Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
On Saturday 09 April 2011 22:01:18 Mark Knecht wrote: Are you running a RAID? Yes; mdadm RAID-1, with LVM on top, as in the Gentoo how-to: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml Are you looking for a little redundancy or a lot of redundancy? I'm just speculating at the moment, from a dabbler's point of view; what benefits would accrue from switching from RAID-1 to RAID-5 or above? And, in particular, what are the comparative virtues of the Samsung disks? What are your future space drive bandwidth requirements vs today's requirements? The same as today's. PS. Please don't send a second e-mail copy to me; I can read the list the same as anyone else. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
On 10/4/2011, at 8:50am, Peter Humphrey wrote: ... I'm just speculating at the moment, from a dabbler's point of view; what benefits would accrue from switching from RAID-1 to RAID-5 or above? And, in particular, what are the comparative virtues of the Samsung disks? In your previous message you mention adding robustness, I don't think you'd change from RAID1 in that case. RAID5 is less redundant than RAID1, but offers more space per drive. Either will continue to run if one drive fails, but RAID5 consists of more drives (each of which has the potential for failure). RAID1 has 2 disks and offers up to 1/2 redundancy. 1/2 your disks can fail without loss of data. RAID5 has X disks, where X is more than 2, and offers upto 1/X redundancy. If more than 1 drive fails then your data is toast. This inherently allows for data loss if more than only 1/3 or 1/4 (or less - 1/5 or 1/6 if you have enough drives in your system) fail. RAID6 needs an extra disk over RAID5 (at least 4 total?), and allows 2/X of them to fail whilst still maintaining data integrity. I guess that theoretically RAID6 might be more robust than RAID1 but realistically one would probably use RAID1 if the volume is intended to be a fixed size (system volume), RAID5 or RAID6 if you want to be able to easily expand the volume (add an extra drive and store more data simply by expanding the filesystem). Other kinds of RAID (10, 50 c) may be more suitable if read or write speed is also important for specialist applications, but you say you're only interested in home workstation use, not the datacentre. Note that I only consider hardware RAID - others may be able to give advice more suited to Linux's software RAID. I use RAID5 for my TV recordings and DVD rips. There's a famous article claiming RAID5 is worthless considering the size of current hard-drives vs uncorrected error rates (which manufacturers express per million or billion bits). I'm sceptical of the article, but nevertheless I guess I'm starting to get paranoid enough I'd prefer RAID6. Unfortunately my hardware RAID controller doesn't support it, so I guess I'm saved the expense. :/ Stroller.
[gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Hi, Gentoo. When, as a normal user, I type su, followed, when prompted, by the root password, I get the following error message: su: Permission denied . The return code is 1. I can't glean anything useful from the man page. Would somebody please tell me what I'm missing. Many thanks! -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
4/10/2011, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de вы писали: Hi, Gentoo. When, as a normal user, I type su, followed, when prompted, by the root password, I get the following error message: su: Permission denied . The return code is 1. I can't glean anything useful from the man page. Would somebody please tell me what I'm missing. Many thanks! Is your normal user a member of the 'wheel' group? -- Regards, Alex
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Subject: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me. From: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de To: Yann Ormanns yann-orma...@web.de Date: 2011-04-10 15:17 (+) Hi, Gentoo. When, as a normal user, I type su, followed, when prompted, by the root password, I get the following error message: su: Permission denied . The return code is 1. I can't glean anything useful from the man page. Would somebody please tell me what I'm missing. Many thanks! Are you a member of the wheel-group? You can check that by executing id yourname. If not, execute usermod -aG wheel yourname. Best regards, Yann
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:19 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Yann Ormanns did opine thusly: Subject: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me. From: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de To: Yann Ormanns yann-orma...@web.de Date: 2011-04-10 15:17 (+) Hi, Gentoo. When, as a normal user, I type su, followed, when prompted, by the root password, I get the following error message: su: Permission denied . The return code is 1. I can't glean anything useful from the man page. Would somebody please tell me what I'm missing. Many thanks! Are you a member of the wheel-group? You can check that by executing id yourname. If not, execute usermod -aG wheel yourname. Only root can run that and he can't su to root :-) Log in directly as root on a text console and run it there. If you can't log in as root, try su to root from any user in the wheel group. If that still doesn't work, get out the LiveCD -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
