Re: [CentOS-docs] Some questions: Release Notes CentOS 5.6
Dne 14.4.2011 11:31, Timothy Lee napsal(a): No objections. But please add a link for the English translation (yes, even inside the English page), so that a person on the translated page can access the English version if necessary. Regards, Timothy Lee I have just updated the translation list. It's sorted by ISO country code, contains only localised language names. I wish we could do the same with the ISOs sums. DH ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Some questions: Release Notes CentOS 5.6
El 15/04/11 04:44, David Hrbáč escribió: Dne 14.4.2011 11:31, Timothy Lee napsal(a): No objections. But please add a link for the English translation (yes, even inside the English page), so that a person on the translated page can access the English version if necessary. Regards, Timothy Lee I have just updated the translation list. It's sorted by ISO country code, contains only localised language names. Fine. Now, how we use the marks #begin/#end-translation ? I wish we could do the same with the ISOs sums. DH +1 Thanks ! -- Hardy Beltran Monasterios ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] WebSite V2 - progress
Hello guys, we have done some progress on the new web site project. We need your comments for the design of the front page. We have 3 proposals or the design of the frontpage. Please look at them, we need your help :) http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/websitever2/ Best regards, Marian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-announce] CEEA-2011:0353 CentOS 5 i386 tzdata Update
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2011:0353
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0353.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
4af04eaafd692331c48fcf122a38284f tzdata-2011b-1.el5.i386.rpm
5f7138d5849e3b6028c9cb101d1cb259 tzdata-java-2011b-1.el5.i386.rpm
Source:
3f417d0f9bbd3db915215f73d431ba24 tzdata-2011b-1.el5.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0337 Important CentOS 5 i386 vsftpd Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0337 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0337.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
b33b25344560f84dd12a82047345f3fa vsftpd-2.0.5-16.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
Source:
4b26382df00baac076b9b1223ec5879b vsftpd-2.0.5-16.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0373 Important CentOS 5 i386 xulrunner Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0373 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0373.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
c01c86a863ec7724d5351776d62450e4 xulrunner-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.i386.rpm
7ad2fc585cdaa70370e42a6b9c99badb xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.i386.rpm
Source:
01f4e3280bce91d44086da118bca7483 xulrunner-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0342 CentOS 5 x86_64 xen Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0342
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0342.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
4a178e1740228495b3f112d842663a8d xen-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
e3b3dc5264744ecdfb9cd0708ef2e837 xen-devel-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
36d0430ad86d225b46d6264d280a7695 xen-devel-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
aa3cd008cc1e93e2723991b9fd9a0d80 xen-libs-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
3fe2274061f36fc728c8229356f1bb80 xen-libs-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
c806b3cf462b996eca62d0fbf645e892 xen-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0359 CentOS 5 i386 xulrunner Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0359
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0359.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
31ed6ca2e213bed33847e6f2e116695b xulrunner-1.9.2.15-1.el5_6.i386.rpm
5b2f95c2bdb79df3c599b1c2b5a99e1d xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.15-1.el5_6.i386.rpm
Source:
e71ce8e3909e2c8a5e0e63e8b6ab8225 xulrunner-1.9.2.15-1.el5_6.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0337 Important CentOS 5 x86_64 vsftpd Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0337 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0337.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
04d76e94af7d17ddefdde420eb3a8d97 vsftpd-2.0.5-16.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
4b26382df00baac076b9b1223ec5879b vsftpd-2.0.5-16.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0370 Moderate CentOS 5 i386 wireshark Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0370 Moderate
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0370.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
712eb48747851eaec39a295af3106151 wireshark-1.0.15-1.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
d0aa9b76d3e78f19e7c18bf4013c5dee wireshark-gnome-1.0.15-1.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
Source:
8559e3dab21c1aa520a12da6842f82da wireshark-1.0.15-1.el5_6.4.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEEA-2011:0353 CentOS 5 x86_64 tzdata Update
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2011:0353
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0353.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
6fa55e58d791036867edfa187564000f tzdata-2011b-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
859ae882baf8fc4055ef34a0b01a820b tzdata-java-2011b-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
Source:
3f417d0f9bbd3db915215f73d431ba24 tzdata-2011b-1.el5.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEEA-2011:0378 CentOS 5 x86_64 tzdata Update
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2011:0378
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0378.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
619a293df04db258d71f8f4643ee261c tzdata-2011d-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
f5f7ef1e23e908faa2a9f06f67cad0d9 tzdata-java-2011d-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
Source:
339790ce9be9bd871422f12fb549eff2 tzdata-2011d-1.el5.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0373 Important CentOS 5 x86_64 xulrunner Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0373 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0373.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
db845cbac7ed905e44bdbe38a805bf73 xulrunner-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.i386.rpm
78cea92b4ec910716a06dfe714b26825 xulrunner-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.x86_64.rpm
14b303569b3cab60fc97fd6e6573e18e xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.i386.rpm
3ff3d738f81c1f2084df434fc139be3c xulrunner-devel-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.x86_64.rpm
Source:
01f4e3280bce91d44086da118bca7483 xulrunner-1.9.2.15-2.el5_6.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0342 CentOS 5 i386 xen Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0342
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0342.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
7e2ed18dc6317fdaacfd2ecedf0e0164 xen-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
888dccb4b245413d4584b69ae896665f xen-devel-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
e9e2e6a93b491f898feef7e777f2d9c9 xen-libs-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
Source:
c806b3cf462b996eca62d0fbf645e892 xen-3.0.3-120.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
Re: [CentOS-es] Duda con dhcpd
On 12/04/11 22:22, Ing. Ernesto Pérez Estévez wrote:
Fernando Rojas de la Torre wrote:
¿que es lo que puede ocasionar que a pesar que tengo especificado un
cliente con
lo asigna otro servidor de dhcp?
host xen.main {
hardware ethernet xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx;
fixed-address 10.10.10.10;
}
el dhcp le asigne la misma ip a otro cliente?
Estoy completamente seguro que no se fijo manualmente la ip
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
No. El mismo servidor me lo marca en dhcpd.leases. Digamos que el
servidor es 10.10.10.254
Nunca me había sucedido.
Cuando el 10.10.10.10 intenta conectarse, /var/log/messages indica
dhcpdecline
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
[CentOS-es] Cluster del host identico
Hola muy buenas, quería saber si existe algún software que te replique todos los cambios que hagas en un servidor, en otro. Sé que hay herramientas como drbd con el sistema de ficheros ocfs2 o gfs que inclusive se pueden poner los nodos como los dos primarios para poder escribir en la misma partición simultaneamente pero me refiero a replicar el servidor en otro, todos los cambios que se realicen en uno, que se hagan en el otro. No sé si esto existe en centos, o si existe y no es opensource pero me estoy mudando de ubuntu/debian a Centos porque la verdad es que en cuanto a servicios me parece muy rapido la manera de administrarlos y de como los administra el sistema. Un saludo. ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS-es] Duda con dhcpd
2011/4/14 Fernando Rojas de la Torre fernando.ro...@uniondetula.gob.mx:
On 12/04/11 22:22, Ing. Ernesto Pérez Estévez wrote:
Fernando Rojas de la Torre wrote:
¿que es lo que puede ocasionar que a pesar que tengo especificado un
cliente con
lo asigna otro servidor de dhcp?
host xen.main {
hardware ethernet xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx;
fixed-address 10.10.10.10;
}
el dhcp le asigne la misma ip a otro cliente?
Estoy completamente seguro que no se fijo manualmente la ip
Las direcciones MAC son diferentes? Porque veo que se trata de un host
Xen... el otro cliente no será un guest del mismo, o de otro host que
está configurado idénticamente?
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
No. El mismo servidor me lo marca en dhcpd.leases. Digamos que el
servidor es 10.10.10.254
Nunca me había sucedido.
