[CentOS] Ailing MATE desktop
I need some C8 troubleshooting help with MATE. I'm building a ZFS storage server with a SuperMicro H11SSL motherboard, EPYC 7232 CPU, and 32 GB ECC SDRAM. I installed CentOS 8.1.1911 from the iso as soon as it was released. I'm using the on-board ASPEED VGA video. I installed MATE v1.22 from https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stenstorp/MATE/. The following packages are installed: libmateweather-data-1.24.0-2.el8.noarch libmatemixer-1.24.0-1.el8.x86_64 mate-desktop-libs-1.24.0-3.el8.x86_64 mate-terminal-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-themes-3.22.21-1.el8.noarch mate-panel-libs-1.22.2-1.el8.x86_64 mate-desktop-1.24.0-3.el8.x86_64 mate-settings-daemon-1.22.1-2.el8.x86_64 mate-polkit-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-notification-daemon-1.22.1-1.el8.x86_64 mate-media-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-power-manager-1.22.2-1.el8.x86_64 mate-system-log-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 libmateweather-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 libmatekbd-1.24.0-1.el8.x86_64 mate-utils-common-1.22.2-2.el8.noarch mate-disk-usage-analyzer-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 mate-user-guide-1.24.0-1.el8.noarch mate-menus-preferences-category-menu-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-dictionary-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 mate-menus-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-session-manager-1.24.0-1.el8.x86_64 mate-backgrounds-1.24.0-1.el8.noarch mate-search-tool-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 mate-panel-1.22.2-1.el8.x86_64 mate-system-monitor-1.24.0-1.el8.x86_64 mate-applets-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-control-center-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 mate-icon-theme-1.24.0-1.el8.noarch mate-control-center-filesystem-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 mate-menus-libs-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-user-admin-1.5.1-3.el8.x86_64 mate-calc-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 mate-screenshot-1.22.2-2.el8.x86_64 mate-screensaver-1.24.0-2.el8.x86_64 About two weeks ago following a reset, after a normal login an incomplete MATE desktop appeared. The background is black. There is no visible mouse, although there is some ghostly pixel movement in the top toolbar when what should be the mouse cursor floats over each of those toolbar icons. I can hit Enter and start whatever app the ghost cursor is over, and the mouse works only within that app's window. I'm a long-time user of MATE ever since GNOME3 was released, but until now I've never had any problems with it. I have no idea where to start troubleshooting. I've looked in journalctl, systemctl, and dmesg, but found nothing obvious. There's nothing in the MATE wiki to help. I'm open to any suggestions where to start looking. --Doc Savage Fairview Heights, IL ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Jitsi Meet on CentOS 7 ?
Hi Centos friends. I had some time to write a spartan tutorial on running the latest stable Jitsi Video Bridge and Jitsi Meet and Centos 7.7. I wrote it while testing it so this WORKS and I am currently using it for fun with the kids. I do have the server currently running but blocked by my firewall. I am willing to allow a few of the people such a Kovacs and others to connect to my Jitsi server to test usability. But this is a 1CPU/2GBRAM VM in vultr.com so we cannot expect premium video quality and maybe no more than 10 people at the same time. Do note that in order to provide access, I need an IP and will open the server to connect from that IP. My Wordpress template is not the best so sorry for the formatting. I Will work on that tomorrow. here is the tutorial https://www.nubeinterna.com/2020/05/03/centos-7-7-and-jitsi/ hope it helps. On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:11 PM Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Le 03/05/2020 à 18:07, H a écrit : > > I am also interested in installing Jitsi server on CentOS 7, as well as > > running the desktop app on C7. > > According to the Jitsi developers, you shouldn't even use that and prefer > using > a browser. > > Though I'd take that information with a grain of salt, because the > developer I > talked to yesterday on IRC called my browser (Firefox 68.7.0 ESR) > "hopelessly > obsolete". > > Have you ever tried to explain concepts like long term support and > Enterprise > Linux to a 20 year old Arch user ? > > Here in France we call that "pissing in a violin". :o) > > Cheers, > > Niki > > -- > Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables > 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat > Site : https://www.microlinux.fr > Mail : i...@microlinux.fr > Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 > Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- - Erick Perez Quadrian Enterprises S.A. - Panama, Republica de Panama Skype chat: eaperezh WhatsApp IM: +507-6675-5083 - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS
Rather than dedupe at the file system level, I found the application level dedupe in BackupPC works really well... I've run BackupPC on both a big ZFS volume, and on a giant XFS over LVM over MDRAID volume (24 x 3TB disks organized as 2 x 11 raid6 plus 2 hot spares). The backuppc server I built at my last $job had 30 days of daily incrementals and 12 months of monthlies of about 25 servers+VMs (including Linux, Solaris, AIX, and Windows). The dedupe is done globally on a file level, so no matter how many instances of a file in all those backups ((30+12) * 25), there's only one file in the 'hive'.Bonus, BackupPC has a nice web UI for retrieving backups, I could create accounts for my various developers, and they could retrieve stuff from any covered date on any of the servers they had access to without my intervention. about the only manual intervention I ever needed to do over the several years this was running involved the Windows rsync client needing a PID file deleted after an unexpected reboot. -- -john r pierce recycling used bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 10:54 PM david wrote: > > I'm looking for a solution for backups because ZFS has failed on me > too many times. In my environment, I have a large amount of data > (around 2tb) that I periodically back up. I keep the last 5 > "snapshots". I use rsync so that when I overwrite the oldest backup, > most of the data is already there and the backup completes quickly, > because only a small number of files have actually changed. Duplicity works well on CentOS. I had to perform a restore of a website and wiki after I [accidentally] deleted both. Backups are to another machine over SSH scheduled through Systemd. A Duplicity-based backup may help protect your data until you get something in place you like better. Jeff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:02 AM Stefan S wrote: > > Hi David, > > in my opinion, VDO isn't worth the effort. I tried VDO for the same use case: > backups. My dataset is 2-3TB and I backup daily. Even with a smaller dataset, > VDO couldn't stand up to it's promises. It used tons of CPU and memory and > with a lot of tuning I could get it to kind of work, but it became corrupted > at the slightest problem (even a shutdown could do this, and shutdowns could > also take hours). I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I would be interested to understand the situations that you experienced this problem so that it can be addressed better in the future. Did you reach out for any guidance when it was happening? > > I have tried a number of things and I use a combination of two things now: > 1. a btrfs volume with force-compress enabled to store the intermediate data > - it compresses my data to about 60% and that's enough for me > 2. use of bup (https://bup.github.io/) to store long-term backups. > > bup is incredibly efficient for my use case (full VM backups). Over the > course of a whole month, the dataset only increases by about 30% from the > initial size (I create a new full backup each month) - and this is with FULL > backups of all VMs every day. bup backupsets can also be mounted via FUSE, > giving you access to all stored versions in a filesystem-like manner. > > If you can backup at will you can probably forego the btrfs volume for > intermediate storage - that is just a band-aid to work around a specific > issue here. > > > Stefan > > > -- > > > From: CentOS on behalf of david > Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 2:50 AM > To: centos@centos.org > Subject: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS > > Folks > > I'm looking for a solution for backups because ZFS has failed on me > too many times. In my environment, I have a large amount of data > (around 2tb) that I periodically back up. I keep the last 5 > "snapshots". I use rsync so that when I overwrite the oldest backup, > most of the data is already there and the backup completes quickly, > because only a small number of files have actually changed. > > Because of this low change rate, I have used ZFS with its > deduplication feature to store the data. I started using