On 16/01/2019 02:04, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:43:02AM +, Phil Perry (ppe...@elrepo.org) wrote:
On 15/01/2019 01:29, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:29:45AM +, Phil Perry (ppe...@elrepo.org) wrote:
On 14/01/2019 07:09, Jobst Schmalenbach
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 07:43:02AM +, Phil Perry (ppe...@elrepo.org) wrote:
> On 15/01/2019 01:29, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:29:45AM +, Phil Perry (ppe...@elrepo.org)
> > wrote:
> > > On 14/01/2019 07:09, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
> Below is my script for cre
On 15/01/2019 01:29, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:29:45AM +, Phil Perry (ppe...@elrepo.org) wrote:
On 14/01/2019 07:09, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
Hi
I use ipdeny's aggregated country lists to do the same thing:
http://www.ipdeny.com/ipblocks/data/aggregated/
I ju
--On Monday, January 14, 2019 7:29 AM + Phil Perry
wrote:
I use ipdeny's aggregated country lists to do the same thing:
http://www.ipdeny.com/ipblocks/data/aggregated/
I just feed this data directly into ipset/iptables via a script running
on my firewall (not a C6 box). ipset is a really
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:29:45AM +, Phil Perry (ppe...@elrepo.org) wrote:
> On 14/01/2019 07:09, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
> > Hi
> I use ipdeny's aggregated country lists to do the same thing:
>
> http://www.ipdeny.com/ipblocks/data/aggregated/
>
> I just feed this data directly into ips
On 14/01/2019 07:09, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
Hi
Specs in subject line: CentOS 6.X all latest patches), iptables 1.47, Apache2.2
I use the Geolite legacy databases together with iptables 1.47 to filter
traffic for a variety of ports and only allow .AU traffic to have access.
I use ipdeny's
Hi
Specs in subject line: CentOS 6.X all latest patches), iptables 1.47, Apache2.2
I use the Geolite legacy databases together with iptables 1.47 to filter
traffic for a variety of ports and only allow .AU traffic to have access.
Maxmind (https://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/geoip2/geolite2/) changed
A couple of years ago I installed C6 on a ThinkPad A20 (512MB ram, 450MHz
cpu). It runs, but is painfully slow. It can handle vi in an xterm, but
not a modern web browser. Even a simple yum update takes too long.
Personally, i suggest staying with C5 and planning to recycle the hardware
when C5
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:03PM +, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Phil Wyett wrote:
>
> > RHEL version min/max specs can be found:
> >
> > https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits
>
> Ignorant question: what does POWER mean in these tables?
I believe that would be the IBM POWER series of
Phil Wyett wrote:
> RHEL version min/max specs can be found:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits
Ignorant question: what does POWER mean in these tables?
--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin
___
Le 24/03/2015 09:52, Phil Wyett a écrit :
RHEL version min/max specs can be found:
https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel-limits
Thanks! That's exactly the document I was looking for.
Cheers,
Niki
--
Microlinux - Solutions informatiques 100% Linux et logiciels libres
7, place de l'église -
Le 24/03/2015 09:45, Ashish Yadav a écrit :
Try considering Bodhi and Puppy Linux also.
Thanks but no. As I already stated, I have my own blend of Slackware for
this. My question was: I want to install CentOS (and not $OTHER_DISTRO)
on these machines, so what are the minimum specs?
--
Micro
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:38 +0100, Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Le 24/03/2015 08:34, John R Pierce a écrit :
> > I'd be looking at something like TinyLinux or DamnSmallLinux on those.
>
> I don't want anything else than CentOS for the job.
>
> I used to install my own heavily customized version of Slackw
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I often have to deal with relatively obsolete hardware in schools, public
> libraries, small town halls, etc. I still have a handful of CentOS 5.x
> installations around for these, but I wonder what CentOS 6.x desktop specs
> are
Le 24/03/2015 08:34, John R Pierce a écrit :
I'd be looking at something like TinyLinux or DamnSmallLinux on those.
I don't want anything else than CentOS for the job.
