Ron Loftin | 1 Nov 01:12 2009
Picon

NTFS and elrepo


I have here a box which I dual-boot between CentOS 5.4 and an older
version of that "other OS" that I'm using to check out the ELrepo
version of kmod-ntfs.  After installing as per the directions on the
ELrepo site, I can mount an NTFS filesystem, and when I type "mount"
with no options the output tells me that the target filesystem is
mounted read-write.  However, when I try to create a file on that
filesystem as root, I get a "Permission denied" error, which leads me to
think that I'm missing something here.  So far, Google has not been very
helpful here, so if anyone can shine some light on this, it would be
welcome.

--

-- 
Ron Loftin                      reloftin@...

"God, root, what is difference ?"       Piter from UserFriendly
Lee Perez | 1 Nov 01:37 2009
Picon

Re: No entry in /var/log/boot.log

Rod Rook wrote:
> I installed CentOS 5.3 on Oct 27, 2009 and immediately updated it to 5.4.
>
> I had not paid attention to this boot log until yesterday when I decided to
> take a look to do some trouble shooting.
>
> Oct 27 13:16:24 localhost NET[3797]: /sbin/dhclient-script : updated
>   
>>> /etc/resolv.conf
>>>       
>> Oct 27 13:16:29 localhost NET[4059]:
>>     
>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-post : updated /etc/resolv.conf
>>>       
>>     
> This entry was probably made right after the fresh installation.
>
> I've done searches on the Internet for answers for this problem and the only
> thing I've found is that I am not the only one with this problem.
> But no body has offered any definite solution for it. I even posted the same
> question in the CentOS forum and haven't got any reply.
>
> >From what I have read, this problem may be caused by a bug or bugs in CentOS
> 5.x, but I hope it is not because I am in the process of
> switching from Fedora 10 to CentOS 5.4 and I don't want to get disappointed.
> Trivial as this may be, this does not give me confidence in
> CentOS distribution.
>
> Can anyone come up with a solution?
>
(Continue reading)

Jerry Geis | 1 Nov 03:44 2009

loading a program in memory for faster startup

After searching for a way to load a program in memory for fast start time
I found preload.sourceforge.net

I then kept looking and found CentOS 5 has readahead_early and 
readahead_later.

I have (2) questions.

1) the /etc/readahead.d/default.later file has firefox 1.5 preloads 
mentioned. That seems REALLY old.
shouldnt that be updated?

2) can I just add the path to oowriter to /etc/readahead.d/default.later 
and oowriter will be ready
all the time to just run from memory and wont have to load from disk?

Is there a /etc/readahead.d/local type file to add oowriter to instead 
of default.later?

Thanks,

Jerry
Tom Diehl | 1 Nov 04:28 2009

Re: Centos-release srpm

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> On 10/31/2009 02:33 PM, Tom Diehl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone know where I can get centos-release-5-4.el5.centos.1.src.rpm?
>>
>
> there are a couple of srpms that are still pending out, I'll get these
> done over the weekend.

Thanks!!

Regards,

--

-- 
Tom Diehl       tdiehl@...      Spamtrap address mtd123@...
Yves Bellefeuille | 1 Nov 04:39 2009
Picon

Re: NTFS and elrepo

On Saturday 31 October 2009 20:12, Ron Loftin wrote:

> I have here a box which I dual-boot between CentOS 5.4 and an older
> version of that "other OS" that I'm using to check out the ELrepo
> version of kmod-ntfs.  After installing as per the directions on the
> ELrepo site, I can mount an NTFS filesystem, and when I type "mount"
> with no options the output tells me that the target filesystem is
> mounted read-write.  However, when I try to create a file on that
> filesystem as root, I get a "Permission denied" error, which leads me
> to think that I'm missing something here.  So far, Google has not
> been very helpful here, so if anyone can shine some light on this, it
> would be welcome.

Try using "mount -t ntfs-3g" rather than "mount -t ntfs". You may have 
to install fuse-ntfs-3g.

--

-- 
Yves Bellefeuille <yan@...> 
"Yves Bellefeuille: Eterna malvenkanto en UEA" -- Heroldo Komunikas,
n-ro 389
Majian | 1 Nov 04:54 2009
Picon

Re: 5.4 kernel versions?

Yeah! I agree you !
If you get the newer kernel , you should reboot the computer ,then the OS will read the file called /etc/grub.conf
That file decide which kernel  you login ~~




On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:44 AM, NiftyCluster Tom Mitchell <niftycluster-rYp+SzwIPUbQFizaE/u3fw@public.gmane.orgm> wrote:
On 10/30/09, Rob Kampen <rkampen-cdyLMVpM94Zzu6KWmfFNGwC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Please excuse a possibly dumb question.
> Prior to the release of CentOS 5.4 I believe two updated 5.4 kernels
> were released as part of 5.3
> 2.6.18-164.el5 and 2.6.18-164.2.1.el5
> Now that 5.4 is released we have just the 2.6.18-164.el5 kernel.
> Now the dumb question - what happened to the updated kernel?
> I now have workstations running 5.4 with the 164.2.1.el5 as they get yum
> update run regularly, however I do not reboot my servers as often and
> now find these do not have the later kernel.
> If some kind soul would please enlighten me.....
> Rob

If you do not reboot the new kernel never activates.

Almost the same with libs and binaries.
If an old binary is running then the update is not magically activated.
For libs and binaries it is possible that the old buggy bits to
continue to run at the same time that new version is available or
running.   Some interesting actions with programs like
firefox, apache, python and other plugin friendly programs might be
observed.

Some programs/ services like sshd do force a restart on the live system
to side step some of these risks when reinstalled or updated.

It does pay to inspect the announcements, change log and release notes
so a reboot
is not delayed and the system left open to risk.

