Re: [CentOS] Excessive NFS operations
> > > A single CentOS 5.2 x86_64 machine here is overloading our NetApp > > > filer with excessive NFS getattr, lookup and access operations. > > There was a kernel update in the 5.2/5.3 time frame that fixed a NFS > > client bug regarding lookups, what kernel are you running? > 2.6.18-92.1.22.el5. I can test all newer kernels if necessary. Please update you centos installation. It will probably fix your NFS issues and your current system contains serious security problems. "yum update". /jens -- Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: j...@nsc.liu.se GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Is GFS for HPC?
> > Just curious if GFS can be used in a HPC environment, like GPFS or > > Oracle OCFS2? > I don't think so. Comments from people in the HPC-business indicate that > it doesn't scale to the number of nodes that typically forms these kinds > of environments. > > NFS still rulez there, together with more (ISILON/Panasas) or less (SUN) > specialized NFS-serving-gear. > Rainer NFS (<4.1) doesn't scale either. I would say that GPFS and Lustre is more usable than NFS in an HPC environment. You need a parallell file system when the data rates gets higher. But much depends on the I/O-profile of the jobs. /jens -- Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: j...@nsc.liu.se GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Mass installs of desktop systems on identical machines
> > Any particular reason why not, if I may ask? > Because other distributions have better support for brand-new consumer > hardware. Especially, if you consider the lifetime cycle of CentOS which > spans to 2014. Look at this not from the viewpoint of your mom, but from > the computershop that wants to sell lots of PCs to very different people > (which will expect to see *recent* software) and with (over the years) > quite differing hardware. > Kai But you don't want to supply consumers with an OS that gets unsupported before next christmas either, so Fedora is not the answer. Ubuntu LTS? /jens -- Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] NFS V4?
> Well, I definitely understand a couple of things better than when we > started. Thank you very much! > > It is not, however, working. Is that likely to be the "domain=" setting, > given what I said above? The "domain" in NFSv4-speak has nothing to do with DNS. It _can_ be you DNS-domainname but it can be anything as long as client and server agrees. If they disagree you can still mount, but all files will be owned by Nobody-User and Nobody-Group if I remember correctly. > I'll try constructing a "standard" /export and set things up more exactly > that way and see if anything changes. > > But the errors I'm getting tend to be like: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo mount host01:/ddb /mnt/ddb -t nfs4 -o > rw,hard,intr,proto=tcp,port=22049 > mount: mount to NFS server 'host01' failed: System Error: Connection refused. Shield up, Scotty! Looks like a firewall issue to me. Do you allow incoming traffic to port 22049/TCP? Can you mount over NFSv3? /jens -- Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] df command reports inaccurate results?
> > Also, when making the file system, reducing the amount reserved for > > root is usually safe on today's larger drives, especially on a > > relatively stable system/user base/file/system usage. > I gather this can't be done after creation? > Kai Remember: You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish. % man tune2fs The "-m" option. /jens -- Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.2 ?
> > > Anybody knows when CentOS 5.2 will be made available? > LOL, it's *almost* funny how quick people start asking when the next > version will come out when after upstream has released a new version. > Paul What's so funny? I think it's a very relevant question. There are preparations to made. Mirror-disks should have enough space. Kickstart have to be modified. Users should be notified. Vacations should be put on hold... And not all of us have been on this list and have had this discussion every time a new release is due. Tim Verhoeven did the right thing and put a good answer at http://planet.centos.org/. Thanks! /jens -- Jens Larsson, NSC, Linköpings universitet, SE-58183 LINKÖPING, SWEDEN Phone: +46-13-281432, Mobile: +46-709-521432, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG/PGP Key: 1024D/C21BB2C7 2001-02-27 Jens Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key Fingerprint: BAEF 85CF BF1D 7A69 C965 2EE6 C541 D57F C21B B2C7___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