a Centos-6 > installation, and upgraded years ago to Centos7. Centos 8 is on my > agenda. However, I've had several data-loss events with ZFS where > because of a combination of errors and/or mistakes, the entire store > was lost. I've also noticed that ZFS is maintained separately from > Centos. At this moment, the Centos 8 update causes ZFS to > fail. Looking for an alternate, I'm trying VDO. > > In the VDO installation, I created a logical volume containing two > hard-drives, and defined VDO on top of that logical volume. It > appears to be running, yet I find the deduplication numbers don't > pass the smell test. I would expect that if the logical volume > contains three copies of essentially identical data, I should see > deduplication numbers close to 3.00, but instead I'm seeing numbers > like 1.15. I compute the compression number as follows: > Use df and extract the value for "1k blocks used" from the third column > use vdostats --verbose and extract the number titled "1K-blocks used" > > Divide the first by the second. > > Can you provide any advice on my use of ZFS or VDO without telling me > that I should be doing backups differently? > > Thanks > > David > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 10:54 PM david wrote: > > Folks > > I'm looking for a solution for backups because ZFS has failed on me > too many times. In my environment, I have a large amount of data > (around 2tb) that I periodically back up. I keep the last 5 > "snapshots". I use rsync so that when I overwrite the oldest backup, > most of the data is already there and the backup completes quickly, > because only a small number of files have actually changed. > > Because of this low change rate, I have used ZFS with its > deduplication feature to store the data. I started using a Centos-6 > installation, and upgraded years ago to Centos7. Centos 8 is on my > agenda. However, I've had several data-loss events with ZFS where > because of a combination of errors and/or mistakes, the entire store > was lost. I've also noticed that ZFS is maintained separately from > Centos. At this moment, the Centos 8 update causes ZFS to > fail. Looking for an alternate, I'm trying VDO. > > In the VDO installation, I created a logical volume containing two > hard-drives, and defined VDO on top of that logical volume. It > appears to be running, yet I find the deduplication numbers don't > pass the smell test. I would expect that if the logical volume > contains three copies of essentially identical data, I should see > deduplication numbers close to 3.00, but instead I'm seeing numbers > like 1.15. I compute the compression number as follows: > Use df and extract the value for "1k blocks used" from the third column > use vdostats --verbose and extract the number titled "1K-blocks used" I'd like to know what kind of data you're looking to back up (that will just help get an idea of whether it's even a good fit for dedupe; though if it dedupes well on ZFS, it probably is fine). I'd also like to know how you configured your VDO volume (provide the 'vdo create' command you used). As mentioned in some other responses, can you provide vdostats (full 'vdostats --verbose' output as well as base 'vdostats') and df outputs for this volume? That would help understand a bit more on what you're experiencing. The default deduplication window for a VDO volume is set to ~250G (--indexMem=0.25). Assuming you're writing the full 2T of data each time and want to achieve deduplication across that entire 2T of data, it would require a "--indexMem=2G" configuration. You may want to account for growth as well, which means you may want to consider a larger amount of memory for the '--indexMem' parameter. An alternative, if memory isn't as plentiful, you could enable the sparse index option to cover a significantly larger dedupe window for a smaller amount of memory commitment. There is an additional on-disk footprint requirement that goes with it. You can look at the documentation [0] to find out those specific requirements. For this setup, a sparse index with default memory footprint (0.25G) would cover ~2.5T, but would require an additional ~20G of storage over the default index configuration. [0] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/deduplicating_and_compressing_storage/deploying-vdo_deduplicating-and-compressing-storage#vdo-memory-requirements_vdo-requirements > > Divide the first by the second. > > Can you provide any advice on my use of ZFS or VDO without telling me > that I should be doing backups differently? Without more information about what you're attempting to do, I can't really say that what you're doing is wrong, but I also can't say that there are any expectations from VDO yet that aren't being met. More context would certainly help get to the bottom of this question. > > Thanks > > David > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS
Hi David, in my opinion, VDO isn't worth the effort. I tried VDO for the same use case: backups. My dataset is 2-3TB and I backup daily. Even with a smaller dataset, VDO couldn't stand up to it's promises. It used tons of CPU and memory and with a lot of tuning I could get it to kind of work, but it became corrupted at the slightest problem (even a shutdown could do this, and shutdowns could also take hours). I have tried a number of things and I use a combination of two things now: 1. a btrfs volume with force-compress enabled to store the intermediate data - it compresses my data to about 60% and that's enough for me 2. use of bup (https://bup.github.io/) to store long-term backups. bup is incredibly efficient for my use case (full VM backups). Over the course of a whole month, the dataset only increases by about 30% from the initial size (I create a new full backup each month) - and this is with FULL backups of all VMs every day. bup backupsets can also be mounted via FUSE, giving you access to all stored versions in a filesystem-like manner. If you can backup at will you can probably forego the btrfs volume for intermediate storage - that is just a band-aid to work around a specific issue here. Stefan -- From: CentOS on behalf of david Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 2:50 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS Folks I'm looking for a solution for backups because ZFS has failed on me too many times. In my environment, I have a large amount of data (around 2tb) that I periodically back up. I keep the last 5 "snapshots". I use rsync so that when I overwrite the oldest backup, most of the data is already there and the backup completes quickly, because only a small number of files have actually changed. Because of this low change rate, I have used ZFS with its deduplication feature to store the data. I started using a Centos-6 installation, and upgraded years ago to Centos7. Centos 8 is on my agenda. However, I've had several data-loss events with ZFS where because of a combination of errors and/or mistakes, the entire store was lost. I've also noticed that ZFS is maintained separately from Centos. At this moment, the Centos 8 update causes ZFS to fail. Looking for an alternate, I'm trying VDO. In the VDO installation, I created a logical volume containing two hard-drives, and defined VDO on top of that logical volume. It appears to be running, yet I find the deduplication numbers don't pass the smell test. I would expect that if the logical volume contains three copies of essentially identical data, I should see deduplication numbers close to 3.00, but instead I'm seeing numbers like 1.15. I compute the compression number as follows: Use df and extract the value for "1k blocks used" from the third column use vdostats --verbose and extract the number titled "1K-blocks used" Divide the first by the second. Can you provide any advice on my use of ZFS or VDO without telling me that I should be doing backups differently? Thanks David ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] perl Net::Interface module on CentOS 8
Wasn't this renamed to : perl-IO-Interface (in centos7) ?? Carel van der Werf -Original Message- From: CentOS On Behalf Of Jonathan Billings Sent: Sunday, 3 May, 2020 23:01 To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] perl Net::Interface module on CentOS 8 On May 3, 2020, at 14:34, sthustfo wrote: > > We have received a perl program that makes use of "Net::Interface" > module which I am trying to run on CentOS 8. However, running into > issues as this module is not found. > > use Net::Interface; > > I could use cpan to install the same, but currently using the rpm > packages for all the needs. Any idea which rpm package provides this perl > module? There are no CentOS 8packages that provide that Perl module, I don’t see packages in C7 either (nor in EPEL). I suggest packaging them yourself. The rpm-build package has an rpmdev-newspec command that can take a -t perl argument to create a spec file from a template for a perk module. So `rpmdev-newspec -t perl perl-Net-Interface` -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Understanding VDO vs ZFS
