Re: What hostname do you use on your computer?
by David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
Knute Johnson wrote:
> So now sendmail hangs on startup for about 2 minutes. There must be
> something else to set?
>
> Thanks,
>
> knute...
>
> [knute@knute ~]$ hostname
> knute
>
> [knute@knute ~]$ cat /etc/hosts
> # Do not remove the following line, or various programs
> # that require network functionality will fail.
> ::1 localhost.localdomain localhost
> 192.168.3.5 knute
>
> [knute@knute ~]$ cat /etc/sysconfig/network
> NETWORKING=yes
> NETWORKING_IPV6=yes
> HOSTNAME=knute
> [knute@knute ~]$
Make sure /etc/host.conf is set to "order hosts,bind". If it is set to
"order bind,hosts", the system still tries to use bind to resolve the
hostname.
Cheers,
Dave
--
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
-- Ambrose Bierce
17 years, 6 months
Very Basic Question
by Michael Satterwhite
This is something I consider a weakness of almost every distribution's
package manager. Periodically, I need to know where a package was put
when it was installed. In this case, I'm looking for ysql-connector-java
- but the more important question is "how do I ask yum / rpm / ??? where
it installed package A". I've looked at the man, but the only command
that seemed like it *MIGHT* work was yum info ... and it told me
everything except what I needed to know.
What's the magic bullet in this case?
tia
---Michael
17 years, 6 months
lvm: different sizes being reported
by Magnus Hyllander
Hi,
I have a little problem with a logical volume: in short, the size of the
volume is different depending on if I boot from the FC5 rescue CD or
from the installed FC5.
I have two mirrored disks. On the mirror I have created a logical volume
/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 which contains the root filesystem. Initially I
made the volume 4GB. Later I needed more space, so I decided to extend
the volume to 8GB. I booted from the FC5 rescue CD and ran the following
commands:
dmraid -a y
lvm vgscan
lvm vgchange -a y
lvm lvextend -L +4G /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00
fsck /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00
resize2fs /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00
So far so good. Then I rebooted the system from disk and got the
following error:
Checking filesystems
/dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00: The filesystem size (according to the
superblock) is 2097152 blocks
The physical size of the device is 1048576 blocks
Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!
/dev/VolGroup/LogVol00: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY, run fsck manually.
I entered the system administration mode and checked the size of
/dev/VolGroup/LogVol00 with "lvm lvs": 4.00G
Strange... so I booted with the rescue CD again and checked the size
once more from the rescue environment: 8.00G.
So it seems that when I boot the system normally it doesn't "see" that
the size of the logical volume has changed. Can someone explain this,
and hopefully help me fix the problem?
/Magnus
17 years, 6 months
RE: FC6 and Network
by Ferguson, Michael
SE Linux is disabled and I am not running IPTables.
This one really has me stumped. Without the network connection I will have to retype the outputs so I am now figuring how to get it to a froppy - family joke/word for floppy disk - and then post it on the list. I will work on it tonight and post it in the morning.
Thanks for y'all's help and feedback.
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Tom Rivers
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:22 PM
To: For users of Fedora
Subject: Re: FC6 and Network
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 16:02 -0500, Jeffrey Ross wrote:
> Tom,
>
> he's using a supernet/CIDR block/classless (or whatever you want to
> call
> it) addressing, his valid range would be from 192.168.128.1 through
> 192.168.135.254 so yes his gateway exists on his network.
>
Hi Jeffrey,
Oops! You're right. I thought I saw 255.255.255.248 instead of 255.255.248.0 like he has. Thanks for the correction. :)
This problem reminds me of one I had when I upgraded from FC3 to FC5 on one of my linux systems that functions as a VPN router. I preserved all of the settings, but after the upgrade I was getting the same kind of "Destination unreachable" when I tried to configure the VPN. To make a long story short, there were two things wrong. First, I needed to tweak the SELinux settings to allow traffic across the VPN. Second, and this is the one that really threw me for a loop, I needed to adjust the following line in my iptables firewall script from:
$IPTABLES -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o $EXTIF -j MASQUERADE
to:
$IPTABLES -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o $EXTIF -s $INTLAN -d \!
192.168.0.0/16 -j MASQUERADE
The "-d \! 192.168.0.0/16" was required to keep the VPN packets from being masqueraded to all of the other class C networks with which I have VPN's established. Why it changed from FC3 to FC5 is beyond me, but it took me a while to find out what was really causing the problem.
By the way, I noticed you asked him to execute "arp -a" and post the output. For the record, I saw I was getting a lot of "who has..."
messages from arp requests that were never being answered when I turned on tcpdump and watched for a while. I'm wondering if Michael is having a similar problem to what I had. If so, he may want to take a look at his SELinux log (if he has it enabled) as well as his iptables rules.
Tom
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
17 years, 6 months
firefox 1.5+ installation problem
by Lun Liu
I have an FC4 running on Dell machine with 1G DDR ram. I recently have
problem using Firefox 1.5 +. I run "yum install firefox", that version works
fine, but it is only version 1.08. It shows web pages not quite smoothly.
I also installed Opera, which is also working fine. But when I tried to run
Fedora2.0 downloaded from their website, whenever I try to run it I got an
error of Segmentation fault with an 4 digit random number.
Anyone got an idea how could I fix it?
Thanks
Allan
17 years, 6 months
RE: FC6 and Network
by Ferguson, Michael
Andy, Yeah. I had to retype it in and thus the typos.
