Archive for category Operating Systems

Increasing the size of tmpDSK and /tmp in a CPanel Environment

Posted by Randy in Internet, Linux Stuff, Operating Systems, Server Stuff, Web Development on March 9, 2012

I recently ran into an issue in cPanel after recompiling Apache with some new settings. I enabled the eAccelerator extension in my EasyApache configuration for PHP. Now cPanel uses a default size for its /tmp mount of 512mb. I found out rather quickly that this isn't enough for eAccelerator. I actually ended up resetting this value to 4096mb (4GB). As a reminder to myself and so anyone else looking for the solution to this problem, I will outline what needs to be done below.

First, ssh into your server and login as root or su - root after logging in as a regular user. Now use the power of the command line. Don't panic!

Stop Apache, MySQL, and cPanel

1
2
3

service httpd stop
service mysql stop
service cpanel stop

Next unmount the existing /tmp

1

umount -l /tmp

Remove /usr/tmpDSK

1

rm -rf /usr/tmpDSK

Next, use your favorite editor (Vim in this example) to change the config file for the tmpDSK

1

vim /scripts/securetmp

Search the file for "tmpdsksize" (in Vim type /tmpdsksize and hit enter). The line should look like this by default:

1

my $tmpdsksize     = 512000;    # Must be larger than 250000

Change the 512000 to a higher number in Kilobytes. For my 4GB, I changed it to 4096000.
Save the file (vim :wq enter).
Run the script...

1

/scripts/securetmp

Answer y to the two questions it asks.
Finally start your services back up.

1
2
3

service httpd start
service mysql start
service cpanel start

That should have you set with more /tmp space.

, , , ,

No Comments

Linux Desktop UI Options

Posted by Randy in Linux Stuff, Operating Systems, technology on February 14, 2012

I'm detest the current path of the Linux desktop. There are reasons that the desktop environment programmers and the distribution makers have taken the path they are on, but I disagree with those reasons. Their reasoning involves unifying the user interface for desktops, laptops, tablets, and other mobile devices.

The main problem I see with that reasoning is that they are hurting the desktop environment in the process, and the desktop/laptop is the only place their products have a future. There's no need for a revamping of the desktop interface to make it more like a mobile device's interface. The tablet/phone interfaces are designed for multi-touch interaction from the user. THE ADVANTAGE of a DESKTOP is having a good keyboard and mouse. The desktop UI is designed for superior input methods. Mult-touch is cool and all, but it is designed to give mobile devices an interface to mimic what you can already do on the desktop and laptop with the keyboard and mouse. Multi-touch on a desktop is cool, but it has only been implemented on OS X on Macs, and they didn't change the actual interface itself to accomplish this. They just added multi-touch capability to the UI that was already there.

I could see good reason to make this change to the default Linux user interface if the distributions were going to be used primarily on mobile devices. BUT they aren't. The mobile market has two very strong operating systems. Those are iOS and Android. Android is Linux itself, but its user interface is perfect for a mobile device. It also has the convenience of the Google marketplace. It is the defacto Linux distro for mobile devices. There's no demand for Ubuntu on a mobile device like a tablet or phone. Android does everything you could want to do on those devices, and it does those things well.

So, what is the point to unify the user interface on the Linux distribution, if the only real use you're going to see for these distributions is in the desktop and laptop markets? There's absolutely no reason to do this.

The new unified user interface, namely Unity and Gnome 3, are clunky at best in a desktop environment. They are a downgrade from the previous user interfaces that were popular, especially Gnome 2.

For this reason, I see a shift in the primary desktop environment used by most Linux users. I think most users will switch to XFCE4 or one of the other DEs which were similar to Gnome 2. I would be willing to wager that within a year or two, most distributions will be using XFCE4 as a default desktop environment by popular demand from their userbase. Either that will happen, or the desktop environment creators will see the error of their ways and change back to the old desktop standard.

BRING BACK XORG and just improve it!

»crosslinked«

, ,

No Comments

Global Media Shortcuts in Windows

Posted by Randy in Windows on January 27, 2012

Many Gnome users may have taken advantage of the global keyboard shortcuts available. I'm in Windows at the moment on a normal keyboard, and I want the same customizable shortcuts. Typically in Linux I'll set Win/Super + P for the play/pause shortcut, Win + Up Arrow for volume up, Win + Down Arrow for volume down, Win + Left Arrow for previous, Win + Right Arrow for next, and Win + M for mute. This removes the need for extra media keys completely, and I really like that feature of Gnome.

Now that I'm in Windows 7, I really miss that ability. I'm looking for a way to do this. If anyone out there knows how to do this, shoot me a comment.

Thanks!

Edit: Eureka! Nevermind on the suggestions. I found a nice little free app that does exactly what I wanted. I was about to try to write one myself, but this one does it well. You can download it here. The app is great. I setup my keys, changed the options to have the app start at windows startup, and set it to close to the system tray. That will confirm that it's always running when I'm in Windows.

