Re: [CentOS] Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution
I haven't seen this option before. Let me do some googling and see if it fits into the solution I'm looking for. Thanks =) On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM, John Doe jd...@yahoo.com wrote: From: James Nguyen ja...@callfire.com So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. What about using multilib_policy=best instead? JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution
Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. I noticed there is already one for x86_64. I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf. So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all? I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well. Thanks! -- james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Christopher Hawker cwhawk...@gmail.comwrote: I could not see any issues with it. As you probably know i386 packages will work on an x86_64 install, and there are some packages written for i386 that you can't get for x86_64. You could disable it, but my system runs perfect with it. Yes I do know that i386 will run fine on x86_64. The intentions is to only install and run what I really need. I'm already only installing the base and @core packages during a kickstart, so I might as well try and keep it all clean from the get-go, but noticed that some packages do creep in that are not needed seeing there is an x86_64 equivalent. =) The packages that are only available via i386 are the ones I'll have to keep indeed. So the approach I took in excluding those packages would immediately break on a yum update where their dependencies also need upgrading. I came across this moving from 5.6-5.7. If there are any best practices approach someone has or some tips and tricks. I'd much appreciate the advice. Given security concerns all around, the slimmer my installs are the less I need to worry about some i386 binary that I don't need or nor run. I treat my services the same. If you don't need it, don't run it. =) -- If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on +61 478 241 896. Regards, Christopher Hawker On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:52 AM, James Nguyen ja...@callfire.com wrote: Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. I noticed there is already one for x86_64. I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf. So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all? I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well. Thanks! -- james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] managing a rack full of centos servers
I'm managing two data centers and some instances on rackspace cloud servers. Currently running Cobbler+Puppet+Mcollective. So far it's been great for a team of one, myself. At the moment I'm looking into either using Aeolus or Openstack to bridge the gap of my data centers and the public cloud still keeping Puppet+Mcollective in the mix and seeing if Cobbler is still needed. Anyone out there tried both Aeolus *and* Openstack yet? I'm looking to supplement my research on these two private/public cloud tools. =) On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote: On Thursday 21 July 2011 18:36:17 Devin Reade wrote: --On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 11:02:42 PM -0700 RC cool...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:07:06 -0600 Devin Reade g...@gno.org wrote: It should be considered as complementing the automated config management tools like cfengine et al, not as a replacement for them (they're doing different jobs). That's not entirely fair. A little shell scripting and pdsh and pdcp can certainly do everything cfengine/puppet can do I wasn't referring to pdsh/pdcp; I was referring to pconsole. The reason I said complementing is that sometimes it is good to have stuff under a configuration management system like cfengine/puppet, but sometimes you need to run ad-hoc commands, in an identical fashion, on lots of similar machines, which pconsole is good at (subject to the caveats I previously mentioned). I made no comments on pdsh/pdcp at all, and make no claims on where it fits in the spectrum. Devin You can actually achieve the same functionality of pdsh/pdcp and pconsole with a quite simple bash script :) http://multy-command.sourceforge.net/ I think it is a matter of what the admin will prefer to do. When you have a lot of identical machines, sometimes it is better to have cfengine/puppet, but sometimes it just an overkill to use them if you are the only one administrating those machines. cfengine and puppet have a very good place on machines that are administered by a team of people. But solutions like pdsh/pconsole and multy-command, in my opinion are more suitable when there are only one or two guys administering those machines. Marian ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 - What are you looking forward to?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:11 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: On 03/04/11 11:59 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: I'm looking forward to the new cgroups and KVM. This will give it some capabilities similar to AIX virtual partitions which can divvy up CPUs at a fine resolution. Really? So IBM ported VM into native AIX? I missed that. IBM Power servers since the Power4+ CPU (they are up to Power7 now) have hardware partitioning support, commonly known as LPAR. LPAR can be divided in units of 1/10th of a CPU. The software to manage this is now called PowerVM (its been called other names in the past, not all polite). In addition, AIX 6.1 and newer have Workload Partitions (WPAR), which are similar to Solaris Zones, these allow subdividing an AIX install into an arbitrary number of apparently different systems that all share the same kernel. LPAR plus VIOS (Virtual IO System, actually a stripped down preconfigured AIX system) corresponds to the Xen model, however the base hypervisor capability is built right into the CPU and IO hardware, VIOS just provides management and optional virtualized IO. You can assign IO adapters directly to partitions, whereupon the partitions (VMs) run even if VIOS is shut down. The newer Power6 and 7 servers have Ethernet adapters that provide each LPAR with its own hardware-virtualized ethernet adapter so you don't need a cage full of cards, or run all the networking through VIOS. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos This is why I'm not totally impressed with virtualization today, but I've used it ions ago in enterprise solutions. =) There's a reason why IBM solutions are so expensive sides the amount of people they staff on projects. You also get technology that the industry never new existed. -- James H. Nguyen CallFire :: Systems Architect http://www.callfire.com 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load balancing...
