Hello,
the only place I found that have the Give root password in /sbin/sulogin.
# strings /sbin/sulogin | grep Give ro
Give root password for maintenance
which is part of sysvinit-tools package.
'sulogin' is only called from /etc/rc.sysinit as far as I know (in boot
sequence).
Did you try
Yannick Perret a écrit :
Hello,
the only place I found that have the Give root password in
/sbin/sulogin.
# strings /sbin/sulogin | grep Give ro
Give root password for maintenance
which is part of sysvinit-tools package.
'sulogin' is only called from /etc/rc.sysinit as far as I know
Steven Timm a écrit :
The trick that Rocks uses is to have a boot order of (hard disk, pxe)
and then when you want to reinstall, change two bytes in the
boot sector to make the hard disk unbootable and it will fall through
to a PXE boot only at that time.
What worker node installs at Fermilab
Vaclav Mocek a écrit :
On 04/24/2011 01:57 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
the background: i'm teaching a 2-day course later this week on
unix/linux power tools, and i've already got the manual, but it looks
like there's maybe 1.5 days worth of content there, so i have the
freedom to fill up
Phil Perry a écrit :
On 26/03/11 21:00, Yannick Perret wrote:
Hello,
not sure if it was still pointed here, so:
in RHEL6 (and so in SL6, and the later Fedora) Redhat changed the output
of 'uname'. Now the arch is added to the kernel version.
It means that on my SL6 I get:
uname -r
2.6.32
Hello,
not sure if it was still pointed here, so:
in RHEL6 (and so in SL6, and the later Fedora) Redhat changed the output
of 'uname'. Now the arch is added to the kernel version.
It means that on my SL6 I get:
uname -r
2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.x86_64
whereas on a SL5 I get:
2.6.18-238.12cc.el5 (do
Hello,
in use on ~20 workernodes without problems.
The -238.* kernels has a new way to handle dentry that lead to a kernel
panic when performing a 'stat()' syscall in some very particular cases,
but we suspect it may be related to a GPFS bad-crafted dentry in mmfsd
daemon.
Regards,
--
Y. -
Steven Timm a écrit :
Hi Doug--I have seen the same message on some of our machines but
so far it hasn't caused any real performance problems up until now.
It's not so much if you are running SL5.5 but just as long as you
are running some of the latest errata kernels.. we only
saw it show up on
packages.
Regards,
--
Yannick Perret
CC-IN2P3
Troy Dawson a écrit :
Yannick Perret wrote:
Hello,
I upgraded some test boxes to the latest SL5x repository in x86_64.
We install both 32 and 64bit packages, and I get a problem with
pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5.x86_64:
after installing this package, the corresponding 32b package
(pam-0.99.6.2-6.el5
10 matches
Mail list logo