,

No Comments

My Search for the Best Deal on a Dedicated Server

Posted by Randy in Networking, Operating Systems, technology, Web Development on January 22, 2012

Searching for a dedicated server can be stressful, especially when you have a lot of sites that are running slow as a result of their current host. Recently, I switched about 600 sites over to a dedicated server I borrowed from my friend Lynn. It is a pretty decent server, with two dual core Xeons running at 3 GHz. It also has 8 GB of RAM. However, it's just not enough. After switching DNS over to this new server, its load went to 20 very quickly. For those who don't know, a load of 20 means that there are 20 processes waiting in line to be processed. I don't like my loads to go above 2 or 3. I can deal with them spiking to as high as 4, but with a multicore/multiprocessor I don't want it to get above the number of cores/processors you have available.

Suffice to say that the web sites were loading very slowly. So, I switched the NS back to the VPS server I've been running them on. I've seen its load spike to 10 quite often but it normally stays well below 4. So the VPS is holding up pretty well considering. This VPS has 4 cores assigned to it, each at 1.6 GHz. It also only has 3GB of RAM. So, my question is, "Is a dedicated server really the best option?".

There's more factors in this as well. For instance, my sites are all on a WHM/cPanel install, which means I have to pay a monthly license fee for that as well. On a VPS this license is about half the cost as it is on a dedicated server. I like saving money.

I currently have my hosting through a small hosting provided in Knoxville, TN called Knoxcolo/Smith & Hammaker. I have a colo server (not the one I used for my 600 sites, it's a single site), and I have the VPS. For the colo they charge $35 for the 1U of rack space, and it's an unmetered drop. The VPS is $40 per 1GB of RAM. That's their rate, they don't charge for extra HDD space or even CPU cores. They are also a good bunch of people to work with. I have full access to the colo facility through a high security system. I rarely use it since my colo has an iLo connection for remote console even when the servers main drop is offline.

I thought that a dedicated server would be a better choice for my 600 sites, but I've found that the VPS is really the better choice in the long run. The only thing I don't like about the VPS is that I don't have the ability to remotely reboot the virtual machine. I'd really like this ability.

So I've found that perhaps a dedicated server isn't what I really want. Some VPS providers give you a lot more bang for your buck. You can spend hundreds of dollars per month on a very powerful dedicated server, but you have two problems. You don't want to spend a lot of money for hardware that you may not use fully. Of course, secondly, you don't want to spend a lot of money on a server that can't fully handle the load if you have a lot of sites. With a VPS, you have more power to change the hardware specs to meet the demand of your site load. You pay for whatever you need. This is really the best option for anyone who wants to host any number of sites. If you don't need much power, because you only have a few sites, you can save money.

However, you should look for the best deal on a VPS. Smaller companies actually have the better deal when it comes to a VPS, because they typically don't have as much total load on their rack of CPUs. If you get a VPS from a larger provider, they may be pushing their rack to its limits already, and you'll get terrible physical processor speeds, even if you are paying for four cores.

Shop around and look into VPS servers. They are great alternatives to dedicated or colo servers if you look in the right place.

, , , ,

No Comments

Removing Old eth devices from Debian

Posted by Randy in Linux Stuff, Networking, Operating Systems, technology on January 19, 2012

I have a Virtualbox VM which, over time, has been opened on 9 different host operating systems. I reinstall my main OS move than the average person without a doubt. Every time the guest VM is opened from a new host, it adds a new device. So I ended up with 9 ethernet devices. Every time I opened the VM on a new machine I'd also have to reconfigure my static IP. Removing these devices isn't as difficult as you may think. It's simply a matter of editing the /etc/udev/rules.d/??-persistent-net.rules file and committing out all the lines that begin with SUBSYSTEM. Then reboot and you should have a fresh eth0.

,

No Comments

The Best Linux Distribution

Posted by Randy in Linux Stuff, Operating Systems, technology on January 13, 2012

This subject will raise a few eyebrows from the geek community. Everyone has their favorite Linux distribution. However, this post will be rather unbiased. I have my picks, but I will try to refrain from pushing them. So I'm ranking Linux distributions based on experience but not on personal preference (to an extent).

Choosing a Linux distribution is like choosing a programming language. You should pick the right tool for the job. I see three main uses of Linux as an operating system.

First of all, if you are going to be using Linux in an enterprise/business setting, you should probably learn the industrial standard distribution for enterprises. Chances are, if you are going to be a Linux admin at some big company, you'll want to learn Red Hat (RHEL). It's a commercial operating system, so if you want to practice using it, you'll probably want on of its clones. They are usually free and are basically repackaged versions of RHEL. The forerunner of these clones is CentOS. Honorable mentions go to ClearOS and Scientific Linux as alternatives to Red Hat. These clones offer most of the same features as RHEL and give you a nearly exact replica of the Red Hat environment.