I used to install my own heavily customized version of Slackware on
these machines (http://www.microlinux.fr/slackware/), but
On 3/24/2015 12:19 AM, Niki Kovacs wrote:
I often have to deal with relatively obsolete hardware in schools,
public libraries, small town halls, etc. I still have a handful of
CentOS 5.x installations around for these, but I wonder what CentOS
6.x desktop specs are, e. g. the minimum requiremen
Hi,
I often have to deal with relatively obsolete hardware in schools,
public libraries, small town halls, etc. I still have a handful of
CentOS 5.x installations around for these, but I wonder what CentOS 6.x
desktop specs are, e. g. the minimum requirements (in terms of CPU and
RAM) to reas
>On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Keith Keller
> wrote:
> On 2013-03-22, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
>>
>> Please help me understand to choose between the two versions CentOS 6.3 and
>> CentOS 6.4. I am not sure to choose 6.4 since it is being released
>> recently(
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail
On 2013-03-22, Kaushal Shriyan wrote:
>
> Please help me understand to choose between the two versions CentOS 6.3 and
> CentOS 6.4. I am not sure to choose 6.4 since it is being released
> recently(
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2013-March/019276.html)
> and it may be risky t
Hi
Please help me understand to choose between the two versions CentOS 6.3 and
CentOS 6.4. I am not sure to choose 6.4 since it is being released
recently(
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2013-March/019276.html)
and it may be risky to push it in Live environment.
Regards,
Kaush
Laurence, Thank you for the information!
On Jul 27, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Laurence Hurst wrote:
> On 27/07/2012 15:58, TFML wrote:
>> I was curious, why was /proc/ide removed and was it moved to another
>> directory to obtain ide drivers information?
>
> From the upstream vendor's deployment guid
On 27/07/2012 15:58, TFML wrote:
> I was curious, why was /proc/ide removed and was it moved to another
> directory to obtain ide drivers information?
From the upstream vendor's deployment guide[0]: "Later versions of the
2.6 kernel have made the /proc/ide/ and /proc/pci/ directories obsolete.
I was curious, why was /proc/ide removed and was it moved to another directory
to obtain ide drivers information?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/17/2012 06:27 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> (bad form replying to myself)
>
> I've found the issue upstream:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729586
>
> Last comment there saying there are patches in an as yet unreleased
> kernel-2.6.32-229.el6. I've had a quick look at the SRPMS
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:35:07 +0100
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi,
>
> Please dont toppost, trim your reply and keep context in your replies.
Apologies (mail sent before coffee this morning!)
> On 04/17/2012 08:04 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> > them as 'xvdN' but N in this case is 'e', not 'a', 'f',
hi,
Please dont toppost, trim your reply and keep context in your replies.
On 04/17/2012 08:04 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> them as 'xvdN' but N in this case is 'e', not 'a', 'f', not 'b' and so
> on.
And labels dont help here ?
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter
(bad form replying to myself)
I've found the issue upstream:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=729586
Last comment there saying there are patches in an as yet unreleased
kernel-2.6.32-229.el6. I've had a quick look at the SRPMS upstream and
don't see that one yet so a related question:
Hi Karanbir,
That's the thing, older (non pv-grub aware kernels) did used to map
them with the old scsi device names, but here now it's still mapping
them as 'xvdN' but N in this case is 'e', not 'a', 'f', not 'b' and so
on.
Upstream seem to have a handful of bugs related to dracut and initramfs
On 04/16/2012 10:44 AM, Steph Gosling wrote:
> Does anyone have any similar experience or advice?
>
because the devices are now mapped as sda/sdb instead of xvda/xvdb ?
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtal
Hi,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:55:17 +0200
wwp wrote:
> Hello Steph,
>
> Check if the thread "Recent kernel update vs usb disk" is related to
> your issue (I presume so), thread is from early March 2012.
>
>
> Regards,
Think the problems are different as this isn't related to the USB
subsystem.
Hello Steph,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:44:24 +0100 Steph Gosling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is anyone successfully running/has succesfully upgraded to 2.6.32-220
> from, say, 2.6.32-71.29.1? (i.e. done a normal run-of-the-mill yum
> update on, say a 6.0 instance all the way up cleanly to 6.2?
