Re: SL 7.1 PXE install: xfs not found
Hi, Yes, I'm aware of this and this is what I checked first. In fact, I removed the initrd from the directory where vmlinuz was located and it produced an error during PXE boot. Thus I am confident that I am using the intended vmlinuz and initrd. What really worries me is that the end result, just after the %pre script (the pb is the same is the script is empty), is that /lib/modules contains modules for an older kernel version... The only possibility for me would be to have the old initrd version (7.0) but I don't even have it on my system! Cheers, Michel Le 28/04/2015 19:20, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : I ran into this with upstream last week: http://smoogespace.blogspot.com/2015/04/note-to-future-self-random-problems.html The kernel and initrd.img must be the kernel and initrd.img that is in the version being used in the pivot root (eg if you have 7.0 kernel and 7.1 kernel). This was because the pxe boot was referring to an old kernel that I didn't realize until I checked what exactly the pxe server had. On 24 April 2015 at 10:52, Michel Jouvin jou...@lal.in2p3.fr mailto:jou...@lal.in2p3.fr wrote: I double-checked the kernel version used and the kernel version of the modules provided by initrd (using lsinitrd, I should have done it before) with SL 7.1: in fact, they are both the same, 3.10.0.229 tel:3.10.0.229. But when PXE booting vmlinuz+initrd, I end up with kernel modules for 3.10.0.123 tel:3.10.0.123 (version from 7.0) in /lib/modules... How this is possible? I removed the initrd file checked with lsinitrd to ensure that I was getting an error when booting about the missing file so I am really using this initrd file... I am lost... Any idea is welcome! Michel Le 24/04/2015 17:52, Michel Jouvin a écrit : Hi, I don't know if this is related in some ways to the other recent thread about SL 7.1, PXE install. I'm struggling with SL7.1 (and I have the same pb with CentOS 7.1) when trying to do a PXE install of a machine using the last versions of images/pxeboot/vmlinuz and initrd.img. The install fails when trying to set the default filesystem type to XFS (that I don't use on this machine) because the xfs module is not found. Looking at console (ALT/F2), I saw that the kernel version provided by vmlinuz (uname -r) is not matching the kernel version for which modules are provided in initrd (/lib/modules). If I take vmlinuz and initrd from SL7.0 I don't see the problem (but I am not sure I can install 7.1 booting with vmlinuz/initrd from 7.0). Is it expected ? Am I doing a trivial mistake ? Or is there an issue ? -- Stephen J Smoogen.
Re: SL 7.1 PXE install: xfs not found
I double-checked the kernel version used and the kernel version of the modules provided by initrd (using lsinitrd, I should have done it before) with SL 7.1: in fact, they are both the same, 3.10.0.229. But when PXE booting vmlinuz+initrd, I end up with kernel modules for 3.10.0.123 (version from 7.0) in /lib/modules... How this is possible? I removed the initrd file checked with lsinitrd to ensure that I was getting an error when booting about the missing file so I am really using this initrd file... I am lost... Any idea is welcome! Michel Le 24/04/2015 17:52, Michel Jouvin a écrit : Hi, I don't know if this is related in some ways to the other recent thread about SL 7.1, PXE install. I'm struggling with SL7.1 (and I have the same pb with CentOS 7.1) when trying to do a PXE install of a machine using the last versions of images/pxeboot/vmlinuz and initrd.img. The install fails when trying to set the default filesystem type to XFS (that I don't use on this machine) because the xfs module is not found. Looking at console (ALT/F2), I saw that the kernel version provided by vmlinuz (uname -r) is not matching the kernel version for which modules are provided in initrd (/lib/modules). If I take vmlinuz and initrd from SL7.0 I don't see the problem (but I am not sure I can install 7.1 booting with vmlinuz/initrd from 7.0). Is it expected ? Am I doing a trivial mistake ? Or is there an issue ?
/etc/nsswitch.conf not world readable after applying last sudo errata
Hi, We ran into a problem with all our SL 5.* systems after applying last errata where several commands are failing (everything trying to look at NIS/LDAP contents from userids for example) because sudo errata remove world read permission on /etc/nsswitch.conf. We were aware of this problem with SL 5.8... but it seems the problem has been backported! After some digging into RH bug database, it seems this is a known problem with this last version of sudo that happens when the sudo config has some specific contents. I'm a bit surprised that this has been delivered into the errata... Did we miss something? Anybody with some information/experience on this topic? Cheers, Michel * * Michel Jouvin Email : jou...@lal.in2p3.fr * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
Re: SL-6.3 Install xfce -
JE suis d'accord sur le fond mais la demande est impossible à satisfaire si on a 5 mn... Michel --On mardi 29 janvier 2013 17:09 -0500 Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA bobgood...@wildblue.net wrote: On 01/29/2013 04:49 PM, David Sommerseth wrote: When you log in via the graphical login screen, you should be able to choose desktop environment directly there. Usually at the bottom of the screen, iirc. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth Yes, that's what I expected but it's not there? Things have gone pretty well so far, a lot more to do to get what I want ... Thanks, Bob -- http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD box9 Fedora-18 Linux * * Michel Jouvin Email : jou...@lal.in2p3.fr * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
Re: setting usb port permissions in SL5.3
Thanks, I don't care about the SPEC quality, just want a working RPM!