[gentoo-user] WebGUI for Squid
Hello Guys, i do need some WebGUI for some Users. But the only thing i found was webmin, witch i do not like to install. Anyone some ideas? Greetings Akendo
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
On Sunday 10 April 2011 12:53:39 Stroller wrote: On 10/4/2011, at 8:50am, Peter Humphrey wrote: ... I'm just speculating at the moment, from a dabbler's point of view; what benefits would accrue from switching from RAID-1 to RAID-5 or above? And, in particular, what are the comparative virtues of the Samsung disks? In your previous message you mention adding robustness, I don't think you'd change from RAID1 in that case. RAID5 is less redundant than RAID1, but offers more space per drive. Either will continue to run if one drive fails, but RAID5 consists of more drives (each of which has the potential for failure). RAID1 has 2 disks and offers up to 1/2 redundancy. 1/2 your disks can fail without loss of data. RAID5 has X disks, where X is more than 2, and offers upto 1/X redundancy. If more than 1 drive fails then your data is toast. This inherently allows for data loss if more than only 1/3 or 1/4 (or less - 1/5 or 1/6 if you have enough drives in your system) fail. RAID6 needs an extra disk over RAID5 (at least 4 total?), and allows 2/X of them to fail whilst still maintaining data integrity. I guess that theoretically RAID6 might be more robust than RAID1 but realistically one would probably use RAID1 if the volume is intended to be a fixed size (system volume), RAID5 or RAID6 if you want to be able to easily expand the volume (add an extra drive and store more data simply by expanding the filesystem). Other kinds of RAID (10, 50 c) may be more suitable if read or write speed is also important for specialist applications, but you say you're only interested in home workstation use, not the datacentre. Note that I only consider hardware RAID - others may be able to give advice more suited to Linux's software RAID. I use RAID5 for my TV recordings and DVD rips. There's a famous article claiming RAID5 is worthless considering the size of current hard-drives vs uncorrected error rates (which manufacturers express per million or billion bits). I'm sceptical of the article, but nevertheless I guess I'm starting to get paranoid enough I'd prefer RAID6. Unfortunately my hardware RAID controller doesn't support it, so I guess I'm saved the expense. :/ Useful info - many thanks! -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Saturday 09 April 2011 22:01:18 Mark Knecht wrote: Are you running a RAID? Yes; mdadm RAID-1, with LVM on top, as in the Gentoo how-to: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86+raid+lvm2-quickinstall.xml Are you looking for a little redundancy or a lot of redundancy? I'm just speculating at the moment, from a dabbler's point of view; what benefits would accrue from switching from RAID-1 to RAID-5 or above? And, in particular, what are the comparative virtues of the Samsung disks? My understanding is there's nothing more reliable than RAID1. mdadm allows N-wide RAID1. My RAID1's are currently 3-drive. Typically the higher RAID numbers are for trading off storage space, redundancy and in some cases throughput. My 5-drive RAID6 gives me (again, my understanding) equivalent redundancy to a 3-drive RAID1. I can lose 2 drives in either RAID before I risk losing everything with a 3rd drive failure, but I only get the storage of 3-drives. A 5-drive RAID5 would lose everything with 2 drive failures but gets 4 drives of storage. As for Samsung drives I have no experience. However one common problem I read about again and again is a RAID user who loses 1 drive and then, while in the process of fixing the RAID, loses a second drive. Most of us (myself included) buy identical drives all at the same time from the same vendor. This means all the drives were likely from the same manufacturing batch and, if they are drives that will fail at all then the group will likely experience multiple drive failures. The underlying idea of RAID is that the drives are not likely to fail at the same time giving us time to fix the array. However, if /dev/sda fails the chances of /dev/sdb failing is higher if they were built at the same time in the same plant. Reading the mdadm list for the last couple of years it seems that many folks running data centers intentionally buy drives from multiple manufactures, or drives of different sizes from the same manufacturer, hoping to lower the chances of multiple failures at the same time. What I did myself was buy 5 drives initially, 3 from Amazon, 2 from NewEgg. For spares I then waited 2 months, bought one more drive, and waited another 2 months and got one more. In my case all my drives are WD RAID Edition drives which have higher reliability specs than the commercial drives. (And are more expensive and smaller) As for hardware RAID the risk I hear about there is that if the controller itself fails then you need an identical backup controller or you risk the possibility that you won't be able to recover anything. I don't know how true that is or whether it's just FUD. Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Hi, Yann, On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:19:15PM +0200, Yann Ormanns wrote: Subject: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me. From: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de To: Yann Ormanns yann-orma...@web.de Date: 2011-04-10 15:17 (+) Hi, Gentoo. When, as a normal user, I type su, followed, when prompted, by the root password, I get the following error message: su: Permission denied . The return code is 1. I can't glean anything useful from the man page. Would somebody please tell me what I'm missing. Many thanks! Are you a member of the wheel-group? You can check that by executing id yourname. If not, execute usermod -aG wheel yourname. That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
