On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:37:30 PM Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> I live in the same sort of world, just on a smaller scale, and my biggest
>>> power consumer is storage, not compute, but I thoroughly
On 03/08/12 11:51 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I'm sorry, but to me, the above is a non sequitur. I was talking about how
> much power the servers drink, and that the UPSs that I have can barely,
> barely handle half as many or less, and I'm running out of UPSs, and out
> of power outlets for them
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:51:58PM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 03/08/12 6:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> >>> > ok, so 3 x 48/64 core servers uses the same power as 6 x 4/8 core ?
> >>> > thats still major win.
> >> Um, no - that's what I'm saying is*not* the ca
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 03/08/12 6:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> > ok, so 3 x 48/64 core servers uses the same power as 6 x 4/8 core ?
>>> > thats still major win.
>> Um, no - that's what I'm saying is*not* the case. The new suckers drink
>> power - using a UPS that I could hang, say, 6 D
On 03/08/12 6:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> > ok, so 3 x 48/64 core servers uses the same power as 6 x 4/8 core ?
>> > thats still major win.
> Um, no - that's what I'm saying is*not* the case. The new suckers drink
> power - using a UPS that I could hang, say, 6 Dell 1950's off of,*if* I'm
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 01:15:59 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Usually your whole building is designed around a certain amount of
> heat load and data centers designed a few years back are probably
> already maxed out due to the earlier rounds of density increases. So
> you will need at least more
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>> I live in the same sort of world, just on a smaller scale, and my biggest
>> power consumer is storage, not compute, but I thoroughly understand Mark's
>> points.
>
> So, get more power and UPS.
>
> The specs are published, so power consu
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:37:30 PM Ross Walker wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > I live in the same sort of world, just on a smaller scale, and my biggest
> > power consumer is storage, not compute, but I thoroughly understand Mark's
> > points.
> So, get more pow
On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 05:06:13 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> It's not such a big deal for desktops, but you can get small low power
> systems if you look around - or just use a laptop that will sleep when
> you close the lid.
FWIW, Aleutia (www.aleutia.com) makes some nice really low power units
On 03/08/2012 02:03 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:48 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> We are talking about *software* /boot partition on RAID1! that can have
>> any number of member partitions. And the rest of the disk here discussed
>> is *software* "mdraid RAID10" with 1,2,3,4
On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:52:02 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Yes, part of the power savings are deceptive - they only kick in when
>> the CPUs are idle and your users would be one of the rare cases that
>> peg them for long intervals. I think t
On Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:52:02 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, part of the power savings are deceptive - they only kick in when
> the CPUs are idle and your users would be one of the rare cases that
> peg them for long intervals. I think this is getting better in the
> current generation but
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:33 AM, wrote:
>
>>> VM's? Sorry, we're doing very serious scientific computing - the couple
>>> or so VMs we had are going away. I mean, when, for example, one guy I
>>> support gets on a 48 core box, and proceeds to fire up an R job, and
>>> uses*all* of them Plus,
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 03/08/12 4:39 AM, mark wrote:
>> VM's? Sorry, we're doing very serious scientific computing - the couple
>> or so VMs we had are going away. I mean, when, for example, one guy I
>> support gets on a 48 core box, and proceeds to fire up an R job, and
>> uses*all* of them..
On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:48 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> We are talking about *software* /boot partition on RAID1! that can have
> any number of member partitions. And the rest of the disk here discussed
> is *software* "mdraid RAID10" with 1,2,3,4,... member partitions, not
> regular hardware
On 03/08/12 4:39 AM, mark wrote:
> VM's? Sorry, we're doing very serious scientific computing - the couple
> or so VMs we had are going away. I mean, when, for example, one guy I
> support gets on a 48 core box, and proceeds to fire up an R job, and
> uses*all* of them Plus, we're running out
John R Pierce wrote:
> On 03/07/12 2:09 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Heh. Many of the new servers we are getting are all on the order of 48 or
>> 64 cores, and they eat and drink power. The same UPS that would handle six
>> 4 or 8 core boxes can handle*three*, if we're lucky, when a clustering
>>
On 03/07/2012 07:43 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
> >> Plus if i raid1 it then i only have two bootable disks..at least
> this way i have 4 bootable disks..:)
>
> No, you don't have 4. Please study the way a RAID10 array works.