Cuando el 10.10.10.10 intenta conectarse, /var/log/messages indica
dhcpdecline
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
--
Eduardo Grosclaude
Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Neuquen, Argentina
___
CentOS-es mailing list
CentOS-es@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS-es] Cluster del host identico
Hola, 2011/4/15 Maykel Franco Hernandez may...@maykel.sytes.net: Hola muy buenas, quería saber si existe algún software que te replique todos los cambios que hagas en un servidor, en otro. Sé que hay herramientas como drbd con el sistema de ficheros ocfs2 o gfs que inclusive se pueden poner los nodos como los dos primarios para poder escribir en la misma partición simultaneamente pero me refiero a replicar el servidor en otro, todos los cambios que se realicen en uno, que se hagan en el otro. No sé si esto existe en centos, o si existe y no es opensource pero me estoy mudando de ubuntu/debian a Centos porque la verdad es que en cuanto a servicios me parece muy rapido la manera de administrarlos y de como los administra el sistema. Lo único que conozco es http://spacewalk.redhat.com/ * Inventory your systems (hardware and software information) * Install and update software on your systems * Collect and distribute your custom software packages into manageable groups * Provision (kickstart) your systems * Manage and deploy configuration files to your systems * Monitor your systems * Provision and start/stop/configure virtual guests * Distribute content across multiple geographical sites in an efficient manner. Suerte!!! -- Oscar Osta Pueyo oostap.lis...@gmail.com _kiakli_ ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:26 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote: On 04/14/2011 08:04 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Then try both for your use case and your hardware. We have wide raid6 setups that does well over 500 MB/s write (that is: not all raid6 writes suck...). /me replaces all of Peter's cache with 64MB modules. Let's try again. If you are trying to imply that RAID6 can't go fast when write size is larger than the cache, you are simply wrong. Even with just a 8 x RAID6, I've tested a system as sustained sequential (not burst) 156Mbytes/s out and 387 Mbytes/s in using 7200 rpm 1.5 TB drives. Bonnie++ results attached. Bonnie++ by default uses twice as much data as your available RAM to make sure you aren't just seeing cache. IOW: That machine only had 4GB of RAM and 256 MB of controller cache during the test but wrote and read 8 GB of data for the tests. Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:19 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:44:00PM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: On Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:11 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:07:55PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: On 4/14/11, John R Piercepie...@hogranch.com wrote: since this is the centos list, I really didn't want to suggest this, but if I was building a 20 or 40TB or whatever storage server, I do believe I'd be strongly consider using Solaris, or one of its variants like OpenIndiana, with ZFS. ZFS was engineered from the ground up to scale to zetabytes I was actually considering this but then came news that Oracle was killing OpenSolaris and likely to be pushing OCFS so decided I probably don't want to have something come bite me a year or two down the road. I'm not sure how things developed since then though. But based on your recommendation and Christopher Chan's, it would seem like you guys don't think that long term support/updates would be an issue for ZFS? ZFS and OCFS play in different spaces. And ZFS is going nowhere... if you want to use on an open OS, OpenIndiana may be a good bet, but you're best short-term / mature option would be Nexenta or Solaris Express. Huh? What gives Nexenta a better advantage over OpenIndiana? They are both in the same boat. Both will have to migrate to illumos and move away from the last OpenSolaris ON release. Oh, Nexenta has a company backing it? Makes no different when both projects will be using the same core image. Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos, then you will have a case for Nexenta over OpenIndiana. OpenIndiana is in their what, first release? I don't think that Nexenta 3.x is based on it *yet*. Both will eventually converge. In the meantime, yes, for storage needs I'd go with Nexenta for the reasons you mentioned. :) Hardy userland, gcc compiled and gnu linked...hmm...I'll give Nexenta a shot after they start basing on perhaps Lucid repos. For personal use? Maybe different factors. Nexenta the company of course will be contributing to OpenIndiana and Illumos... Now that is news to me. I know that Garrett would be willing to spare a man IF the OpenIndiana guys start using illumos as their base for the next release... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:30 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 4/14/2011 7:32 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: HAHAHAAAAHA The XFS codebase is the biggest pile of mess in the Linux kernel and you expect it to be not run into mysterious problems? Remember, XFS was PORTED over to Linux. It is not a 'native' thing to Linux. Well yeah, but the way I remember it, SGI was using it for real work like video editing and storing zillions of files back when Linux was a toy with a 2 gig file size limit and linear directory scans as the only option. If you mean that the Linux side had a not-invented-here attitude about it and did the port badly you might be right... No, the XFS guys had to work around the differences between the Linux vm and IRIX's and that eventually led to what we have today - a big messy pile of code. It would be no surprise for there to be stuff that get triggered imho. I am not saying that XFS itself is bad. Just that the implementation on Linux was not quite the same quality as it is on IRIX. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Xorg
For a few days I can't boot a server in graphical mode. The screen goes black and a have a CUI login. I can login a user and at this point 'startx' get the graphical interface up in /etc/inittab/ x: 5:respawn: /etc.X11/prefdm -nodaemon and xdmcp is alivre On this server we have 12 stations drived by LTSP as a terminal server. We can boot the stations to a point where the X graphical interface doesn't come up and the terminal stays with a grey screen with a big X in the center. Do somebody can drive me to a solution? --- Michel Donais___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [OT] ups advice
- Stick to APC Five years ago I would have said that. Having worked with Liebert's GXT2 GXT3units now for the last few years, I'm not so sure I'd want to go back to APC. For us the biggest bonus of Liebert was we got true online (double conversion) UPS kit at the same price point as APC's Line Interactive Smart UPS family. -- Drew Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. --Marie Curie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos... openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to use anything else. Eh? I was under the impression that they are separate and that Garrett Damore was rather unhappy with the initial direction of OpenIndiana in not preparing for an illumos release. 148 is still not illumos as far as I know. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
To pass from Centos 5.5 to 5.6 it was easy as an upgrade. Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. --- Michel Donais___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 13:28 +0200, Simon Matter wrote: On 4/14/2011 6:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Is it really true that the time is working perfectly with one of the other kernels (the older ones)? Johnny, Yes, As long as I run the older 5.5 kernel my time is perfect. All clients can get from this machine with no issues. As soon as I run new kernel, or Plus kernel for that matter. The time goes downhill. Uphill actually To answer the previous question I do have the HW clock set to utc, Everything is stock from initial install of the package. Did you check dmesg which timer is being used (I think it can also be seen somewhere in /proc but I don't remember). If it's hpet, you could try to disable it. That was for i686: 'hpet=disable' and for x86_64: 'nohpet', don't know how it is with current kernels. Simon Forgive me if I've missed a later post but it looked like this thread was stagnant... You may have something here Simon. I was thinking about your suggestion that it could be a timer issue. I'm wondering if the default clocksource or some related timer kernel parameter has been changed between 2.6.18-194.17.4.el5 (5.5) and 2.6.18-238.5.1.el5 (5.6). Timer related issues could very well account for this large, inconsistent NTP drift as well as Florin Andrei's bizarre tar, scp, and NTP issues in the [CentOS] bizarre system slowness thread. System interrupts are based on the clocksource chosen by (or configured in) the kernel. Any service or facility that uses these interrupts could be experiencing problems. Can anyone on the list confirm whether or not timer related kernel parameters have changed in 5.6? I don't have source handy and I'm going out the door in minutes. Reading up on kernel timer options, I came across these articles. # Discusses mis-detected timer frequency 9.2.4.2.7. Kernel 2.6 Mis-Detecting CPU TSC Frequency http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Support/KnownOsIssues#Section_9.2.4.2.7. # Describes ntpd instability from some time sources # Includes data and graphs from detailed study http://www.ep.ph.bham.ac.uk/general/support/adjtimex.html I checked clock sources on a few systems under my control to see what came up. None are experiencing this problem. The CentOS and FC12 machines are isolated from the Internet while the FC14 laptop connects. My sample CentOS 5.5 5.6 systems are different hardware platforms. The 5.6 box doesn't have the hpet timer available so it may just not be susceptible to this problem. I'll be updating the 5.5 sample to 5.6 tomorrow which does have hpet available so I should know something more then. # Used these to get available and current clocksource: cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/available_clocksource cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource # CentOS 5.5: Available: acpi_pm jiffies hpet tsc pit Current: tsc # CentOS 5.6: Available: acpi_pm jiffies tsc pit Current: tsc # Fedora 12: Available: tsc hpet acpi_pm Current: tsc # Fedora 14: Using hpet Available: hpet acpi_pm Current: hpet ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
2011/4/15 Michel Donais don...@telupton.com: To pass from Centos 5.5 to 5.6 it was easy as an upgrade. Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. well, usually upgrading major version is not easy or preferred method. use full install instead. -- Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. Full installs are always recommended between major versions. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos... openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to use anything else. Eh? I was under the impression that they are separate and that Garrett Damore was rather unhappy with the initial direction of OpenIndiana in not preparing for an illumos release. 148 is still not illumos as far as I know. afaik, both are still using pretty much the last opensolaris kernel with minor changes I was going on this, which says OpenIndiana is a member of the Illumos Foundation, that Illumos was providing the core/kernel, and OpenIndiana is integrating it into a complete system aka distribution http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Frequently+Asked+Questions#FrequentlyAskedQuestions-WhatistherelationshipbetweenOpenIndianaandIllumos%3F They go onto say they are waiting for Illumos to mature before they integrate it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [OT] ups advice
2011/4/14 John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com: On 04/14/11 9:06 AM, admin lewis wrote: Hi I have a Dell PowerEdge T310 *tower* server.. I have to buy an ups by apc... anyone could help me giving an hint ? a simple smart ups 1000 could be enough ? apc smartups or eaton powerware woudl be my choices. 1000VA should be fine. avoid consumer UPS's like apc backups, they are junk. how long do you need the system to stay powered when the power fails? just long enough to shutdown? or do you need it to stay up for some period of time? Few minutes... 10 minutes should be enough.. and then shutdown the machine .. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
Michel Donais wrote: To pass from Centos 5.5 to 5.6 it was easy as an upgrade. Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. --- There is so big difference between them (base packages, package and system design, dependencies) that full install will be necessary, not only recommended. I think upgrade might be even impossible. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos... openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to use anything else. Eh? I was under the impression that they are separate and that Garrett Damore was rather unhappy with the initial direction of OpenIndiana in not preparing for an illumos release. 148 is still not illumos as far as I know. afaik, both are still using pretty much the last opensolaris kernel with minor changes I was going on this, which says OpenIndiana is a member of the Illumos Foundation, that Illumos was providing the core/kernel, and OpenIndiana is integrating it into a complete system aka distribution http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Frequently+Asked+Questions#FrequentlyAskedQuestions-WhatistherelationshipbetweenOpenIndianaandIllumos%3F They go onto say they are waiting for Illumos to mature before they integrate it. Eham..., CentOS mailinglist maybe to continue in private? Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] speed-tuning samba?
