I'm doing now is what I found to work for my backup system which gets a new drive in the raid set every month. But when I attempt to boot from the drive (with or without the other drive connected and in either IDE connector on the Highpoint card), it fails. Grub attempts to boot, but the last thing I see after the bios is the line "GRUB Loading stage 1.5", then the screen goes black, the system speaker beeps, and the machine reboots. This will continue as long as I let it. As soon as I switch the boot drive back to the original hard drive, It boots up normally. Yeah it says it's succeeding but it really isn't, I think. The problem is not the initrd yet, because that could be totally busted or missing, and you should still get a GRUB menu. This is all a failure of getting to stage 2, which then can read the file system and load the rest of its modules. I also tried installing grub as (hd1) with the same results. I'm disinclined to believe that hd0 or hd1 translate into hdg, but I forget how to list devices in GRUB legacy. I'm going to bet though that device.map is stale and it probably needs to be recreated, and then find out what the proper hdX is for hdg. And then I think you're going to need to point it at a partition using hdX,Y. I'm willing to give that a try. The device.map looks good to me: (hd0) /dev/hde (hd1) /dev/hdg It is old, but the drives are still connected to the same connectors, so it should still be valid. How would I go about pointing it at the partition? What I am currently doing is this: device (hd0) /dev/hdg root (hd0,0) setup (hd0) Would I just need to change the setup line to "setup (hd0,0)", or is there more to it than that? Also, the partitions are mirrored, so if I install to a partition, I will affect the working drive as well. I'm not sure I want to risk breaking the setup that still works. I can take this machine down for testing
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: >> I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. > > I'm going to guess that there are no IDE drives that have 4096 byte > physical sectors, but it's worth confirming you don't have such a > drive because the current partition scheme you've posted would be > sub-optimal if it does have 4096 byte sectors. Oops. I just reread that this is now SATA. New versions of hdparm and smartctl can tell you if the drive is Advanced Format, and if it is, then I recommend redoing the partition scheme so it's 4K aligned. And so that it has an MBR gap. The current way to do this is have the 1st partition start at LBA 2048. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote: > I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I'm going to guess that there are no IDE drives that have 4096 byte physical sectors, but it's worth confirming you don't have such a drive because the current partition scheme you've posted would be sub-optimal if it does have 4096 byte sectors. I was able to > partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive to boot. > > This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid > card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have upgraded it with > a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not have any problems with > the system recognizing the drive or adding it to the mdraid. A short SMART > test shows no errors. > > Partitions: > Disk /dev/hdg: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes > >Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/hdg1 1 25 200781 fd Linux raid > autodetect > /dev/hdg2 26 121537 976045140 fd Linux raid > autodetect > /dev/hdg3 121538 121601 514080 fd Linux raid > autodetect In the realm of totally esoteric and not likely the problem, 0xfd is for mdadm metadata v0.9 which uses kernel autodetect. If the mdadm metadata is 1.x then the type code ought to be 0xda but this is so obscure that parted doesn't even support it. fdisk does but I don't know when support was added. This uses initrd autodetect rather than the deprecated kernel autodetect. It's fine to use 0.9 even though it's deprecated. You can use mdadm -E on each member device (each partition) to find out what metadata version is being used. Normally GRUB stage 1.5 is not needed, stage 1 can jump directly to stage 2 if it's in the MBR gap. But your partition scheme doesn't have an MBR gap, you've started the first partition at LBA 1. So that means it'll have to use block lists... > I installed grub on the new drive: > grub> device (hd0) /dev/hdg > > grub> root (hd0,0) > Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0xfd > > grub> setup (hd0) > Checking if "/boot/grub/stage1" exists... no > Checking if "/grub/stage1" exists... yes > Checking if "/grub/stage2" exists... yes > Checking if "/grub/e2fs_stage1_5" exists... yes > Running "embed /grub/e2fs_stage1_5 (hd0)"... 