Hello all,
I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
the number of files: over 10 million each.
Now the machine is not particularly powerful: it is 64-bit machine, dual
core CPU, 3 GB RAM. So
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
the number of files: over 10 million each.
Now the
Now the machine is not particularly powerful: it is 64-bit machine, dual
core CPU, 3 GB RAM. So perhaps this is a factor in why I am having the
following problem: once in awhile that XFS partition starts generating
multiple I/O errors, files that had content become 0 byte, directories
Correction to the above: the XFS partition is 26TB, not 16 TB (not that it
should matter in the context of this particular situation).
Yes, it does matter:
Read this:
*[CentOS] 32-bit kernel+XFS+16.xTB filesystem = potential disaster*
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.ptwrote:
Correction to the above: the XFS partition is 26TB, not 16 TB (not that it
should matter in the context of this particular situation).
Yes, it does matter:
Read this:
*[CentOS] 32-bit kernel+XFS+16.xTB filesystem
uname -a
Linux nrims-bs 2.6.18-274.12.1.el5xen #1 SMP Tue Nov 29 14:18:21 EST
2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
this is clearly a 64-bit OS so the 32-bit limitations ought not to apply.
Ok! Since you didn't inform us in your initial post, I thought I should
ask you in order to
Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM
on a 64 bit system...
Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB
correspond to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
If you have a 64 bit system you should give it space to work properly.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM
on a 64 bit system...
Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB
correspond to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
If you have a 64 bit system you should give it space to work properly.
... and the fact that
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.ptwrote:
Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM on
a 64 bit system...
Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB correspond
to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
If you have a 64
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.ptwrote:
Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM
on a 64 bit system...
Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB
correspond to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
If you have a 64
You are right - it would indeed be desirable to have more than 3 GB of
RAM on that system. However it is not obvious to me that having that
little RAM should cause I/O failure? Why? That it would make the
machine slow is to be expected - and especially so given that I had to
jack the
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.ptwrote:
You are right - it would indeed be desirable to have more than 3 GB of
RAM on that system. However it is not obvious to me that having that little
RAM should cause I/O failure? Why? That it would make the machine
I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
the number of files: over 10 million each.
Now the machine is not particularly powerful: it is 64-bit machine, dual
core CPU, 3 GB RAM. So perhaps
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Joseph L. Casale jcas...@activenetwerx.com
wrote:
I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
the number of files: over 10 million each.
Now the machine
On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x0026):
Drive ECC error reported:port=4, unit=0.
Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x002D):
Source drive error
On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x0026):
Drive ECC error reported:port=4, unit=0.
Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel:
On 2012-01-22, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, here's somethine else I have discovered. Apparently there is an
potential intermittent RAID disk trouble. At least I found the following in
the system log:
Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Keith Keller
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote:
On 2012-01-22, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, here's somethine else I have discovered. Apparently there is an
potential intermittent RAID disk trouble. At least I found the following
On 2012-01-22, Boris Epstein borepst...@gmail.com wrote:
The RAID is on the controller level. Yes, I believe the controller is a
3Ware 9xxx series - I don't recall the details right now.
The details are important in this context--the 9550 is the problematic
one (at least for me, though I've
19 matches
Mail list logo