On 2011-04-14 20:16, Les Mikesell wrote: One thing in particular that I'd like to make faster is access to a set of libraries (boost, etc.) that are in a directory mapped by several windows boxes (mostly VM's on different machines)used as build servers. I usually run samba with defaults, as playing with the settings did not change much in my case. However, I found in one of the IBM redbooks (http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4285.pdf on page 131) that disabling tcp sack and dsack is recommended on a samba box working on a gigabit LAN (when samba host and clients are in the same LAN). In one case it helped much, in the other it did not change anything, so you should try on your own: sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_sack=0 sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_dsack=0 Andrzej ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rswrote: John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos... openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to use anything else. Eh? I was under the impression that they are separate and that Garrett Damore was rather unhappy with the initial direction of OpenIndiana in not preparing for an illumos release. 148 is still not illumos as far as I know. afaik, both are still using pretty much the last opensolaris kernel with minor changes I was going on this, which says OpenIndiana is a member of the Illumos Foundation, that Illumos was providing the core/kernel, and OpenIndiana is integrating it into a complete system aka distribution http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Frequently+Asked+Questions#FrequentlyAskedQuestions-WhatistherelationshipbetweenOpenIndianaandIllumos%3F They go onto say they are waiting for Illumos to mature before they integrate it. Eham..., CentOS mailinglist maybe to continue in private? Ljubomir Eham., many people are learning a lot more from this thread than a lot of the other threads in the past few days. let them continue, and don't subscribe to the tread :) -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS on SSDs...
Thanks to all for the info. Guess I will either keep CentOS 5 and have to compile my own kernel for the discard option; or wait for CentOS 6... Thx, JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
On Friday, April 15, 2011 03:59 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos... openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to use anything else. Eh? I was under the impression that they are separate and that Garrett Damore was rather unhappy with the initial direction of OpenIndiana in not preparing for an illumos release. 148 is still not illumos as far as I know. afaik, both are still using pretty much the last opensolaris kernel with minor changes or nice big changes from the standpoint of those who were pining for openindiana with b134+patches I was going on this, which says OpenIndiana is a member of the Illumos Foundation, that Illumos was providing the core/kernel, and OpenIndiana is integrating it into a complete system aka distribution http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Frequently+Asked+Questions#FrequentlyAskedQuestions-WhatistherelationshipbetweenOpenIndianaandIllumos%3F oh i see. They go onto say they are waiting for Illumos to mature before they integrate it. Yes...like getting g11n in. I guess traction is there already. OpenIndiana will be moving to illumos so i guess it would be the one to use if one wants a sun cc compiled and sun linked distro. It's going to be interesting to see how all these different projects including CentOS play out. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Expanding RAID 10 array, WAS: 40TB File System Recommendations
On Apr 15, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Rudi Ahlers r...@softdux.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 5:43 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 02:46 AM, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/14/11 7:44 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Now, if OpenIndiana resists using illumos... openindiana is under the Illumos project umbrella. They aren't going to use anything else. Eh? I was under the impression that they are separate and that Garrett Damore was rather unhappy with the initial direction of OpenIndiana in not preparing for an illumos release. 148 is still not illumos as far as I know. afaik, both are still using pretty much the last opensolaris kernel with minor changes I was going on this, which says OpenIndiana is a member of the Illumos Foundation, that Illumos was providing the core/kernel, and OpenIndiana is integrating it into a complete system aka distribution http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Frequently+Asked+Questions#FrequentlyAskedQuestions-WhatistherelationshipbetweenOpenIndianaandIllumos%3F They go onto say they are waiting for Illumos to mature before they integrate it. Eham..., CentOS mailinglist maybe to continue in private? Ljubomir Eham., many people are learning a lot more from this thread than a lot of the other threads in the past few days. let them continue, and don't subscribe to the tread :) I agree with both assessments, but since this is a CentOS list and this thread has now twisted into ZFS advocacy I must say as well, continue off list. -Ross ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 04/14/2011 06:23 AM, Mailing List wrote: On 4/14/2011 6:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: Is it really true that the time is working perfectly with one of the other kernels (the older ones)? Johnny, Yes, As long as I run the older 5.5 kernel my time is perfect. All clients can get from this machine with no issues. As soon as I run new kernel, or Plus kernel for that matter. The time goes downhill. Uphill actually To answer the previous question I do have the HW clock set to utc, Everything is stock from initial install of the package. Brian. I do not see anything from Dell that is a model C151. I also do not see anything in the RH bugzilla that is problematic for older AMD processors and the clock, unless running KVM type virtual machines. Is this a VM or regular install? If this a real machine, do you have the latest BIOS from Dell? Do you have any special kernel options in grub? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] php53 and MSSQL
[Reposted now I've joined the list, so I hopefully don't get moderated out] Hi, I've upgraded lots of machines to 5.6 (thanks!) and there was one particular machine that I'd also like to upgrade to PHP 5.3. Unfortunately it seems I can't. On the machine I have php-mssql installed, and it appears that there is no php53-mssql. php-mssql is built from the php-extras SRPM, so is there going to be a php53-extras SRPM? I've checked upstream, and they also don't have a php53-mssql package, so if there _were_ to be solved it'd have to be in the 'Extras' repository I guess... Cheers, John. -- John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot. http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On 04/14/2011 09:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. _ I don't happen to have any systems I can test with the 1.5TB drives without controller cache right now, but I have a system with some old 500GB drives (which are about half as fast as the 1.5TB drives in individual sustained I/O throughput) attached directly to onboard SATA ports in a 8 x RAID6 with *no* controller cache at all. The machine has 16GB of RAM and bonnie++ therefore used 32GB of data for the test. Version 1.96 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pbox332160M 389 98 76709 22 91071 26 2209 95 264892 26 590.5 11 Latency 24190us1244ms1580ms 60411us 69901us 42586us Version 1.96 --Sequential Create-- Random Create pbox3 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 10910 31 + +++ + +++ 29293 80 + +++ + +++ Latency 775us 610us 979us 740us 370us 380us Given that the underlaying drives are effectively something like half as fast as the drives in the other test, the results are quite comparable. Cache doesn't make a lot of difference when you quickly write a lot more data than the cache can hold. The limiting factor becomes the slowest component - usually the drives themselves. Cache isn't magic performance pixie dust. It helps in certain use cases and is nearly irrelevant in others. -- Benjamin Franz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] php53 and eacclerator
I uploaded the spec here: http://ubliga.de/php-eaccelerator.spec It's adjusted for RHEL/Centos 5.6 so that it works with stock php53 packages - no need to pull in packages from other repos. Thanks! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] php53 and mcrypt
More PHP fun! I can see in the spec files that php-mcrypt support was removed by Redhat. I tried to find out why but I don't have sufficient access to redhat bugzilla. I am wondering if it is actually necessary as I have also run across a post or two that indicates applications that rely on mcrypt still work with the new php53. Perhaps mcrypt was superceded by another module or PHP core code? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [OT] ups advice