--
       NiftyCluster
       T o m   M i t c h e l l
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS-IFYaIzF+flcdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@...
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ron Loftin | 1 Nov 05:14 2009
Picon

Re: NTFS and elrepo


On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 23:39 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2009 20:12, Ron Loftin wrote:
> 
> > I have here a box which I dual-boot between CentOS 5.4 and an older
> > version of that "other OS" that I'm using to check out the ELrepo
> > version of kmod-ntfs.  After installing as per the directions on the
> > ELrepo site, I can mount an NTFS filesystem, and when I type "mount"
> > with no options the output tells me that the target filesystem is
> > mounted read-write.  However, when I try to create a file on that
> > filesystem as root, I get a "Permission denied" error, which leads me
> > to think that I'm missing something here.  So far, Google has not
> > been very helpful here, so if anyone can shine some light on this, it
> > would be welcome.
> 
> Try using "mount -t ntfs-3g" rather than "mount -t ntfs". You may have 
> to install fuse-ntfs-3g.
> 

I think that you have misunderstood my question.  I know how to do it
with the packages from RPMforge ( which is where I get fuse-ntfs-3g )
but I'm trying to evaluate the kmod-ntfs package from ELrepo.org.  There
seems to be something I'm not understanding about this approach, or I'm
not finding the correct documentation for it.

--

-- 
Ron Loftin                      reloftin@...

"God, root, what is difference ?"       Piter from UserFriendly
Rod Rook | 1 Nov 05:42 2009
Picon

Re: NTFS and elrepo



On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Ron Loftin <reloftin-ai6B2lNGiXhWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 23:39 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2009 20:12, Ron Loftin wrote:
>
> > I have here a box which I dual-boot between CentOS 5.4 and an older
> > version of that "other OS" that I'm using to check out the ELrepo
> > version of kmod-ntfs.  After installing as per the directions on the
> > ELrepo site, I can mount an NTFS filesystem, and when I type "mount"
> > with no options the output tells me that the target filesystem is
> > mounted read-write.  However, when I try to create a file on that
> > filesystem as root, I get a "Permission denied" error, which leads me
> > to think that I'm missing something here.  So far, Google has not
> > been very helpful here, so if anyone can shine some light on this, it
> > would be welcome.
>
> Try using "mount -t ntfs-3g" rather than "mount -t ntfs". You may have
> to install fuse-ntfs-3g.
>

I think that you have misunderstood my question.  I know how to do it
with the packages from RPMforge ( which is where I get fuse-ntfs-3g )
but I'm trying to evaluate the kmod-ntfs package from ELrepo.org.  There
seems to be something I'm not understanding about this approach, or I'm
not finding the correct documentation for it.

This statement is a direct quote from CentOS Wiki (http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/NTFS)
As of CentOS 5.4 (kernel 2.6.18-164 or newer), the fuse kernel module is included in the kernel itself. Therefore, dkms and dkms-fuse are no longer required. If you have previously installed dkms-fuse, please uninstall it by a yum remove dkms-fuse command.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@...
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Rod Rook | 1 Nov 05:55 2009
Picon

Re: No entry in /var/log/boot.log



On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Lee Perez <leecajun <at> windstream.net> wrote:
Rod Rook wrote:
> I installed CentOS 5.3 on Oct 27, 2009 and immediately updated it to 5.4.
>
> I had not paid attention to this boot log until yesterday when I decided to
> take a look to do some trouble shooting.
>
> Oct 27 13:16:24 localhost NET[3797]: /sbin/dhclient-script : updated
>
>>> /etc/resolv.conf
>>>
>> Oct 27 13:16:29 localhost NET[4059]:
>>
>>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-post : updated /etc/resolv.conf
>>>
>>
> This entry was probably made right after the fresh installation.
>
> I've done searches on the Internet for answers for this problem and the only
> thing I've found is that I am not the only one with this problem.
> But no body has offered any definite solution for it. I even posted the same
> question in the CentOS forum and haven't got any reply.
>
> >From what I have read, this problem may be caused by a bug or bugs in CentOS
> 5.x, but I hope it is not because I am in the process of
> switching from Fedora 10 to CentOS 5.4 and I don't want to get disappointed.
> Trivial as this may be, this does not give me confidence in
> CentOS distribution.
>
> Can anyone come up with a solution?
>
>
Hi Rod,

Have you looked at this thread:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-October/083346.html

Maybe along the same lines as the problem that you are having not sure.
HTH.
Hi, Lee,
The problem mentioned in the thread you referred to is usually caused by Network Manager, which has nothing to do with boot.log.
Thanks to you anyway.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@...
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ron Blizzard | 1 Nov 07:48 2009
Picon

Re: Interrupting Yum Update

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Lee Perez <leecajun@...> wrote:

> Thanks.  I just went and checked it expecting it to still be downloading
> and lo and behold, it finished.  The mirror must have just been really
> getting hammered.  Thanks for the info I will keep this bit handy just
> in case!!

Yep, I'm guessing the servers were really busy. Day before yesterday
afternoon (Friday) I upgraded my laptop to 5.4, finished in about 30
minutes (this was the first time I had it turned on since the upgrade
and I'm kind of glad I waited). Last night (early Saturday) I did a
'yum update' on my desktop computer that I had already upgraded to 5.4
(noticed that the laptop had a newer version of Firefox). I was
getting about 500 bytes per second. I let it run for a while, pushed
Cntrl-C and started the process again and let it run for an hour or
two, and repeated this a couple times. Finally it caught hold and I
got near-normal download speeds, and was done in about 40 minutes.

The second update on the Desktop was about as big as the first.
Everything went smoothly, just really slow servers for a while.

--

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.4

Gmane