15 sectors are embedded. > succeeded > Running "install /grub/stage1 (hd0) (hd0)1+15 p (hd0,0)/grub/stage2 > /grub/grub.conf"... succeeded > Done. I'm confused. I don't know why this succeeds because the setup was pointed to hd0, which means the entire disk, not a partition, and yet the disk doesn't have an MBR gap. So there's no room for GRUB stage 2. > > But when I attempt to boot from the drive (with or without the other drive > connected and in either IDE connector on the Highpoint card), it fails. > Grub attempts to boot, but the last thing I see after the bios is the line > "GRUB Loading stage 1.5", then the screen goes black, the system speaker > beeps, and the machine reboots. This will continue as long as I let it. As > soon as I switch the boot drive back to the original hard drive, It boots up > normally. Yeah it says it's succeeding but it really isn't, I think. The problem is not the initrd yet, because that could be totally busted or missing, and you should still get a GRUB menu. This is all a failure of getting to stage 2, which then can read the file system and load the rest of its modules. > I also tried installing grub as (hd1) with the same results. I'm disinclined to believe that hd0 or hd1 translate into hdg, but I forget how to list devices in GRUB legacy. I'm going to bet though that device.map is stale and it probably needs to be recreated, and then find out what the proper hdX is for hdg. And then I think you're going to need to point it at a partition using hdX,Y. -- Chris Murphy ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 11:52 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Bowie Bailey wrote: I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I was able to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive to boot. This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. Trying to get your configuration clear in my mind - the drives are 1TB IDE, and they're attached to the m/b, or to the Hpt RAID card? Also, did you update the system? New kernel? If so, is the RAID card recognized (we've got a Hpt RocketRaid card in a CentOS 6 system, and we're *finally* replacing it with an LSI (once it comes in), because Hpt does not care about old cards, and I had to find the source code, and then hack it to compile it for the new kernel, and have had to recompile for the new kernels we've installed To follow myself up, I forgot one thing I'd intended to ask: is it possible that you needed to rebuild the initrd? It's possible, but why would that be the case? The only thing that has changed from the OS point of view is the partition size on one of the drives. The filesystems are still the same. Also, as I said, it doesn't even get as far as attempting to boot Linux. It fails immediately after the "GRUB Loading stage 1.5" line, so it seems like a grub issue of some sort. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Bowie Bailey wrote: > On 8/5/2015 11:27 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Bowie Bailey wrote: >>> I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I was able >>> to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive >>> to boot. >>> >>> This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint >>> raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have >>> upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not >>> have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to >>> the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. > It was originally a pair of 500GB IDE drives in an mdraid mirror > configuration. Right now, I have removed one 500GB drive and replaced > it with a 1TB SATA drive with an IDE-SATA adapter. Both drives are > connected to the Highpoint card and apparently working fine other than > the boot-up problem. > > I was considering adding an SATA card to the system, but I didn't want > to deal with finding drivers for a card old enough to work with this > system (32-bit PCI). > > I have not done any updates to the system in quite some time. 1. Have you, during POST, gone into the Hpt controller firmware and made sure that it sees and presents the new disk properly? 2. If that's good, then I'm wondering if the initrd needs a SATA driver, which it may not have, since the old version of your system was all IDE. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Bowie Bailey wrote: >> I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I was able >> to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive >> to boot. >> >> This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint >> raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have >> upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not >> have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to >> the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. > > Trying to get your configuration clear in my mind - the drives are 1TB > IDE, and they're attached to the m/b, or to the Hpt RAID card? > > Also, did you update the system? New kernel? If so, is the RAID card > recognized (we've got a Hpt RocketRaid card in a CentOS 6 system, and > we're *finally* replacing it with an LSI (once it comes in), because Hpt > does not care about old cards, and I had to find the source code, and then > hack it to compile it for the new kernel, and have had to recompile for > the new kernels we've installed > To follow myself up, I forgot one thing I'd intended to ask: is it possible that you needed to rebuild the initrd? mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