Some of the newer HP servers are very picky about power from UPS's, from what I have read. I have used several Best Ferrups UPSs over the years, other than one that toasted it's transformer, have never had any trouble out of them (just replace the battery every 3 to 4 years). They are picky about their input power, do not run not connect them to an auto regulating transformer (not the proper term?), or on the output of other UPSs, it can cause interesting problems Howard On 4/14/2011 15:33, Lamar Owen wrote: On Thursday, April 14, 2011 02:55:51 PM John R Pierce wrote: http://powerquality.eaton.com/Products-services/Backup-Power-UPS/5125.aspx or similar for this application. I'd take one of those up versus the same size APC SmartUps any day. We have a 5KVA Best Ferrups here that has never worked correctly :-) But I've seen my share of toasted APC's, too. Currently we run older APC SmartUPS (pure sine) for the workstation stuff and Symmetras in the Data Centers. Looking to put in a Toshiba or similar 500KVA in the secondary Data Center later in the year. BTW, another thing the 'good' UPS's do, more important than 'pure sinusoidal output' for computer purposes*, is buck/boost voltage regulation. Yes. * if you're running audio gear off a UPS, you definitely want the sinusoidal output, but thats another market entirely. Or old 3Com Corebuilder/CellPlex 7000 gear, which shuts down with anything but pure sinewave. ___ 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
Re: [CentOS] php53 and MSSQL
On 15/04/11 12:23, John Beranek wrote: [Reposted now I've joined the list, so I hopefully don't get moderated out] Hi, I've upgraded lots of machines to 5.6 (thanks!) and there was one particular machine that I'd also like to upgrade to PHP 5.3. Unfortunately it seems I can't. On the machine I have php-mssql installed, and it appears that there is no php53-mssql. I was going to see if I could rebuild the php53 SRPM support with MSSQL support, until I found that the SRPMs still aren't available on the CentOS mirrors yet. Downloading the upstream RPM now, will see how that goes... John. -- John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot. http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] php53 and mcrypt
Am 15.04.2011 13:32, schrieb Geoff Galitz: More PHP fun! I can see in the spec files that php-mcrypt support was removed by Redhat. I tried to find out why but I don't have sufficient access to redhat bugzilla. I am wondering if it is actually necessary as I have also run across a post or two that indicates applications that rely on mcrypt still work with the new php53. Perhaps mcrypt was superceded by another module or PHP core code? Yeah, I had the same problem with missing php_mcrypt. ;) I did a full rebuild of php53 with patched spec so that it produces php53_mcrypt but that is not very elegant. The more elegant way to do it is to make an rpm for only the missing modules like EPEL's php-extras. So I'm interested in this, too. Rainer ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] php53 and mcrypt
Rainer Traut wrote on 04/15/2011 07:55 AM: ... Yeah, I had the same problem with missing php_mcrypt. ;) I did a full rebuild of php53 with patched spec so that it produces php53_mcrypt but that is not very elegant. The more elegant way to do it is to make an rpm for only the missing modules like EPEL's php-extras. So I'm interested in this, too. Another possibility is using what IUS has already done and installing php53u packages. See the following CentOS forum thread for details: https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flattopic_id=30881forum=38 Phil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] php53 and MSSQL
John Beranek wrote on 04/15/2011 07:45 AM: On 15/04/11 12:23, John Beranek wrote: [Reposted now I've joined the list, so I hopefully don't get moderated out] Hi, I've upgraded lots of machines to 5.6 (thanks!) and there was one particular machine that I'd also like to upgrade to PHP 5.3. Unfortunately it seems I can't. On the machine I have php-mssql installed, and it appears that there is no php53-mssql. I was going to see if I could rebuild the php53 SRPM support with MSSQL support, until I found that the SRPMs still aren't available on the CentOS mirrors yet. Downloading the upstream RPM now, will see how that goes... I sound like a shill for IUS this morning - not the case I assure you - but they have php53u-mssql-5.3.6-1.ius.el5 Probably will not work unless you uninstall php or php53 and install their whole set. Phil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 05:26:41 PM Ross Walker wrote: 2011/4/14 Peter Kjellström c...@nsc.liu.se: ... While I do concede the obvious point regarding rebuild time (raid6 takes from long to very long to rebuild) I'd like to point out: * If you do the math for a 12 drive raid10 vs raid6 then (using actual data from ~500 1T drives on HP cciss controllers during two years) raid10 is ~3x more likely to cause hard data loss than raid6. * mtbf is not everything there's also the thing called unrecoverable read errors. If you hit one while rebuilding your raid10 you're toast while in the raid6 case you'll use your 2nd parity and continue the rebuild. You mean if the other side of the mirror fails while rebuilding it. No, the drive (unrecoverably) failing to read a sector is not the same thing as a drive failure. Drive failure frequency expressed in mtbf is around 1M hours (even though including predictive fail we see more like 250K hours). Unrecoverable read error rate (per sector) was quite recently on the order of 1x to 10x of the drive size (a drive I looked up now was spec'ed alot higher at ~1000x drive size). If we assume a raid10 rebuild time of 12h and an unrecoverable read error once every 10x of drive size then the effective mean time between read error is 120h (two to ten thousand times worse than the drive mtbf). Admittedly these numbers are hard to get and equally hard to trust (or double check). What it all comes down to is that raid10 (assuming just double- not tripple copy) stores your data with one extra copy/parity and in a single drive failure scenario you have zero extra data left (on that part of the array). That is, you depend on each and every bit of that (meaning the degraded part) data being correctly read. This means you very much want both: 1) Very fast rebuilds (= you need hot-spare) 2) An unrecoverable read error rate much larger than your drive size or as you suggest below: 3) Tripple copy Yes this is true, of course if this happens with RAID6 it will rebuild from parity IF there is a second hotspare available, This is wrong, hot-spares are not that necessary when using raid6. This has to do with the fact that rebuild times (time from you start being vulnerable to whatever rebuild completes) are already long. An added 12h for a tech to swap in the spare only marginally increases your risks. cause remember the first failure wasn't cleared before the second failure occurred. Now your RAID6 is in severe degraded state, one more failure before either of these disks is rebuilt will mean toast for the array. All of this was taken into account in my original example above. In the end (with my data) raid10 was around 3x more likely to cause ultimate data loss than raid6. Now the performance of the array is practically unusable and the load on the disks is high as it does a full recalculation rebuild, and if they are large it will be high for a very long time, now if any other disk in the very large RAID6 array is near failure, or has a bad sector, this taxing load could very well push it over the edge In my example a 12 drive raid6 rebuild takes 6-7 days this works out to 5 MB/s seq read per drive. This added load is not very noticeable in our environment (taking into account normal patrol reads and user data traffic). Either way, the general problem of [rebuild stress] pushing drives over the edge is a larger threat to raid10 than raid6 (it being fatal in the first case...). and the risk of such an event occurring increases with the size of the array and the size of the disk surface. I think this is where the mdraid raid10 shines because it can have 3 copies (or more) of the data instead of just two, I think we've now moved into what most people would call unreasonable. Let's see what we have for a 12 drive box (quite common 2U size): raid6: 12x on raid6 no hot spare (see argument above) = 10 data drives raid10: 11x tripple store on raid10 one spare = 3.66 data drives or (if your raid's not odd-drive capable): raid10: 9x tripple store on raid10 one to three spares = 3 data drives (ok, yes you could get 4 data drives out of it if you skipped hot-spare) That is almost a 2.7x-3.3x diff! My users sure care if their X $ results in 1/3 the space (or cost = 3x for the same space if you prefer). On top of this most raid implementations for raid10 lacks tripple copy functionality. Also note that raid10 that allows for odd number of drives is more vulnerable to 2nd drive failures resulting in an even larger than 3x improvement using raid6 (vs double copy odd drive handling raid10). /Peter of course a three times (or more) the cost. It also allows for uneven number of disks as it just saves copies on different spindles rather then mirrors. This I think provides the best protection against failure and the best performance, but at the worst cost, but with 2TB and 4TB disks coming out ...
