Fedora 22 - syslog rotating but old files being updated! - SOLVED but still weird . .
Philip Rhoades
phil at pricom.com.au
Thu Jul 2 13:45:38 UTC 2015
People,
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:45:07 +1000
> From: Philip Rhoades <phil at pricom.com.au>
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Fedora 22 - syslog rotating but new old files being
> updated!
> Message-ID: <88453a7e34270bb00bd64187b4eca863 at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Ed,
>
> Thanks!
Following up my last post - things ARE getting rotated now - but after
watching the logs for a few days:
I see the syslog file are being rotated at 3:25am
(/var/lib/logrotate.status) but my crontab file has:
02 4 * * * root run-parts /etc/cron.daily
and there is nothing in crontab with a 3:25am on it . . what is going
on?
Thanks,
Phil.
>> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:28:40 +0800
>> From: Ed Greshko <ed.greshko at greshko.com>
>> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Subject: Re: Fedora 22 - syslog rotating but new old files being
>> updated!
>> Message-ID: <558D1B48.4070407 at greshko.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> On 06/26/15 13:32, Philip Rhoades wrote:
>>> People,
>>>
>>> After I move from F21 to F22 (fresh install) and changing the
>>> frequency of logrotates to "daily", I notice that the new syslog logs
>>> (ie those without the date appended) are not being changed and the
>>> files from the date of the last reboot are the ones that continue to
>>> be updated! eg:
>>>
>>> eg:
>>>
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jun 26 03:33 /var/log/cron
>>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 35220 May 16 18:01 /var/log/cron-20150514
>>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6006 Jun 17 18:10 /var/log/cron-20150617
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 275974 Jun 21 03:47 /var/log/cron-20150621
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 725768 Jun 26 15:31 /var/log/cron-20150624
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jun 24 03:15 /var/log/cron-20150625
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Jun 25 03:27 /var/log/cron-20150626
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 26 03:33 /var/log/maillog
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Apr 16 09:15
>>> /var/log/maillog-20150514
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 0 May 14 14:45
>>> /var/log/maillog-20150617
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 605403 Jun 21 03:34
>>> /var/log/maillog-20150621
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 1844346 Jun 26 15:31
>>> /var/log/maillog-20150624
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 24 03:15
>>> /var/log/maillog-20150625
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 25 03:27
>>> /var/log/maillog-20150626
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 553261 Jun 21 01:31 /var/log/maillog.t
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 26 03:33 /var/log/messages
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 2060072 May 16 18:02
>>> /var/log/messages-20150514
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 1830620 Jun 17 18:13
>>> /var/log/messages-20150617
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 4738203 Jun 21 03:47
>>> /var/log/messages-20150621
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 3275905 Jun 26 15:30
>>> /var/log/messages-20150624
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 24 03:15
>>> /var/log/messages-20150625
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 25 03:27
>>> /var/log/messages-20150626
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 26 03:33 /var/log/secure
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 16180 May 16 18:01 /var/log/secure-20150514
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 8410 Jun 17 18:13 /var/log/secure-20150617
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 127116 Jun 21 03:47 /var/log/secure-20150621
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 118816 Jun 26 00:14 /var/log/secure-20150624
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 24 03:15 /var/log/secure-20150625
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 25 03:27 /var/log/secure-20150626
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 26 03:33 /var/log/spooler
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 0 Apr 16 09:15
>>> /var/log/spooler-20150514
>>> -rw-------. 1 root root 0 May 14 14:45
>>> /var/log/spooler-20150617
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 17 18:10
>>> /var/log/spooler-20150621
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 21 03:44
>>> /var/log/spooler-20150624
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 24 03:15
>>> /var/log/spooler-20150625
>>> -rw------- 1 root root 0 Jun 25 03:27
>>> /var/log/spooler-20150626
>>>
>>> Any suggestions about why this is happening?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just asked/answered earlier today.... I'll repeat....
>>
>> This is due to the known bug in the logrotate file for rsyslog/syslog.
>>
>> Edit /etc/logrotate.d/syslog and make sure the postrotate line has
>> "rsyslogd.pid" and not "syslogd.pid"
>>
>> You can either allow things to sort themselves out, or running the
>> "kill" command as shown will fix it.
>>
>> The only caveat is that the permissions on the new files will be
>> rw-r--r-- due to the umask. You can fix that manually if you wish.
