Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Mark Perry
Mark Post wrote:
 On 8/14/2008 at  8:26 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Ryan McCain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Thats the issue we are trying to avoid if possible.  If we could put /, /opt,
 /usr, /lib, etc. etc.  into LVM, we won't have to guestimate how much disk
 we'll need from the outset. We could grow as needed.

 Laid out properly, / will never grow.

 # df -h
 FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
 /dev/dasda1   388M  168M  200M  46% /
 /dev/mapper/vg01-home  97M  4.4M   88M   5% /home
 /dev/mapper/vg01-opt   74M   21M   50M  30% /opt
 /dev/mapper/vg01-srv  1.2G  1.1G  100M  92% /srv
 /dev/mapper/vg01-tmp  291M   34M  242M  13% /tmp
 /dev/mapper/vg01-usr  2.0G  901M  1.1G  45% /usr
 /dev/mapper/vg01-var  2.0G  608M  1.3G  32% /var

 Of course the amount of space dedicated to each LV will vary according to 
 specific needs.  The fundamental concept is the same, and will (hopefully) be 
 the default on SLES11 if things go as I hope.


 Mark Post

Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
percentage full? (90%?)

If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
to make this more sophisticated:
which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.

Hint to distros:
If such a method were available during the installation process then we
would not need to make guesstimates of the LV sizes, they could be set
small and allowed to grow as packages were installed.

If a good idea.
then maybe add this to LVM2 so that the whole process was synchronized
without the possibility of a FS becoming full (based on rules of course).

mark

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Richard Gasiorowski
All

IN this long diatribe about root file system no one has mentioned one of
the true got ya's - that is the symbolic links of  GRUB/LILO.

'Where ever you go - There you are!! '

Richard (Gaz) Gasiorowski
Global Solutions  Technology
Principal Lead Infrastructure Architect
845-773-9243 Work
845-392-7889 Cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Computer Sciences Corporation
Registered Office: 3170 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, Virginia 22042,
USA
Registered in Nevada, USA No: C-489-59

-
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery.
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such
purpose.
-




John Summerfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
08/14/2008 11:54 PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU


To
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: Root filesystem






Ryan McCain wrote:
 Do you have every directory under / defined as its own filesystem? /etc,
/boot, /var, /opt, /lib, etc.. ?

Read the FHS which can be found at pathname.com.

I don't think anyone's managed to put /boot on anything but a bare
partition, at least on Intellish hardware. The system boot code has to
be able to be found and able to find the kernel  initial ramdisk.

/lib must be in the root filesystem, as must some others: see the FHS
for details.

/usr can be ro and shared.

--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Regina and/of THE (The Hessling Editor) install?

2008-08-15 Thread Mark Pace
Sure would be nice if you could convince the powers that Regina and THE
belong on the main binary DVD.  At least in the z world.

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  On 8/14/2008 at 11:05 AM, in message
 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
 Rohling
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -snip-
  Anyway - not sure I did anything here but confirm REXX can and is used on
  Linux on z.   It seems to be missing from the current distros I've looked
 at
  for z, though :-(

 This recently came up here at SHARE.  Regina is included on the SDK for
 SLES9 and SLES10, not the main binary or source DVDs.


 Mark Post

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390




--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Regina and/of THE (The Hessling Editor) install?

2008-08-15 Thread Mark Pace
I use VI to edit most configs and such, just to keep my hands dirty.  But
for any REAL editing I always use THE.

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Scott Rohling [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 Concerning the original post -- I've used Regina REXX on zLinux and
 continue
 to do so on both zSeries and my x86 servers at home.  It initially came
 with
 the SUSE distro as an addon package when I used (SLES7, 8?) it.

 Using REXX (25 years experience is hard to toss out the window) helped me
 automate on Linux immediately with little learning curve.  For example - I
 recall a nifty program that looked at all your DASD on zLinux and gave a
 report on how it was being used (virtual address is dasdx, mounted as x,
 part of LVM x, not used, etc).  Being new to Linux this would have taken 10
 times longer than it did otherwise (though admittedly, I would have learned
 a ton along the way).

 Now I'm familiar with bash, perl, python, php, et al - and tend to use them
 for simple tasks.  But I still run home to Mama Rexx when I'm doing
 something less than simple.  REXX is just too cool to abandon..