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Friday, April 15, 2011 07:24 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote: On 04/14/2011 09:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. _ I don't happen to have any systems I can test with the 1.5TB drives without controller cache right now, but I have a system with some old 500GB drives (which are about half as fast as the 1.5TB drives in individual sustained I/O throughput) attached directly to onboard SATA ports in a 8 x RAID6 with *no* controller cache at all. The machine has 16GB of RAM and bonnie++ therefore used 32GB of data for the test. Version 1.96 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pbox332160M 389 98 76709 22 91071 26 2209 95 264892 26 590.5 11 Latency 24190us1244ms1580ms 60411us 69901us 42586us Version 1.96 --Sequential Create-- Random Create pbox3 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 10910 31 + +++ + +++ 29293 80 + +++ + +++ Latency 775us 610us 979us 740us 370us 380us Given that the underlaying drives are effectively something like half as fast as the drives in the other test, the results are quite comparable. Woohoo, next we will be seeing md raid6 also giving comparable results if that is the case. I am not the only person on this list that thinks cache is king for raid5/6 on hardware raid boards and the using hardware raid + bbu cache for better performance one of the two reasons why we don't do md raid5/6. Cache doesn't make a lot of difference when you quickly write a lot more data than the cache can hold. The limiting factor becomes the slowest component - usually the drives themselves. Cache isn't magic performance pixie dust. It helps in certain use cases and is nearly irrelevant in others. Yeah, you are right - but cache is primarily to buffer the writes for performance. Why else go through the expense of getting bbu cache? So what happens when you tweak bonnie a bit? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 07:24 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote: On 04/14/2011 09:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. _ I don't happen to have any systems I can test with the 1.5TB drives without controller cache right now, but I have a system with some old 500GB drives (which are about half as fast as the 1.5TB drives in individual sustained I/O throughput) attached directly to onboard SATA ports in a 8 x RAID6 with *no* controller cache at all. The machine has 16GB of RAM and bonnie++ therefore used 32GB of data for the test. Version 1.96 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pbox332160M 389 98 76709 22 91071 26 2209 95 264892 26 590.5 11 Latency 24190us1244ms1580ms 60411us 69901us 42586us Version 1.96 --Sequential Create-- Random Create pbox3 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 10910 31 + +++ + +++ 29293 80 + +++ + +++ Latency 775us 610us 979us 740us 370us 380us Given that the underlaying drives are effectively something like half as fast as the drives in the other test, the results are quite comparable. Woohoo, next we will be seeing md raid6 also giving comparable results if that is the case. I am not the only person on this list that thinks cache is king for raid5/6 on hardware raid boards and the using hardware raid + bbu cache for better performance one of the two reasons why we don't do md raid5/6. Cache doesn't make a lot of difference when you quickly write a lot more data than the cache can hold. The limiting factor becomes the slowest component - usually the drives themselves. Cache isn't magic performance pixie dust. It helps in certain use cases and is nearly irrelevant in others. Yeah, you are right - but cache is primarily to buffer the writes for performance. Why else go through the expense of getting bbu cache? So what happens when you tweak bonnie a bit? ___ As matter of interest, does anyone know how to use an SSD drive for cach purposes on Linux software RAID drives? ZFS has this feature and it makes a helluva difference to a storage server's performance. -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] php53 and MSSQL
On 15/04/11 13:49, Phil Schaffner wrote: John Beranek wrote on 04/15/2011 07:45 AM: On 15/04/11 12:23, John Beranek wrote: [Reposted now I've joined the list, so I hopefully don't get moderated out] Hi, I've upgraded lots of machines to 5.6 (thanks!) and there was one particular machine that I'd also like to upgrade to PHP 5.3. Unfortunately it seems I can't. On the machine I have php-mssql installed, and it appears that there is no php53-mssql. I was going to see if I could rebuild the php53 SRPM support with MSSQL support, until I found that the SRPMs still aren't available on the CentOS mirrors yet. Downloading the upstream RPM now, will see how that goes... I sound like a shill for IUS this morning - not the case I assure you - but they have php53u-mssql-5.3.6-1.ius.el5 Well, I've now rebuilt the RHEL SRPM with mssql support. It's now built in the openSUSE Build Service at: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=php53project=home%3Ajohnberanek%3Aphp53_centos Not ideal in that it's the while php53 SRPM, and additionally because OBS is currently building with CentOS 5.5 instead of 5.6. The latter issue has brought me to raise a bug in the OBS Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687848 Update CentOS build to 5.6 Installed my built PHP 5.3 RPMs on the machine I wanted them on - painful! Why do you need to remove the PHP 5.1 RPMs before you can install the 'php53' ones, surely the php53 RPMs could have had Deprecated lines!? John. -- John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot. http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On 04/15/2011 06:05 AM, Christopher Chan wrote: Woohoo, next we will be seeing md raid6 also giving comparable results if that is the case. I am not the only person on this list that thinks cache is king for raid5/6 on hardware raid boards and the using hardware raid + bbu cache for better performance one of the two reasons why we don't do md raid5/6. That *is* md RAID6. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I don't use anyone's hardware RAID6 right now because I haven't found a board so far that was as fast as using md. I get better performance from even a BBU backed 95X series 3ware board by using it to serve the drives as JBOD and then using md to do the actual raid. Yeah, you are right - but cache is primarily to buffer the writes for performance. Why else go through the expense of getting bbu cache? So what happens when you tweak bonnie a bit? For smaller writes. When writes *do* fit in the cache you get a big bump. As I said: Helps some cases, not all cases. BBU backed cache helps if you have lots of small writes. Not so much if you are writing gigabytes of stuff more sequentially. -- Benjamin Franz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
Hello, Earlier this week I installed a test server with CentOS 5.6 with Virtualization enabled during the installer. Today I installed another server using the same method (they are identical servers). I just did a yum update and I found something curious. Both servers have a different kernel. Server 1 is at 9.1 version and server 2 at 5.1. How can this be? How to I get the latest version on server 2? If I run yum update there are none available. If I input xm info I get this one server 1: host : server1 release: 2.6.18-238.9.1.el5xen version: #1 SMP Tue Apr 12 18:53:56 EDT 2011 machine: x86_64 nr_cpus: 4 nr_nodes : 1 sockets_per_node : 1 cores_per_socket : 4 threads_per_core : 1 cpu_mhz: 2400 hw_caps: bfebfbff:20100800::0940:e3bd::0001 total_memory : 4095 free_memory: 383 node_to_cpu: node0:0-3 xen_major : 3 xen_minor : 1 xen_extra : .2-238.9.1.el5 xen_caps : xen-3.0-x86_64 xen-3.0-x86_32p hvm-3.0-x86_32 hvm-3.0-x86_32p hvm-3.0-x86_64 xen_pagesize : 4096 platform_params: virt_start=0x8000 xen_changeset : unavailable cc_compiler: gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-50) cc_compile_by : mockbuild cc_compile_domain : centos.org cc_compile_date: Tue Apr 12 18:01:03 EDT 2011 xend_config_format : 2 And on server 2 it is this: host : server2 release: 2.6.18-238.5.1.el5xen version: #1 SMP Fri Apr 1 19:35:13 EDT 2011 machine: x86_64 nr_cpus: 4 nr_nodes : 1 sockets_per_node : 1 cores_per_socket : 4 threads_per_core : 1 cpu_mhz: 2400 hw_caps: bfebfbff:20100800::0940:e3bd::0001 total_memory : 4095 free_memory: 383 node_to_cpu: node0:0-3 xen_major : 3 xen_minor : 1 xen_extra : .2-238.5.1.el5 xen_caps : xen-3.0-x86_64 xen-3.0-x86_32p hvm-3.0-x86_32 hvm-3.0-x86_32p hvm-3.0-x86_64 xen_pagesize : 4096 platform_params: virt_start=0x8000 xen_changeset : unavailable cc_compiler: gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-50) cc_compile_by : mockbuild cc_compile_domain : centos.org cc_compile_date: Fri Apr 1 18:30:53 EDT 2011 xend_config_format : 2 -- Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, Hans Vos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
