[CentOS] CentOS 7 on PPC64le booting from a MD RAID volume

I've been trying to install CentOS 7 AltArch ppc64le onto a new Power 8 system and I want to configure mdraid for the volumes.  I can get everything working if I install to a single disk, but when I configure for RAID 1, the system fails to boot. So, is mdraid1 supported for booting a Power 8

Re: [CentOS-es] AYUDA

Yo uso (postfix + postfixmysql + dovecot + clamav + spamassaing + mariadb + dkim + dmarck) y por supuesto el registro spf todo bajo sll y funciona a las mil maravillas, Slds, El vie., 8 sept. 2017 a las 17:40, Rhamyro Alcoser A. () escribió: > Saludos cordiales estimado y

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 9/8/2017 2:36 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: With all due respect, John, this is the same as hard drive cache is not backed up power wise for a case of power loss. And hard drives all lie about write operation completed before data actually are on the platters. So we can claim the same: hard

[CentOS-es] AYUDA

Saludos cordiales estimado y muy respetados amigos, por favor su valiosa opinión, que características debe tener un servidor de correo medio decente sobre Centos 7 o Debian; me refiero a servicios, seguridades sobre el servidor para q me dure un buen tiempo y que no me este dando problemas.

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On Fri, September 8, 2017 3:06 pm, John R Pierce wrote: > On 9/8/2017 12:52 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> Thanks. That seems to clear fog a little bit. I still would like to hear >> manufacturers/models here. My choices would be: Areca or LSI (bought out >> by Intel, so former LSI chipset and

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 09/08/2017 11:06 AM, hw wrote: Make a test and replace a software RAID5 with a hardware RAID5.  Even with only 4 disks, you will see an overall performance gain.  I´m guessing that the SATA controllers they put onto the mainboards are not designed to handle all the data --- which gets

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > manufacturers/models here. My choices would be: Areca or LSI (bought out > by Intel, so former LSI chipset and microcode/firmware) and as SSD Samsung > Intel only purchased the networking component of LSI,

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 9/8/2017 12:52 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Thanks. That seems to clear fog a little bit. I still would like to hear manufacturers/models here. My choices would be: Areca or LSI (bought out by Intel, so former LSI chipset and microcode/firmware) and as SSD Samsung Evo SATA III. Does anyone who

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On Fri, September 8, 2017 12:56 pm, hw wrote: > Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: >>> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: hw wrote: > Mark Haney wrote: >> BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, >> XFS. > > But

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 09/07/2017 12:57 PM, hw wrote: > > Hi, > > is there anything that speaks against putting a cyrus mail spool onto a > btrfs subvolume? This is what Red Hat says about btrfs: The Btrfs file system has been in Technology Preview state since the initial release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Mark Haney wrote: > On 09/08/2017 01:31 PM, hw wrote: >> Mark Haney wrote: >> >> Probably with the very expensive SSDs suited for this ... > Possibly, but that's somewhat irrelevant.  I've taken off the shelf SSDs > and hardware RAID'd them.  If they work for the hell I put them through >

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 09/08/2017 01:31 PM, hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: I/O is not heavy in that sense, that´s why I said that´s not the application. There is I/O which, as tests have shown, benefits greatly from low latency, which is where the idea to use SSDs for the relevant data has arisen from.  This I/O

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Mark Haney wrote: On 09/08/2017 09:49 AM, hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: It depends, i. e. I can´t tell how these SSDs would behave if large amounts of data would be written and/or read to/from them over extended periods of time because I haven´t tested that. That

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

hw wrote: > Mark Haney wrote: >> On 09/08/2017 09:49 AM, hw wrote: >>> Mark Haney wrote: > Probably with the very expensive SSDs suited for this ... >>> >>> That´s because I do not store data on a single disk, without >>> redundancy, and the SSDs I have are not suitable for hardware RAID.

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS. But mdadm does, the impact is severe. I know there are ppl saying otherwise, but I´ve seen the

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Mark Haney wrote: > On 09/08/2017 09:49 AM, hw wrote: >> Mark Haney wrote: >> >> It depends, i. e. I can´t tell how these SSDs would behave if large >> amounts of data would be written and/or read to/from them over extended >> periods of time because I haven´t tested that.  That isn´t the >>

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Mark Haney wrote: On 09/08/2017 09:49 AM, hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: I hate top posting, but since you've got two items I want to comment on, I'll suck it up for now. I do, too, yet sometimes it´s reasonable. I also hate it when the lines are too long :) I'm afraid you'll have to live

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 8 September 2017 at 12:13, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Fri, September 8, 2017 11:07 am, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 8 September 2017 at 11:00, Valeri Galtsev >> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote:

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On Fri, September 8, 2017 11:07 am, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 8 September 2017 at 11:00, Valeri Galtsev > wrote: >> >> On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: >>> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: hw wrote: > Mark Haney wrote: >> BTRFS isn't going

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 8 September 2017 at 11:00, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: >> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >>> hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: >>> > BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS. But mdadm

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On Fri, September 8, 2017 9:48 am, hw wrote: > m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> hw wrote: >>> Mark Haney wrote: >> BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS. >>> >>> But mdadm does, the impact is severe. I know there are ppl saying >>> otherwise, but I´ve seen the

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

On 09/08/2017 09:49 AM, hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: I hate top posting, but since you've got two items I want to comment on, I'll suck it up for now. I do, too, yet sometimes it´s reasonable.  I also hate it when the lines are too long :) I'm afraid you'll have to live with it a bit longer. 