 Anyway - not sure I did anything here but confirm REXX can and is used on
 Linux on z.   It seems to be missing from the current distros I've looked
 at
 for z, though :-(

 Cowlishaw hero worshiper and fan club member:   Scott Rohling

 p.s. I've used THE - but after being forced to edit where THE isn't
 available - I've tended to stick with vi/vim for an editor.  Now that I
 know
 the keystroke contortions, it's not as bad as it once seemed.

 On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   On 8/12/2008 at 12:32 PM, in message
  [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mauro
 Souza
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi Mark,
  
   *checkinstall make install* doesn't actually installs anything, only
  creates
   the RPM package.
 
  The version of checkinstall that I've used does install into the live
  file system, and then creates a package from that.  So, you might want to
  verify that it does (or does not) do that on a test system before doing
 it
  on a more important system.
 
 
  Mark Post
 
  --
  For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
  visit
  http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390




--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread David Boyes
 Red Hat is moving from labelling filesystems to using UUIDs.

Ugh. 

 I imagine it would be prudent for those cloning systems to include
part
 that generates new UUIDs.

Or use a method of addressing storage that DOESN'T tie a logical
reference to a specific physical device. 

 You should also consider adding a script to your cloning process to
 change the default standard volume and group names to names that are
 unique. This would alleviate the problem of importing a VG for repair.

But it also defeats a major purpose of cloning -- to create a large
number of *identical* systems. If I change the VG name on every system
to keep it safe, I have to document that and I lose a major advantage.

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Ryan McCain
 It's far worse than that.  Having / on an LV has _zero_ advantages, since 
 there is never a need to expand the root file system.  Having / on an LV 
 introduces additional risk, and will elongate recovery time.  That makes the 
 decision very easy.  More risk, no benefit, no deal.  Put / on an plain 
 partition.

It has at least one advantage for us.  We are given very limited space to 
allocate for each guest. This method allows for the rapid installation of 
either single application/patch or mass deployment/upgrade via ZLM without 
having to guesstimate ahead of time that /opt will be 1.1 gig, /tmp will be 500 
meg, etc.  Using my example, if we need to grow /opt to 1.5 gig, we would then 
have to shuffle sizes of other filesystems around.   Would you agree or am I 
missing something?

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Ryan McCain
Or just make sure you have good backups. Good and tested backups were the 
original Knoppix.  :)

 On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:33 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 Scott Rohling wrote:
 
 I think there are pros and cons - enough on both sides that I wouldn't flat
 out tell someone don't do it..  Recovery is less easy, yes, but certainly
 possible - you just have more than one DASD to consider.

 I think this is one of those topics that is endlessly debatable, so it's
 best just to list the pros and cons (and not just the cons) and leave it to
 the implementer to decide why they may or may not want to use LVM for root.
 
 
 DASD.  Then - make your system unbootable (put an error in your /etc/fstab
 or zipl.conf or something) .. and then try and recover it with both an LVM
 and non-LVM root.  These are the kinds of pros and cons you have to weigh
 yourself..
 
 My Linux experience is principally on Intellish hardware.
 
 My favourite rescue disk is Knoppix, preferably the latest but in a
 pinch, whatever is to hand. It does not understand RH's LVM setup.
 
 OTOH RH/Fedora rescue CDs[1] do understand LVM and can mount the system
 needing rescue. How it would actually handle an incorrect fstab I don't
 know, but I would fully expect it to get the the point where I could
 apply a little vim (or sed or echo) and fix it. It's probably
 complicated to use an alternative standard system to rescue an
 LVM-rooted system (but maybe not if the alternative doesn't use LVM). I
 have seen problems discussed where duplicate volume/group names arose,
 in Fedora.
 
 [1] and presumably install media in rescue mode.
 
 In a mainframe environment I'd want to do as I did on OS/2, have a small
 utility/rescue system on hand for just such emergencies.
 
 
 
 
 --
 
 Cheers
 John
 
 -- spambait
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -- Advice
 http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
 
 You cannot reply off-list:-)
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Fargusson.Alan
We have something like this on z/OS Unix.  It does not work as well as you 
might think.  All it does is push the space problems out to the volume level.  
We end up having to un-mount the filesystem, move it to a new volume, and 
re-mount it.

I would vote to not do this on Linux.