On 8/5/2015 11:27 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Bowie Bailey wrote: I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I was able to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive to boot. This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. Trying to get your configuration clear in my mind - the drives are 1TB IDE, and they're attached to the m/b, or to the Hpt RAID card? Also, did you update the system? New kernel? If so, is the RAID card recognized (we've got a Hpt RocketRaid card in a CentOS 6 system, and we're *finally* replacing it with an LSI (once it comes in), because Hpt does not care about old cards, and I had to find the source code, and then hack it to compile it for the new kernel, and have had to recompile for the new kernels we've installed It was originally a pair of 500GB IDE drives in an mdraid mirror configuration. Right now, I have removed one 500GB drive and replaced it with a 1TB SATA drive with an IDE-SATA adapter. Both drives are connected to the Highpoint card and apparently working fine other than the boot-up problem. I was considering adding an SATA card to the system, but I didn't want to deal with finding drivers for a card old enough to work with this system (32-bit PCI). I have not done any updates to the system in quite some time. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
Bowie Bailey wrote: > I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I was able > to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive > to boot. > > This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint > raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have > upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not > have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to > the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. Trying to get your configuration clear in my mind - the drives are 1TB IDE, and they're attached to the m/b, or to the Hpt RAID card? Also, did you update the system? New kernel? If so, is the RAID card recognized (we've got a Hpt RocketRaid card in a CentOS 6 system, and we're *finally* replacing it with an LSI (once it comes in), because Hpt does not care about old cards, and I had to find the source code, and then hack it to compile it for the new kernel, and have had to recompile for the new kernels we've installed mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS 5 grub boot problem
I am trying to upgrade my system from 500GB drives to 1TB. I was able to partition and sync the raid devices, but I cannot get the new drive to boot. This is an old system with only IDE ports. There is an added Highpoint raid card which is used only for the two extra IDE ports. I have upgraded it with a 1TB SATA drive and an IDE-SATA adapter. I did not have any problems with the system recognizing the drive or adding it to the mdraid. A short SMART test shows no errors. Partitions: Disk /dev/hdg: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdg1 1 25 200781 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/hdg2 26 121537 976045140 fd Linux raid autodetect /dev/hdg3 121538 121601 514080 fd Linux raid autodetect Raid: Personalities : [raid1] md0 : active raid1 hdg1[1] hde1[0] 200704 blocks [2/2] [UU] md1 : active raid1 hdg3[1] hde3[0] 513984 blocks [2/2] [UU] md2 : active raid1 hdg2[1] hde2[0] 487644928 blocks [2/2] [UU] fstab (unrelated lines removed): /dev/md2/ ext3 defaults1 1 /dev/md0/boot ext3 defaults1 2 /dev/md1swapswap defaults0 0 I installed grub on the new drive: grub> device (hd0) /dev/hdg grub> root (hd0,0) Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0xfd grub> setup (hd0) Checking if "/boot/grub/stage1" exists... no Checking if "/grub/stage1" exists... yes Checking if "/grub/stage2" exists... yes Checking if "/grub/e2fs_stage1_5" exists... yes Running "embed /grub/e2fs_stage1_5 (hd0)"... 15 sectors are embedded. succeeded Running "install /grub/stage1 (hd0) (hd0)1+15 p (hd0,0)/grub/stage2 /grub/grub.conf"... succeeded Done. But when I attempt to boot from the drive (with or without the other drive connected and in either IDE connector on the Highpoint card), it fails. Grub attempts to boot, but the last thing I see after the bios is the line "GRUB Loading stage 1.5", then the screen goes black, the system speaker beeps, and the machine reboots. This will continue as long as I let it. As soon as I switch the boot drive back to the original hard drive, It boots up normally. I also tried installing grub as (hd1) with the same results. A few Google searches haven't turned up any hits with this particular problem and all of the similar problems have been with Ubuntu and grub2. Any suggestions? Thanks, -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
2015-04-17 14:40 GMT+03:00 Peter : > On 04/17/2015 11:20 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: > > Yep, maybe using ssl offloading devices like (BigIP) that receives tls1.2 > > and tlsv1.2 and then re-encrypts traffic with tls1.0 might be "cheapest" > > solution. > > Perhaps re-evaluate the need to have TLS 1.1 and 1.2 right now. The > only attack against 1.0 that I'm aware of is BEAST and that has been > largely mitigated by browser-side fixes to the point where TLS 1.0 is > now considered to be safe. No doubt there will in time be other attacks > that necessitate an upgrade, but for now I would just stick with the > Well, PCI DSS 3.1 standard soon denies use of sslv3 and early version of tls(v1.0) Also noted that is possible to do ssl termination and encryption again with mod_ssl sslproxyengine. -- Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