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: hw wrote: Mark Haney wrote: BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS. But mdadm does, the impact is severe. I know there are ppl saying otherwise, but I´ve seen the impact myself, and I definitely don´t want it on that particular server

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

hw wrote: > Mark Haney wrote: >> BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS. > > But mdadm does, the impact is severe. I know there are ppl saying > otherwise, but I´ve seen the impact myself, and I definitely don´t want > it on that particular server because it would

Re: [CentOS] login case sensitivity

On Thu, September 7, 2017 14:07, hw wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: >> On 09/07/2017 08:11 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >>> This was always problematic because DNS hostnames and >>> email addresses in the RFC standards were case insensitive >> >> >> Not quite. SMTP is required to treat the

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Mark Haney wrote: I hate top posting, but since you've got two items I want to comment on, I'll suck it up for now. I do, too, yet sometimes it´s reasonable. I also hate it when the lines are too long :) Having SSDs alone will give you great performance regardless of filesystem. It

Re: [CentOS-docs] Splitting the container pipeline page in the wiki

On Sep 8, 2017 6:05 PM, "Karanbir Singh" wrote: hi Bama since there are other things going on in the container space around centos, I was thinking maybe we can setup a /Container page, and then have a /Container/Registry and a /Container/Pipeline page each. the pipeline page

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Matty wrote: I think it depends on who you ask. Facebook and Netflix are using it extensively in production: https://www.linux.com/news/learn/intro-to-linux/how-facebook-uses-linux-and-btrfs-interview-chris-mason Though they have the in-house kernel engineering resources to troubleshoot

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

I hate top posting, but since you've got two items I want to comment on, I'll suck it up for now. Having SSDs alone will give you great performance regardless of filesystem.  BTRFS isn't going to impact I/O any more significantly than, say, XFS.  It does have serious stability/data integrity

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

I think it depends on who you ask. Facebook and Netflix are using it extensively in production: https://www.linux.com/news/learn/intro-to-linux/how-facebook-uses-linux-and-btrfs-interview-chris-mason Though they have the in-house kernel engineering resources to troubleshoot problems. When I see

[CentOS] intel wireless 3165 and CentOS 7.3

I am trying to get wireless working on CentOS 7.3 with intel wireless 3165 ip link 1: lo: mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode DEFAULT link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state

[CentOS-docs] Splitting the container pipeline page in the wiki

hi Bama since there are other things going on in the container space around centos, I was thinking maybe we can setup a /Container page, and then have a /Container/Registry and a /Container/Pipeline page each. the pipeline page can talk about the service, code and run setup. and the registry page

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

PS: What kind of storage solutions do people use for cyrus mail spools? Apparently you can not use remote storage, at least not NFS. That even makes it difficult to use a VM due to limitations of available disk space. I´m reluctant to use btrfs, but there doesn´t seem to be any reasonable

Re: [CentOS] cyrus spool on btrfs?

Mark Haney wrote: On 09/07/2017 01:57 PM, hw wrote: Hi, is there anything that speaks against putting a cyrus mail spool onto a btrfs subvolume? I might be the lone voice on this, but I refuse to use btrfs for anything, much less a mail spool. I used it in production on DB and Web servers

Re: [CentOS] login case sensitivity

Alexander Dalloz wrote: Am 07.09.2017 um 20:07 schrieb hw: Gordon Messmer wrote: On 09/07/2017 08:11 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: This was always problematic because DNS hostnames and email addresses in the RFC standards were case insensitive Not quite. SMTP is required to treat the

Re: [CentOS] login case sensitivity

Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 7 September 2017 at 16:07, Alexander Dalloz wrote: Am 07.09.2017 um 20:07 schrieb hw: Gordon Messmer wrote: On 09/07/2017 08:11 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: This was always problematic because DNS hostnames and email addresses in the

Re: [CentOS-virt] change network settings of VM depending on logged in user(s)?

> On 7 Sep 2017, at 21:48, hw wrote: > > [-=X.L.O.R.D=-] wrote: >> 1guys, >> I think it can be done via power management feature if PC idle a period of >> time, sleep it. > > Access is exclusively via RDP-sessions. I don´t know if I can get a VM to > hibernate > when idle and

Re: [CentOS-virt] updating qemu-img-ev 2.6

2017-09-07 15:04 GMT+02:00 Johnny Hughes : > On 09/07/2017 04:09 AM, Johan Guldmyr wrote: > > Hello! > > > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/virt/x86_64/kvm-common > > > > Latest is now qemu-kvm-ev-2.6.0-28.el7.10.1.x86_64.rpm > > > > while