On 10.08.2012 13:46, Julian price wrote:
I have 2 similar servers. Since upgrading one from CentOS 5.5 to 6,
disk write performance in kvm guest VMs is much worse.
There are many, many posts about optimising kvm, many mentioning disk
performance in CentOS 5 vs 6. I've tried various changes
Nice post, Julian. It generated some feedback at
http://irclog.perlgeek.de/crimsonfu/2012-08-10 and a link to
http://rhsummit.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/wagner_network_perf.pdf
Phil
On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Julian price centos@julianprice.org.uk wrote:
I have 2 similar servers.
On 8/10/12, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu m3fr...@thesandhufamily.ca wrote:
1. Let the KVM host manage the drives (i.e. RAID with LVM on top) and just
assign the single volume to OMV. OMV will see it as one HD.
2. Assign the individual drives to the OMV KVM, and let OMV manage the
RAID creation,
I have 2 similar servers. Since upgrading one from CentOS 5.5 to 6,
disk write performance in kvm guest VMs is much worse.
Philip Durbin wrote:
Nice post, Julian. It generated some feedback at
http://irclog.perlgeek.de/crimsonfu/2012-08-10 and a link to
Actually the physical disk position can make a HUGE difference. I have
a machine with a velociraptor 1GB drive which I have parititioned into two
500GB partitions, the average speed of the first (on the outside cylinders
of the drive) is far better than the second on the inside. Sorry I
physical disk position shouldn't have such a marked effect should it?
Nanook wrote:
Actually the physical disk position can make a HUGE difference.
Thank you Nanook for your explanation. I think you're right. It looks
like the variation in performance is not due to LVM, but the position on
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Julian price
centos@julianprice.org.uk wrote:
physical disk position shouldn't have such a marked effect should it?
Nanook wrote:
Actually the physical disk position can make a HUGE difference.
Thank you Nanook for your explanation. I think you're
On Aug 11, 2012 2:00 AM, Alan Batie a...@peak.org wrote:
On 8/10/12 5:50 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 05:24:12PM -0700, Alan Batie wrote:
IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes
Not sure where you get that from.
That's not something normally in our configs, I think it was in the
On 08/10/2012 06:13 PM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Hello,
I just noticed there's a security update for openldap on C6 that's a few
days old. However my box is not receiving the update. I've checked both
ftp://ftp.plusline.de and ftp://ftp.nluug.nl. Both have the updates in
the Packages
Greetings,
I had downloaded c6 64 bits ISO, selected all packages to be installed.
One dependency warning relating to Emacs appeared. I chose to
continue. Unfortunately I was multitasking and did not note down the
package name
Twice this issue appeared -- first time around aborted install due
installing all packages is very bad idea. many of them may conflict in
installation process or after it.
———
Ashkan R
On Aug 11, 2012 8:41 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan raju.rajs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Greetings,
I had downloaded c6 64 bits ISO, selected all packages to be installed.
One
Greetings,
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:43 PM, ashkab rahmani ashkan...@gmail.com wrote:
installing all packages is very bad idea. many of them may conflict in
installation process or after it.
Completely agree.
/ducks
I know no sysadmin installs everything on a centos box... But then it
is
On 8/11/12, Alan Batie a...@peak.org wrote:
We've been running ipv6 for a year or so now, but some of our newer
instances (all on an ESX cluster) are not working. It looks like it's
all of our Centos 6 instances. I'm hoping someone can point me in the
right direction...
centos666.peak.org
Hello Ashkab,
Be so kind not to top post and trim your replies.
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:43 +0430, ashkab rahmani wrote:
installing all packages is very bad idea. many of them may conflict in
installation process or after it.
The distribution is build by upstream so packages within a release
This was taken out of RHEL in 5 and was to be replaced.
However, I've not seen where, though I've not looked at 6 yet
_
He's no failure. He's not dead yet.
William Lloyd George
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org
hi,
firstly, you haven't pointed out what the problem was.
On 08/11/2012 05:19 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
installing all packages is very bad idea. many of them may conflict in
installation process or after it.
Completely agree.
I can also confirm that its impossible to install
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 07:34:15PM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi,
firstly, you haven't pointed out what the problem was.
On 08/11/2012 05:19 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
installing all packages is very bad idea. many of them may conflict in
installation process or after it.
On 08/11/2012 07:40 PM, fred smith wrote:
I can also confirm that its impossible to install everything on
CentOS-6. That is by design, there are functional overlaps that are
enforced at the rpm level that prevent you from doing so.
KB: I assume this was done for some useful purpose, not simply
I am trying to transport a dd image between to hosts over a cross
linked gigabit connection. Both hosts have an eth1 configured to a
non routable ip addr on a shared network. No other devices exist on
this link.
When transferring via sftp I received a stall warning. Checking the
logs I see
On 08/09/2012 12:33 PM, Russell Jones wrote:
The hardware clock is configured in local time. /etc/sysconfig/clock
is set to UTC=false and ZONE=America/Chicago.
What other settings are in that file?
The system is treating your hardware clock as if it were UTC. Actually
setting it to UTC is
On 08/09/2012 11:31 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
It's another idea from Fedora, the theory, IIRC, was that this way,
devices would always have the same name, whereas under the method
that has been used device names could change on a reboot.
The idea actually came from Dell. It's frequently
Greetings,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/11/2012 07:40 PM, fred smith wrote:
I can also confirm that its impossible to install everything on
CentOS-6. That is by design, there are functional overlaps that are
enforced at the rpm level that
On 08/08/2012 11:34 AM, Brian Mathis wrote:
Capturing history files is error-prone and a very bad way to approach
this problem. You should instead look into using process accounting,
provided by the psacct package. You can read about it here:
On 08/04/2012 07:01 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
I have a hard time imagining that you'd get useful information from
cross-posting this to the FreeBSD and CentOS lists. Their
implementations of filesystems are completely
On 08/11/2012 07:30 PM, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
Greetings,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 08/11/2012 07:40 PM, fred smith wrote:
I can also confirm that its impossible to install everything on
CentOS-6. That is by design, there are
25 matches
Mail list logo
