Re: not all ports detected on 7-port Sabrent usb hub
On 2/11/21 1:17 PM, Stephen L. Talbott wrote: Greetings — Is there an reason why a rather vanilla SL-7.9 system might report “4 ports detected” on a new, Sabrent 7-port, powered USB 3.0 hub (HB-BUP7)? Memory sticks are recognized only in 4 ports. (I just now checked one of the other three for charging use, and it did appear, at least initially, that the device attached was being charged. But the Sabrent is advertised as having 7 data-transfer ports.) I purchased the Sabrent because it was recommended on a linux website as one of the most reliable for a linux system. Thanks. Steve Stephen L. Talbott https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bwo.life_slt.htm&d=DwIDaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A&m=xukaHA-2pUz81WbZL5b1SZFtYuQIjUjLZ6ufnQPCmkM&s=DRsmzzYC5zngmz2GJIsX2kgzuvl87z3OSCUBSagBunc&e= “Evolution As It Was Meant To Be” https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bwo.life_bk&d=DwIDaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A&m=xukaHA-2pUz81WbZL5b1SZFtYuQIjUjLZ6ufnQPCmkM&s=Wv-QN5Ciuy48CRX6wMrXS9StV2pS1h9MaOP1H40tNEM&e= Senior Researcher, The Nature Institute: natureinstitute.org Mailing address: 20 May Hill Road, Ghent NY 12075 Tel: 518-672-5049 Steve, You got a defective device
not all ports detected on 7-port Sabrent usb hub
Greetings — Is there an reason why a rather vanilla SL-7.9 system might report “4 ports detected” on a new, Sabrent 7-port, powered USB 3.0 hub (HB-BUP7)? Memory sticks are recognized only in 4 ports. (I just now checked one of the other three for charging use, and it did appear, at least initially, that the device attached was being charged. But the Sabrent is advertised as having 7 data-transfer ports.) I purchased the Sabrent because it was recommended on a linux website as one of the most reliable for a linux system. Thanks. Steve Stephen L. Talbott https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bwo.life_slt.htm&d=DwIDaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A&m=xukaHA-2pUz81WbZL5b1SZFtYuQIjUjLZ6ufnQPCmkM&s=DRsmzzYC5zngmz2GJIsX2kgzuvl87z3OSCUBSagBunc&e= “Evolution As It Was Meant To Be” https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bwo.life_bk&d=DwIDaQ&c=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA&r=gd8BzeSQcySVxr0gDWSEbN-P-pgDXkdyCtaMqdCgPPdW1cyL5RIpaIYrCn8C5x2A&m=xukaHA-2pUz81WbZL5b1SZFtYuQIjUjLZ6ufnQPCmkM&s=Wv-QN5Ciuy48CRX6wMrXS9StV2pS1h9MaOP1H40tNEM&e= Senior Researcher, The Nature Institute: natureinstitute.org Mailing address: 20 May Hill Road, Ghent NY 12075 Tel: 518-672-5049
Re: numfmt issue on SL 7.9; possible bug?
A question: Are there applications that use the affected glibc version and were used for mission-critical (or possibly life endangering) calculations? If so, all of the results of such calculations (including any done at Fermilab, CERN, or HEP for data analysis, detector calibration and modeling, etc.) are suspect. Are these users even deeply aware of the issue and the need to redo work? On 2/11/21 6:34 AM, ~Stack~ wrote: On 2/11/21 2:25 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:59 PM Dietrich, Stefan wrote: Hi, you might be running into this issue: bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925204 This has been introduced with glibc-2.17-322.el7_9 and has been fixed in glibc-2.17-323.el7_9. CentOS 7 already ships the updated version, on SL7 the version seems to be not yet available. Regards, Stefan Looks like the glibc-2.17-323.el7_9 update (RHBA-2021:0439) is not a security fix. SL usually publishes non-security updates on Tuesdays. Unless the devs decide to make it an exception, the update will be out on next Tue, Feb 16. Akemi Awesome! Thank you both. I think you are absolutely onto something. This also may explain why I can't get it to work reliably on my upstream vendor OS. Even though they are all the same coreutils version, I've got different versions of glibc running on them (we have a rolling update cycle for certain environments to help catch upgrade errors). Some are older and some are newer. The one having the problem is the same version. I didn't even think to check glibc. I will wait till next Tuesday. Thank you!
Re: numfmt issue on SL 7.9; possible bug?
On 2/11/21 2:25 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:59 PM Dietrich, Stefan wrote: Hi, you might be running into this issue: bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925204 This has been introduced with glibc-2.17-322.el7_9 and has been fixed in glibc-2.17-323.el7_9. CentOS 7 already ships the updated version, on SL7 the version seems to be not yet available. Regards, Stefan Looks like the glibc-2.17-323.el7_9 update (RHBA-2021:0439) is not a security fix. SL usually publishes non-security updates on Tuesdays. Unless the devs decide to make it an exception, the update will be out on next Tue, Feb 16. Akemi Awesome! Thank you both. I think you are absolutely onto something. This also may explain why I can't get it to work reliably on my upstream vendor OS. Even though they are all the same coreutils version, I've got different versions of glibc running on them (we have a rolling update cycle for certain environments to help catch upgrade errors). Some are older and some are newer. The one having the problem is the same version. I didn't even think to check glibc. I will wait till next Tuesday. Thank you!
Re: numfmt issue on SL 7.9; possible bug?
Can you supply the command you are typing to use the numfmt? Steve From: owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov on behalf of Ching Him Leung Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:10 PM To: scientific-linux-users Subject: Re: numfmt issue on SL 7.9; possible bug? I get "nan" on one SL7.9 computer but a "0" on another. Not sure what causes the difference.
Re: numfmt issue on SL 7.9; possible bug?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:59 PM Dietrich, Stefan wrote: > > Hi, > > you might be running into this issue: > bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925204 > > This has been introduced with glibc-2.17-322.el7_9 and has been fixed in > glibc-2.17-323.el7_9. > CentOS 7 already ships the updated version, on SL7 the version seems to be > not yet available. > > Regards, > Stefan Looks like the glibc-2.17-323.el7_9 update (RHBA-2021:0439) is not a security fix. SL usually publishes non-security updates on Tuesdays. Unless the devs decide to make it an exception, the update will be out on next Tue, Feb 16. Akemi