I'll try them and let you know.
Cheers,
Michel
--On lundi 7 décembre 2009 10:56 -0800 Konstantin Olchanski
olcha...@triumf.ca wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:22:03PM -0600, James Battat wrote:
I would like to configure my SL5.3 system so that when a USB device (a
LabJack U3-LV) is plugged in, the group is automatically set to adm so
that members of that group can read/write the device.
Here is the magic incantation I use to set permissions on USB-serial
devices, it goes into /etc/udev/rules.d/49-usb_chmod_udev.rules
Observe the RUN+= entry executes the chmod command to change device
permissions, you may need to change it to chown to change ownership.
ladd00:~$ more etc_udev_rules.d_49-usb_chmod_udev.rules
ACTION==add, SUBSYSTEM==usb_device, \
PROGRAM=/bin/sh -c 'K=%k; K=$${K#usbdev}; printf
bus/usb/%%03i/%%03i $${K.*} $${K#*.}', RUN+=/bin/chmod a+wr
/proc/%c \ NAME=%c, MODE=0666
KERNEL==ttyUSB*, NAME=%k, GROUP=uucp, MODE=0666,
OPTIONS=last_rule
--
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada
*
* Michel Jouvin Email : jou...@lal.in2p3.fr *
* LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932*
* B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404*
* 91898 Orsay Cedex *
* France*
*
Re: Recommended 10Gbe NICs for SL5?
We have a very good experience with Myricom 10 GbE NICs, even on SL4. Michel --On vendredi 30 octobre 2009 16:08 -0500 Graham Allan al...@physics.umn.edu wrote: I'm curious if anyone has any positive or negative experiences with the various 10Gbe NICs available, in an SL5 system? I've heard of instability when using the Intel NICs (this on a CentOS 5 system, but I assume similar behaviour to SL), good reports on the Myricom NICs, and another positive report on Chelsio from our supercomputing guys (though I believe they are running Suse). Thanks, Graham -- - Graham Allan - I.T. Manager - al...@physics.umn.edu - (612) 624-5040 School of Physics and Astronomy - University of Minnesota - * * Michel Jouvin Email : jou...@lal.in2p3.fr * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
Re: Problem with pxe install on SL52
Yan, Please do what was suggested to troubleshoot tftp, this is the only solution and reinstalling will not help. The message you get is quite typical from a misconfigured pxelinux looking files at the wrong location and thus not finding them... which is exactly what the message is saying. The easiest is to find a tftp client and try the things manually. But it seems there is no tftp client in standard SL distrib, probably you can find one on the net. Else check your configuration. If you put the tftp stuff under /tftpboot, you need to have a line like the following in your /etc/xinetd.d/tftp: server_args = -s /tftpboot At LAL, we put the PXE stuff in /tftpboot/quattor. Here is the content of this directory: [r...@quattorsrv RPMS]# ls /tftpboot/quattor/ pxelinux.0 sl304_i386sl420_i386sl440_x86_64 sl510_x86_64 pxelinux.cfgsl305_i386sl420_x86_64 sl450_x86_64 sl520_x86_64 rescue sl305_i386.saved sl430_i386sl460_i386 rhel305_x86_64 sl307_i386sl430_x86_64 sl460_x86_64 sl303_i386 sl308_i386sl440_i386sl500_x86_64 pxelinux.cfg contents is managed by aii-shellfe command but you need to ensure you defined the following parameter in /etc/aii/aii-shellfe.conf: nbpdir = /tftpboot/quattor/pxelinux.cfg Michel --On vendredi 12 décembre 2008 23:24 +0800 Yan Xiaofei ya...@ihep.ac.cn wrote: Dear ALL I got problem when I use SL52 for dhcp + tftp + http server to install os for other client machine. But it have some problem. The client machine could get ip address from dhcp server. And get the boot loader file(pxelinux.0) from tftp server. But it could not continue to get the rest of the files. The error message is : The message is : PXE entry point found (we hope) at 97BC:00DA My IP address seems to be C0A83825 192.168.56.37 Ip=192.168.56.37:0.0.0.0:192.168.56.1:255.255.255.0 TFTP prefix: Trying to load:pxelinux.cfg/01-00-22-19-82-6f-27(This step is very slowly) Trying to load:pxelinux.cfg/C0A83825 (This step is very slowly) I have been use pxe for os install lot of time on sl4x. But never successful on sl5x. I test sl52_i386 and sl52_x86_64. It was the same problem. This was the log message on tftp and dhcp server : Dec 12 21:56:52 quattor dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:52 quattor dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 202.122.33.28 to 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:52 quattor dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:52 quattor dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 202.122.33.28 