Ray Van Dolson wrote:
So what does everyone out there use to generate web statistics these
days? Are the tried and true awstats or webalizer still the best out
there?
Ray
Awffull - http://www.stedee.id.au/awffull
--
H | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature.
+-
So what does everyone out there use to generate web statistics these
days? Are the tried and true awstats or webalizer still the best out
there?
Ray
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
on 5-15-2008 5:13 PM Guy Boisvert spake the following:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Guy Boisvert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only downside is that sometimes, it takes time to get them. It's
like
Tyan has problem producing enough for market demand.
Actua
on 5-16-2008 4:28 AM Anne Wilson spake the following:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 11:22:51 pm Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-14-2008 6:11 PM Jim Perrin spake the following:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Fajar Priyanto
wrote:
Googling my own name 'Fajar Priyanto Linux' returns 12,300 hits from
Google
2008/5/18 Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sergio Belkin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I was a server running Fedora 6. I want to migrate it to Xen on a
>> Centos 5.1. Can I make something like
>>
>
> You might want to take a look at this code that Richard has been working on
> recently :
>
> http://et.
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 15:00 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> I read an interesting take on "why" once. Can't remember the link
> though... nerds need to remember that normal folk appreciate niceities
> in conversation, and normal folk need to remember that nerds are often
> very blunt but aren't rea
On Sun, 18 May 2008, Tom Diehl wrote:
If you are sending secret or sensitive information via unencrypted
email you already have a bigger problem then weather or not google
is harvesting info. Email by design is insecure. Why anyone would
believe otherwise is unclear to me. If you are encryptin
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Ray Van Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Someone around for 10 years much less 51 years would know that
> Karanbir's style of communication should be considered "blunt" and not
> offensive. It's a common style of communication for developers. I
> never take i
on 5-16-2008 8:08 AM Carol Anne Ogdin spake the following:
Les Mikesell questioned, "...who would go there to post any answers?" The
answer is the same people who share here...and probably many more who find
this sparse medium harder to navigate. There's a thriving community I
helped create and
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 02:53:50PM -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 5-16-2008 8:14 AM Carol Anne Ogdin spake the following:
>> Dear Mr. Singh:
>>
>> I understand you prefer this medium. I have practical experience with
>> alternatives that have offered measurable and definite benefits to the
>> comm
Scott Silva wrote:
on 5-16-2008 8:14 AM Carol Anne Ogdin spake the following:
..Unfortunately, in
51 years in the computer industry, I've sometimes had to cope with
behaviors
like yours. It still makes me sad to experience such unhappy people who
think that attack is the best way to enric
on 5-16-2008 8:14 AM Carol Anne Ogdin spake the following:
Dear Mr. Singh:
I understand you prefer this medium. I have practical experience with
alternatives that have offered measurable and definite benefits to the
communities they serve.
Your opinions are louder than your putative experience
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Jerry Geis wrote:
I am using kickstart to automate installs. working nicely.
I now have a box with 2 NIC cards and I am getting prompted for which nick to
use.
I have a line like:
network --device eth0 --bootproto dhcp --hostname tmp.msgnet.com
in my kickstart.
This line
I am using kickstart to automate installs. working nicely.
I now have a box with 2 NIC cards and I am getting prompted for which
nick to use.
I have a line like:
network --device eth0 --bootproto dhcp --hostname tmp.msgnet.com
in my kickstart.
This line does not seem to be enough to say instal
MHR wrote:
Yes, using fqpn's is best in situations like this, but if I read the
above correctly, you want:
ln -s /mnt/jack/files /opt/files
because you said you mounted jack's /opt on jill's /mnt/jack, not
jack's / (root).
Still, why you would get /opt/files/files is a mystery to me, too.
Yo
carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I need to build a NFS CentOS 5.1 based server with LVM and snaphosts
for disaster recovering to serve storage to three ESX servers for a
development dept. I have 500 GB for storage. Data that I need to store
on this server is 150 GB and can grow to 210 GB to the end
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Bowie Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Cox wrote:
>> I have a number directories under /opt on computer jack. I want some
>> (not all) of them to appear in /opt on computer jill.
