[CentOS] ganglia failing dependency
hello list, I'm trying to install ganglia-gmetad on centos 5.6. rrdtool is already installed and librrd is there. But for some reason when I go to install this package it doesn't see that it is. [root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #yum install ganglia-gmetad Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, security Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: mirrors.lga7.us.voxel.net * epel: serverbeach1.fedoraproject.org * extras: mirror.umoss.org * rpmforge: fr2.rpmfind.net * updates: mirror.atlanticmetro.net Excluding Packages in global exclude list Finished Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package ganglia-gmetad.i386 0:3.0.7-1.el5 set to be updated -- Processing Dependency: librrd.so.2 for package: ganglia-gmetad -- Finished Dependency Resolution ganglia-gmetad-3.0.7-1.el5.i386 from epel has depsolving problems -- Missing Dependency: librrd.so.2 is needed by package ganglia-gmetad-3.0.7-1.el5.i386 (epel) Error: Missing Dependency: librrd.so.2 is needed by package ganglia-gmetad-3.0.7-1.el5.i386 (epel) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: package-cleanup --problems package-cleanup --dupes rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest But here are the required libraries: [root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2 /usr/lib/librrd.so.2 /usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13 Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point? thanks! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ganglia failing dependency
On 10/08/11 5:47 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: [root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2 /usr/lib/librrd.so.2 /usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13 Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point? it appears there are rrdtool's in both rpmforge and epel. odds are, these aren't packaged in a compatible manner. anyways, your ganglia stuff is from epel, so you probably should ask them. -- 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] ganglia failing dependency
Vreme: 10/09/2011 02:56 AM, John R Pierce piše: On 10/08/11 5:47 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote: [root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2 /usr/lib/librrd.so.2 /usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13 Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point? it appears there are rrdtool's in both rpmforge and epel. odds are, these aren't packaged in a compatible manner. anyways, your ganglia stuff is from epel, so you probably should ask them. Tim, remove rrdtool (you installed it from repoforge/rpmforge) and rum install for ganglia-gmetad. rrdtool will be automaticaly installed: [root@kancelarija yum.repos.d]# yum install ganglia-gmetad Loaded plugins: downloadonly, fastestmirror, priorities, refresh-packagekit Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile 1032 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package ganglia-gmetad.x86_64 0:3.1.7-3.el6 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: ganglia = 3.1.7-3.el6 for package: ganglia-gmetad-3.1.7-3.el6.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: librrd.so.4()(64bit) for package: ganglia-gmetad-3.1.7-3.el6.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libganglia-3.1.7.so.0()(64bit) for package: ganglia-gmetad-3.1.7-3.el6.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libconfuse.so.0()(64bit) for package: ganglia-gmetad-3.1.7-3.el6.x86_64 -- Running transaction check --- Package ganglia.x86_64 0:3.1.7-3.el6 will be installed --- Package libconfuse.x86_64 0:2.6-3.el6 will be installed --- Package rrdtool.x86_64 0:1.3.8-6.el6 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts for package: rrdtool-1.3.8-6.el6.x86_64 -- Running transaction check --- Package dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts.noarch 0:2.30-2.el6 will be installed -- Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved == Package Arch Version Repository Size == Installing: ganglia-gmetad x86_64 3.1.7-3.el6 plc-epel34 k Installing for dependencies: dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts noarch 2.30-2.el6plc-os 393 k ganglia x86_64 3.1.7-3.el6 plc-epel 150 k libconfuse x86_64 2.6-3.el6 plc-epel76 k rrdtool x86_64 1.3.8-6.el6 plc-os 293 k Transaction Summary == Install 5 Package(s) Total download size: 945 k Installed size: 3.1 M Is this ok [y/N]: Also, install yum-plugin-priorities and setup priorites for all repos. I would use priority=1 for all main repos, priority=2 for EPEL, and priority=3 for Repoforge, ... -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your trusty Spiderman... StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
From: John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:09:11PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: I should care what you believe? Is this vitriol really necessary? I think it is just a reaction to the I don't believe you at all, which some people would take as you are a liar... That's the problem with internet communications. The sender say things he would not say face to face, and the recipient does not know the mood of the sender. Emoticons cannot completely solve it... :/ JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a single conflict. Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest account, accusing me of making something up when I was only giving the facts. He was calling me a liar. He preferred to see my account as a lie so as not to surrender his faith that Ganglia is a pure and perfect project. Attitudes like that are dangerous in computing, since they lead to bugs not being fixed. If you want shiny and new, why not do it properly and build rpms? You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a 32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I can say is that, for my system, yum saw version conflicts that were blockers. As for properly, there are, as Larry Wall says, many ways to do it. It is up to each project, as their first task, IMHO, to see to it that ./configure, make, make install works for their package, with proper, documented flags, on standard Linux distros. Ganglia - a fine and valuable project on the whole - has a broken make install. But it can be worked around. Finding workarounds is often a sysadmins job. Sharing those workarounds with the community is often how free software stays ahead of the proprietary stuff. On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look, ./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. Any serious business will have need of building on occassional program with different flags than the distro's default, whatever the distro. I often end up building a few core applications that way, as do many other sysadmins in serious business settings. If you don't need to, that's fine. Some businesses can wear off-the-rack cloths. Others need tailored garments. Regards, Whit ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for centos-5. And that would be the proper route to go instead of building from native source :) To get 3.1.7? Disregarding that, I should jump through the hoops of recompiling a F13 RPM rather than just compile from the tar? Why? Every extra stage like that introduces the chance of incidental errors, of stuff that doesn't translate precisely through that stage. I'm not doubting it generally can work, just that there's anything proper about it. Generally native source is the gold standard. The farther upstream you go, the better the quality gets, the more bugs are fixed, and the more control you have over how and where the stuff installs on your systems. There can be an argument that for some stuff that passes through RHEL the extra attention adds some quality control (ignoring the counterexample of the long history of RH manging kernels; they seem to have gotten better about that lately), but stuff in EPEL? Really? I'm not talking Linux from Scratch here - although I respect that project immensely. I appreciate a solid distro as a foundation. CentOS is. But claims that any distro is so perfect and complete that it's improper to custom compile a few apps on its foundation - from the native source (with all the connotations that natives are scarey and primitive) - should not be well received if we want to continue to have open platforms. Best, Whit ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
Whit Blauvelt wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: snip If you want shiny and new, why not do it properly and build rpms? long snip On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look, ./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. Any serious business will have need of building on occassional program with different flags than the distro's default, whatever the distro. I often end up building a few core applications that way, as do many other sysadmins in serious business settings. If you don't need to, that's fine. Some businesses can wear off-the-rack cloths. Others need tailored garments. you didn't get it Whit, John was not saying stick to what's in the distro [or trusted 3rd party repos]. He was suggesting to build your own rpms when needed. This allows you to use whatever version, build flags, options etc, just like your configure-make-make install solution. But it has many advantages, including easier housekeeping and dep management, deploying to many systems, pushing new versions, etc ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
Whit Blauvelt wrote: You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a 32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I can say is that, for my system, yum saw version conflicts that were blockers. That doesn't make any sense. Yum pulls whatever it needs from the configured repos if you don't have them. If yum sees conflicts on your system it is because you installed packages from somewhere other than the base and epel repos and thus shouldn't be blaming the package or packager. As for properly, there are, as Larry Wall says, many ways to do it. Yes, but none of them involve setting up unexpected conflicts with the base or epel repository packages. It is up to each project, as their first task, IMHO, to see to it that ./configure, make, make install works for their package, with proper, documented flags, on standard Linux distros. Ganglia - a fine and valuable project on the whole - has a broken make install. Did you mean to say it didn't run on your system? Or that you didn't apply the changes in the rpm spec file before expecting it to work? On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look, ./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. If you are careful to keep the results in /usr/local or /opt, maybe. Otherwise you'll likely overwrite something that should be managed. And call things broken that are your own fault. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:19:46PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: I just tried a ganglia install from EPEL; absolutely no issues at all. Perhaps if you'd bother to actually document these conflicts one of us might be able to help. That is if we're still willing. Now you're threatening to expel me from the community? For posting notes on workarounds to get a useful package to work? What's this about? Ganglia's working fine for me. I can't speak to your claims of 3.1.7 having bug fixes and the multicpu issue; but I saw no conflicts with EPEL's 3.0.7. My claims? The project's own documents describe this stuff. You saw no conflicts? Great. Not every bug shows up on every box. You believe one instance of not seeing a bug means no on else will? That's Microsoft-style quality control. If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently. Sorry. If that's confusion, I got it from instructions (several sets of them) out on the web for installing Ganglia from EPEL, which referred to it as a Fedora repository. Gentoo is fine for a toy os. Claiming Gentoo is enterprise is just silly. No point in including a long list of serious enterprises which run on Gentoo. You're in fanboi mode and it's not your team. Fine. Kids? Heh. 17 years? Heh. You're a youngster. Let me know when you've got 25+ years in the industry and then I might be impressed :) I said I've been a Linux sysadmin since '93. I've been in the industry since '82. Thanks for mistaking me for a youngster though! Whit ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