>
> Reas
Hi all,
Is anyone successfully running/has succesfully upgraded to 2.6.32-220
from, say, 2.6.32-71.29.1? (i.e. done a normal run-of-the-mill yum
update on, say a 6.0 instance all the way up cleanly to 6.2?
Reason I ask is that booting into -220 (and I think also into -131 as
well) results in a ke
Thanks much to* Christoph *for pointing me in the right direction, appears
to be an issue with the latest Vmware -tools, not sure I did a clean
install with the opensource ones to see if they had the same issues but
applying both of the fixes in the link post solves the problem with running
the lat
Looks like it might be this, will not get a chance to test until tonight
but this reads just like what I am seeing...will post back, I debated on
going with the esx tools vs the open source tools, looks like I guessed
wrong :(
From: christoph.galuschka@chello.a
Tom,
take a look at this post, may
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Tom Bishop wrote:
> Finally got a chance to install Centos 6.x x86_64 version and having an
> issue with the latest version of freenx. This is a desktop install on a
> esxi 5 with all updates and only thing I have installed is the latest
> vmware tools. When I en
Finally got a chance to install Centos 6.x x86_64 version and having an
issue with the latest version of freenx. This is a desktop install on a
esxi 5 with all updates and only thing I have installed is the latest
vmware tools. When I enable the extras repo and install the
nx-3.5.0-1.el6.ay.x86_6
On 5 January 2012 22:26, John R Pierce wrote:
> this doesn't mean it won't work, but what it does mean is that if
> something goes sideways on you, oracle won't help you one bit, and since
> you pay a substantial chunk of money annually for that precious support,
> its insane NOT to use a supporte
On 5 January 2012 22:47, Craig White wrote:
> seems to me that the sanity issue was forefront at the point before when they
> chose to use Oracle in the first place but Larry loves you.
>
There are plenty of good reasons for using Oracle DB products - it's
definitely one of the best out there - b
On 5 January 2012 22:11, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2012/01/03/dell-engineering-preview-oracle-11gr2-rac-on-rhel6.aspx
> http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/enterprise-solutions/w/oracle_solutions/3336.aspx
And?
First paragraph from t
On Jan 5, 2012, at 3:26 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> this doesn't mean it won't work, but what it does mean is that if
> something goes sideways on you, oracle won't help you one bit, and since
> you pay a substantial chunk of money annually for that precious support,
> its insane NOT to use a s
On 01/05/12 2:11 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2012/01/03/dell-engineering-preview-oracle-11gr2-rac-on-rhel6.aspx
> http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/enterprise-solutions/w/oracle_solutions/3336.aspx
the bottom line for Oracle Suppo
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:53:16AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 04:29 AM, Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
> > 2012/1/4 An Yang
> >
> >> Somebody in Oracle told me, they need one year to test, I'm not sure,
> >> it's true or not.
> >>
> > That's about right. The testing isn't done by O
2012/1/5 An Yang :
> Greate!
> "end vendor" people said, Consequently, we confidently recommend the
> deployment of Oracle 11gR2 in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 production
> environments today.
Your database support agreement is not with "the end vendor" but the
database software supplier and as far
At 2012-01-04 Wed 09:53 -0600，Johnny Hughes wrote：
> On 01/04/2012 04:29 AM, Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
> > 2012/1/4 An Yang
> >
> >> Somebody in Oracle told me, they need one year to test, I'm not sure,
> >> it's true or not.
> >>
> > That's about right. The testing isn't done by Oracle btw,
On 01/04/2012 04:29 AM, Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
> 2012/1/4 An Yang
>
>> Somebody in Oracle told me, they need one year to test, I'm not sure,
>> it's true or not.
>>
> That's about right. The testing isn't done by Oracle btw, it's done by the
> end vendor.
>
>
The "end vendor" submitted the
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
> X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
>
> Any official document say that?
Apart from everything else said here, this is well worth a read ->
http://en.commun
2012/1/4 An Yang
> Somebody in Oracle told me, they need one year to test, I'm not sure,
> it's true or not.