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Mark Perry
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:59 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Root filesystem


Mark Post wrote:
 On 8/14/2008 at  8:26 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Ryan McCain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Thats the issue we are trying to avoid if possible.  If we could put /, /opt,
 /usr, /lib, etc. etc.  into LVM, we won't have to guestimate how much disk
 we'll need from the outset. We could grow as needed.

 Laid out properly, / will never grow.

 # df -h
 FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
 /dev/dasda1   388M  168M  200M  46% /
 /dev/mapper/vg01-home  97M  4.4M   88M   5% /home
 /dev/mapper/vg01-opt   74M   21M   50M  30% /opt
 /dev/mapper/vg01-srv  1.2G  1.1G  100M  92% /srv
 /dev/mapper/vg01-tmp  291M   34M  242M  13% /tmp
 /dev/mapper/vg01-usr  2.0G  901M  1.1G  45% /usr
 /dev/mapper/vg01-var  2.0G  608M  1.3G  32% /var

 Of course the amount of space dedicated to each LV will vary according to 
 specific needs.  The fundamental concept is the same, and will (hopefully) be 
 the default on SLES11 if things go as I hope.


 Mark Post

Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
percentage full? (90%?)

If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
to make this more sophisticated:
which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.

Hint to distros:
If such a method were available during the installation process then we
would not need to make guesstimates of the LV sizes, they could be set
small and allowed to grow as packages were installed.

If a good idea.
then maybe add this to LVM2 so that the whole process was synchronized
without the possibility of a FS becoming full (based on rules of course).

mark

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

__

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole 
use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged 
information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or 
distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.  



sane-dasd-update

2008-08-15 Thread Adam Thornton

Obviously the by-id/by-path debate has been of fairly major concern on
this list over the last week or so.

Clearly, also, no distributor is interested in fixing it for the
currently-shipping distributions.

So I wrote a little tool to run post-install, which does nothing but
identify whether you have by-id disk paths in your fstab or zipl.conf.

If you do, it rewrites them to be by-path disk paths.  If you use the -
d option, it just prints the changed files to the screen.  Normal
operation is to leave it in /etc/whatever-by-path.  If you're feeling
brave, you can run it with -r and actually *replace* the files (this
will also invoke zipl if it needs to), and if you're feeling
*suicidal* you can run it with -c and -r together, and clean up all
the old files.  Please don't do this, and if you do it, don't tell me
about it.

Anyway: the current tool only exists for SLES10/s390x; it should be
easily adapted to any other distro's s390 or s390x release, and it
makes no sense whatsoever for non-s390(x) distros.  There's an RPM
package, the Perl script itself, and the spec file used to generate
the RPM package from the Perl script.

Don't use this as a model for either how to write Perl or spec files.
My Perl is dumb and ugly, and my spec files are created my randomly
flailing at the keyboard until it works.  However, the current package
works for me.

That said: NO WARRANTY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  Even if it's Friday and
you've had plenty of cough syrup, don't run this in replace mode
without trying it a couple times and making sure you like the output
you get, and don't run it with -c -r, period.  And if you replace
zipl.conf by hand, don't forget to actually *run* zipl before you
reboot.

http://download.sinenomine.net/sane-dasd-update

Enjoy!

Adam

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Mark Post
 On 8/15/2008 at  7:29 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ryan McCain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
-snip-
 It has at least one advantage for us.  We are given very limited space to 
 allocate for each guest. This method allows for the rapid installation of 
 either single application/patch or mass deployment/upgrade via ZLM without 
 having to guesstimate ahead of time that /opt will be 1.1 gig, /tmp will be 
 500 meg, etc.  Using my example, if we need to grow /opt to 1.5 gig, we would 
 then have to shuffle sizes of other filesystems around.   Would you agree or 
 am I missing something?

That's not an advantage, it's a workaround for bad management decisions.  
Coming to Novell from a company where our z/VM systems were overly resource 
constrained, I completely understand your situation.  The best you can do is 
do what you have to do and document for management the potential risks and 
business impact of their decision to not provide the necessary hardware 
resources to do things the right way (understanding there is debate about 
what right is).  Then, if Murphy strikes, and people are asking why you did 
things that way, you have covered yourself and your team as much as you can.

If I were put (back) in your position, I wouild try to do some research ahead 
of time to figure out what set of standardized system templates I might be 
creating, and adjust the file system layout I favor to support those.  Just 
about everyone I've spoken to has done just that, whether / is on an LV or not, 
and gotten those templates approved by security, etc.  You don't want every 
system you create to be a one off situation.  That won't be to your advantage 
in any way.  In general, you shouldn't be having to install lots of new 
packages, just maintenance, for the life of a particular guest.  If you are, 
then something in your ogranizational or development processes are broken.


