Bill Campbell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ern jura wrote:
Does anyone out there have a comprehensive tutorial on installing VMware
and
successfully managing virtual machines with either xen or vmware?
VMware is pretty simple: download the server rpm, install it, run the
v
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
>Ern jura wrote:
>>Does anyone out there have a comprehensive tutorial on installing VMware
>>and
>>successfully managing virtual machines with either xen or vmware?
>
>VMware is pretty simple: download the server rpm, install it, run the
>vmware-config.p
sar and iostat are perfect, thanks!
yum install sysstat
Ed
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Barry Brimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box.
> Nothing
> > crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage e
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Ed Donahue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing
> crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min
> to 5 mins.
> I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see w
Hey,
I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing
crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min
to 5 mins.
I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see when if swap gets used and
cpu spikes.
How about sar? It is part of the sysstat
Hey,
I am looking for healt monitoring software for my centos5.1 box. Nothing
crazy (like nagios), just something that records memory/cpu usage every min
to 5 mins.
I added some vmware stuff and was looking to see when if swap gets used and
cpu spikes.
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Bernd Bartmann wrote:
Hi,
the latest Centos 5 krb5 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 do not get applied to any of
my servers. I can see the updates being available on the mirror
servers, but "yum update" shows nothing. The krb5 updates for Centos 4
were installed on all of my Centos 4 serv
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> copyright law?
>>>
>>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
>>> SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
>>> code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
>>>
>>> So, distributing the RPM
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> >>> copyright law?
> >>>
> >>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
> >>> SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
> >>> code unl
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Daniel de Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> RMS and the FSF
Les Mikesell wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) w
Bernd Bartmann wrote:
Hi,
the latest Centos 5 krb5 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 do not get applied to any of
my servers. I can see the updates being available on the mirror
servers, but "yum update" shows nothing. The krb5 updates for Centos 4
were installed on all of my Centos 4 servers without any problem
Hi,
the latest Centos 5 krb5 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 do not get applied to any of
my servers. I can see the updates being available on the mirror
servers, but "yum update" shows nothing. The krb5 updates for Centos 4
were installed on all of my Centos 4 servers without any problem. Does
somebody have any
>> OK when you say livecd, do you mean the Centos 5.1 distro
>> disks? I have a full set of them, a 7 disk set I got from Linux Central.
>> Can I just boot off disk 1 from my set?
>
> LiveCD as in the livecd:
>
> eg :
> http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.1/isos/i386/CentOS-5.1-i386-LiveCD.iso
>
>>
Steve Snyder wrote:
On Sunday 23 March 2008 7:11:41 am Kieran Clancy wrote:
[snip]
So the total cached read bandwidth seems limited to about 2250 MB/s,
which is slightly higher than the cache read bandwidth for /dev/md2,
but I'm not too worried about that. More concerning is that I am
still gett
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
yOn Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL
portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are
just charging for each copy.
Yes
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 09:36 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> But adding a signature to an
> already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the
> contents of the package.
Argh, no, it could.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 14:25 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL
> portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are
> just charging for each copy.
Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if y
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 08:57 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
> > > sig
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talki
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
>> it is a restric
On Sunday 23 March 2008 12:36, Sam Drinkard wrote:
> Ann,
>
> Actually I had to add read / execute permissions to the aliases.db
> to stop the error messages. I'd just like to know what clamav is doing
> to it or why it needs to read it.
>
> I installed the clamav with yum but for some rea
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
> > signature that's applied to the package itself.
>
> A signature is just a spe
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
> signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how
that could be licensed
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Kieran Clancy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have two 320 GB SATA disks (/dev/sda, /dev/sdb) in a server running
> CentOS release 5.
>
> They both have three partitions setup as RAID1 using md (boot, swap,
> and an LVM data partition).
>
>
> When I do
Ann,
Actually I had to add read / execute permissions to the aliases.db
to stop the error messages. I'd just like to know what clamav is doing
to it or why it needs to read it.
I installed the clamav with yum but for some reason it does not know
it's in there. How to fix?
Sam
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 07:02 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on
> > the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages
> > *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
> >> it is a restriction upon yo
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have
> signed an agreement that as long a
On Sunday 23 March 2008 7:11:41 am Kieran Clancy wrote:
[snip]
> So the total cached read bandwidth seems limited to about 2250 MB/s,
> which is slightly higher than the cache read bandwidth for /dev/md2,
> but I'm not too worried about that. More concerning is that I am
> still getting ~80MB/s fro
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update
service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Kieran Clancy wrote:
When I do tests though, I find that the md raid1 read performance is
no better than either of the two disks on their own
Why should RAID1 be faster than writing to/reading from a single disc?
You are *mirroring* each write to an
Kieran Clancy wrote:
> When I do tests though, I find that the md raid1 read performance is
> no better than either of the two disks on their own
Why should RAID1 be faster than writing to/reading from a single disc?
You are *mirroring* each write to another disk, so I'd even expect it to
be slowe
Hi,
I have two 320 GB SATA disks (/dev/sda, /dev/sdb) in a server running
CentOS release 5.
They both have three partitions setup as RAID1 using md (boot, swap,
and an LVM data partition).
# cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1]
md0 : active raid1 sdb1[1] sda1[0]
104320 blocks [2/2] [UU
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > > They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have
> > > signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
> it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update
> service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package th
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Matt Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict
> > it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other li
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights
> as specified in the contract.
IANAL I don't think that is possible. According to the GPLv2:
"4. You may not copy, modify, *sublicense*, or distr
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> >>> And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law
> >>> would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code
> >>> access. The RHEL license covers binary acce
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> =
> >>
> >> The rest is available for
43 matches
Mail list logo