2015-04-17 14:26 GMT+03:00 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn : > The cheapest sollution is probably compiling a private openssl somewhere > on the system and then compiling apache using that private openssl > version instead of the default system-wide one.=== > > Well, not really. cheapest and working solution is to use apache on centos 6/7 with sslproxy engine to first decrypt traffic and then encrypt using tlsv1.0 -- Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
On 04/17/2015 11:20 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: > Yep, maybe using ssl offloading devices like (BigIP) that receives tls1.2 > and tlsv1.2 and then re-encrypts traffic with tls1.0 might be "cheapest" > solution. Perhaps re-evaluate the need to have TLS 1.1 and 1.2 right now. The only attack against 1.0 that I'm aware of is BEAST and that has been largely mitigated by browser-side fixes to the point where TLS 1.0 is now considered to be safe. No doubt there will in time be other attacks that necessitate an upgrade, but for now I would just stick with the version of openssl and apache that comes with CentOS 5 and focus on moving to CentOS 6 or 7 as a medium (not long) term goal. At the end of the day I think it's better to just go this route than have to deal with the hacky solutions for getting 1.1 and 1.2 out of CentOS 5. Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
The cheapest sollution is probably compiling a private openssl somewhere on the system and then compiling apache using that private openssl version instead of the default system-wide one. Regards, Dennis On 17.04.2015 13:20, Eero Volotinen wrote: > Yep, maybe using ssl offloading devices like (BigIP) that receives tls1.2 > and tlsv1.2 and then re-encrypts traffic with tls1.0 might be "cheapest" > solution. > > -- > Eero > > 2015-04-17 14:15 GMT+03:00 Johnny Hughes : > >> On 04/16/2015 05:00 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: >>> in fact: modgnutls provides easy way to get tlsv1.2 to rhel 5 >>> >>> -- >>> Eero >>> >> >> If you do that, then you are at the mercy of Mr. Bergmann to provide >> updates for all security issues for openssl. Has he updated his RPMs >> since 2014-11-19 23:57:58? Does his patch work on the latest >> RHEL/CentOS EL5 openssl-0.9.8 package? >> >> The answer right now for him providing newer packages is, I have no >> idea. His repo >> ( >> http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/12/07/yum_repository_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html >> ) >> does not seem to be available: >> >> Attempted reposync: >> >> Error setting up repositories: failure: repodata/repomd.xml from tuxad: >> [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. >> http://www.tuxad.com/repo/5/x86_64/tuxad/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] >> HTTP Error 404 - Not Found >> >> >> Red Hat chose not to turn on those cyphers in RHEL-5 (the ones in his >> patches) .. doing so is not at all certified as safe, nor has it been >> tested by anyone that I can see (other than in that blog entry). It >> might be fine .. it might not be. >> >> People can make any choice that they want, but I would be looking to >> upgrade to at least CentOS-6 at this point if I wanted newer TLS support >> and not depending on one person to provide packages (or patches) of this >> importance for all my EL5 machines. But, that is just me. >> >> Please note, I have no idea who Mr. Bergmann is and I am not in any way >> being negative about those packages and patches .. they are extremely >> nice and seem to work. However, I can not see the rest of his repo >> right now and I would not trust MY production machines to a one person >> operation with something as important as openssl. >> >> Thanks, >> Johnny Hughes >> >> >> >>> 2015-04-16 21:02 GMT+03:00 Eero Volotinen : >>> well. this hack solution might work: >> http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/11/19/openssl_updatesenhancements_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html -- Eero 2015-04-16 17:30 GMT+03:00 Leon Fauster : > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Leon Fauster < >> leonfaus...@googlemail.com>: >> Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen >> : >>> Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? >>> upgrading os to 6 is not option available. >> >> >> Unfortunately not. > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066914 > > -- > LF >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