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Mark Post
 On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark
Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
-snip-
 Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
 percentage full? (90%?)

Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development systems so 
that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream source at 
slackware.com.

 If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
 required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
 certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
 to make this more sophisticated:
 which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.

You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do it, 
nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very, 
complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making decisions, not 
software.


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Scott Rohling
If you're talking about a VG that has free space and a script smart enough
to add the free space and do the resize, etc -- then it sounds nifty and not
too hard.

If you're talking about getting VM to give you another minidisk, which you
then add to the VG and then add space to the LV -- that's a magnitude more
complicated (but certainly doable with things like REXECD on VM, vmcp to
link the disks, etc).

But still - that would be nifty too :-)  Interesting idea...

Scott Rohling

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Mark
 Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -snip-
  Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
  percentage full? (90%?)

 Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development systems
 so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream
 source at slackware.com.

  If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
  required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
  certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
  to make this more sophisticated:
  which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.

 You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do
 it, nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very,
 complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making decisions,
 not software.


 Mark Post

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Fargusson.Alan
If you have disk sitting around that you could add to the VG then why not add 
them to the VG when you create it, and make the filesystems large enough that 
they don't need to grow?

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Scott Rohling
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:11 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Root filesystem


If you're talking about a VG that has free space and a script smart enough
to add the free space and do the resize, etc -- then it sounds nifty and not
too hard.

If you're talking about getting VM to give you another minidisk, which you
then add to the VG and then add space to the LV -- that's a magnitude more
complicated (but certainly doable with things like REXECD on VM, vmcp to
link the disks, etc).

But still - that would be nifty too :-)  Interesting idea...

Scott Rohling

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Mark
 Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -snip-
  Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
  percentage full? (90%?)

 Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development systems
 so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream
 source at slackware.com.

  If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
  required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
  certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
  to make this more sophisticated:
  which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.

 You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do
 it, nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very,
 complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making decisions,
 not software.


 Mark Post

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

__

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole 
use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged 
information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or 
distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.  

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Scott Rohling
That was my first thought too...   BUT - I can see how it could be useful to
have free space in a VG and then assign it where it might be needed as it's
needed within the VG.  (Leave 1GB of the VG unassigned, and let the script
assign it on an 'emergency' basis to the LV that is running low).

More interesting is the notion of getting VM to assign the disk and then
have it automatically added to the VG.  (Think application data).

If the method involves just have a bunch of VM minidisks already assigned to
the guest, ready to be added - then I agree - why not just assign them now.

Scott Rohling

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Fargusson.Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 If you have disk sitting around that you could add to the VG then why not
 add them to the VG when you create it, and make the filesystems large enough
 that they don't need to grow?

 -Original Message-
 From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
 Scott Rohling
 Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:11 AM
 To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
 Subject: Re: Root filesystem


 If you're talking about a VG that has free space and a script smart enough
 to add the free space and do the resize, etc -- then it sounds nifty and
 not
 too hard.

 If you're talking about getting VM to give you another minidisk, which you
 then add to the VG and then add space to the LV -- that's a magnitude more
 complicated (but certainly doable with things like REXECD on VM, vmcp to
 link the disks, etc).

 But still - that would be nifty too :-)  Interesting idea...

 Scott Rohling

 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED],
  Mark
  Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  -snip-
   Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a
 certain
   percentage full? (90%?)
 
  Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development
 systems
  so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream
  source at slackware.com.
 
   If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
   required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
   certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
   to make this more sophisticated:
   which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.
 
  You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do
  it, nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very,
  complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making
 decisions,
  not software.
 
 
  Mark Post
 
  --
  For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
  visit
  http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


 __

 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the
 sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
 privileged information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including
 disclosure or distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
 recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Ryan McCain
Thanks for the info.  I'm going to discuss this  further with management.

 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 On 8/15/2008 at  7:29 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Ryan McCain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 -snip-
 It has at least one advantage for us.  We are given very limited space to 
 allocate for each guest. This method allows for the rapid installation of 
 either single application/patch or mass deployment/upgrade via ZLM without 
 having to guesstimate ahead of time that /opt will be 1.1 gig, /tmp will be 
 500 meg, etc.  Using my example, if we need to grow /opt to 1.5 gig, we 
 would 
 then have to shuffle sizes of other filesystems around.   Would you agree or 
 
 am I missing something?
 