Hello Cal, Thank you for your reply. It's possible that your #2 server has not rebooted or had problems with the latest kernel or just has the default set to something other than 0 in grub.conf. I did a reboot and checked the grub.conf. Should have mentioned that. What's the output of: egrep 'default|title' /etc/grub.conf # egrep 'default|title' /etc/grub.conf default=0 title CentOS (2.6.18-238.5.1.el5xen) title CentOS (2.6.18-238.el5xen) yum list kernel | grep kernel yum list kernel | grep kernel kernel.x86_64 2.6.18-238.5.1.el5 updates Also if I do yum info kernel-xen I get this on server 1: Name : kernel-xen Arch : x86_64 Version: 2.6.18 Release: 238.9.1.el5 Size : 95 M Repo : installed Summary: The Linux kernel compiled for Xen VM operations URL: http://www.kernel.org/ License: GPLv2 Description: This package includes a version of the Linux kernel which : runs in Xen VM. It works for both priviledged and unpriviledged guests. And this on server 2: Name : kernel-xen Arch : x86_64 Version: 2.6.18 Release: 238.5.1.el5 Size : 95 M Repo : installed Summary: The Linux kernel compiled for Xen VM operations URL: http://www.kernel.org/ License: GPLv2 Description: This package includes a version of the Linux kernel which : runs in Xen VM. It works for both priviledged and unpriviledged guests. -- Kind regards, Hans Vos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 16:37 +0200, Hans Vos wrote: Hello Cal, Thank you for your reply. It's possible that your #2 server has not rebooted or had problems with the latest kernel or just has the default set to something other than 0 in grub.conf. I did a reboot and checked the grub.conf. Should have mentioned that. What's the output of: egrep 'default|title' /etc/grub.conf # egrep 'default|title' /etc/grub.conf default=0 title CentOS (2.6.18-238.5.1.el5xen) title CentOS (2.6.18-238.el5xen) yum list kernel | grep kernel yum list kernel | grep kernel kernel.x86_64 2.6.18-238.5.1.el5 updates Ryan is right. The mirrors need to sync up. That's most likely the cause. Still, it's curious why you have two kernels listed in grub.conf and only one listed from yum. You should also see the 2.6.18-238.el5xen kernel listed. ./Cal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
Hello, Ryan is right. The mirrors need to sync up. That's most likely the cause. Still, it's curious why you have two kernels listed in grub.conf and only one listed from yum. You should also see the 2.6.18-238.el5xen kernel listed. Well, I copied the /var/cache/yum/timedhosts.txt file from server 1 to server 2. Then run yum update and all kinds of errors came flying at me. So I just SCP'ed the whole /var/cache/yum directory of server 1 to server 2. Ran yum update and there were the updates I was missing including the new kernel-xen. I don't know if this was the *proper* way of fixing it but it did the job :P. -- Kind regards, Hans Vos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Hans Vos h...@laissezfaire.nl wrote: Well, I copied the /var/cache/yum/timedhosts.txt file from server 1 to server 2. Then run yum update and all kinds of errors came flying at me. So I just SCP'ed the whole /var/cache/yum directory of server 1 to server 2. Ran yum update and there were the updates I was missing including the new kernel-xen. I don't know if this was the *proper* way of fixing it but it did the job :P. Not sure the outcome of copying the yum directory. I would have just run yum clean all then yum update. Ryan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [OT] ups advice
On 4/15/2011 10:48, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/15/11 4:38 AM, Howard Fleming wrote: I have used several Best Ferrups UPSs over the years, other than one that toasted it's transformer, have never had any trouble out of them (just replace the battery every 3 to 4 years). They are picky about their input power, do not run not connect them to an auto regulating transformer (not the proper term?), or on the output of other UPSs, it can cause interesting problems... I don't think they make any FerrUPS anymore. Those were based on a massive ferroresonant transformer which, yes, is very sensitive to the input frequency. Specifically, they don't like generator power, unless it has extremely well regulated frequency output (such as a DC generator with a digital sinusoidal converter) Eaton has the Ferrups line now (still available as far as I know). I have actually run into the input frequency problem in the past with the Ferrups. I was working at a gas company that for political reasons generated their own power inhouse. Had one Ferrups UPS (of 10?) that was complaining about it (kept going online/offline/online There is a parameter in the settings that can be adjusted to allow a greater input freq range on the UPS (59.5 - 60.5 hz is the default range, from what I remember). In this case that took care of the problem. I have 3 1.4kw units at home, no trouble to date running them off of my backup generator (Campbell 5k unit). They are also 18 years old at this point and still going... :o). Running 3 of my CentOS servers at home in fact. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:00 +0200, Hans Vos wrote: Hello, Ryan is right. The mirrors need to sync up. That's most likely the cause. Still, it's curious why you have two kernels listed in grub.conf and only one listed from yum. You should also see the 2.6.18-238.el5xen kernel listed. Well, I copied the /var/cache/yum/timedhosts.txt file from server 1 to server 2. Then run yum update and all kinds of errors came flying at me. So I just SCP'ed the whole /var/cache/yum directory of server 1 to server 2. Ran yum update and there were the updates I was missing including the new kernel-xen. I don't know if this was the *proper* way of fixing it but it did the job :P. You shouldn't need to copy the timedhosts.txt file the fastestmirrors yum plugin should recreate it. You might check /var/log/yum.log or /var/log/messages to make some sense of the errors. I don't see any harm in using the cache from the other machine, though. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 11:07 -0400, Ryan Wagoner wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Hans Vos h...@laissezfaire.nl wrote: Well, I copied the /var/cache/yum/timedhosts.txt file from server 1 to server 2. Then run yum update and all kinds of errors came flying at me. So I just SCP'ed the whole /var/cache/yum directory of server 1 to server 2. Ran yum update and there were the updates I was missing including the new kernel-xen. I don't know if this was the *proper* way of fixing it but it did the job :P. Not sure the outcome of copying the yum directory. I would have just run yum clean all then yum update. Ryan +1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Two cleanly installed CentOS 5.6 servers but with different Xen kernel versions
Not sure the outcome of copying the yum directory. I would have just run yum clean all then yum update. Ah, thanks, I will put that in my personal Wiki for future reference. Noob here and it is a test environment at home :). Thanks for your help. -- Kind regards, Hans Vos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 04/15/2011 04:08 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/14/2011 06:23 AM, Mailing List wrote:
On 4/14/2011 6:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Is it really true that the time is working perfectly with one of the
other kernels (the older ones)?
Johnny,
Yes, As long as I run the older 5.5 kernel my time is perfect. All
clients can get from this machine with no issues. As soon as I run new
kernel, or Plus kernel for that matter. The time goes downhill. Uphill
actually
To answer the previous question I do have the HW clock set to utc,
Everything is stock from initial install of the package.
Brian.
I do not see anything from Dell that is a model C151.
I also do not see anything in the RH bugzilla that is problematic for
older AMD processors and the clock, unless running KVM type virtual
machines.
Is this a VM or regular install?
If this a real machine, do you have the latest BIOS from Dell?
Do you have any special kernel options in grub?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
It also occured to me to ask if this was running in a VM, but it sounded
like it was running on actual hardware.I once had a vmware VM in
which I had similar misbehavior of the clock. Eventually I discovered
that the following simple program when run inside the VM would return
immediately instead of delaying for 10 seconds as it should.
#include stdio.h
/* #include sys/select.h */
#include sys/time.h
#include sys/types.h
#include unistd.h
int main() {
fd_set set;
struct timeval timeout;
int filedes = STDIN_FILENO;
FD_ZERO (set);
FD_SET (filedes, set);
timeout.tv_sec = 10;
timeout.tv_usec = 0;
select(FD_SETSIZE, set, NULL, NULL, timeout);
}
I then found out that the ISP had set the host OS for my VM to Ubuntu
when I was running CentOS 5 in the VM. The cause was that VMware
assumed a tickless kernel for Ubuntu, but not for CentOS 5 and there
were optimizations in the VM emulation that counted on VMware knowing
what timekeeping options where set in the kernel.