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing l
On 03/07/12 2:09 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Heh. Many of the new servers we are getting are all on the order of 48 or
> 64 cores, and they eat and drink power. The same UPS that would handle six
> 4 or 8 core boxes can handle*three*, if we're lucky, when a clustering
> job's running
yes but
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, wrote:
>>
a) You think I, or a *lot* of other folks, are going to do that at
home? (Please - I'm trying to get my fiancee to at *least* go from
*shudder* Vista to Win7)
>>>
>>> If you leave them on, add up the power cost of runnin
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, wrote:
>>
a) You think I, or a *lot* of other folks, are going to do that at
home? (Please - I'm trying to get my fiancee to at *least* go from
*shudder* Vista to Win7)
>>>
>>> If you leave them on, add up the power cost
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, wrote:
>
>>> a) You think I, or a *lot* of other folks, are going to do that at home?
>>> (Please - I'm trying to get my fiancee to at *least* go from
>>> *shudder* Vista to Win7)
>>
>> If you leave them on, add up the power cost of running an old box
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> If the future continues anything like the past, you'll be be able to
>>> buy something new with twice the speed and 10x the space by then and
>>> be better off starting over than allocating more than you need today.
>>
>> a) You
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM, wrote:
>>
>> If the future continues anything like the past, you'll be be able to
>> buy something new with twice the speed and 10x the space by then and
>> be better off starting over than allocating more than you need today.
>
> a) You think I, or a *lot* of othe
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> If the future continues anything like the past, you'll be be able to
>> buy something new with twice the speed and 10x the space by then and
>> be better off starting over than allocating more than you need today.
>
> you are re-installing
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, wrote:
>> >
>>> You may have noticed that redhat recommends 250M
>>> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installation_Guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86.html
>>
>> Yeah, well, some of us have many servers more than 4
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, wrote:
> >
>> You may have noticed that redhat recommends 250M
>> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installation_Guide/s2-diskpartrecommend-x86.html
>
> Yeah, well, some of us have many servers more than 4 yrs old; so I'm
> assuming
Markus Falb wrote:
> On 7.3.2012 19:08, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Ross Walker wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Les Mikesell
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, William Warren
wrote:
> well ubuntu allows me to boot from MD RAID10...so there's something
> t
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM, William Warren
wrote:
> the problem with that is when your boot drive dies your can't boot...with
> ubuntu at least if any drive dies i can stilll boot off of the other 3..:)
>
You can make a raid1 with 4 members if you want - and you might as
well since you'll wa
>> Plus if i raid1 it then i only have two bootable disks..at least
this way i have 4 bootable disks..:)
No, you don't have 4. Please study the way a RAID10 array works.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listin
On 7.3.2012 19:08, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Les Mikesell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, William Warren
>>>
>>> wrote:
well ubuntu allows me to boot from MD RAID10...so there's something
they are doing that allows th
> i then have to redo my entire array...and loose space inside the
> array. Plus if i raid1 it then i only have two bootable disks..at
> least this way i have 4 bootable disks..:)
Lose space? 100 or 200MB? Why the heck wouldn't you be able to spare 100
or 200MB of the gigantic size of today's
> the problem with that is when your boot drive dies your can't boot...with
> ubuntu at least if any drive dies i can stilll boot off of the other 3..:)
You don't need a boot drive, you only need a *boot partition*.
So, you create a small *boot partition* with RAID1 and then allocate the
rest o
the problem with that is when your boot drive dies your can't boot...with
ubuntu at least if any drive dies i can stilll boot off of the other 3..:)
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Willi
Ross Walker wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, William Warren
>> wrote:
>>> well ubuntu allows me to boot from MD RAID10...so there's something
>>> they are doing that allows that to boot.
>>
>> That ubuntu version has probably switched
On Mar 7, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, William Warren
> wrote:
>> well ubuntu allows me to boot from MD RAID10...so there's something they
>> are doing that allows that to boot.
>
> That ubuntu version has probably switched to grub2. Good luck
> debu
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, William Warren
wrote:
> well ubuntu allows me to boot from MD RAID10...so there's something they
> are doing that allows that to boot.
That ubuntu version has probably switched to grub2. Good luck
debugging it when it breaks - it is very different.
--
Les Mike
well ubuntu allows me to boot from MD RAID10...so there's something they
are doing that allows that to boot. I think RH needs to take a cue in that
areaI'm not going to reconfigure my entire array to accommodate centos
in this instance. if i don't need MDRAID 10 boot then this machine will
co
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM, William Warren
wrote:
> why will Centos 6 not boot from an mdraid 10 partition?
It has to load code before you have the kernel that understands raid
or how to detect it. That's why they call it booting.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
On 6.3.2012 16:29, William Warren wrote:
> why will Centos 6 not boot from an mdraid 10 partition?
Because grub cant read a mdraid 10
Make a /boot on mdraid 1 and the rest on mdraid 10
--
Kind Regards, Markus Falb
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
why will Centos 6 not boot from an mdraid 10 partition?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
41 matches
Mail list logo