>
That's about right. The testing isn't done by Oracle btw, it's done by the
end vendor.
--
Kind Regards,
Christopher J. Buckley
___
CentOS
Somebody in Oracle told me, they need one year to test, I'm not sure,
it's true or not.
At 2012-01-02 Mon 09:46 -0600，Johnny Hughes wrote：
> On 01/01/2012 06:07 PM, Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
> > On 29 December 2011 19:15, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> They can't very well (at least not with a s
On 2 January 2012 15:46, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> And my point is, right now Oracle can say that they have not certified
> their own OEL6 either ... therefore, one can not expect RHEL6 to be
> certified either. If they certify OEL6 for a version of Oracle
> Database, it would be difficult for them
On 01/01/2012 06:07 PM, Christopher J. Buckley wrote:
> On 29 December 2011 19:15, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> They can't very well (at least not with a straight face) tell Red Hat
>> that RHEL6 is not certified while saying that OEL6 is certified can
>> they? If they do that for very long, they will
On 29 December 2011 19:15, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> They can't very well (at least not with a straight face) tell Red Hat
> that RHEL6 is not certified while saying that OEL6 is certified can
> they? If they do that for very long, they will be breaching their
> support agreements.
Really? In what
On 29 December 2011 19:31, wrote:
> As I said, there are many, many more RHEL installations, and most of them
> will want to go to RHEL6 within the coming year. And, of course, some of
> those installations are LARGE$$$ customers of Oracle (for example, I
> have personal knowledge that AT&T u
On 29 December 2011 19:01, John Broome wrote:
> So if oracle isn't certified to run on OEL 6, did oracle roll it out
> just for shits and giggles?
solaris
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 12/29/2011 01:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2011 01:01 PM, John Broome wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 13:57, John R Pierce
wrote:
> On 12/29/11 4:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
>> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compati
On 12/29/11 4:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
> X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
11.2.0.3(I think is latest?) seems to work fine on CentOS 6.1, however
RHEL6 (and all versions of CentOS) are completely unsupporte
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 13:57, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/29/11 4:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
>> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
>> X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
>
> 11.2.0.3(I think is latest?) seems to work fine on CentOS 6.1, however
>
On 12/29/11 11:01 AM, John Broome wrote:
> So if oracle isn't certified to run on OEL 6, did oracle roll it out
> just for shits and giggles?
who knows? You'd need to ask them, and I doubt you'd get an answer.
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 12/29/2011 01:01 PM, John Broome wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 13:57, John R Pierce
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/29/11 4:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86
and X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
On 12/29/2011 01:01 PM, John Broome wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 13:57, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 12/29/11 4:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
>>> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
>>> X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
>>
>> 11.2.0.3(I think is la
On 12/29/2011 01:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 12/29/2011 01:01 PM, John Broome wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 13:57, John R Pierce
>>> wrote:
On 12/29/11 4:30 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86
>
On 29 December 2011 12:42, John Broome wrote:
> OEL6 is rebuilt RHEL6. CentOS 6 is rebuilt RHEL6.
Funnily enough, OEL6 is excluded from the certified list of Linux
distributions hence no, it is not a good idea to install it and then
expect Oracle to support it even though RedHat has submitted it f
On Dec 29, 2011, at 7:30, mcclnx mcc wrote:
> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
> X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
>
> Any official document say that?
OEL6 is rebuilt RHEL6. CentOS 6 is rebuilt RHEL6.
I think it'll be ok.
_
On 29 December 2011 12:30, mcclnx mcc wrote:
> Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
> X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
It is not.
> Any official document say that?
See Metalink 1304727.1.
___
CentOS m
Does anyone know CENTOS/Redhat 6.X compatible to ORACLE software (X86 and
X86_64) version like 9.X, 10GR2, 11G and 11GR2.
Any official document say that?
Thanks.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Team CentOS,
Just writing to thank you a lot for the CentOS 6.1 packages made
available on the 26th of September.
I haven't gone through what updates exactly you guys released in the cr
repository but I am well impressed with the improvements.
Great timing as my RHEL self-support contract was du
65 matches
Mail list logo