Nataraj
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Rudi Ahlers r...@softdux.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 07:24 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote: On 04/14/2011 09:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. _ I don't happen to have any systems I can test with the 1.5TB drives without controller cache right now, but I have a system with some old 500GB drives (which are about half as fast as the 1.5TB drives in individual sustained I/O throughput) attached directly to onboard SATA ports in a 8 x RAID6 with *no* controller cache at all. The machine has 16GB of RAM and bonnie++ therefore used 32GB of data for the test. Version 1.96 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pbox332160M 389 98 76709 22 91071 26 2209 95 264892 26 590.5 11 Latency 24190us1244ms1580ms 60411us 69901us 42586us Version 1.96 --Sequential Create-- Random Create pbox3 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 10910 31 + +++ + +++ 29293 80 + +++ + +++ Latency 775us 610us 979us 740us 370us 380us Given that the underlaying drives are effectively something like half as fast as the drives in the other test, the results are quite comparable. Woohoo, next we will be seeing md raid6 also giving comparable results if that is the case. I am not the only person on this list that thinks cache is king for raid5/6 on hardware raid boards and the using hardware raid + bbu cache for better performance one of the two reasons why we don't do md raid5/6. Cache doesn't make a lot of difference when you quickly write a lot more data than the cache can hold. The limiting factor becomes the slowest component - usually the drives themselves. Cache isn't magic performance pixie dust. It helps in certain use cases and is nearly irrelevant in others. Yeah, you are right - but cache is primarily to buffer the writes for performance. Why else go through the expense of getting bbu cache? So what happens when you tweak bonnie a bit? ___ As matter of interest, does anyone know how to use an SSD drive for cach purposes on Linux software RAID drives? ZFS has this feature and it makes a helluva difference to a storage server's performance. Put the file system's log device on it. -Ross ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Rudi Ahlers r...@softdux.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 07:24 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote: On 04/14/2011 09:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. _ I don't happen to have any systems I can test with the 1.5TB drives without controller cache right now, but I have a system with some old 500GB drives (which are about half as fast as the 1.5TB drives in individual sustained I/O throughput) attached directly to onboard SATA ports in a 8 x RAID6 with *no* controller cache at all. The machine has 16GB of RAM and bonnie++ therefore used 32GB of data for the test. Version 1.96 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pbox332160M 389 98 76709 22 91071 26 2209 95 264892 26 590.5 11 Latency 24190us1244ms1580ms 60411us 69901us 42586us Version 1.96 --Sequential Create-- Random Create pbox3 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 10910 31 + +++ + +++ 29293 80 + +++ + +++ Latency 775us 610us 979us 740us 370us 380us Given that the underlaying drives are effectively something like half as fast as the drives in the other test, the results are quite comparable. Woohoo, next we will be seeing md raid6 also giving comparable results if that is the case. I am not the only person on this list that thinks cache is king for raid5/6 on hardware raid boards and the using hardware raid + bbu cache for better performance one of the two reasons why we don't do md raid5/6. Cache doesn't make a lot of difference when you quickly write a lot more data than the cache can hold. The limiting factor becomes the slowest component - usually the drives themselves. Cache isn't magic performance pixie dust. It helps in certain use cases and is nearly irrelevant in others. Yeah, you are right - but cache is primarily to buffer the writes for performance. Why else go through the expense of getting bbu cache? So what happens when you tweak bonnie a bit? ___ As matter of interest, does anyone know how to use an SSD drive for cach purposes on Linux software RAID drives? ZFS has this feature and it makes a helluva difference to a storage server's performance. Put the file system's log device on it. -Ross ___ Well, ZFS has a separate ZIL for that purpose, and the ZIL adds extra protection / redundancy to the whole pool. But the Cache / L2ARC drive caches all common reads writes (simply put) onto SSD to improve overall system performance. So I was wondering if one could do this with mdraid or even just EXT3 / EXT4? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's
On 04/13/2011 07:54 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: They are definitely in there, just slow. - KB Hi guys, Still without SRPM's in 5.6/os/SRPMS/ -- Filipe Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] cross-platform email client
I'm a Thunderbird user almost since day one, but now I'm looking for something else. For whatever reason, it doesn't work well for me - every once in a while it becomes non-responsive (UI completely frozen for several seconds, CPU usage goes to 100%) and I just can't afford to waste time waiting for the email software to start working again. My main desktop platform is Linux, but I need a client that works the same and looks the same on Windows too. Email server is IMAP with a pretty hefty account: over a hundred folders, hundreds of thousands of messages total (server-side filtering with Sieve). Typically it's a remote session, over VPN. So the client better work well, and be glitch-free. The issues with Thunderbird might be related to the size of my IMAP account, plus the VPN latency - but frankly, I don't care, the client needs to hide all that stuff from me, do the updates or whatever in the background, instead of blocking the UI until it's done. Ironically, it blocked when I was done with this paragraph and I hit Enter. Sticking it to the man one last time, I guess. Any suggestions? Thanks. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On 04/15/11 12:07 PM, Florin Andrei wrote: I'm a Thunderbird user almost since day one, but now I'm looking for something else. For whatever reason, it doesn't work well for me - every once in a while it becomes non-responsive (UI completely frozen for several seconds, CPU usage goes to 100%) and I just can't afford to waste time waiting for the email software to start working again. I think T-bird gets locked up when its SENDING mail if the server takes too long to reply at the early stages of the protocol. that or DNS lookups take too long. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Florin Andrei flo...@andrei.myip.org wrote: I'm a Thunderbird user almost since day one, but now I'm looking for something else. For whatever reason, it doesn't work well for me - every once in a while it becomes non-responsive (UI completely frozen for several seconds, CPU usage goes to 100%) and I just can't afford to waste time waiting for the email software to start working again. My main desktop platform is Linux, but I need a client that works the same and looks the same on Windows too. Email server is IMAP with a pretty hefty account: over a hundred folders, hundreds of thousands of messages total (server-side filtering with Sieve). Typically it's a remote session, over VPN. So the client better work well, and be glitch-free. The issues with Thunderbird might be related to the size of my IMAP account, plus the VPN latency - but frankly, I don't care, the client needs to hide all that stuff from me, do the updates or whatever in the background, instead of blocking the UI until it's done. Ironically, it blocked when I was done with this paragraph and I hit Enter. Sticking it to the man one last time, I guess. Any suggestions? Thanks. By default Thunderbird creates a local cache for IMAP accounts -- for large accounts, this can be problematic. Have you tried disabling the local synchronization? Account Settings - Synch Storage - Uncheck Keep messages for this account on this computer Or at least that's where it is in Windows T-Bird. -- Jeff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:30:10PM -0500, Jeff wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Florin Andrei flo...@andrei.myip.org wrote: I'm a Thunderbird user almost since day one, but now I'm looking for something else. For whatever reason, it doesn't work well for me - every once in a while it becomes non-responsive (UI completely frozen for several seconds, CPU usage goes to 100%) and I just can't afford to waste time waiting for the email software to start working again. By default Thunderbird creates a local cache for IMAP accounts -- for large accounts, this can be problematic. Have you tried disabling the local synchronization? Account Settings - Synch Storage - Uncheck Keep messages for this account on this computer There is another setting that can apparently cause high CPU usage. PreferencesAdvancedGeneralAdvanced ConfigurationEnable Global Search and Indexer (don't have Thunderbird handy, so that path might be slightly off.) -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Buffy: I can't believe you got into Oxford! Willow: It's pretty exciting. Oz: That's some deep academia there. Buffy: That's where they make Gileses! Willow: I know! I can learn, and have scones! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On 04/15/2011 12:28 PM, John R Pierce wrote: I think T-bird gets locked up when its SENDING mail if the server takes too long to reply at the early stages of the protocol. that or DNS lookups take too long. At least in my case - no and no. It freezes randomly but pretty often, no relation to sending emails. The IMAP and SMTP servers are defined by IP address, not hostname. But even if that was the case, a software that blocks the UI completely while waiting for something in the background? Sounds like 1999 all over again. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On 04/15/2011 12:30 PM, Jeff wrote: By default Thunderbird creates a local cache for IMAP accounts -- for large accounts, this can be problematic. Have you tried disabling the local synchronization? Account Settings - Synch Storage - Uncheck Keep messages for this account on this computer It's unchecked already. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On 04/15/11 12:45 PM, Florin Andrei wrote: On 04/15/2011 12:28 PM, John R Pierce wrote: I think T-bird gets locked up when its SENDING mail if the server takes too long to reply at the early stages of the protocol. that or DNS lookups take too long. At least in my case - no and no. It freezes randomly but pretty often, no relation to sending emails. The IMAP and SMTP servers are defined by IP address, not hostname. But even if that was the case, a software that blocks the UI completely while waiting for something in the background? Sounds like 1999 all over again. my local SMTP server is intentionally configured to verify delivery addresses before it accepts a mail. sometimes this causes delays. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
On 4/15/2011 3:46 PM, Florin Andrei wrote: On 04/15/2011 12:30 PM, Jeff wrote: By default Thunderbird creates a local cache for IMAP accounts -- for large accounts, this can be problematic. Have you tried disabling the local synchronization? Account Settings - Synch Storage - Uncheck Keep messages for this account on this computer It's unchecked already. I experienced a similar problem with Thunderbird on Windows. For me, it ended up being folder compaction. Changing the settings on compaction (Tools/Options/Advanced/Network Disk Space) reduced the frequency that folders are compacted, and thereby my frustration, but did not eliminate them. I agree that the UI should not be affected by maintenance functions. Hope this helps. Michael Davis Profician Corporation ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