Whit Blauvelt wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for centos-5. And that would be the proper route to go instead of building from native source :) To get 3.1.7? Disregarding that, I should jump through the hoops of recompiling a F13 RPM rather than just compile from the tar? Why? Because rpm tracks all the files installed from packages, and yum understands the dependencies. You've clearly broken that on your system. And you probably have no idea how to verify that your tarball-installed files are still the same ones you installed or how to remove all of them cleanly. Every extra stage like that introduces the chance of incidental errors, of stuff that doesn't translate precisely through that stage. I'm not doubting it generally can work, just that there's anything proper about it. Generally native source is the gold standard. The farther upstream you go, the better the quality gets, the more bugs are fixed, and the more control you have over how and where the stuff installs on your systems. There's always a tradeoff between new code introducing new bugs and fixing old ones. Fedora takes a different position in that tradeoff than RHEL/Centos and sometimes that's what you want for certain applications. And if the src RPM will rebuild painlessly you get the advantage of rpm management for next to no extra work. Plus you know someone else has at least run the code a time or two, something you don't know about the straight upstream source. There can be an argument that for some stuff that passes through RHEL the extra attention adds some quality control (ignoring the counterexample of the long history of RH manging kernels; they seem to have gotten better about that lately), but stuff in EPEL? Really? One of EPEL's goals is to not overwrite or conflict with any base rpms. They are't perfect, their idea of 'base' doesn't include centos extras, and their guidlines keep out some things you probably want, but in general they are pretty good and it is a very valuable thing to be able to install any of their packages without worrying about conflicts. Other 3rd party repos don't make the same effort or intentionally update existing system libraries to meet their own goals. I'm not talking Linux from Scratch here - although I respect that project immensely. I appreciate a solid distro as a foundation. CentOS is. But claims that any distro is so perfect and complete that it's improper to custom compile a few apps on its foundation - from the native source (with all the connotations that natives are scarey and primitive) - should not be well received if we want to continue to have open platforms. You need to think of rpm as a database with integrity rules - because that's what it is. And think about what happens if you randomly scribble stuff in a database ignoring its rules - because that's what you are doing. There are times you need to do some experimental things, but they should be kept out of the system area or you loose the advantage that package management tools provide. Or you should build your own rpms to incorporate the files into the system properly. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a single conflict. Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest account, accusing me of making something up when I was only giving the facts. He was calling me a liar. He preferred to see my account as a lie so as not to surrender his faith that Ganglia is a pure and perfect project. there is a big difference in saying you don't believe a person's information and calling them a liar.You may just be saying you perceive things differently or maybe that the person doesn't understand about which he is speaking. He may be entirely truthful and still not be believed. jerry Attitudes like that are dangerous in computing, since they lead to bugs not being fixed. If you want shiny and new, why not do it properly and build rpms? You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a 32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I can say is that, for my system, yum saw version conflicts that were blockers. As for properly, there are, as Larry Wall says, many ways to do it. It is up to each project, as their first task, IMHO, to see to it that ./configure, make, make install works for their package, with proper, documented flags, on standard Linux distros. Ganglia - a fine and valuable project on the whole - has a broken make install. But it can be worked around. Finding workarounds is often a sysadmins job. Sharing those workarounds with the community is often how free software stays ahead of the proprietary stuff. On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look, ./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. Any serious business will have need of building on occassional program with different flags than the distro's default, whatever the distro. I often end up building a few core applications that way, as do many other sysadmins in serious business settings. If you don't need to, that's fine. Some businesses can wear off-the-rack cloths. Others need tailored garments. Regards, Whit ___ 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] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:19:46PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently. Hey John, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL: Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) is a volunteer-based community effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on ... Enough said. Whit ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On 6/18/2010 9:01 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote: If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently. Hey John, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL: Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) is a volunteer-based community effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on ... Enough said. Apparently not, since you don't seem to understand the purpose of the project, the relationship to the sponsor organization, or the value of high-quality, well maintained packages. Or even the value of having machines where for spans of many years, all you ever have to do is yum update and the right thing will happen to every installed application. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On 6/18/2010 8:20 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a single conflict. Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest account, accusing me of making something up when I was only giving the facts. He was calling me a liar. He preferred to see my account as a lie so as not to surrender his faith that Ganglia is a pure and perfect project. there is a big difference in saying you don't believe a person's information and calling them a liar.You may just be saying you perceive things differently or maybe that the person doesn't understand about which he is speaking. He may be entirely truthful and still not be believed. And there's a gray area where what the person says is technically true regarding his observations but then he places blame on others for a situation he created himself. The part not to be believed is the incorrect conclusion, especially when you can easily disprove it yourself - so its not a lie, it is a mistake. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest account, accusing me of making something up when I was only giving the facts. He was calling me a liar. He preferred to see my account as a lie so as not to surrender his faith that Ganglia is a pure and perfect project. Attitudes like that are dangerous in computing, since they lead to bugs not being fixed. While KBS could have very well chosen his wording differently he did not call you a liar. That is the interpretation you choose to apply to what he said. If someone tells me that it's going to rain, and I see nothing but blue skies on the horizon and tell them I don't believe them I am not calling them a liar; I am, however, telling them that they are wrong. By this account I find your use of ignorant rude and uncalled for. You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a 32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I can say is that, for my system, yum saw version conflicts that were blockers. Yep, 32-bit. As you didn't point out whether you attempted the 32-bit or 64-bit version I grabbed a test box at random and it happened to be 32-bit. As far as conflicts go I will say again, I didn't have any. And without further evidence from you there's no way to determine why you are reporting alleged conflicts, nor what those conflicts may be. If there are conflicts it's it is much more likely that they stem from self-installs or poorly chosen 3rd party repos then they do with EPEL. As for properly, there are, as Larry Wall says, many ways to do it. It is up to each project, as their first task, IMHO, to see to it that ./configure, make, make install works for their package, with proper, documented flags, on standard Linux distros. Ganglia - a fine and valuable project on the whole - has a broken make install. But it can be worked around. Finding workarounds is often a sysadmins job. Sharing those workarounds with the community is often how free software stays ahead of the proprietary stuff. This doesn't carry much weight with me when we are talking about an enterprise distro unless the problems are discovered in the process of building SRPMs. By the way, did you report this issue upstream and offer them the workarounds in the form of patches? On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look, ./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. Any serious No, it's not. business will have need of building on occassional program with different flags than the distro's default, whatever the distro. I often end up And those needs are best met by rolling SRPMs. Heck, you could even give back to the community and make them available for others to make use of. building a few core applications that way, as do many other sysadmins in serious business settings. If you don't need to, that's fine. Some businesses can wear off-the-rack cloths. Others need tailored garments. I don't dispute this at all; it's very true and will remain true. My argument is that building native tarballs and then installing them is *not* the way to go when you are working with a package managed system such as CentOS; take the additional time and make SRPMs that can be properly integrated into the package system. The benefits from such can not be understated and are *well* worth your time. You're not new to the industry so I'm a little confused as to why you don't see this. John -- A nuclear war does not defend a country and it does not defend a system. I've put it the same way many times; not even the most accomplished ideologue will be able to tell the difference between the ashes of capitalism and the ashes of communism. -- John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006), Canadian-American economist and author, The Ashes of Capitalism and the Ashes of Communism, interview with John M. Whiteley in Quest for Peace: an Introduction (1986) pgpU7FryXu2Br.