On Sunday 10 April 2011 14:50:59 Mark Knecht wrote: [...] More useful info - thanks to you too. As for hardware RAID the risk I hear about there is that if the controller itself fails then you need an identical backup controller or you risk the possibility that you won't be able to recover anything. I don't know how true that is or whether it's just FUD. That sounds painful. Makes me glad I'm a skinflint and stuck to software RAID! -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
Peter Humphrey wrote: I'm just speculating at the moment, from a dabbler's point of view; what benefits would accrue from switching from RAID-1 to RAID-5 or above? And, in particular, what are the comparative virtues of the Samsung disks? I have one 750Gb Samsung drive that I have had at least a year. So far, no problems and it is pretty fast. It does what it is supposed to for a 3Gbs/sec drive. That said, it may die next week. We all know how this works. They work just fine until they die, usually with no warning or very little warning. I might also add, I have a UPS and surge protection coming from the wall, plus surge and voltage protection built into the UPS. I have yet to have a drive die so maybe all that does help. I dunno. I have several Western Digital drives, no problems so far although I don't like the green ones to much. Just my $0.02 worth. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann I think that is a Gentoo thing. It does add some security if you don't want a user, like maybe some little kid, getting root access for any reason. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
On Sunday 10 Apr 2011 07:58:21 PM Alan Mackenzie wrote: Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. oh thats because the wheel was invented after the previous debian release :D. -- - Yohan Pereira A man can do as he will, but not will as he will - Schopenhauer
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html Bottom section.
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:28 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Dale did opine thusly: That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann I think that is a Gentoo thing. It does add some security if you don't want a user, like maybe some little kid, getting root access for any reason. No, it's pretty standard across Unix. The BSD's for example have had it since forever - members of the wheel group being allowed to sudo anything only came along much later. Leaving it *out* is a Linux-distro thing, probably from the usual usage case for Linux for many years - a server on the web that actually only had one user even though it was capable of being fully multi-user. The concept of wheel for su is pretty redundant in that case. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Alan McKinnon wrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:28 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Dale did opine thusly: That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann I think that is a Gentoo thing. It does add some security if you don't want a user, like maybe some little kid, getting root access for any reason. No, it's pretty standard across Unix. The BSD's for example have had it since forever - members of the wheel group being allowed to sudo anything only came along much later. Leaving it *out* is a Linux-distro thing, probably from the usual usage case for Linux for many years - a server on the web that actually only had one user even though it was capable of being fully multi-user. The concept of wheel for su is pretty redundant in that case. I learned something today. I only used Mandrake before Gentoo and never saw anyone else mention it, except Gentoo users. Sort of thought it was a Gentoo thing. Thanks for the info. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 19:52:39 +0530, Yohan Pereira wrote: Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. oh thats because the wheel was invented after the previous debian release :D. ROTFL -- Neil Bothwick Time is an illusion but never so much as when you're using a modem. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] formail doesn't catch duplicates
Hi list, I have this in my procmailrc: :0 Whc: $HOME/Mail/.msgid.lock | formail -D 16384 $HOME/Mail/.msgid.cache :0 a: $MAILDIR/duplicates/ This is situated after a virus-check and before all other filters. But nothing duplicates is being catched, all they are falling into main folders. What could be wrong here? С уважением, Алексей Мишустин
[gentoo-user] RAID1 + LVM2 booting screwed up. Help, please!