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd slackmoehrle.li...@gmail.com wrote: Brian, Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your reply. OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It handled sticky sessions well, performs monitoring of each host, allows dynamic adding/removing of servers, as well as maintenance modes. It's very easy to install and configure. I'm using is as the backend to apache that is acting as an SSL termination point. It's been very high performing for us and I know a lot of big sites use it as well. The only question I would have with it is handling of video, as we only use it for typical web traffic, just high bandwidth stuff like that. Also, make sure any load balancer you have is redundant and has some kind of failover, using something like pacemaker, heartbeat, etc... Can you outline a bit specs for building a homemade box to run HAProxy? The HAProxy site is very extensive, but I did not see ideal specs at a quick glance. I will read in depth this weekend. Minimal specs and they excellent specs if you have thoughts.. I really don't have an idea how intensive a task like this is. Nobody needs to log into the box, simply use the box for this purpose. -Jason ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos You want two boxes that run both haproxy + keepalived. This way you get the load balancing (HAProxy) plus the high availability (Keepalived) using a shared virtual IP for your two boxes. You can do maintenance on either one while traffic still remains active. I don't have metrics to spec out the boxes, but given your traffic load you mentioned you don't need hefty boxes at all. Just get yourself a box with some Gigabit interfaces which I'm sure they all are these days. A single socket with 4 cores is more than enough. You can probably even do with 2 cores. Someone can correct me on that if they think the solution requires a lot of CPU. Memory wise I think machines come with at least 4Gb these days. That should do. You can probably both boxes for around 2k? You already know how much F5 or any of those guys cost per device. =) Best, -- James H. Nguyen CallFire :: Systems Architect http://www.callfire.com 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load balancing...
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: James Nguyen wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd slackmoehrle.li...@gmail.com wrote: Brian, Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your reply. OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It snip if they think the solution requires a lot of CPU. Memory wise I think machines come with at least 4Gb these days. That should do. You can probably both boxes for around 2k? You already know how much F5 or any of those guys cost per device. =) Hmmm... when the job I was at went with Radware, their price was significantly lower than F5, and I was impressed with the appliance. Nice little 1u box, not even a pizza box deep, as I recall. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Keep in mind you'd want at least 2 either it be appliances, devices or server boxes. The minimum for high availability is at least 2. That's assuming your power and internet route is already highly redundant as well. ;) -- James H. Nguyen CallFire :: Systems Architect http://www.callfire.com 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Does anybody know a PeerGuardian like app?
moblock is for linux On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:04 AM, S Mathias smathias1...@yahoo.com wrote: Are there any programs blocking ip, and has frequently updated lists, like the peerguardian on windows? sorry for the question, but i looking for this kind of application :O Thank you, and a happy christmas! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- James H. Nguyen CallFire :: Systems Architect http://www.callfire.com 1.949.625.4263 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