Yep, maybe using ssl offloading devices like (BigIP) that receives tls1.2 and tlsv1.2 and then re-encrypts traffic with tls1.0 might be "cheapest" solution. -- Eero 2015-04-17 14:15 GMT+03:00 Johnny Hughes : > On 04/16/2015 05:00 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: > > in fact: modgnutls provides easy way to get tlsv1.2 to rhel 5 > > > > -- > > Eero > > > > If you do that, then you are at the mercy of Mr. Bergmann to provide > updates for all security issues for openssl. Has he updated his RPMs > since 2014-11-19 23:57:58? Does his patch work on the latest > RHEL/CentOS EL5 openssl-0.9.8 package? > > The answer right now for him providing newer packages is, I have no > idea. His repo > ( > http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/12/07/yum_repository_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html > ) > does not seem to be available: > > Attempted reposync: > > Error setting up repositories: failure: repodata/repomd.xml from tuxad: > [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. > http://www.tuxad.com/repo/5/x86_64/tuxad/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] > HTTP Error 404 - Not Found > > > Red Hat chose not to turn on those cyphers in RHEL-5 (the ones in his > patches) .. doing so is not at all certified as safe, nor has it been > tested by anyone that I can see (other than in that blog entry). It > might be fine .. it might not be. > > People can make any choice that they want, but I would be looking to > upgrade to at least CentOS-6 at this point if I wanted newer TLS support > and not depending on one person to provide packages (or patches) of this > importance for all my EL5 machines. But, that is just me. > > Please note, I have no idea who Mr. Bergmann is and I am not in any way > being negative about those packages and patches .. they are extremely > nice and seem to work. However, I can not see the rest of his repo > right now and I would not trust MY production machines to a one person > operation with something as important as openssl. > > Thanks, > Johnny Hughes > > > > > 2015-04-16 21:02 GMT+03:00 Eero Volotinen : > > > >> well. this hack solution might work: > >> > http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/11/19/openssl_updatesenhancements_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html > >> > >> -- > >> Eero > >> > >> 2015-04-16 17:30 GMT+03:00 Leon Fauster : > >> > >>> Am 16.04.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Leon Fauster < > leonfaus...@googlemail.com>: > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen >: > > Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? > > upgrading os to 6 is not option available. > > > Unfortunately not. > >>> > >>> > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066914 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> LF > > > > ___ > 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] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
On 04/16/2015 05:00 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: > in fact: modgnutls provides easy way to get tlsv1.2 to rhel 5 > > -- > Eero > If you do that, then you are at the mercy of Mr. Bergmann to provide updates for all security issues for openssl. Has he updated his RPMs since 2014-11-19 23:57:58? Does his patch work on the latest RHEL/CentOS EL5 openssl-0.9.8 package? The answer right now for him providing newer packages is, I have no idea. His repo (http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/12/07/yum_repository_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html) does not seem to be available: Attempted reposync: Error setting up repositories: failure: repodata/repomd.xml from tuxad: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. http://www.tuxad.com/repo/5/x86_64/tuxad/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404 - Not Found Red Hat chose not to turn on those cyphers in RHEL-5 (the ones in his patches) .. doing so is not at all certified as safe, nor has it been tested by anyone that I can see (other than in that blog entry). It might be fine .. it might not be. People can make any choice that they want, but I would be looking to upgrade to at least CentOS-6 at this point if I wanted newer TLS support and not depending on one person to provide packages (or patches) of this importance for all my EL5 machines. But, that is just me. Please note, I have no idea who Mr. Bergmann is and I am not in any way being negative about those packages and patches .. they are extremely nice and seem to work. However, I can not see the rest of his repo right now and I would not trust MY production machines to a one person operation with something as important as openssl. Thanks, Johnny Hughes > 2015-04-16 21:02 GMT+03:00 Eero Volotinen : > >> well. this hack solution might work: >> http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/11/19/openssl_updatesenhancements_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html >> >> -- >> Eero >> >> 2015-04-16 17:30 GMT+03:00 Leon Fauster : >> >>> Am 16.04.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Leon Fauster : Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : > Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? > upgrading os to 6 is not option available. Unfortunately not. >>> >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066914 >>> >>> -- >>> LF signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