On Apr 15, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Rudi Ahlers r...@softdux.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Rudi Ahlers r...@softdux.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: On Friday, April 15, 2011 07:24 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote: On 04/14/2011 09:00 PM, Christopher Chan wrote: Wanna try that again with 64MB of cache only and tell us whether there is a difference in performance? There is a reason why 3ware 85xx cards were complete rubbish when used for raid5 and which led to the 95xx/96xx series. _ I don't happen to have any systems I can test with the 1.5TB drives without controller cache right now, but I have a system with some old 500GB drives (which are about half as fast as the 1.5TB drives in individual sustained I/O throughput) attached directly to onboard SATA ports in a 8 x RAID6 with *no* controller cache at all. The machine has 16GB of RAM and bonnie++ therefore used 32GB of data for the test. Version 1.96 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pbox332160M 389 98 76709 22 91071 26 2209 95 264892 26 590.5 11 Latency 24190us1244ms1580ms 60411us 69901us 42586us Version 1.96 --Sequential Create-- Random Create pbox3 -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 10910 31 + +++ + +++ 29293 80 + +++ + +++ Latency 775us 610us 979us 740us 370us 380us Given that the underlaying drives are effectively something like half as fast as the drives in the other test, the results are quite comparable. Woohoo, next we will be seeing md raid6 also giving comparable results if that is the case. I am not the only person on this list that thinks cache is king for raid5/6 on hardware raid boards and the using hardware raid + bbu cache for better performance one of the two reasons why we don't do md raid5/6. Cache doesn't make a lot of difference when you quickly write a lot more data than the cache can hold. The limiting factor becomes the slowest component - usually the drives themselves. Cache isn't magic performance pixie dust. It helps in certain use cases and is nearly irrelevant in others. Yeah, you are right - but cache is primarily to buffer the writes for performance. Why else go through the expense of getting bbu cache? So what happens when you tweak bonnie a bit? ___ As matter of interest, does anyone know how to use an SSD drive for cach purposes on Linux software RAID drives? ZFS has this feature and it makes a helluva difference to a storage server's performance. Put the file system's log device on it. -Ross ___ Well, ZFS has a separate ZIL for that purpose, and the ZIL adds extra protection / redundancy to the whole pool. But the Cache / L2ARC drive caches all common reads writes (simply put) onto SSD to improve overall system performance. So I was wondering if one could do this with mdraid or even just EXT3 / EXT4? Ext3/4 and XFS allow specifying an external log device which if is an SSD can speed up writes. All these file systems aggressively use page cache for read/write cache. The only thing you don't get is L2ARC type cache, but I heard of a dm-cache project that might provide provide that type of cache. -Ross ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 4/15/2011 7:08 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: I do not see anything from Dell that is a model C151. I also do not see anything in the RH bugzilla that is problematic for older AMD processors and the clock, unless running KVM type virtual machines. Is this a VM or regular install? If this a real machine, do you have the latest BIOS from Dell? Do you have any special kernel options in grub? Johnny, Sorry about the wrong system id number here is what it is. Dell Inspiron C521 Bios Version 1.1.11 (08/07/2007) It is not a VM, it is a regular install. I have not made any changes to the kernel options. It has been fine with a stock install so I never had any need to tweek it. Thank you. Brian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 4/15/2011 4:58 PM, Mailing List wrote: Johnny, Sorry about the wrong system id number here is what it is. Dell Inspiron C521 Bios Version 1.1.11 (08/07/2007) It is not a VM, it is a regular install. I have not made any changes to the kernel options. It has been fine with a stock install so I never had any need to tweek it. Thank you. Brian I would have answered sooner but my ISP ended up in the trash can due to the list's spam filters. I tried the latest kernel that was just rolled out. kernel-2.6.18-238.9.1.el5 and it was a mess also. Brian. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] unrar rpm package
Hi there -- I am running a server with the 5.6 64-bit distribution, and I am looking for an unrar rpm package. I have several repositories set up on the server which are the following: base updates extras centosplus contrib c5-testing All are enabled. When I do a yum search for unrar, nothing comes up. Is there another repository that I should add to the list, or is there a particular website that I can go to get the package? Thanks. The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] unrar rpm package
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:38:49 -0400 Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote: All are enabled. When I do a yum search for unrar, nothing comes up. Is there another repository that I should add to the list, or is there a particular website that I can go to get the package? rpmfusion has it. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] unrar rpm package
On 04/15/11 2:38 PM, Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote: Hi there -- I am running a server with the 5.6 64-bit distribution, and I am looking for an unrar rpm package. I have several repositories set up on the server which are the following: base updates extras centosplus contrib c5-testing All are enabled. When I do a yum search for unrar, nothing comes up. Is there another repository that I should add to the list, or is there a particular website that I can go to get the package? I see a rar and unrar in rpmforge. # yum --enablerepo=rpmforge list rar unrar .. Available Packages rar.i386 3.8.0-1.el5.rf rpmforge unrar.i386 4.0.7-1.el5.rf rpmforge there's probably other ports in places like EPEL but I didn't look there. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] unrar rpm package
On 4/15/2011 5:50 PM, Frank Cox wrote: On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:38:49 -0400 Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote: All are enabled. When I do a yum search for unrar, nothing comes up. Is there another repository that I should add to the list, or is there a particular website that I can go to get the package? rpmforge also.. http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/RPMForge smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] unrar rpm package
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:54:23PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote: On 04/15/11 2:38 PM, Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote: Hi there -- I am running a server with the 5.6 64-bit distribution, and I am looking for an unrar rpm package. I have several repositories set up on the server which are the following: As was mentioned, rpmforge has it. For what it's worth, p7zip does the same thing and somewhat more quickly at least in my very rough benchmarks, e.g. time rar e something.rar vs 7z e something rar. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Wesley: Wait for Faith. Buffy: That could be hours. The girl makes Godot look punctual. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
As matter of interest, does anyone know how to use an SSD drive for cach purposes on Linux software RAID drives? ZFS has this feature and it makes a helluva difference to a storage server's performance. You cannot. You can however use one for the external journal of ext3/4 in full journaling mode for something similar. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cross-platform email client
Florin Andrei flo...@andrei.myip.org wrote: I'm a Thunderbird user almost since day one, but now I'm looking for something else. Check out Mulberry. http://mulberrymail.com/ It hasn't been updated in a while, but don't let that scare you off. It's a very solid mail reader for Linux, Mac, and Windows. It does all the usual mail-related protocols, included crypto, authentication, filtering (server and I think client side), address books, scheduling, etc. To put into perspective, my client talks to four different IMAP accounts, the largest of which has 326 subfolders and 530,000 messages. The only bug that I seem to run into with the latest version is if the SMTP server isn't available when you send your first message after starting up, then the message you sent doesn't get kicked out of the local spool until you send the 2nd message. (Earlier versions would retry periodically; maybe there's a config setting somewhere I've not noticed, but it hasn't annoyed me enough to track it down.) If you're installing on CentOS you will need, IIRC, one of the compat-libc RPMS to be installed. Use ldd to figure out which one. Just grab the mulberry client. Don't bother with the mulberry admin tool; it's intended for large scale deployments. Devin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. Full installs are always recommended between major versions. Thank's all for the advise; but is there any easy way to install a newer version while keeping all configuration changes that have been made on a previous one as for 'sendmail', 'sshd.conf','firewalls', etc... --- Michel Donais ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
On 04/15/11 7:40 PM, Michel Donais wrote: Will it be the same from 5.6 to 6.0 or a full install will be better. Full installs are always recommended between major versions. Thank's all for the advise; but is there any easy way to install a newer version while keeping all configuration changes that have been made on a previous one as for 'sendmail', 'sshd.conf','firewalls', etc... have all your configuration under a change management system, with an at least semi-automated installation procedure, such as kickstart. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
have all your configuration under a change management system, with an at least semi-automated installation procedure, such as kickstart. I nerver think kikstart was I need. I will check what it is and how it work. Thank's for the info. --- Michel Donais ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Gnome Notification Applet
I tried out Scientific Linux 6 Live to see (basically) what I can expect with CentOS 6 and was pleased to find that everything looks pretty familiar and is easily customizable to make it look and feel like 5.6 -- except for one thing that I also noticed in Ubuntu's newest beta (my Dad uses Linux Mint). For whatever reason, Gnome has decided to put the Volume Control and Network Manager in the Notification Applet. (It's worse with Ubuntu, they've put four applets there by default.) On my desktop I don't display the Network Manager, but I like the Volume Control to be there (on the very right beside the clock). I spent most of my trial time with SL 6 trying to figure out how to separate these two applets from the Notification Applet -- without success. Is there a configuration file I can change or a configuration program I can run to customize this? I realize it's not a huge deal, but it's an irritant. Why does Gnome want to limit the ability to customize? Thanks for any pointers. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cents 5.6 ..... futur
John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: have all your configuration under a change management system, with an at least semi-automated installation procedure, such as kickstart. Or have the self discipline to keep a text file (or other record) of *all* changes you make to a system as root or other role account. I always keep a running log, complete with dates and who makes the change, as /root/`hostname`-mods. Trivial operations (that any junior sysadmin would be expected to know) get described. Anything more complex gets the actual commands entered (minus passwords). It's extra work, however not only has it saved my bacon a lot over the years in figuring out, after the fact, what caused something to break but even more often it has been invaluable in recreating a system or quickly implementing similar functions on other systems. Yes, this is a form of a change management system, just with little overhead. It is also more suited to server environments where each one might be slightly different as opposed to (for example) corporate workstation environments where you can have a large number of homogeneous machines. In that case, there are many other tools more suitable, with higher setup costs, but the amortized cost is lower. Devin -- When I was little, my grandfather used to make me stand in a closet for five minutes without moving. He said it was elevator practice. - Stephen Wright ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