>
>
> --
> Philip Rhoades
>
> PO Box 896
> Cowra NSW 2794
> Australia
> E-mail: phil at pricom.com.au
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:49:07 -0500
> From: Ranjan Maitra <maitra.mbox.ignored at inbox.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: F22 LiveCD fails on older Dell E6400s
> Message-ID: <20150626084907.0d23fe2664e5ed6aa695e5a0 at inbox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello,
>
> I get the following behavior using the Workstation (and possibly
> other) LiveCD when I try to run a F22 livecd on two Dell E6400s (the
> same appears to be true for some other machines, as per the post):
>
> https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/69051/why-do-i-get-the-oh-no-something-has-gone-wrong-screen-when-using-the-fedora-22-live-dvd/
>
> I have not tried the workaround this morning, but perhaps the LiveCDs
> should be considered for respinning with the updates, as is being
> suggested, with this BZ fix? So that beginners or those not
> well-versed in fedora/linux do not get their first obstacle in the
> most basic of steps before trying out Fedora (not possible to even
> have the LiveCD come up):
>
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228011
>
>
> Many thanks and best wishes,
> Ranjan
>
> --
> Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be
> deleted on receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate.
> For those needing to send personal or professional e-mail, please use
> appropriate addresses.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Share photos & screenshots in seconds...
> TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if1
> Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social
> networks.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:00:05 -0600
> From: jd1008 <jd1008 at gmail.com>
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Firefox scrollbar problem
> Message-ID: <558D7705.9080709 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 06/26/2015 05:21 AM, Philip Heron wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've noticed since F22 I can't grab the Firefox scrollbar with the
>> mouse pointer when it's on the very right of the bar. I have to move
>> it in a pixel or two in before it works. It's like there's a thin
>> inactive border around it.
>>
>> Someone else noticed it too:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232399
>>
>> Anyone know a workaround? No other programs on F22 seem to have this
>> problem, even Thunderbird.
>>
>> -Phil
> Only workaround I had found was to create and use a new profile.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:51:08 -0600
> From: jd1008 <jd1008 at gmail.com>
> To: Fedora Community Users Support <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: (OT): Question about the laptop's lcd screen
> Message-ID: <558D82FC.6040703 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Del Latitude E6501 (15.6") matte screen, has a resolution of 1366x768.
>
> Have been asked by a friend to replace it with a matte 15.6" with
> resolution
> of 1920x1080.
> I have no problem helping as I can open the screen and do the
> replacement.
> Q: Would the higher resolution require a different cable to connect it
> to the motherboard?
> Q: Would the graphics processor even be able to run it at 1920x1080?
>
> The display model# my friend wants is
> LG model LP156WF1 TP B1
>
> I found this blog that says it is "doable" ;-)
>
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/e6510-1366x768-to-1920x1080-direct-swap.621175/
>
> Hoping that someone on the list has encountered or done this before.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:22:33 -0700
> From: Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Firefox scrollbar problem
> Message-ID: <558D8A59.8030400 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 06/26/2015 04:21 AM, Philip Heron wrote:
>> I've noticed since F22 I can't grab the Firefox scrollbar with the
>> mouse pointer when it's on the very right of the bar. I have to move
>> it in a pixel or two in before it works. It's like there's a thin
>> inactive border around it.
>> Anyone know a workaround? No other programs on F22 seem to have this
>> problem, even Thunderbird.
>
> I don't know about a workaround, but it's probably worth noting that
> (unless I'm confused) Firefox in F22 has been ported to GTK3, and
> Thunderbird has not.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:44:14 -0600
> From: jd1008 <jd1008 at gmail.com>
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Firefox scrollbar problem
> Message-ID: <558D8F6E.8000901 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 06/26/2015 11:22 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 06/26/2015 04:21 AM, Philip Heron wrote:
>>> I've noticed since F22 I can't grab the Firefox scrollbar with the
>>> mouse pointer when it's on the very right of the bar. I have to move
>>> it in a pixel or two in before it works. It's like there's a thin
>>> inactive border around it.
>>> Anyone know a workaround? No other programs on F22 seem to have this
>>> problem, even Thunderbird.
>>
>> I don't know about a workaround, but it's probably worth noting that
>> (unless I'm confused) Firefox in F22 has been ported to GTK3, and
>> Thunderbird has not.