in fact: modgnutls provides easy way to get tlsv1.2 to rhel 5 -- Eero 2015-04-16 21:02 GMT+03:00 Eero Volotinen : > well. this hack solution might work: > http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/11/19/openssl_updatesenhancements_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html > > -- > Eero > > 2015-04-16 17:30 GMT+03:00 Leon Fauster : > >> Am 16.04.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Leon Fauster : >> > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : >> >> Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? >> >> upgrading os to 6 is not option available. >> > >> > >> > Unfortunately not. >> >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066914 >> >> -- >> LF >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
well. this hack solution might work: http://www.tuxad.de/blog/archives/2014/11/19/openssl_updatesenhancements_for_rhel__centos_5/index.html -- Eero 2015-04-16 17:30 GMT+03:00 Leon Fauster : > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Leon Fauster : > > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : > >> Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? > >> upgrading os to 6 is not option available. > > > > > > Unfortunately not. > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066914 > > -- > LF > > > ___ > 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] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
Am 16.04.2015 um 11:46 schrieb Leon Fauster : > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : >> Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? >> upgrading os to 6 is not option available. > > > Unfortunately not. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066914 -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
On 04/16/2015 04:49 AM, Eero Volotinen wrote: > How about using gnutls? Not in the version included with EL5 as I recall. You might want to give some serious thought to an upgrade plan. El5 goes EOL in 2017, so you've got a little over a year. Additionally, EL5 is already missing security updates because they weren't deemed important enough -> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2014-November/148008.html > > Eero > 16.4.2015 12.46 ip. "Leon Fauster" kirjoitti: > >> Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : >>> Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? >>> upgrading os to 6 is not option available. >> >> >> Unfortunately not. -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
How about using gnutls? Eero 16.4.2015 12.46 ip. "Leon Fauster" kirjoitti: > Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : > > Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? > > upgrading os to 6 is not option available. > > > Unfortunately not. > > -- > LF > > > > ___ > 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] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
Am 16.04.2015 um 11:43 schrieb Eero Volotinen : > Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? > upgrading os to 6 is not option available. Unfortunately not. -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Centos 5 & tls v1.2, v1.1
Hi, Is there any nice way to get tlsv1.2 support to centos 5? upgrading os to 6 is not option available. -- Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5- mount shows a cifs share mounted 4 times!
Hello Gordon, Thursday, December 11, 2014, 6:46:00 PM, you wrote: GM> Specify the local path rather than the source: GM> $ umount /NSA320-music Well well! I'm sure I’ve always unmouted the mount and not the mount point before... mind I think this is the first time I've tried to unmount a remote share rather then something local. -- Best regards, Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk pgpdKdSStv5XN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5- mount shows a cifs share mounted 4 times!
On 12/11/2014 10:24 AM, Niamh Holding wrote: Thursday, December 11, 2014, 5:23:56 PM, you wrote: GM> The system will mount a GM> filesytem on top of an existing path, including one with another GM> filesystem at the same path. But the mounts are identical- Yeah, that's allowed. GM> They stack, so that you'd need to unmount GM> all four instances. I've tried- umount 10.0.0.253\\niamh umount: \\10.0.0.253\niamh: not mounted Do I need to do more backslash escaping? Specify the local path rather than the source: $ umount /NSA320-music ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5- mount shows a cifs share mounted 4 times!
Hello Gordon, Thursday, December 11, 2014, 5:23:56 PM, you wrote: GM> The system will mount a GM> filesytem on top of an existing path, including one with another GM> filesystem at the same path. But the mounts are identical- 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) GM> They stack, so that you'd need to unmount GM> all four instances. I've tried- umount 10.0.0.253\\niamh umount: \\10.0.0.253\niamh: not mounted Do I need to do more backslash escaping? -- Best regards, Niamhmailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk pgp6WmYDtoRLP.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5- mount shows a cifs share mounted 4 times!
On 12/11/2014 09:02 AM, Niamh Holding wrote: How can this happen? There's nothing really abnormal about that. The system will mount a filesytem on top of an existing path, including one with another filesystem at the same path. They stack, so that you'd need to unmount all four instances. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS 5- mount shows a cifs share mounted 4 times!