Hi, Gentoo. My new(ish) amd64 system has two 1TB HDDs in a (software) RAID1, and practically the entire system is under an LVM2. I rather unwisely made this addition to the startup stuff: ls -s /usr/bin/svscanboot /etc/init.d/ rc-update add svscanboot default , and now the box hangs during boot up. On the same box, I also have a trial installation which boots and I still have the installation CD from about a year ago. Would somebody please help me get into my system sufficiently to correct my mistake on the boot scripts. Pointing me in the direction of a fine manual section would be regarded as help. I feel Dale's reservations in a most painful fashion. Thanks in advance for the help. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID1 + LVM2 booting screwed up. Help, please!
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:11 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Alan Mackenzie did opine thusly: Hi, Gentoo. My new(ish) amd64 system has two 1TB HDDs in a (software) RAID1, and practically the entire system is under an LVM2. I rather unwisely made this addition to the startup stuff: ls -s /usr/bin/svscanboot /etc/init.d/ rc-update add svscanboot default , and now the box hangs during boot up. On the same box, I also have a trial installation which boots and I still have the installation CD from about a year ago. Would somebody please help me get into my system sufficiently to correct my mistake on the boot scripts. Pointing me in the direction of a fine manual section would be regarded as help. Boot the trial installation which does boot. vgchange -ay find and mount your lvm volumes somewhere now you can access that dodgy symlink to delete it Maybe there's other steps (like loading kernel modules), but I'm assuming you know your way around to find and detect those. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] RAID1 + LVM2 booting screwed up. Help, please!
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 23:11 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Alan Mackenzie did opine thusly: Hi, Gentoo. My new(ish) amd64 system has two 1TB HDDs in a (software) RAID1, and practically the entire system is under an LVM2. I rather unwisely made this addition to the startup stuff: ls -s /usr/bin/svscanboot /etc/init.d/ rc-update add svscanboot default , and now the box hangs during boot up. On the same box, I also have a trial installation which boots and I still have the installation CD from about a year ago. Would somebody please help me get into my system sufficiently to correct my mistake on the boot scripts. Pointing me in the direction of a fine manual section would be regarded as help. Boot the trial installation which does boot. vgchange -ay find and mount your lvm volumes somewhere now you can access that dodgy symlink to delete it Maybe there's other steps (like loading kernel modules), but I'm assuming you know your way around to find and detect those. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com He should be able to just do an interactive startup. Press i when prompted, and you should be able to bypass the bad startup item; alternatively, if you have access to grub boot, you can also try booting into single user mode.
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:28 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Dale did opine thusly: That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann I think that is a Gentoo thing. It does add some security if you don't want a user, like maybe some little kid, getting root access for any reason. No, it's pretty standard across Unix. The BSD's for example have had it since forever - members of the wheel group being allowed to sudo anything only came along much later. Leaving it *out* is a Linux-distro thing, probably from the usual usage case for Linux for many years - a server on the web that actually only had one user even though it was capable of being fully multi-user. The concept of wheel for su is pretty redundant in that case. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Wheel has nothing to do with su; it has everything to do with sudo, but only if /etc/sudoers is edited to allow the Wheel group sudo access. Su is for changing to a different user, or running a command as another user; doing either requires the password of that user; sudo, on the other hand, only requires your password, if you're in the wheel group and the wheel group is given full sudo access, and the sudo access for wheel requires your password. Some examples, assuming your user (the one you're logged in as) is in wheel and requires a password for sudo access (see: visudo): sudo su --- escalates you to root user with your own password. This is running su with sudo. su user --- switches to user with their password required to be entered sudo su user -- switch to user with your password required to be entered sudo command -- runs command as root sudo -u user command --- runs command as user sudo su - user --- escalates you to user and cd's to their home directory Please read the man pages for sudo and su for more info.
