Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:16:42AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: > Here is the updated version: > > http://centos.toracat.org/kmods/CentOS-4/xfs/SRPMS/ > > Please discard the obsoleted ones (I did not bump the version/release > number). Let me know when your binaries are ready for testing. > rebuilds and uploaded. C4 testing files removed. Thanks, Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B pgpc0JwrBRmvn.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh wrote: >> We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? >> to their final repositories. Does that sound good? > > Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required > Requires. I will upload the current version to my place and let you > grab it. Here is the updated version: http://centos.toracat.org/kmods/CentOS-4/xfs/SRPMS/ Please discard the obsoleted ones (I did not bump the version/release number). Let me know when your binaries are ready for testing. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well. > Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel > (regular > and centosplus). I am not sure if the rebuild was really required. > > Nevertheless they are available at: > ttp://people.centos.org/tru/kABI/ > > The previous kernel version independent kmod for xfs > (built for the .13 version) are still on the testing repo. > > We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? > to their final repositories. Does that sound good? Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required Requires. I will upload the current version to my place and let you grab it. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well. > Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel > (regular > and centosplus). I am not sure if the rebuild was really required. > > Nevertheless they are available at: > ttp://people.centos.org/tru/kABI/ > > The previous kernel version independent kmod for xfs > (built for the .13 version) are still on the testing repo. > > We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? > to their final repositories. Does that sound good? Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required Requires. I will upload the current version to my place and let you grab it. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tru Huynh wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: > >> If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have > >> corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build > >> those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod. > > > > I have just pushed the latest .22 kernel... for extras. > > The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well. grr, I keep forgetting that one :( Thanks for the reminder :) The CentOS-4 centosplus kmod-xfs are being pushed now to the mirrors. Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel (regular and centosplus). I am not sure if the rebuild was really required. Nevertheless they are available at: ttp://people.centos.org/tru/kABI/ The previous kernel version independent kmod for xfs (built for the .13 version) are still on the testing repo. We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th? to their final repositories. Does that sound good? Cheers, Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B pgpbUMY6j4mG7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tru Huynh wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have >> corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build >> those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod. > > I have just pushed the latest .22 kernel... for extras. The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Rainer Duffner wrote: > > The eighties called - they want their stone-age way to handle disks > back Heh. Well, if he wants them fsck'd in the first place ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:03:32PM -0700, Scott Silva wrote: > on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi ??? spake the following: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: > >> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started > >> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). > >> > >> The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use > >> XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the > >> standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" > >> (especially during kernel-updates): > > > > It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4.. > > > Probably not a default, but an option. > Yes, of course it won't be the default filesystem :) I meant it will be included in the normal kernel, and it doesn't have to be built as external/extras module. -- Pasi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:21, Les Mikesell wrote: > Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks > were a problem. Oh yeah, I failed to mention in my previous e-mail that all the machines I have running XFS are using x86_64 versions of CentOS. I don't know if the 4k stack on 32-bit machines is still an issue. In any case, nowadays I would recommend x86_64 for servers anyway, even if they have only 2GB of RAM. It works much better than PAE, etc., for 4GB RAM or more, and even if you still have less than 4GB RAM installing x86_64 will make it much easier when you want to upgrade. Filipe ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: > If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have > corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build > those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod. I have just pushed the latest .22 kernel... for extras. I completely missed the .17 kernel. Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B pgpQgv5dWWSpD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
on 5-14-2009 2:21 PM Les Mikesell spake the following: > Scott Silva wrote: >> on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following: >>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates): >>> It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4.. >>> >> Probably not a default, but an option. > > Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks > were a problem. > I'm sure that RedHat can easily build 32 bit kernels with 8k stacks if they so choose. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
Scott Silva wrote: > on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following: >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: >>> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started >>> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). >>> >>> The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use >>> XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the >>> standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" >>> (especially during kernel-updates): >> It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4.. >> > Probably not a default, but an option. Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks were a problem. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
Am 14.05.2009 um 21:25 schrieb Bart Schaefer: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Bernhard Gschaider > wrote: >> >> One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for >> the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. > > An option I haven't seen suggested yet For a reason, believe me. > is to split this into several > filesystems that can be fsck'd in parallel. The eighties called - they want their stone-age way to handle disks back Rainer ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Scott Silva wrote: > on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following: >> >> It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4.. >> > Probably not a default, but an option. I wonder which high-end customer *finally* drove them to do this (if, indeed, they are going to). Us regular folks have been agitating for this for ages, but we were always told that ext3 was just fine and why would we need anything else. Somebody with $$ must have told them in no uncertain terms "XFS or we're outta' here". -- Joshua "conspiracy theorist for a day" Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: >> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started >> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). >> >> The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use >> XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the >> standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" >> (especially during kernel-updates): > > It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4.. > Probably not a default, but an option. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: > > Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started > typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). > > The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use > XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the > standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" > (especially during kernel-updates): It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4.. -- Pasi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: > > One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for > the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. An option I haven't seen suggested yet is to split this into several filesystems that can be fsck'd in parallel. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Filipe Brandenburger wrote: > Use kmod-xfs from extras (it should be already enabled in your yum > config) unless you already need the centosplus kernel for another > reason. > > See here: > http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CentOSPlus#line-76 That wiki article needs to be updated. The centosplus kernel does not have xfs enabled any more. Therefore, cplus kernel users also need to install kmod-xfs (which is available from the centosplus repo). If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
Hi, On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:23, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: > which option offers the "smoothest sailing" > (especially during kernel-updates): > > - kernel from centosplus > - kmod-xfs from centosplus > - kmod-xfs from extras Use kmod-xfs from extras (it should be already enabled in your yum config) unless you already need the centosplus kernel for another reason. See here: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CentOSPlus#line-76 HTH, Filipe ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button). The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing" (especially during kernel-updates): - kernel from centosplus - kmod-xfs from centosplus - kmod-xfs from extras Bernhard > On Thu, 14 May 2009 11:57:49 -0400 > "BLB" == Brent L Bates wrote: BLB> I strongly recommend XFS over ext[23] ANY day. XFS is BLB> faster, more robust, and more dependable than ext. I've used BLB> it for years and it is rock solid. I've had it work through BLB> failing disk drives and number system crashes (caused by BLB> faulty memory). It takes a licking and keeps on ticking. BLB> :-) No need to `fsck' the drive. If there are any file BLB> system problems, one can run xfs_check with a live system. BLB> It isn't recommended as it can give false positives for a BLB> live running file system, but it can help if needed. BLB> xfs_repair has to be run on an unmounted file system, BLB> however, I've almost never needed to use xfs_check or BLB> xfs_repair. XFS has over a decade and pentabytes of use BLB> behind it. I wouldn't use any other file system. BLB> -- BLB> Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.) M.S. 912 Phone:(757) BLB> 865-1400, x204 NASA Langley Research Center FAX:(757) BLB> 865-8177 Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Email: BLB> b.l.ba...@larc.nasa.gov http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/ -- --- DI Bernhard F.W. Gschaider --- EMail: bernhard.gschai...@ice-sf.at WWW : www.ice-sf.at Jabber : bgsch...@jabber.org Tel:+43(3842)98282-42 Fax:+43(3842)98282-02 --- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
Bernhard Gschaider wrote: > Hi! > > I'm justing in the process of setting up a new fileserver for our > company. I'm installing CentOS 5.3 (64 bit) on it. > > One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for > the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. Now my > experience with our current fileserver is that a 0.5TB ext3 filesystem > needs approx half an hour to complete (and kicks in every so and so > reboots or every 180days). My estimate is that for the larger > filesystem (and the faster machine) the fsck would need well over an > hour (being optimistic). I dread the day when I have to reboot the > server and wait for 2hours or more just because the system thought it > would be a prudent thing to check the filesystem. > > My question: > > - is there another stable filesystem (XFS, ReiserFS ...) in the >centosplus-kernel where this could be avoided (fsck is faster) and >that is as safe as ext3 > - Or would it be better to switch off automatic checking with tune2fs > > Any opinion/experience welcome. I looked around a bit but couldn't > find a good answer > > Bernhard > > PS: Sorry for the stupid question, but I'm only part-time admin and > testing this myself would take weeks, I guess > If you use ext3 on LVM, you could every once in a while make a snapshot of the fs & do a background fsck on the snapshot. https://www.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/2008-January/msg00032.html -- tkb ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
2009/5/14 Bernhard Gschaider : > One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for > the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. Yes, using ext3 is a real pain especially on such large partitions. I advice you to switch to XFS. -- With best regards! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:44:11PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote: > > Hi! > > I'm justing in the process of setting up a new fileserver for our > company. I'm installing CentOS 5.3 (64 bit) on it. > > One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for > the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. Now my > experience with our current fileserver is that a 0.5TB ext3 filesystem > needs approx half an hour to complete (and kicks in every so and so > reboots or every 180days). My estimate is that for the larger > filesystem (and the faster machine) the fsck would need well over an > hour (being optimistic). I dread the day when I have to reboot the > server and wait for 2hours or more just because the system thought it > would be a prudent thing to check the filesystem. > > My question: > > - is there another stable filesystem (XFS, ReiserFS ...) in the >centosplus-kernel where this could be avoided (fsck is faster) and >that is as safe as ext3 > - Or would it be better to switch off automatic checking with tune2fs Yes, you could use XFS. Or, use tune2fs on the filesystem to disable the automatic checking: # tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/whatever See tune2fs(8) for more information. The -m 0 parameter may also be useful as by default 5% of blocks are "reserved" (useful for root filesystems). > > Any opinion/experience welcome. I looked around a bit but couldn't > find a good answer > > Bernhard > > PS: Sorry for the stupid question, but I'm only part-time admin and > testing this myself would take weeks, I guess Ray ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Preventing hour-long fsck on ext3-filesystem
Hi! I'm justing in the process of setting up a new fileserver for our company. I'm installing CentOS 5.3 (64 bit) on it. One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. Now my experience with our current fileserver is that a 0.5TB ext3 filesystem needs approx half an hour to complete (and kicks in every so and so reboots or every 180days). My estimate is that for the larger filesystem (and the faster machine) the fsck would need well over an hour (being optimistic). I dread the day when I have to reboot the server and wait for 2hours or more just because the system thought it would be a prudent thing to check the filesystem. My question: - is there another stable filesystem (XFS, ReiserFS ...) in the centosplus-kernel where this could be avoided (fsck is faster) and that is as safe as ext3 - Or would it be better to switch off automatic checking with tune2fs Any opinion/experience welcome. I looked around a bit but couldn't find a good answer Bernhard PS: Sorry for the stupid question, but I'm only part-time admin and testing this myself would take weeks, I guess -- --- DI Bernhard F.W. Gschaider --- EMail: bernhard.gschai...@ice-sf.at WWW : www.ice-sf.at Jabber : bgsch...@jabber.org Tel:+43(3842)98282-42 Fax:+43(3842)98282-02 --- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