 That's not an advantage, it's a workaround for bad management decisions.  
 Coming to Novell from a company where our z/VM systems were overly resource 
 constrained, I completely understand your situation.  The best you can do is 
 do what you have to do and document for management the potential risks and 
 business impact of their decision to not provide the necessary hardware 
 resources to do things the right way (understanding there is debate about 
 what right is).  Then, if Murphy strikes, and people are asking why you did 
 things that way, you have covered yourself and your team as much as you can.
 
 If I were put (back) in your position, I wouild try to do some research 
 ahead of time to figure out what set of standardized system templates I might 
 be creating, and adjust the file system layout I favor to support those.  
 Just about everyone I've spoken to has done just that, whether / is on an LV 
 or not, and gotten those templates approved by security, etc.  You don't want 
 every system you create to be a one off situation.  That won't be to your 
 advantage in any way.  In general, you shouldn't be having to install lots of 
 new packages, just maintenance, for the life of a particular guest.  If you 
 are, then something in your ogranizational or development processes are 
 broken.
 
 
 Mark Post
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread David Boyes
This would be an obvious use of Jack Wohr's pigiron tool (although
bearing the cost of a JVM might be more mass than is really
supportable). 

VM SMAPI provides functions to add minidisks to a guest, and the
automation to access the disk, put it online and do the pvcreate, etc
would be fairly straightforward once you have the ability to interact
with the hypervisor management infrastructure. The filesystem monitor
interface might be the only moderately complex part. 

Wrt to why, if you have a chargeback environment, preallocating space
you're not using makes users whiny. Create on use makes that discussion
less complex (they still whine, but it's clear what happened and why). 

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Ryan McCain
Is it possible to shrink a LVM fs, not just grow it?

 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark
 Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 -snip-
 Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
 percentage full? (90%?)
 
 Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development systems 
 so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream 
 source at slackware.com.
 
 If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
 required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
 certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
 to make this more sophisticated:
 which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.
 
 You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do it, 
 nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very, 
 complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making decisions, 
 not software.
 
 
 Mark Post
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Fargusson.Alan
I have problems with this kind of thing on z/OS Unix.  Our /tmp filesystem on 
z/OS is nearly a full volume with usage around 2% because DB2 was configured to 
write a log file to /tmp, and someone ran a load test that cause DB2 to write 
1.2G of log data.

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Scott Rohling
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Root filesystem


That was my first thought too...   BUT - I can see how it could be useful to
have free space in a VG and then assign it where it might be needed as it's
needed within the VG.  (Leave 1GB of the VG unassigned, and let the script
assign it on an 'emergency' basis to the LV that is running low).

More interesting is the notion of getting VM to assign the disk and then
have it automatically added to the VG.  (Think application data).

If the method involves just have a bunch of VM minidisks already assigned to
the guest, ready to be added - then I agree - why not just assign them now.

Scott Rohling

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Fargusson.Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 If you have disk sitting around that you could add to the VG then why not
 add them to the VG when you create it, and make the filesystems large enough
 that they don't need to grow?

 -Original Message-
 From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
 Scott Rohling
 Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:11 AM
 To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
 Subject: Re: Root filesystem


 If you're talking about a VG that has free space and a script smart enough
 to add the free space and do the resize, etc -- then it sounds nifty and
 not
 too hard.

 If you're talking about getting VM to give you another minidisk, which you
 then add to the VG and then add space to the LV -- that's a magnitude more
 complicated (but certainly doable with things like REXECD on VM, vmcp to
 link the disks, etc).

 But still - that would be nifty too :-)  Interesting idea...

 Scott Rohling

 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED],
  Mark
  Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  -snip-
   Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a
 certain
   percentage full? (90%?)
 
  Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development
 systems
  so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream
  source at slackware.com.
 
   If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
   required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
   certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
   to make this more sophisticated:
   which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.
 
  You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do
  it, nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very,
  complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making
 decisions,
  not software.
 
 
  Mark Post
 
  --
  For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
  visit
  http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


 __

 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the
 sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
 privileged information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including
 disclosure or distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
 recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Fargusson.Alan
This seems odd to me.  If I were the user getting charged by the amount of 
space I would not want it to grow without being told I was going to be charged 
more.

