Hello Stuart,
On 06/25/2015 11:51 PM, Stuart Barkley wrote:
For (ssh based) X forwarding no X server needs to run on the server.
I usually install the xorg-x11-xauth (necessary) and xterm (optional)
rpms on all my servers in case X forwarding becomes necessary.
Then from your desktop (assum
Let me google that for you:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cpio+cap_set_file&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 first link
That would be £10 my good sir.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Kenneth Wolcott"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015
I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who
prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *dramatically* better disk
performance than file-backed VMs.
I
Am 26.06.2015 um 12:47 schrieb Steve Clark :
> On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:42:13 UTC 2015
>>
>>> I wondered the same thing, especially in the context of someone who
>>> prefers virtual machines. LV-backed VMs have *drama
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..
On 06/25/15 18:02, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:55:41 -0400
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
mark "and why is it called xorg-x11-server, when in X
terminology, it's the client?"*
* Which I always thought was bass-ackward, but...
You should think of it this way: the program that
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and
> file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the
> mount process must make sure they're mounted in that order, or there's
> failure.
I've nev
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 06:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I did a bunch of testing of Raw, qcow2, and LV backed VM storage circa
>> Fedora 19/20 and found very little difference. What mattered most was
>> the (libvirt) cache setting, accessible by virsh
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 at 03:16 -, Alexandru Chiscan wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 11:51 PM, Stuart Barkley wrote:
> > Then from your desktop (assuming Linux already running X) in a
> > local xterm do something like:
> >
> > ssh -Y remote-system
>
> Do not use that because any user logged on the se
On 06/26/2015 07:58 AM, Mark Milhollan wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Gordon Messmer wrote:
1) If you have a system with a single disk, you have to reboot to add
partitions for new guests. Linux won't refresh the partition table on the disk
it boots from.
I'm not sure this is still true, but I u
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and
>> file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the
>> mount process must make sure
On 06/26/2015 12:16 AM, Alexandru Chiscan wrote:
Do not use that because any user logged on the server can connect to
your X server display and snoop what you are doing, open windows etc.
-Y disables all the X server authentication mechanisms
(http://www.x.org/wiki/Development/Documentation/Se
On 06/26/2015 05:04 AM, mark wrote:
You misunderstand me: I understand the terminology, and why they chose
it. I simply disagree with their choice, and have always found it
confusing, esp. to anyone coming into it since, um, the mid/late 80's,
when *everything* else in the world used the termin
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Gordon Messmer
wrote:
>> , or alternatively making the LVs
>> redundant after install is a single command (each) and you can choose
>> whether it should be mere mirroring or some MD manged RAID level (modulo
>> the LVM RAID MD monitoring issue).
>
>
> I hadn't re
At Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:58:07 -0400 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and
> > file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/efi. Therefore the
> > mount process mu
On 6/26/2015 12:38 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
At Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:58:07 -0400 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:27:47PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
It's bad design. First, it's a nested mount: file system A on /, and
file system B on /boot, and file system C on /boot/ef
Sorry, just a follow up to see if anyone has similar experiences with the
method of kickstarting bridges on CentOS 7.1. According to the docs things are
correct for 7.1 and I just want to make sure I'm not doing something
incorrectly before filing a bug with Red Hat
- Original Message
On 6/26/2015 12:34 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
At the moment, LVM RAID is only supported with conventional/thick
provisioning. So if you want to do software RAID and also use LVM thin
provisioning, you still need to use mdadm (or hardware RAID).
You can do thin pools as RAID[1,5,N], just not in
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:54:07AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> This makes no sense to me. rEFInd dynamically discovers linux kernel
> updates, it doesn't need any regular configuration file changes. Once
> you configure it, it's a static configuration file unlike grub.cfg or
> extlinux.conf.
>
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