> Well, if the OP has gtk3 and it's deps installed, then the
> OP still should not be having this issue, unless the port has a bug.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:34:07 -0400
> From: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Firefox scrollbar problem
> Message-ID: <cone.1435354447.983614.31234.1004 at monster.email-scan.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed";
> DelSp="yes"
>
> Gordon Messmer writes:
>
>> I don't know about a workaround, but it's probably worth noting that
>> (unless
>> I'm confused) Firefox in F22 has been ported to GTK3, and Thunderbird
>> has
>> not.
>
> This seems to explain why Firefox's scrollbar acquired the obnoxious
> behavior of the left mouse button click resulting in the scroll
> position
> jumping directly to the click point, instead of advancing only by a
> single
> page. It's now necessary to use the right mouse button to do the same
> thing
> that the left mouse button used to do.
>
> Oh well, just another Gnome "usability improvement": force you to use
> the
> right mouse button to do what the left mouse button did for at least a
> decade, if not more.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 819 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:
> <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150626/adfb8a0e/attachment-0001.sig>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:51:35 -0600
> From: jd1008 <jd1008 at gmail.com>
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Strange booting problem
> Message-ID: <558DC967.1070300 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 06/25/2015 03:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 06/25/2015 11:33 AM, jd1008 wrote:
>>> I bought the usb drive brand new and had not installed anything
>>> on it. Just partitioned it and used it.
>>> So, how could it contain any boot code?
>>> Is this what manufacturers do by default? I had not encountered
>>> this issue you raise before.
>>
>> Have a look at it:
>>
>> dd if=/dev/sdb bs=446 count=1 | od -c
>>
>> Does it have anything other than nul bytes?
>>
> Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which
> you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS
> to think that my usb drive is bootable.
> The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code.
> What about disk label?
> Could those bytes be a disk label?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:55:54 -0700
> From: Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Strange booting problem
> Message-ID: <558DD87A.10802 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>> Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which
>> you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS
>> to think that my usb drive is bootable.
>> The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code.
>
> What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply executes
> instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code, whether it
> does anything useful or not.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:59:45 -0700
> From: Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Firefox scrollbar problem
> Message-ID: <558DD961.6000800 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 06/26/2015 02:34 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> This seems to explain why Firefox's scrollbar acquired the obnoxious
>> behavior...
>
> Yeah, that too. And why Ctrl+K doesn't move the cursor to the search
> box. Some of these are, IMO, bad design decisions with GTK3. The
> border to the right of firefox's scroll bar is probably just a bug,
> though. Other GTK3 apps don't behave that way.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:05:26 -0600
> From: jd1008 <jd1008 at gmail.com>
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Strange booting problem
> Message-ID: <558DDAB6.5040002 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>>> Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which
>>> you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS
>>> to think that my usb drive is bootable.
>>> The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code.
>>
>> What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply
>> executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code,
>> whether it does anything useful or not.
> Fine! No argument there.
> Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:24:40 -0700
> From: Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Strange booting problem
> Message-ID: <558DDF38.8020301 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>> Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions?
>
> In MBR, partitions don't have labels. Filesystems do regardless of
> what
> container they're in. In GPT, partitions have 72 bytes for a
> label/name.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:29:30 -0700
> From: Rick Stevens <ricks at alldigital.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Subject: Re: Strange booting problem
> Message-ID: <558DE05A.2060308 at alldigital.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
> On 06/26/2015 04:05 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2015 04:55 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>> On 06/26/2015 02:51 PM, jd1008 wrote:
>>>> Just wondering about the bytes in the first sector which
>>>> you thought might be boot code that is confusing BIOS
>>>> to think that my usb drive is bootable.
>>>> The bytes you already saw are obviously not boot code.
>>>
>>> What is obvious to you is not obvious to the CPU, which simply
>>> executes instructions. Everything in bytes is 0-446 is boot code,
>>> whether it does anything useful or not.
>> Fine! No argument there.
>> Where do device (or partition) labels reside? In the partitions?
>
> fdisk- (dos-) style partition tables do not have partition labels. GPT
> partitions do. They are 72 bytes long, starting at offset 56 in the
> partition's entry in the partition table.
>
> The location of the partition table is given in an 8-byte value
> starting at offset 72 in the GPT header. Generally, they start at the
> second LBA (LBA1) on the disk and are 128 bytes long.
>
> Filesystem labels (regardless of DPT or GPT partitioning) are located
> in the filesystem's superblock(s). They are 16 bytes long starting at
> offset 120 in each copy of the superblock.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks at alldigital.com -
> - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
> - -
> - Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
--
Philip Rhoades
PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
Australia
E-mail: phil at pricom.com.au
More information about the users
mailing list