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:25:56AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: To get 3.1.7? Disregarding that, I should jump through the hoops of recompiling a F13 RPM rather than just compile from the tar? Why? Every extra stage like that introduces the chance of incidental errors, of stuff that doesn't translate precisely through that stage. I'm not doubting it generally can work, just that there's anything proper about it. Generally native source is the gold standard. The farther upstream you go, the better the quality gets, the more bugs are fixed, and the more control you have over how and where the stuff installs on your systems. You really believe this? If so, why do you bother with CentOS, or any package managed distro? Native builds are *never* the way to go, but I quite refuse to waste my time pointing out the many drawbacks of such compared to taking a few moments to properly - yes, *properly* - make SRPMs and and rebuilding *those* on the target platforms. The gold standard is that procedure, not building source kits that can, and *will* walk all over the rest of your system. Just because it may not have happened yet is nothing but pure luck. There can be an argument that for some stuff that passes through RHEL the extra attention adds some quality control (ignoring the counterexample of the long history of RH manging kernels; they seem to have gotten better about that lately), but stuff in EPEL? Really? Some quality control? Really? I can see this discussion is going no where and you have your mind made up. John -- He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. There nearly always is method in madness. It's what drives men mad, being methodical. -- G. K. Chesterton, The Fad of the Fisherman (1922) pgpaaZ0FVce4m.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:41:26AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: Now you're threatening to expel me from the community? For posting notes on workarounds to get a useful package to work? What's this about? Ganglia's working fine for me. I'm honored that you think I have that much sway in this community that I would be able to expel you from it. The reality, however, is quite different. I don't speak for the project, nor do I speak for the community as a whole; I have enough difficulty speaking for myself. My issues were your building from native source doing the standard three-step; it's wrong to do so in an rpm-managed distro. My claims? The project's own documents describe this stuff. You saw no conflicts? Great. Not every bug shows up on every box. You believe one instance of not seeing a bug means no on else will? That's Microsoft-style quality control. Yes, *claims*. You've provided no evidence except your claims that it didn't work. And please understand that I said it worked *for me* and that *I* didn't see a conflict. I never said it wasn't an issue for others. Had I noticed a problem I'd also have taken the time to document such to the parties responsible, including this mailing list. Sorry. If that's confusion, I got it from instructions (several sets of them) out on the web for installing Ganglia from EPEL, which referred to it as a Fedora repository. Yep, confusion. You do, I hope, realize that EL and the offspring of EL including CentOS are based on Fedora? This makes Fedora the test base for future EL cuts. EPEL is just a 3rd party repo providing (mostly) Fedora kit rebuilt for EL use in CentOS, SL, etc. I said I've been a Linux sysadmin since '93. I've been in the industry since '82. Thanks for mistaking me for a youngster though! That's nice. With an illustrious background such as yours I'd expect less argument over the merits of SRPMs vs native builds and a better understanding of EPEL's role. John -- Most people hate the idea of evolution because they realize that if it were working properly, they'd be dead. -- Anonymous pgpXlCUvcu0D8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
John R. Dennison wrote: On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look, ./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. Any serious No, it's not. indeed, doing exactly this could very well lead to the conflicts he reported when he tried to install ganglia from EPEL. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01:38AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) is a volunteer-based community effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on ... Enough said. Apparently not as that bears no indication of it being a test base as your initial claim stated. John -- We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. -- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), writer, editor, and critic pgpWRiSBxPsru.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
John R. Dennison wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:41:26AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: snip My issues were your building from native source doing the standard three-step; it's wrong to do so in an rpm-managed distro. Up until now, I had to build the gspca driver separately, every time I upgraded those servers with the cameras attached. I also *always* have to do something - mostly reinstall - when I upgrade the boxes, mostly older, with nvidia drivers. (And let's not talk about the newest upgrade to FC 13, which has none) Even such a large install as CentOS/RHEL can't cover all hardware. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:15:41PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Up until now, I had to build the gspca driver separately, every time I upgraded those servers with the cameras attached. I also *always* have to do something - mostly reinstall - when I upgrade the boxes, mostly older, with nvidia drivers. (And let's not talk about the newest upgrade to FC 13, which has none) And what is the problem with the dkms-gspca stuff at rpmforge? Even such a large install as CentOS/RHEL can't cover all hardware. Nor should it have to. There exist vetted 3rd-party repos that provide support for much that EL does not. John -- The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. -- Carl Sagan (1934-1996), astronomer and writer pgpphF5Xq1DvH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On 19/06/2010 02:02, Karanbir Singh wrote: ganglia - I still think you don't think you what you are talking about. s/.*/ganglia - I still think you are confused about the issue./ I blame too much mongodb in one day for crazy language skilz :! ( or in my case, lack of ) - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Ganglia
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:07:57PM +0100, Simon Billis wrote:
Take a look at ganglia - http://ganglia.sourceforge.net/
This may do what you need.