Secondly, if you are going to run Linux as a desktop operating system, there are a few good choices. Linux Mint, Debian, and Ubuntu make great desktop operating systems. Of those, I prefer granddaddy Debian. Debian is the basis for which many of the popular desktop Linuxes derive. Ubuntu is an "improved" version of Debian, though really I don't care for many of the "improvements" and tend to stick with Debian. Linux Mint has two versions. One is derived from Ubuntu and the other is derived straight from Debian. Fedora also provides a good desktop experience and is based on Red Hat. So for you enterprise admins out there, Fedora will feel closer.

Finally, if you want a development server to run in a VM or another machine, I suggest Debian again. It's one of the quickest and easiest to set up.

If you are a Linux guru, I suggest ArchLinux, as it gives you more control over more aspects of the OS.

One distribution that I've never tried (but I should) is Slackware. Many people like it. I personally don't like being without a package manger.

No matter what you want to use Linux for, there's a distribution for you. Check out DistroWatch for direct ratings of Linux distributions.

,

No Comments

Adding shares to your Serviio library

Posted by Randy in Cool Videos, Networking, Operating Systems, technology on January 12, 2012

Let's say you are running Serviio as a media server on your Windows machine and you want add share folders to the library. You may find that the share locations show up on your media device but your actual files do not. This is because Serviio is running as a service on your computer and it's probably being started by the default "System" user. That user may not have access to your shares, especially if you have the shares mounted using specific user credentials. There's two things I can show you to fix this issue.

First, when you add the folders to Serviio make sure to add them via the "network". In other words, if you have the shares mounted as mapped drives, don't use the mapped drive letters. I experienced some issues when doing it that way.  Secondly, you'll want to configure the service to run under your user account. Here's the step-by-step:

First open control panel and open Administrative Tools:

 

Next double-click "Services":

Find the Serviio Service:

 

Right click on it and choose "Properties":

 

Click on the "Log On" tab and set the credentials for the user which has access to the Windows Share:

 

Hit OK and stop/start the service by right clicking on it and choosing "Stop". After it stops, right click again and choose "Start".

You should now be able to access the files from your media device (PS3, Xbox360, and other).

 

,

No Comments

How to remove launchers from Gnome 3 Panel

Posted by Randy in Linux Stuff, Operating Systems on January 11, 2012

I'll cut to the chase on this post because this is a silly change to make between Gnome 2 and Gnome 3. If you add a shortcut launcher to the panel in Gnome 3 (classic mode), you will find that a simple right click doesn't show "remove".

If you want to remove a launcher from the panel in Gnome 3, you need to press the alt key and right click the launcher. You should then have the ability to move or remove the icon.

,

1 Comment

Netbean’s Menus Don’t work in Linux Mint 12

Posted by Randy in Linux Stuff, Open Source, Programming on January 11, 2012

Gnome3 has some issues. I really like the look and feel of Linux Mint's Gnome3 + Mate interface. However, looks aren't everything. Functionality is important as well. Almost everything works with it but Netbeans is an exception. The menus are completely unusable with it.

The quick solution is to select "Gnome Classic" when you login. I like the look of it as well, and at least everything works in it.

While I'm on the subject, why did Gnome decide to take the path it did with version 3. It's too much like Unity, and I hate Unity. Why are they moving to this type of desktop? Gnome 2 may not be the prettiest thing available, but it has been the most usable desktop environment for years. They should have just concentrated on improving the look of it, added a few new features, and worked on any bugs they had laying around. Most people don't like Unity or Gnome 3. This doesn't leave much of a choice other than KDE and XFCE4. Of those, I'd pick XFCE4, but if you have a large userbase like Gnome has, why screw that up by making your new version look like and act like the DE most people are wanting to avoid? I just don't get it.

, ,

No Comments

Codeigniter Controllers Give Server 404

Posted by Randy in Linux Stuff, Operating Systems, Programming, Web Development on January 11, 2012

I often take shortcuts when setting up my development servers. I recently installed Linux Mint 12 x64 on my main box and wanted to setup a web developing environment on it. To cut corners during package installation, I'll typically install phpmyadmin which grabs most of the dependencies I need to have a full LAMP dev stack, such as Apache2 and Mysql-server.

That's how I initially set up my stack in Linux Mint. I also enabled user directories in Apache so I could develop within the public_html directory inside my home directory. All was working well until I copied a CodeIgniter project over and tried it out. I couldn't access my controller functions from index.php. It worked well for the default controller because it was accessing it from index.php, but when I changed the URL to point to a controller like index.php/admin, it didn't know what to do with it and I would receiver a server 404 error.

After digging around for a solution, I realized that when I installed my LAMP stack, apt had installed libapache2-mod-php5filter instead of libapache2-mod-php5. I'm not very familiar with this module or what benefits come from using it, but the quick fix was to:

sudo apt-get install libapache2-mod-php5

This removed the php5filter module and installed the plain php5 module. After that, I no longer have an issue with the controllers giving 404 errors.

, , , , ,

1 Comment