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Andy Green
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:51 PM
To: For users of Fedora
Subject: Re: FC6 and Network
Tom Rivers wrote:
>> Destination Gateway Genmase Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
>> 192.168.128.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.248.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>> 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>> 0.0.0.0 192.168.131.21 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> Unless I'm missing something here, there is a mismatch in IP ranges.
> Your first line references 192.168.128.0/255.255.255.248, yet the
It's netmask 255.255.248.0 shown, not 255.255.255.248.
> default gateway is 192.168.131.21 which I don't think responds to a
> 192.168.128.0/255.255.255.0 network. You may want to check your IP
> address for eth0, "ifconfig eth0", and make sure it's on the same
> class C network range that your default gateway is. This kind of
> problem would account for the "Destination unreachable" messages.
It would make a good reason but the numbers given are correct. The netmask is the same as a /21. 192.168.131.21 is on his 192.168.128.0/21 network[1]. I notice he misspelled kernel though, with no network he had to type it in, it's still possible there is a mistake that he didn't notice and typed what he thought he saw.
-Andy
[1]
Netmask: 255.255.248.0 11111111 11111111 11111000 00000000
Network: 192.168.128.0 11000000 10100000 10000xxx xxxxxxxx
Gateway: 192.168.131.21 11000000 10100000 10000011 00010101
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
17 years, 6 months
RE: FC6 and Network
by Ferguson, Michael
Jeffrey,
Thanks. Strange though is that I am running 2 other Linux boxes here RHES 3 and 4 just fine.
I will run the arp and post it.
Thanks much
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Ross
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:03 PM
To: For users of Fedora
Subject: Re: FC6 and Network
Tom Rivers wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 12:18 -0500, Ferguson, Michael wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Route -n returns
>>
>> Kernal IP routing table
>> Destination Gateway Genmase Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
>> 192.168.128.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.248.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>> 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>> 0.0.0.0 192.168.131.21 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>>
>> 'preciate it.
>>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Unless I'm missing something here, there is a mismatch in IP ranges.
> Your first line references 192.168.128.0/255.255.255.248, yet the
> default gateway is 192.168.131.21 which I don't think responds to a
> 192.168.128.0/255.255.255.0 network. You may want to check your IP
> address for eth0, "ifconfig eth0", and make sure it's on the same
> class C network range that your default gateway is. This kind of
> problem would account for the "Destination unreachable" messages.
>
>
> Tom
>
>
Tom,
he's using a supernet/CIDR block/classless (or whatever you want to call
it) addressing, his valid range would be from 192.168.128.1 through
192.168.135.254 so yes his gateway exists on his network.
Michael,
I've never tried using this type of addressing with Linux, assuming it does in fact work, I would be interested in seeing what the output of "/sbin/ifconfig eth0" is and if anything shows up in the arp table "/sbin/arp -a" what its output is.
could you post the output of those?
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
17 years, 6 months
Re: microphone only works for first skype call under fc6
by David
David L wrote:
>>The microphone doesn't work the second time I place a call in a Skype
>>session. If I exit skype and
>>restart it, it works for one call again. Has anybody else seen this
>>problem? The weird thing is that the
>>same exact skype executable works fine from the Ubuntu live CD (I mounted
>>my fc6 home directory
>>from Ubuntu and ran the skype executable).
>Can be some problem with Alsa, kernel or libs I guess. Use
>lsof -n | grep /dev/snd
>to see if anything has ahold of the Alsa devices. Also run
>dmesg
>to see if there's any mention of troubles.
lsof -n | grep /dev/snd
Returns this:
skype 7631 dl mem CHR 116,4 4624
/dev/snd/pcmC0D0p
skype 7631 dl mem CHR 116,5 4649
/dev/snd/pcmC0D0c
skype 7631 dl 22u CHR 116,6 4620
/dev/snd/controlC0
skype 7631 dl 23u CHR 116,6 4620
/dev/snd/controlC0
skype 7631 dl 24r CHR 116,2 3838
/dev/snd/timer
skype 7631 dl 25u CHR 116,4 4624
/dev/snd/pcmC0D0p
skype 7631 dl 26u CHR 116,6 4620
/dev/snd/controlC0
skype 7631 dl 27r CHR 116,2 3838
/dev/snd/timer
skype 7631 dl 28u CHR 116,5 4649
/dev/snd/pcmC0D0c
Between skype calls, it prints nothing. I don't see any differences between
the printouts on the first and second call. Except one time, it looked like
artsd had opened some stuff, but that wasn't reproduceable.
dmesg didn't show anything related to sound as far as I could tell.
Thanks,
David
PS - Sorry this wasn't a proper reply... I forgot to turn off digest mode
before posting.
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com
17 years, 6 months
RE: FC6 and Network
by Ferguson, Michael
Tom,
Thanks for the feedback. I have a VPN to a remote bunker and thus the need for two subnets and the resulting IP addr's
The "route PRINT" command on my WinXP box returns similar results.
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Tom Rivers
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:33 PM
To: For users of Fedora
Subject: RE: FC6 and Network
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 12:18 -0500, Ferguson, Michael wrote:
> Andy,
> Thanks.
>
> Route -n returns
>
> Kernal IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmase Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> 192.168.128.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.248.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.131.21 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>
> 'preciate it.
Hi Michael,
Unless I'm missing something here, there is a mismatch in IP ranges.
Your first line references 192.168.128.0/255.255.255.248, yet the default gateway is 192.168.131.21 which I don't think responds to a 192.168.128.0/255.255.255.0 network. You may want to check your IP address for eth0, "ifconfig eth0", and make sure it's on the same class C network range that your default gateway is. This kind of problem would account for the "Destination unreachable" messages.
Tom
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
17 years, 6 months