Hello, How can this happen? mount -l /dev/sda3/ on type ext4 (rw) proc on /proc type proc (rw) sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw) devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) /dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4 (rw) /dev/sdb1 on /music type ext3 (rw) /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00 on /fedora type ext3 (rw) none on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw) sunrpc on /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs type rpc_pipefs (rw) 10.0.0.3:/backup on /backup type nfs (rw,addr=10.0.0.3) /etc/named on /var/named/chroot/etc/named type none (rw,bind) /etc/named.rfc1912.zones on /var/named/chroot/etc/named.rfc1912.zones type none (rw,bind) /etc/rndc.key on /var/named/chroot/etc/rndc.key type none (rw,bind) /usr/lib64/bind on /var/named/chroot/usr/lib64/bind type none (rw,bind) /etc/named.iscdlv.key on /var/named/chroot/etc/named.iscdlv.key type none (rw,bind) /etc/named.root.key on /var/named/chroot/etc/named.root.key type none (rw,bind) 10.0.0.253:/i-data/48e5a222/nfs/music on /thecus-music type nfs (rw,addr=10.0.0.253) 10.0.0.253:/i-data/48e5a222/nfs/fedora on /thecus-backup type nfs (rw,addr=10.0.0.253) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\niamh on /NSA320-music type cifs (rw) 10.0.0.253\\fedora on /NSA320-fedora type cifs (rw) -- Best regards, Niamh mailto:ni...@fullbore.co.uk ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS 5 text mode installer: minimum requirements?
Hi, A company I do some teaching for has a load of legacy hardware, among which a Dell Poweredge 1300 server. Rough specs: Pentium-III 500 MHz processor, 110 MB RAM, 3 x 9 GB SCSI disks. This thing is a dinosaur, and horribly loud, but apparently it takes a meteor strike to wipe it. I like using it for training purposes, mainly to poke fun at the Windows Server trainer, who complained that 8 GB RAM was "a bit short" to run all his various services. :o) The last time I used it, I installed Slackware 14.1 successfully on it (init 3, no GUI, various services like Dnsmasq, NTP, Samba, Squid, a LAMP stack, etc.). I wonder if that thing would be able to boot CentOS 5.11 in text mode. I vaguely remember the text mode installer requires a minimum of 128 MB RAM, but I can't seem to find some conclusive information on the subject. Cheers, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques 100% Linux et logiciels libres 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 takes one second holding each keyboard key until it shows.
On Thu, August 28, 2014 3:30 am, Reinhard Dunkel wrote: > > On CentOS 5, I use command "su" to show a root shell. On CentOS 7, su no > longer works and I use "ssh root@localhost" instead. (I have not tried > SSH to access my CentOS systems remotely yet.) > I believe, [on CentOS 7] the user should be in the wheel group to successfully use su command (when he gives root password to the contrary to sudo command when one gives one's own password) I hope, this helps. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 takes one second holding each keyboard key until it shows.
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM, David Both wrote: > This has happened to me in the past. It is not an OS problem, it was for > me a > hardware issue. One or both of two things may be causing this problem. > > Some USB keyboards require more power than others. My USB keyboard would > exhibit > these same symptoms when plugged into a hub that was powered only by the > computer itself or another hub. So my particular USB keyboard must be > plugged > into a hub that has its own power supply. > Definitely try another keyboard as others have suggested. And another USB port ... maybe even try a PS2 keyboard if the mobo has one and you have one of those keyboards handy. On the topic of power... It's possible that your power supply is failing. You'll experience sluggishness ... it might take a few minutes to shutdown or reboot where it should only take a few seconds. Or when it gets worse, the machine refuses to turn on. If you can run a rescue OS on the system and it still acts up, then its most likely a hardware problem. >From there you get to swap "known good" components to track down the problem. ;-) -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 takes one second holding each keyboard key until it shows.
