Re: [CentOS] crush after update
error? log? screenshot? backstrace? Banyan He Blog: http://www.rootong.com Email: ban...@rootong.com On 2012-11-17 11:53 PM, Hossein Lanjanian wrote: Hi every body! I installed centos 6 64bit on my sony labtop. I updated it`s kernel by yum command, and rebooted it. But it crush after grub page, right before the centos login page. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] crush after update
On 17 November 2012 23:53, Hossein Lanjanian hossein.lanjan...@gmail.comwrote: Hi every body! I installed centos 6 64bit on my sony labtop. I updated it`s kernel by yum command, and rebooted it. But it crush after grub page, right before the centos login page. -- With The Best H.Lanjanian ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Are you able to boot into single user? -- Kind Regards Earl Ramirez ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com wrote: There's a reason that those proprietary vendors are able to charge big $$$ for this functionality. That's the truth... I was hoping they were based off some open source implementation of iSCSI somewhere. I mean I could probably dedicate a single machine to run iSCSI and just schedule downtime, but that's something I wanted to avoid. I've been looking at something like Open-E, but it's active/passive with what is essentially a DRBD link between them. Again, not ideal. Speaking of which, why do people rely so much on DRBD for LAN deployments lately? Everyone always seems to cheap out and setup DRBD/Pacemaker/Heartbeat/*insert some HA software here* instead of using proper clustered file systems. DRBD to me has always screamed WAN replication. Maybe I just don't put enough value in it, who knows. Anyway, back to my hunt for a way to implement my Ceph cluster on Windows 2008. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
On 11/17/2012 06:08 PM, Steven Crothers wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com wrote: There's a reason that those proprietary vendors are able to charge big $$$ for this functionality. That's the truth... I was hoping they were based off some open source implementation of iSCSI somewhere. I mean I could probably dedicate a single machine to run iSCSI and just schedule downtime, but that's something I wanted to avoid. You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or rgmanager and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding with each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. I've done this to provide storage to a cluster of VMs and I could even fail the primary node and the backup would take over without losing any of my VMs. I didn't speak up earlier because of all the other features you asked for, but this will at least give you your HA requirements. I've been looking at something like Open-E, but it's active/passive with what is essentially a DRBD link between them. Again, not ideal. Speaking of which, why do people rely so much on DRBD for LAN deployments lately? Everyone always seems to cheap out and setup DRBD/Pacemaker/Heartbeat/*insert some HA software here* instead of using proper clustered file systems. DRBD to me has always screamed WAN replication. Maybe I just don't put enough value in it, who knows. Anyway, back to my hunt for a way to implement my Ceph cluster on Windows 2008. Clustered filesystems like GFS2 and OCFS2 come at a non-trivial performance hit. It's usually a case of avoiding them when possible. Using DRBD is not cheaping out. I prefer it to fancy SANs as it's more HA than a SAN. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimer li...@alteeve.ca wrote: You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or rgmanager and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding with each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve the problem of trying to utilize two heads. It's just failover. Nothing more. I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the multiple physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I can add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
On 11/17/12 6:58 PM, Steven Crothers wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimerli...@alteeve.ca wrote: You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or rgmanager and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding with each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve the problem of trying to utilize two heads. It's just failover. Nothing more. I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the multiple physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I can add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node any sort of active-active storage system has difficult issues with concurrent operations ... -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] XFCE4 group missing on Centos 5.x?
