On 05/15/2010 11:23 PM, fred smith wrote:
> a couple hours after the update (and requisite reboot and reinstallation
> of nvidia proprietary driver), I noticed I wasn't gettting any email.
> upon a little investigation, I noted that the update had replaced my
> custom sendmail.cf with its own. I do
a couple hours after the update (and requisite reboot and reinstallation
of nvidia proprietary driver), I noticed I wasn't gettting any email.
upon a little investigation, I noted that the update had replaced my
custom sendmail.cf with its own. I don't recall updates to sendmail
doing that previous
That's funny. We *just* went over this in a thread with the subject
"not firewall, but what?". I even posted an example shorewall
configuration that does what you're trying to do.
You should either use shorewall, or if you're more familiar with Linux's
"ip" command, set up the route-eth1 and
On 05/14/2010 12:10 AM, Jussi Hirvi wrote:
>
> Ok, rc.d/routes is probably it
Looks that way. I find that relatively reassuring. No "linux magic"
involved. But then, if you didn't set that up, who did?
> (on the "healthy" machine I previously
> used as a reference). I will have to study the i
Just updated a laptop.. everything went smoothly but noticed one issue.
After updating and rebooting, I did a print test using enscript to
print a test file. In a few seconds, the CPU utilization shot way up.
The ghostprint gs program was using 99% CPU. The laptop fans started
spinning at the high
> Barry Brimer wrote:
>>> Now, what about the post-release updates. Any idea when those are coming?
>>
>> Perhaps you missed the following section in the announcements:
I did indeed (face palm, shakes head). Thanks for pointing that out. will
update now and see how it goes. Thanks!
*
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 15:36 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> > In fact centos already makes i586 kernels for centos5. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if they did the same for centos6.
>
> Well, CentOS provides i586 kernels for CentOS-4 but not -5.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> In fact centos already makes i586 kernels for centos5. I wouldn't be
> surprised if they did the same for centos6.
Well, CentOS provides i586 kernels for CentOS-4 but not -5.
Akemi
___
CentOS maili
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Michael Simpson
> wrote:
>> sorry for bumping the thread,
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589332
>>
>> not bug but feature.
Interesting, I didn't realize the Pentium M didn't have PAE support.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM, E Westphal wrote:
> Ditto here as well. All 133 packages updated without a problem. When
> re-booting, got a 'warning' that kdump had to rebuild. Once that completed,
> everything seems as it was before. Yes, things do seem a little 'snappier' -
> maybe it's only
On Saturday 15 May 2010 16:34, Robert wrote:
> Only disappointment so far is that lm_sensors still doesn't grok the
> AMD K-10 thermal sensors - a situation I grumble about even as I file
> it in the "beggars can't be choosers" folder.
That's strange, because lM-sensors now detects my AMD Phe
Robert wrote:
>
> Only disappointment so far is that lm_sensors still doesn't grok the AMD
> K-10 thermal sensors - a situation I grumble about even as I file it in
> the "beggars can't be choosers" folder.
>
That's because your kernel does not have a k10temp driver - it was only
introduce
On 05/15/2010 02:49 PM, E Westphal informed us:
> Ditto here as well. All 133 packages updated without a problem. When
> re-booting, got a 'warning' that kdump had to rebuild. Once that
> completed, everything seems as it was before. Yes, things do seem a
> little 'snappier' - maybe it's only
yep, the release was pretty close ;-)
thanks guys!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ditto here as well. All 133 packages updated without a problem. When
re-booting, got a 'warning' that kdump had to rebuild. Once that
completed, everything seems as it was before. Yes, things do seem a
little 'snappier' - maybe it's only a delusion brought about by wishful
thinking - I like it when
Jerry Geis a écrit :
> I was getting MANY emails from XXX.hinet.net - kind of filled my mqueue
> directory.