It's what I've ended up going with. (Munin also looked promising - if I
could get the syntax right to modify its CPU test for individual cores,
which looks quite possible, I just didn't achieve it yet).
A few notes on Ganglia 3.1.7 build/install:
- best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
available rpms
- dependencies to satisfy before compilation include (among others):
apr-devel libconfuse libconfuse-devel expat-devel pcre-devel - for the
libconfuse I went to dag/rpmforge
- the make install stage doesn't fully install, despite a required
--sysconfdir flag being used. In particular, gmond -t gmond.conf will
provide the missing file to add to your config dir for that. The
ganglia-3.1.7/gmond/modules/conf.d contents should be copied to
/etc/ganglia/conf.d. Then a line with include
('/etc/ganglia/conf.d/*.conf') should be added to gmond.conf. And the man
pages (in mans and one for gmond.conf in gmond) may be copied
/usr/share/man/man1 and man5 as appropriate. Also, the init files for
gmond and gmetad need to be copied to init.d - but at least this, unlike
the other hand-installation requirements, is documented.
- Beyond that, it's good to change the cluster name = in gmond.conf to
something appropriate before you start to run. You only need gmetad
compiled on the system to run the web reporting front end (and it takes an
configure flag to do that). On other systems just rsycing over the
/etc/ganglia contents will handle configuration just fine (assuming this
is a single cluster). The web pages merely require copying to someplace in
your PHP-capable server's space.
- The multi-core CPU graphing module - the main functionality I was after -
requires some uncommenting in its conf file to get it going. The PCRE
section is enough to uncomment, with pcre installed on your system.
It's pretty simple once the dependencies are installed, and the make
install deficiencies are worked around. It gives a _lot_ of graphs
(probably too many, but studying them over time will tell).
Whit
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On 17/06/2010 23:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote: - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the available rpms I find that very hard to believe - to the extent that I don't believe you at all. Or did you mean to say that its not easy to locate a well done rpm set for ganglia ? I've never used ganglia in anger, but know lots and lots of people who do - its the most used trending tool in the hpc world. Also, one thing you did'nt mention is that its exceptionally insecure out of the box, by design. Its meant to be easy to get going and offloads security to site and network policy since most implementations run on isolated management networks no where near the internet. So if you are using it in a situation where you care about who can connect to our agents and what data is seen over the wires - start by spending a few hours securing your install. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the available rpms Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an enterprise distro. What, specifically, is wrong with the 3.0.7 in EPEL? John -- Mankind is a single body and each nation a part of that body. We must never say What does it matter to me if some part of the world is ailing? If there is such an illness, we must concern ourselves with it as though we were having that illness. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), founder and first President of the Republic of Turkey pgpVDozj5Jldj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 at 6:51pm, John R. Dennison wrote On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the available rpms Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an enterprise distro. What, specifically, is wrong with the 3.0.7 in EPEL? Well, if you have more than 4TB of RAM in your grid, the memory graph wraps. :) Other than that, though, it works wonderfully. That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for centos-5. -- Joshua Baker-LePain QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin UCSF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:37:11AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 17/06/2010 23:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote: - best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the available rpms I find that very hard to believe - to the extent that I don't believe you at all. Or did you mean to say that its not easy to locate a well done rpm set for ganglia ? I should care what you believe? Stay ignorant, if you like. If not, take a CentOS system, add the EPEL repository for ganglia, try yum install ganglia, and prepare to see all sorts of package conflicts. Plus it's not the current ganglia anyway. Better to build from tar. I've never used ganglia in anger, but know lots and lots