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
David Boyes
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:43 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Root filesystem


This would be an obvious use of Jack Wohr's pigiron tool (although
bearing the cost of a JVM might be more mass than is really
supportable). 

VM SMAPI provides functions to add minidisks to a guest, and the
automation to access the disk, put it online and do the pvcreate, etc
would be fairly straightforward once you have the ability to interact
with the hypervisor management infrastructure. The filesystem monitor
interface might be the only moderately complex part. 

Wrt to why, if you have a chargeback environment, preallocating space
you're not using makes users whiny. Create on use makes that discussion
less complex (they still whine, but it's clear what happened and why). 

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

__

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole 
use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged 
information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or 
distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.  

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Fargusson.Alan
It depends on the filesystem.  Some can shrink and some can't.  Also some can 
shrink only if there are no used blocks in the area that is going to be removed.

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Ryan McCain
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:43 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Root filesystem


Is it possible to shrink a LVM fs, not just grow it?

 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark
 Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 -snip-
 Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
 percentage full? (90%?)
 
 Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development systems 
 so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream 
 source at slackware.com.
 
 If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
 required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
 certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
 to make this more sophisticated:
 which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.
 
 You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do it, 
 nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very, 
 complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making decisions, 
 not software.
 
 
 Mark Post
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

__

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole 
use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged 
information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or 
distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.  

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Ryan McCain
We are mainly an EXT3 shop.  I know z/VM can grow an LVMd EXT3 fs, just not 
sure if it has the ability to shrink it.

 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 It depends on the filesystem.  Some can shrink and some can't.  Also some can 
 shrink only if there are no used blocks in the area that is going to be 
 removed.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
 Ryan McCain
 Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:43 AM
 To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
 Subject: Re: Root filesystem
 
 
 Is it possible to shrink a LVM fs, not just grow it?
 
 On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, in message
 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark
 Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 -snip-
 Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a certain
 percentage full? (90%?)
 
 Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development systems 
 so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream 
 source at slackware.com.
 
 If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
 required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
 certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
 to make this more sophisticated:
 which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.
 
 You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do it, 
 
 nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very, 
 complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making decisions, 
 not software.
 
 
 Mark Post
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 
 
 __
 
 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the 
 sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
 privileged information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure 
 or distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, 
 please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.  
 
 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or 
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: Root filesystem

2008-08-15 Thread Scott Rohling
See lvreduce ..  also vgreduce (but you can only remove unused physical
volumes which ain't always easy).   If you do a 'man lvreduce' it will
caution you that you need to resize the filesystem before you resize the
LV.. pay attention to that :-)

Scott Rohling

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ryan McCain
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 We are mainly an EXT3 shop.  I know z/VM can grow an LVMd EXT3 fs, just not
 sure if it has the ability to shrink it.

  On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM, in message
 [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  It depends on the filesystem.  Some can shrink and some can't.  Also some
 can
  shrink only if there are no used blocks in the area that is going to be
  removed.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
  Ryan McCain
  Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:43 AM
  To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
  Subject: Re: Root filesystem
 
 
  Is it possible to shrink a LVM fs, not just grow it?
 
  On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, in message
  [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark
  Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  -snip-
  Is there a way to trigger a script when a filesystem (FS) hits a
 certain
  percentage full? (90%?)
 
  Of course.  I have such a thing set up on my Slack/390 development
 systems
  so that I know when to temporarily suspend rsynching from my upstream
  source at slackware.com.
 
  If so, then one could develop a method to automatically issue the
  required lvresize and ext2online commands to keep the FS within a
  certain percentage range (70-90%?). Of course rules could be developed
  to make this more sophisticated:
  which FS are controlled, what % range per FS, limits of VG % free etc.
 
  You're certainly willing to do that to yourself.  I would not want to do
 it,
 
  nor make that available to others.  That sort of thing is very, very,
  complicated, and I would want a human looking at that and making
 decisions,
  not software.
 
 
  Mark Post
 
  --
  For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390
 or
  visit
  http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 
  --
  For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
  visit
  http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
 
 
 
  __
 
  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for
 the
  sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
  privileged information.  Any unauthorized review or use, including
 disclosure
  or distribution, is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient,
  please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email.
 
  --
  For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
  visit
  http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

 --
 For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
 visit
 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390