to 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:52 quattor dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.8 Dec 12 21:56:52 quattor dhcpd: DHCPOFFER on 202.122.33.28 to 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.8 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 202.122.33.28 (192.168.51.99) from 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor dhcpd: DHCPACK on 202.122.33.28 to 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 202.122.33.28 (192.168.51.99) from 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor dhcpd: DHCPACK on 202.122.33.28 to 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.1 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 202.122.33.28 (192.168.51.99) from 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.8 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor dhcpd: DHCPACK on 202.122.33.28 to 00:1f:29:ef:36:28 via 202.122.33.8 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor in.tftpd[23001]: RRQ from 202.122.33.28 filename pxelinux.0 Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor in.tftpd[23001]: tftp: client does not accept options Dec 12 21:56:56 quattor in.tftpd[23002]: RRQ from 202.122.33.28 filename pxelinux.0 - --- Yan Xiaofei Building: 209 Computing Center, IHEPTel: (+86) 10 8823 6852 19B Yuquan Road Fax：(+86) 10 8823 6839 P.O. Box 918-7Email: ya...@ihep.ac.cn Beijing 100049,China MSN: yyx...@gmail.com http://www.ihep.ac.cn - --- * * Michel Jouvin Email : jou...@lal.in2p3.fr * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
Re: SL 4 update of java-1.4.2-sun-compat also installs jdk 1.5.0
Yes, the problem should be caused by having 1.6.0 already installed. I ran into a similar problem recently. This is a JAva, not a JPackage issue. Java versions can coexist on the same machine but must be installed in order. You can install 1.6.x on a machine running 1.5.x but you cannot install 1.5.x on a machine with 1.6.x. The only workaround I found is to uninstall 1.6.x and resintall both. Michel --On mercredi 16 janvier 2008 10:38 +0100 Steve Traylen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Eva Myers wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:31:58AM -0800, Tony Hoffmann wrote: Last night's update of my SL4 based machines showed machines with the java-1.4.2-sun-compat package having jdk-1.5.0 and java-1.5.0-sun- compat installed as a dependency. Checking java-1.4.2-sun-compat does show java-1.5.0-sun-compat as being a requirement. Why is that? I have a related problem - my yum updates are failing with the message Error: Missing Dependency: jdk = 2000:1.5.0_14-fcs is needed by package +java-1.5.0-sun-compat The problem seems to be that I have a newer version of the JDK (1.6.0) installed locally. Is there any way to work around this problem without uninstalling the new JDK? I'm beginning to sound like a stuck record here. The JPackage packages of java coexist perfectly. Eva. -- Steve Traylen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Michel Jouvin Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
Re: SL 4 update of java-1.4.2-sun-compat also installs jdk 1.5.0
j2sdk is the former name in version 1.4 and it seems that it cannot coexist. Troy sent a message about that a couple of weeks ago. This is the reason he built a java-1.4.2-sun-compat that uses Java 1.5. It should work without reinstalling 1.4 (this is compatible from application point of view and should be transparent as long as java alternaives is correctly configured). Michel --On mercredi 16 janvier 2008 14:06 + Eva Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:51:53AM +0100, Michel Jouvin wrote: Yes, the problem should be caused by having 1.6.0 already installed. I ran into a similar problem recently. This is a JAva, not a JPackage issue. Java versions can coexist on the same machine but must be installed in order. You can install 1.6.x on a machine running 1.5.x but you cannot install 1.5.x on a machine with 1.6.x. The only workaround I found is to uninstall 1.6.x and resintall both. Dear Michel, Thank you, that worked, but now I have a question which may be stupid as I don't know much about Java. I had the j2sdk package installed, but it was automatically uninstalled as part of the update and won't reinstall. The error messages are Missing Dependency: j2sdk = 2000:1.4.2_90-fcs is needed by package java-1.4.2-sun-compat Missing Dependency: java-1.5.0-sun-compat is needed by package java-1.4.2-sun-compat What's the difference between j2sdk and jdk? Eva. * * Michel Jouvin Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