of people who do - its the most used trending tool in the hpc world. What the heck do you mean, used ganglia in anger? That's just incoherent. I'm happy with it. It's working nicely now. But the make install scripting is buggy, so I posted what I've learned about working around that. Also, one thing you did'nt mention is that its exceptionally insecure out of the box, by design. Its meant to be easy to get going and offloads security to site and network policy since most implementations run on isolated management networks no where near the internet. So if you are using it in a situation where you care about who can connect to our agents and what data is seen over the wires - start by spending a few hours securing your install. I did't say my notes were a full article on it! My implementation is, as you suggest, far from the internet. I'll be happy to discuss firewalling and network segmentation if those questions come up. Regards, Whit ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:51:52PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an enterprise distro. What, specifically, is wrong with the 3.0.7 in EPEL? Um, that yum install ganglia produces a long list of package conflicts on a current CentOS system? Or that only 3.1.7 has a fully working multicpu module, plus a number of significant bug fixes? If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing stuff from Debian testing into Debian stable, as far as enterprise systems go. On the other hand, I've run a number of enterprise systems on Gentoo. I'm sure the compiling of everything from source there gives you absolute horrors. But those systems treated me well for years. Now I'm in a mixed Ubuntu/CentOS environment, and I stay with distro packages ... until I don't. When there's a specific program that I need compiled with different options or whatever, well, I've been a Linux sysadmin since '93. I kind of know what I'm doing. What's with you kids these days? Compiling something from tar isn't going to blow things up. At least it's never bitten me, in 17 years. Best, Whit ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for centos-5. And that would be the proper route to go instead of building from native source :) John -- Which is more believable: In the beginning there was God, who created the universe, or in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded -- nog pgpcT7MjIYvf6.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:21:00PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: Um, that yum install ganglia produces a long list of package conflicts on a current CentOS system? Or that only 3.1.7 has a fully working multicpu module, plus a number of significant bug fixes? I just tried a ganglia install from EPEL; absolutely no issues at all. Perhaps if you'd bother to actually document these conflicts one of us might be able to help. That is if we're still willing. I can't speak to your claims of 3.1.7 having bug fixes and the multicpu issue; but I saw no conflicts with EPEL's 3.0.7. If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently. stuff from Debian testing into Debian stable, as far as enterprise systems go. On the other hand, I've run a number of enterprise systems on Gentoo. I'm sure the compiling of everything from source there gives you absolute Gentoo is fine for a toy os. Claiming Gentoo is enterprise is just silly. horrors. But those systems treated me well for years. Now I'm in a mixed Ubuntu/CentOS environment, and I stay with distro packages ... until I don't. When there's a specific program that I need compiled with different options or whatever, well, I've been a Linux sysadmin since '93. I kind of know what I'm doing. If you say so. What's with you kids these days? Compiling something from tar isn't going to blow things up. At least it's never bitten me, in 17 years. Kids? Heh. 17 years? Heh. You're a youngster. Let me know when you've got 25+ years in the industry and then I might be impressed :) John -- Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry. -- George Ade (1866 - 1944), American writer, newspaper columnist, and playwright pgpyWyqUIUexE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:09:11PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: I should care what you believe? Stay ignorant, if you like. If not, take a CentOS system, add the EPEL repository for ganglia, try yum install ganglia, and prepare to see all sorts of package conflicts. Plus it's not the current ganglia anyway. Better to build from tar. Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a single conflict. If you want shiny and new, why not do it properly and build rpms? John -- He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. -- Lao-Tzu (BC 600-?), Chinese philosopher, founder of Taoism pgpBVdE4avVIu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