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:20:28 + (GMT) Keith Roberts ke...@karsites.net wrote: On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Johnny Hughes wrote: To: centos@centos.org From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] XFCE4 group missing on Centos 5.x? On 11/13/2012 02:41 PM, Keith Roberts wrote: On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Johnny Hughes wrote: To: centos@centos.org From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] XFCE4 group missing on Centos 5.x? On 11/13/2012 01:55 PM, Keith Roberts wrote: I had XFCE group installed and working on C5.8 32 bit. I have done a fresh installation using the C 5.5 DVD. I cannot seem to find the XFCE group now. Has this been removed from Centos 5.x ? There is a version in CentOS Extras ... however, it is outdated. I was going to upgrade it ... BUT ... I found that it is now being maintained in EPEL for EL5. I would recommend that you use the EPEL version of XFCE. Thanks Johnny. This is what I'm getting now: [root@karsites ~]# yum groupinfo XFCE Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, priorities Setting up Group Process Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: mirror.for.me.uk * epel: mirrors.ukfast.co.uk * extras: mirror.for.me.uk * rpmforge: nl.mirror.eurid.eu * updates: mirror.for.me.uk Warning: Group XFCE does not exist. I was installing xfce4 with: yum -y groupinstall XFCE Has the name been changed? The CentOS extras group name is: XFCE-4.4 I don't think the EPEL version has groups. [root@karsites ~]# yum groupinfo XFCE-4.4 Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, priorities Setting up Group Process Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: mirror.for.me.uk * epel: mirrors.ukfast.co.uk * extras: mirror.for.me.uk * rpmforge: nl.mirror.eurid.eu * updates: mirror.for.me.uk Warning: Group XFCE-4.4 does not exist. Maybe it's been removed now from extras as it's old? OK - got it now Johnny. So I just install every xfce* package from EPEL and that's dealt with it? Name : xfce4-session Arch : i386 Version: 4.6.2 Release: 1.el5 Size : 662 k Repo : epel Summary: Xfce session manager URL: http://www.xfce.org/ License: GPLv2+ Description: xfce4-session is the session manager for the : Xfce desktop environment. Kind Regards, Keith --- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] --- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Hi, This may or may not be helpful, but I'll put this out there anyway just in case :-) In the CentOS 6 version of EPEL repository the group is called Xfce (Case Sensitive) so: yum groupinstall Xfce Should do the trick. If that doesn't work try yum grouplist and find a group related to XFCE. :-). Hope this helps. -- Jake Shipton (JakeMS) GPG Key: 0xE3C31D8F GPG Fingerprint: 7515 CC63 19BD 06F9 400A DE8A 1D0B A5CF E3C3 1D8F signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
On 11/17/2012 09:58 PM, Steven Crothers wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimer li...@alteeve.ca mailto:li...@alteeve.ca wrote: You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or rgmanager and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding with each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve the problem of trying to utilize two heads. It's just failover. Nothing more. I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the multiple physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I can add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node. First, you can run DRBD in dual-primary (aka, Active/Active) just fine. It will faithfully replicate in real time and in both directions. Of course, then you need something to synchronize the data at the logical level (DRBD is just a block device), and that is where GFS2 or OCFS2 comes in, though the performance hit will go counter to your goals. You could do multi-path to both nodes, technically, but it's not wise because the cache on the storage can cause problems[1]. Also, you will note that I suggested mode=1, which is Active/Passive bonding, which provides no aggregated bandwidth. This was on purpose; I've tested all modes and *only* mode=1 failed and recovered without interruption reliably. As for failover, if you run DRBD in dual-primary, but keep access through one node at a time only, the only thing that is needed to migrate after the failure of the node that had the IP is to fence the node, take over the IP and start tgtd. This can happen quickly and, in my tests, iSCSI on the clients recovered fine. In my case, I had the LUNs acting as PVs in a clustered LVM with each LV backing a VM. None of the VMs failed or needed to be rebooted. So for what I can gather of your needs, you can get everything you want from open-source. The only caveat is that if you need more speed, you need to beef up your network, not aggregate (for reasons not related to HA), If this is not good enough, then there are plenty of commercial products ready to lighten your wallet by good measure. Digimer 1. http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/dual-primary-drbd-iscsi-and-multipath-dont-do-that/ -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
On 11/17/2012 10:40 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 11/17/12 6:58 PM, Steven Crothers wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimerli...@alteeve.ca wrote: You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or rgmanager and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding with each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve the problem of trying to utilize two heads. It's just failover. Nothing more. I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the multiple physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I can add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node any sort of active-active storage system has difficult issues with concurrent operations ... Exactly what is discussed here, as linked in my other reply; http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/dual-primary-drbd-iscsi-and-multipath-dont-do-that/ -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iSCSI Question
DRBD is not active/active. I cannot utilize both server's as an active session. DRBD replication latency will, in-fact, break my storage. I do not want active/passive or hot-standby failover... DRBD is offtopic from my original post, as it is not the correct solution. Steven Crothers steven.croth...@gmail.com On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Digimer li...@alteeve.ca wrote: On 11/17/2012 10:40 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 11/17/12 6:58 PM, Steven Crothers wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimerli...@alteeve.ca wrote: You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or rgmanager and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding with each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve the problem of trying to utilize two heads. It's just failover. Nothing more. I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the multiple physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I can add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node any sort of active-active storage system has difficult issues with concurrent operations ... Exactly what is discussed here, as linked in my other reply; http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/dual-primary-drbd-iscsi-and-multipath-dont-do-that/ -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? ___ 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