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:32 on Monday 11 April 2011, Mark Shields did opine thusly: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:28 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Dale did opine thusly: That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann I think that is a Gentoo thing. It does add some security if you don't want a user, like maybe some little kid, getting root access for any reason. No, it's pretty standard across Unix. The BSD's for example have had it since forever - members of the wheel group being allowed to sudo anything only came along much later. Leaving it *out* is a Linux-distro thing, probably from the usual usage case for Linux for many years - a server on the web that actually only had one user even though it was capable of being fully multi-user. The concept of wheel for su is pretty redundant in that case. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Wheel has nothing to do with su; it has everything to do with sudo, but only if /etc/sudoers is edited to allow the Wheel group sudo access. Su is for changing to a different user, or running a command as another user; doing either requires the password of that user; sudo, on the other hand, only requires your password, if you're in the wheel group and the wheel group is given full sudo access, and the sudo access for wheel requires your password. Some examples, assuming your user (the one you're logged in as) is in wheel and requires a password for sudo access (see: visudo): sudo su --- escalates you to root user with your own password. This is running su with sudo. su user --- switches to user with their password required to be entered sudo su user -- switch to user with your password required to be entered sudo command -- runs command as root sudo -u user command --- runs command as user sudo su - user --- escalates you to user and cd's to their home directory Please read the man pages for sudo and su for more info. Mark, You know better than that. Re-read my post, I said that *Unix*, most especially the BSDs, have had a concept of wheel for, well, since almost when Unix started. sudo came much later and for sudo, wheel is naturally a very useful pre-existing thing to use. If Linux distros, maintainers or the GNU folk chose to not implement wheel membership as a prerequisite for su, then that's fine. They can do what they want with their stuff but it doesn't change the fact that other operating systems can, and do, do it differently. I have read man su and man sudo. Many times. I see that the ones I have are very Linux-centric. Google wheel su for more info, keeping in mind that Linux != Unix -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] .config file for gentoo guest on vmware workstation 7.1.4
The main 'trap' usually would be the SCSI Driver. If you're using PVSCSI, go into SCSI RAID, then SCSI Low Level Driver, then select VMware PVSCSI as built-in, not module. If you're using LSI Logic, select Fusion MPT instead. Thanks - i'd missed some of the MPT options.
Re: [gentoo-user] su doesn't work for me.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 00:32 on Monday 11 April 2011, Mark Shields did opine thusly: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote: Apparently, though unproven, at 16:28 on Sunday 10 April 2011, Dale did opine thusly: That was it! I've now got su-ability from that normal user. Funny, though, on my (very) old Debian system I don't seem to have a wheel. Thanks. Best regards, Yann I think that is a Gentoo thing. It does add some security if you don't want a user, like maybe some little kid, getting root access for any reason. No, it's pretty standard across Unix. The BSD's for example have had it since forever - members of the wheel group being allowed to sudo anything only came along much later. Leaving it *out* is a Linux-distro thing, probably from the usual usage case for Linux for many years - a server on the web that actually only had one user even though it was capable of being fully multi-user. The concept of wheel for su is pretty redundant in that case. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Wheel has nothing to do with su; it has everything to do with sudo, but only if /etc/sudoers is edited to allow the Wheel group sudo access. Su is for changing to a different user, or running a command as another user; doing either requires the password of that user; sudo, on the other hand, only requires your password, if you're in the wheel group and the wheel group is given full sudo access, and the sudo access for wheel requires your password. Some examples, assuming your user (the one you're logged in as) is in wheel and requires a password for sudo access (see: visudo): sudo su --- escalates you to root user with your own password. This is running su with sudo. su user --- switches to user with their password required to be entered sudo su user -- switch to user with your password required to be entered sudo command -- runs command as root sudo -u user command --- runs command as user sudo su - user --- escalates you to user and cd's to their home directory Please read the man pages for sudo and su for more info. Mark, You know better than that. Re-read my post, I said that *Unix*, most especially the BSDs, have had a concept of wheel for, well, since almost when Unix started. sudo came much later and for sudo, wheel is naturally a very useful pre-existing thing to use. If Linux distros, maintainers or the GNU folk chose to not implement wheel membership as a prerequisite for su, then that's fine. They can do what they want with their stuff but it doesn't change the fact that other operating systems can, and do, do it differently. I have read man su and man sudo. Many times. I see that the ones I have are very Linux-centric. Google wheel su for more info, keeping in mind that Linux != Unix -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com That response wasn't really meant for you, your reply just happened to be the one I clicked reply on.