This has happened to me in the past. It is not an OS problem, it was for me a hardware issue. One or both of two things may be causing this problem. Some USB keyboards require more power than others. My USB keyboard would exhibit these same symptoms when plugged into a hub that was powered only by the computer itself or another hub. So my particular USB keyboard must be plugged into a hub that has its own power supply. Also, I have found that some USB keyboards are especially likely to exhibit these same symptoms when plugged into an unpowered USB 3 port. Login remotely via SSH never exhibited any of these keyboard symptoms. Perhaps this is the cause of your problem as well. On 08/28/2014 04:30 AM, Reinhard Dunkel wrote: > On 08/27/2014 06:07 PM, SilverTip257 wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Reinhard Dunkel >> wrote: >> >>> I used CentOS 5 for years. Suddenly, it takes one second holding a >>> keyboard key until it shows on the screen: >>> >>> >> Is this system accessible via SSH? >> Does the behavior only happen when using the physical keyboard? >> >> Might it be out of physical memory (RAM) and swapping violently? >> Disk thrashing of this sort can cause rather irritating delays. >> >> Or maybe a failing or failed drive? (Assuming you could have a hardware or >> software RAID setup) > Does CentOS now only support user request tracking by email? I cannot > find this thread on the CentOS web site... > > My computer has 4 GB Patriot memory - the maximum amount the motherboard > allows. Using command "top" shows less than one percent of CPU and > memory are in use. The computer is idle. I am using a 1 TB WD disk for > CentOS 5 and a 2 TB Seagate disk for CentOS 7. No RAID. > > On CentOS 5, I use command "su" to show a root shell. On CentOS 7, su no > longer works and I use "ssh root@localhost" instead. (I have not tried > SSH to access my CentOS systems remotely yet.) > > Concerning a previous comment: I did not modify the hardware likely > causing this problem. I only have to switch between both disks - > described above - to boot CentOS 5 or CentOS 7. My suspicion is "yum > update" using numerous official and unofficial "repos" installed > something causing this challenge. The login screen of CentOS 5 for user > name and password still works fine. By the way, we develop software > (NMRanalyst) and I try to keep a CentOS 5 system alive so we can test on > it to claim our software is supported on it. When I don't get further > suggestions, I likely re-install another disk with CentOS 5 - this time > using only official repos. > > ThanX for all suggestions! > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > > > * > David P. Both, RHCE > Millennium Technology Consulting LLC > 919-389-8678 > > db...@millennium-technology.com > > www.millennium-technology.com > www.databook.bz - Home of the DataBook for Linux > DataBook is a Registered Trademark of David Both > * > This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National > Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent to > the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related metadata, as > well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using > it. If you believe you have received this communication in error, please > delete it immediately. > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5 takes one second holding each keyboard key until it shows.
On 08/27/2014 06:07 PM, SilverTip257 wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Reinhard Dunkel > wrote: > >> I used CentOS 5 for years. Suddenly, it takes one second holding a >> keyboard key until it shows on the screen: >> >> > Is this system accessible via SSH? > Does the behavior only happen when using the physical keyboard? > > Might it be out of physical memory (RAM) and swapping violently? > Disk thrashing of this sort can cause rather irritating delays. > > Or maybe a failing or failed drive? (Assuming you could have a hardware or > software RAID setup) Does CentOS now only support user request tracking by email? I cannot find this thread on the CentOS web site... My computer has 4 GB Patriot memory - the maximum amount the motherboard allows. Using command "top" shows less than one percent of CPU and memory are in use. The computer is idle. I am using a 1 TB WD disk for CentOS 5 and a 2 TB Seagate disk for CentOS 7. No RAID. On CentOS 5, I use command "su" to show a root shell. On CentOS 7, su no longer works and I use "ssh root@localhost" instead. (I have not tried SSH to access my CentOS systems remotely yet.) Concerning a previous comment: I did not modify the hardware likely causing this problem. I only have to switch between both disks - described above - to boot CentOS 5 or CentOS 7. My suspicion is "yum update" using numerous official and unofficial "repos" installed something causing this challenge. The login screen of CentOS 5 for user name and password still works fine. By the way, we develop software (NMRanalyst) and I try to keep a CentOS 5 system alive so we can test on it to claim our software is supported on it. When I don't get further suggestions, I likely re-install another disk with CentOS 5 - this time using only official repos. ThanX for all suggestions! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
