Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:45:31AM +0100, Heinrich Rebehn wrote: I am considering switching our production server from 4.9 to 5.2. production means that it serves some 20 people at our university institute. Unfortunately the machine crashes occasionally which would be tolerable if it was up again immediately. However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it fscks in the background. The machine is an ASUS A7V333 with AMD XP 1800+ and 512 MB RAM, 3ware 7500 RAID. It provides the 'usual' services: - NFS - Samba - IMAP - SMTP - LPD printing - Mailman - HTTP - Postgres - LDAP User, mail aliases, automount info - IMP Webmail So, no fancy hard- or software, i guess. Would it be very hazardous to sitch to 5.2 already now? I think that you would probably not have any worse trouble with 5.2 as you do with 4.9. However, I'm wondering why your server crashes occasionally. The spec. you show should be quite capable of handling e-mail, including webmail, for 20 people. Unless they are sending round enormous multimedia files or something. Serving out 800Gb of files via NFS and Samba, or running Postgresql databases of that sort of size is going to stress the system though. If you are crashing because your system is running out of resources under load, then upgrading to 5.2 probably won't help you very much. Better to slap in another half Gig of RAM, if you can afford it, and take a good hard look at tuning(7). Another thing: Is there any point in converting the filesystems to UFS2 (in a later step)? Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or deny that. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
Matthew Seaman wrote: Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or deny that. I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has an un-clean shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it completes its boot process. PWR. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it fscks in the background. Hi FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf Set in /etc/rc.conf fsck_y_enable=YES roberto The machine is an ASUS A7V333 with AMD XP 1800+ and 512 MB RAM, 3ware 7500 RAID. It provides the 'usual' services: - NFS - Samba - IMAP - SMTP - LPD printing - Mailman - HTTP - Postgres - LDAP User, mail aliases, automount info - IMP Webmail So, no fancy hard- or software, i guess. Would it be very hazardous to sitch to 5.2 already now? Another thing: Is there any point in converting the filesystems to UFS2 (in a later step)? Thanks for any insight, Heinrich -- Heinrich Rebehn University of Bremen Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering - Department of Telecommunications - Phone : +49/421/218-4664 Fax :-3341 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +, Peter Risdon wrote: Matthew Seaman wrote: Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or deny that. I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has an un-clean shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it completes its boot process. Hmmm... After searching through any number of web pages, I must conclude that background fsck(8) works on all versions of UFS on 5.x. Conclusion drawn this way because if it didn't it would be documented as not working, or there would be any number of messages on mailing lists asking why doesn't it work? Also, background fsck(8) depends on the 'snapshotting' feature of UFS, which comes out of the soft-updates functionality definitely available in both UFS1 and UFS2. One of these days I really must get my hands on a 5.x system. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +, Peter Risdon typed: Matthew Seaman wrote: Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or deny that. I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has an un-clean shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it completes its boot process. True, but not only on UFS2. It works just as well on UFS1 filesystems. Ruben PWR. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:22:04AM -0300, Roberto Pereyra typed: However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it fscks in the background. Hi FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf Set in /etc/rc.conf fsck_y_enable=YES This doesn't mean fsck in the background. It means do a normal fsck, answering yes to all questions fsck might ask. Ruben roberto The machine is an ASUS A7V333 with AMD XP 1800+ and 512 MB RAM, 3ware 7500 RAID. It provides the 'usual' services: - NFS - Samba - IMAP - SMTP - LPD printing - Mailman - HTTP - Postgres - LDAP User, mail aliases, automount info - IMP Webmail So, no fancy hard- or software, i guess. Would it be very hazardous to sitch to 5.2 already now? Another thing: Is there any point in converting the filesystems to UFS2 (in a later step)? Thanks for any insight, Heinrich -- Heinrich Rebehn University of Bremen Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering - Department of Telecommunications - Phone : +49/421/218-4664 Fax :-3341 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:22:04AM -0300, Roberto Pereyra wrote: However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it fscks in the background. FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf Set in /etc/rc.conf fsck_y_enable=YES No it cannot. There is no capability to do *background* fsck(8) in 4.x. 'fsck_y_enable' doesn't have anything to do with operating in the background or not. What that means is that 'fsck -y' will be run automatically if the initial 'fsck -p' fails. All that 'fsck -y' implies is that fsck will assume you answer 'y' to any of the queries it prints out. None of this will happen in the background under 4.x -- ie. you will have to wait for all of the fsck(8)ing to finish before any filesystems are mounted and any other software gets started up. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
Matthew Seaman wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +, Peter Risdon wrote: Matthew Seaman wrote: Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or deny that. I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has an un-clean shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it completes its boot process. Hmmm... After searching through any number of web pages, I must conclude that background fsck(8) works on all versions of UFS on 5.x. Conclusion drawn this way because if it didn't it would be documented as not working, or there would be any number of messages on mailing lists asking why doesn't it work? Also, background fsck(8) depends on the 'snapshotting' feature of UFS, which comes out of the soft-updates functionality definitely available in both UFS1 and UFS2. One of these days I really must get my hands on a 5.x system. Cheers, Matthew I did some searching too and bgfsck does seem to be available for UFS. I'll install 5.2 on my machine today and test myself.. Heinrich ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roberto Pereyra wrote: FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf Set in /etc/rc.conf fsck_y_enable=YES all that does is to automatically answer Y whenever fsck asks you a question. it still doesnt make fsck happen in the background as the boot process will only continue once fsck finishes. Regards, /\_/\ All dogs go to heaven. [EMAIL PROTECTED](0 0)http://www.alphaque.com/ +==oOO--(_)--OOo==+ | for a in past present future; do| | for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do | | echo The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b. | | done; done | +=+ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