Strahil, I am using about 1012MB for the first ISO. I believe it's because of compression. From there vdostats --hu reports 5.0G usage and 12% in percentage. With savings of 89% for original + 9 copies of the same ISO. On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:17 AM Strahil Nikolov wrote: > On May 3, 2020 8:33:33 AM GMT+03:00, Erick Perez - Quadrian Enterprises < > epe...@quadrianweb.com> wrote: > >sorry corrections: > >For this test I created a 40GB lvm volume group with /dev/sdb and > >/dev/sdc > >then a 40GB LV > >then a 60GB VDO vol (for testing purposes) > > > >vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 'saving percent' > >output from just created vdoas > > > >[root@localhost ~]# vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 > >'saving > >percent' > >physical blocks : 10483712 > > logical blocks : 15728640 > > 1K-blocks : 41934848 > > 1K-blocks used : 4212024 > > 1K-blocks available : 37722824 > > used percent: 10 > > saving percent : 99 > >[root@localhost ~]# > > > >FIRST copy CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso (1.1G) to vdoas from source > >outside vdo volume > >[root@localhost ~]# vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 > >'saving > >percent' > > 1K-blocks used : 4721348 > > 1K-blocks available : 37213500 > > used percent: 11 > > saving percent : 9 > > > >SECOND copy CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso (1.1G) to vdoas form > >source > >outside vdo volume > >#cp /root/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso > >/mnt/vdomounts/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003-version2.iso > > 1K-blocks used : 5239012 > > 1K-blocks available : 36695836 > > used percent: 12 > > saving percent : 52 > > > >THIRD copy CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso (1.1G) to > >vdoas form inside vdo volume to inside vdo volume > > 1K-blocks used : 5248060 > > 1K-blocks available : 36686788 > > used percent: 12 > > saving percent : 67 > > > >Then I did this a total of 9 more times to have 10 ISOs copied. Total > >data > >copied 10.6GB. > > > > > >Do note this: > >When using DF, it will show the VDO size, in my case 60G > >when using vdostats it will show the size of the LV, in my case 40G > >Remeber dedupe AND compression are enabled. > > > >The df -hT output shows the logical space occupied by these iso files > >as > >seen by the filesystem on the VDO volume. > >Since VDO manages a logical to physical block map, df sees logical > >space > >consumed according to the file system that resides on top of the VDO > >volume. > >vdostats --hu is viewing the physical block device as managed by VDO. > >Physically a single .ISO image is residing on the disk, but logically > >the > >file system thinks there are 10 copies, occupying 10.6GB. > > > >So at the end I have 10 .ISOs of 1086 1MB blocks (total 10860 1MB > >blocks) > >that yield these results: > > 1K-blocks used : 5248212 > > 1K-blocks available : 36686636 > > used percent: 12 > > saving percent : 89 > > > >So at the end it is using 5248212 1K blocks minus 4212024 initial > >used 1K > >blocks, gives (5248212 - 4212024) = 1036188 1K blocks / 1024 = about > >1012MB > >total. > > > >Hope this helps understanding where the space goes. > > > >BTW: Testing system is CentOS Linux release 7.8.2003 stock. with only > >"yum > >install vdo kmod-kvdo" > > > >History of commands: > >[root@localhost vdomounts]# history > >2 pvcreate /dev/sdb > >3 pvcreate /dev/sdc > >8 vgcreate -v -A y vgvol01 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc > >9 vgdisplay > > 13 lvcreate -l 100%FREE -n lvvdo01 vgvol01 > > 14 yum install vdo kmod-kvdo > > 18 vdo create --name=vdoas --device=/dev/vgvol01/lvvdo01 > >--vdoLogicalSize=60G --writePolicy=async > > 19 mkfs.xfs -K /dev/mapper/vdoas > > 20 ls /mnt > > 21 mkdir /mnt/vdomounts > > 22 mount /dev/mapper/vdoas /mnt//vdomounts/ > > 26 vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 'saving percent' > > 28 cp /root/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso /mnt/vdomounts/ -vvv > > 29 vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 'saving percent' > > 30 cp /root/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso > >/mnt/vdomounts/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003-version2.iso > > 31 vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 'saving percent' > > 33 cd /mnt/vdomounts/ > > 35 cp CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003-version2.iso > >./CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003-version3.iso > > 36 vdostats --verbose /dev/mapper/vdoas | grep -B6 'saving percent' > > 37 df > > 39 vdostats --hu > > 40 ls -l --block-size=1MB /root/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-2003.iso > > 41 df -hT > > 42 vdo status |