>>
>> I have the /opt directory on jack mounted on jill under /mnt/jack
>>
I
>Hello all, I've been googling and haven't found an answer. I have a
>Centos 4.6 box that is having an issue since the last yum update. The
>nss_ldap and kernel packages were the only packages installed/updated.
>When I try to run yum I now receive:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update
>There was a p
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Does anyone know the point of the patch in the first place? That is, why
>> would a distro-specific modification have been needed at all? I don't
>> suspect an intentional compromise here but I'm cu
Frank Cox wrote:
> I have a number directories under /opt on computer jack. I want some
> (not all) of them to appear in /opt on computer jill.
>
> I have the /opt directory on jack mounted on jill under /mnt/jack
>
> If I go into the /opt directory on jill and do this:
>
> ln -s /mnt/jack/opt/
Les Mikesell wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
- What does our upstream think about this?
- What do the OpenSSH developers think about this?
Someone is going to need to ask those questions of the people...
I don't think the OpenSSH devels really do care about that - there is no
discussion whats
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
- What does our upstream think about this?
- What do the OpenSSH developers think about this?
Someone is going to need to ask those questions of the people...
I don't think the OpenSSH devels really do care about that - there is no
discussion whatsoever on the securesh
Christopher Chan wrote:
Sorry, I did not read your mail through properly. Not mounted on the
secondary, okay. Anyway, quite a fair bit off complexity there in making
sure the network block device does not get mounted by both boxes at the
same time.
Is it really worth the complexity when you
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reac
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> Because it would be shooting cannons at birds in this particular case.
>> If you need to expose both nodes "to the public" all the time, you
>> probably also run the software on both nodes - which would be more of a
>> cluster than a failover setup >:)
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
There are primary/primary setups possible with drbd and gfs if you need
both nodes to be exported at the same time - but that's not needed nor
recommended in a failover situation.
Why would it not be recommen
Christopher Chan wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> There are primary/primary setups possible with drbd and gfs if you need
>> both nodes to be exported at the same time - but that's not needed nor
>> recommended in a failover situation.
>>
>
> Why would it not be recommended for a failover situati
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 23:50 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Christopher Chan wrote:
> >
> >> Besides, as John already pointed out, emails in the spools can hang
> >> around for days. I believe most MTA's only discard completely after
> >> 7days of non delivery.
> >
> > That default setting is no
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
No and yes. You can just use ext3 on both nodes as you normally only
have the one on the primary node mounted - the other one is not accessed
by anything. And yes, with heartbeat you "just" failover to the second
node, if the
Christopher Chan wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> No and yes. You can just use ext3 on both nodes as you normally only
>> have the one on the primary node mounted - the other one is not accessed
>> by anything. And yes, with heartbeat you "just" failover to the second
>> node, if the first one is
Christopher Chan wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Okay, Les helped me with that one. RAID1 on the network. So you would
have to use GFS or something like that with it and have the service
down on the secondary unless it was sendmail you were running.
No and yes. You can
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
Okay, Les helped me with that one. RAID1 on the network. So you would have
to use GFS or something like that with it and have the service down on the
secondary unless it was sendmail you were running.
No and yes. You can just use ext3 on both nod
Christopher Chan wrote:
> Okay, Les helped me with that one. RAID1 on the network. So you would have
> to use GFS or something like that with it and have the service down on the
> secondary unless it was sendmail you were running.
No and yes. You can just use ext3 on both nodes as you normally o
John R Pierce wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
That default setting is no longer applicable today. Users will scream
if they find out that their mails have been sitting in the queue for a
day. For today's businesses, one day can make or break a deal and so
email, being a much faster form of comm
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Christopher Chan wrote:
I am sorry but I do not share that view for incoming mail. The latency
in getting the mail replicated probably is longer than it takes to do
the actually delivery to the mail store.
I am not sure what you mean by the word 'replication' but in most
DRBD works approximately like raid1 mirroring. Unless something breaks
it shouldn't add much latency since the duplicate disk will run at
approximately the same speed as the master.
RAID1 + network latency. Got it.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@
36 matches
Mail list logo