> I stopped sendmail. removed all the files in mqueue, added to sendmail
> access a REJECT for hinet.net
> This certainly seems to help - but is that the correct way to take care
> of this
My desktop updated without a hitch... well, actually, I ran out of
disk space after the download completed, so had to clear some space,
but the update process continued from where I left off without a hitch
-- and that's hardly CentOS's fault. I've still got to update my
laptop, but am a little lee
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Does that mean they are probably caught up now, or is there some way to tell?
>
Don't know about that, but I got this:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/updates/x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.1.1-48.76.el5_5.1.x86_64.rpm:
[Errno 14] HT
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Colin Coles wrote:
> Hi,
> I have updated 8 machines so far and 2 are refusing to boot on
> 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 kernel, they just hang at: 'Starting udev:' but when I
> revert to 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 kernel they boot fine. Any pointers?
When I ran into a similar pr
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 12:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> You probably need to do something more drastic like setting up
> spam/virus
> scanning and maybe graylisting.
I originally just had spamassassin going, but after I added the REJECT
lines to the access file the load on my mailserver wen
Jerry Geis wrote:
> I was getting MANY emails from XXX.hinet.net - kind of filled my mqueue
> directory.
> I stopped sendmail. removed all the files in mqueue, added to sendmail
> access a REJECT for hinet.net
> This certainly seems to help - but is that the correct way to take care
> of this so
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:45 -0400, Jerry Geis wrote:
> I was getting MANY emails from XXX.hinet.net - kind of filled my
> mqueue
> directory.
> I stopped sendmail. removed all the files in mqueue, added to
> sendmail
> access a REJECT for hinet.net
> This certainly seems to help - but is that th
Barry Brimer wrote:
>> Now, what about the post-release updates. Any idea when those are coming?
>
> Perhaps you missed the following section in the announcements:
>
> +++
> Pending Updates:
>
> Since upstream released their 5.5 media, a series of updates have been
> issued.
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
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
centos-announce-requ..
I was getting MANY emails from XXX.hinet.net - kind of filled my mqueue
directory.
I stopped sendmail. removed all the files in mqueue, added to sendmail
access a REJECT for hinet.net
This certainly seems to help - but is that the correct way to take care
of this sort of thing?
Thanks,
Jerry
>
> This sounds more like a destination NAT issue then a routing issue.
>
> If I'm correct you have a server behind eth0 that handles traffic
> forwarded to it from either eth1 or eth2. So if someone types in the
> IP address of eth2 (or eth1) in their browser they'll get your server
> behind eth0.
On Saturday 15 May 2010 12:55, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 05/15/2010 12:27 PM, Colin Coles wrote:
> > I have updated 8 machines so far and 2 are refusing to boot on
> > 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 kernel, they just hang at: 'Starting udev:' but when I
> > revert to 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 kernel they boot fin
On 05/15/2010 12:27 PM, Colin Coles wrote:
> I have updated 8 machines so far and 2 are refusing to boot on
> 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 kernel, they just hang at: 'Starting udev:' but when I
> revert to 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 kernel they boot fine. Any pointers?
Do you have anything non-standard on the ma
Just updated ~15 box x86_64 here to CentOS 5.5. Kernel
2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 works without any problem. Thanks CentOS team for
this excellent work!
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 13:27, Colin Coles wrote:
> Hi,
> I have updated 8 machines so far and 2 are refusing to boot on
> 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 kernel,
Hi,
I have updated 8 machines so far and 2 are refusing to boot on
2.6.18-194.3.1.el5 kernel, they just hang at: 'Starting udev:' but when I
revert to 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 kernel they boot fine. Any pointers?
Cheers,
Colin.
___
CentOS mailing list
Cen
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:02:04PM -0400, Jerry Geis wrote:
> >
> > GATEWAY=74.223.8.177 on /etc/sysconfig/network file ?
> >
> Actually I have that in the ifcfg-eth1 and ifcfg-eth2. And this is hte
> route I get.
>
> DEVICE=eth1
> ONBOOT=YES
> BOOTPROTO=static
> IPADDR=74.223.8.179
> NETMASK=
31 matches
Mail list logo