Re: [gentoo-user] .config file for gentoo guest on vmware workstation 7.1.4
On 4/9/2011 3:02 AM, Adam Carter wrote: I had a working .config. Unfortunately, I left it at office. The main 'trap' usually would be the SCSI Driver. If you're using PVSCSI, go into SCSI RAID, then SCSI Low Level Driver, then select VMware PVSCSI as built-in, not module. Do you know which one workstation uses? AFAICT there's no option to choose which controller is presented to the guest. By default Workstation emulates a Fusion SCSI device and the PCNet or E1000 network card, and doesn't supply an option to change them. But as of v7 it *does* support the other device types. If you edit the .vmx file in a text editor and change the device lines for the scsi and eth devices to 'pvscsi' and 'vmxnet3' and reboot they will appear correctly. --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] .config file for gentoo guest on vmware workstation 7.1.4
On 4/9/2011 4:57 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:02:14 +1000, Adam Carter wrote: If you're using PVSCSI, go into SCSI RAID, then SCSI Low Level Driver, then select VMware PVSCSI as built-in, not module. Do you know which one workstation uses? AFAICT there's no option to choose which controller is presented to the guest. You get to choose when you create the VM. Only in ESX/vSphere, not for Workstation. At least not yet. Somewhat silly, IMO, since the hardware support is there under the hood if you know how to find it. --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Disk recommendations?
On 10/4/2011, at 2:50pm, Mark Knecht wrote: ... loses 1 drive and then, while in the process of fixing the RAID, loses a second drive. Most of us (myself included) buy identical drives all at the same time from the same vendor. This means all the drives were likely from the same manufacturing batch and, if they are drives that will fail at all then the group will likely experience multiple drive failures. It doesn't make it *likely* that they'll fail simultaneously. It makes it less unlikely. The underlying idea of RAID is that the drives are not likely to fail at the same time giving us time to fix the array. However, if /dev/sda fails the chances of /dev/sdb failing is higher if they were built at the same time in the same plant. ^ This is a more accurate synopsis. Reading the mdadm list for the last couple of years it seems that many folks running data centers intentionally buy drives from multiple manufactures, or drives of different sizes from the same manufacturer, hoping to lower the chances of multiple failures at the same time. I've found it sometimes quite inconvenient to do this, and whilst I consider it good practice I get the impression a lot of people, perhaps the majority, don't bother (or don't even know they should). I kinda think it's a nice thing to do but not essential - I don't know that the risk of simultaneous failure is increased that significantly. Many high-end servers will be sold off-the-shelf by their manufacturers with consecutively-serialed drives in the RAID array - I don't think this is considered risky enough for Dell or IBM to offer non-matching drives as a purchasing option. One also has to wonder what the performance implications might be of having three drives in an array with slightly different rotational speeds, spin-up and seek times. Ultimately, we shouldn't be fully dependent upon RAID for the integrity of our data, anyway. RAID is not a backup is the famous saying. As for hardware RAID the risk I hear about there is that if the controller itself fails then you need an identical backup controller or you risk the possibility that you won't be able to recover anything. I don't know how true that is or whether it's just FUD. Generally you just need a similar one. In the case of 3ware you can connect your drives to any other 3ware controller and it will recognise the array descriptors written at the start of the drive. I haven't swapped drives between the PERCs (rebadged Adaptec, I think) of Dell 2650s 2850s, but these machines are now so cheap on the secondhand market anyway, you can afford to have a spare identical one. I think you're over-estimating the *risk* of being unable to find a RAID controller of the same model. But certainly if you buy a good PCIe SATA card on the secondhand market it will not be cheap to replace in the event of failure, and a bargain may not come up on eBay immediately. So I think you'll certainly be able to recover your data, you may just some inconvenience of having to wait to find a cheap enough card or spend a lot of money buying an obsolete card in a hurry. Ideally, you have a spare in advance or buy hardware RAID under a 5-year warranty (in which case it's replaced next-day by the manufacturer). This is really a matter of horses-for-courses. Most people (including myself) don't really need hardware RAID. Hardware RAID is much more expensive, but I do consider it better, if only because you can hot-swap. That is not assured with cheap SATA controllers. OTOH Linux's software RAID does seem to be just as fast (??) as hardware RAID, and has some cool features. Stroller.
[gentoo-user] Kernel modules not autoloading with 2.6.38-gentoo-r1
Hi all, Has anyone run into an issue where the kernel is not detecting devices? The issue does not show up in 2.6.37 on amd64 testing branch. I just got done re-emerging world to rule out any hidden surprises. Any ideas? TIA, James Wall
