Re: [Vserver] Completion for vserver
After a weekend of shopping, I'm come back.So, I create a page in the wiki :http://linux-vserver.org/Vserver+CompletionAnd I create a link in the home page. If you want others completions for others commands, tell it me.Thomas2006/1/20, Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 05:04:52PM +0100, Thomas Champagne wrote: Hi To learn bash, I decided to create the completion for vserver's commands.great! So, I send you the first release here because I don't know where I can post it.that's the right place, and if you can, it might makesense to put it up somewhere and link it from thewiki (if not, just let me know and I'll put it somewhere) This release support only the command vserver. For test it, push the source in your .bashrc or put it in the file /etc/bash_completion.d/vserver (Debian).thanks,Herbert In waiting of your comments. Thomas ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
[Vserver] ifconfig problem with virtual interfaces
Hi ! We have a very strange problem here with virtual IP addresses (various up-to-date 2.6 kernels with vserver 2.0): Let eth0 have a normal IP address. Let v1 and v2 be two vservers with a virtual IP on eth0 each. # vserver v1 start # vserver v2 start ifconfig shows eth0, eth0:v1, and eth0:v2 as expected, everything works. # vserver v1 stop Now ifconfig shows that all virtual IPs have been removed although vserver-stat shows that v2 is still running. Networking with v2 doesn't work either. This only happens if the vserver, that was startet first, ist stopped. Other orderings work fine. This problem is not vserver related, we can reproduce it on non-vserver systems/kernels too. The following commands reproduce it on 90% of our systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, all with Linux 2.6): # ifconfig eth0:1 1.2.3.4 # ifconfig eth0:2 1.2.3.5 # ifconfig eth0:1 del 1.2.3.4 Does anyone else have this problem? Any workaround except defining an eth0:dummy interface outside any vserver? By(e): Raimund. ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] ifconfig problem with virtual interfaces
On 2006.01.23 12:31:53 +0100, Raimund Specht wrote: Hi ! We have a very strange problem here with virtual IP addresses (various up-to-date 2.6 kernels with vserver 2.0): Let eth0 have a normal IP address. Let v1 and v2 be two vservers with a virtual IP on eth0 each. # vserver v1 start # vserver v2 start ifconfig shows eth0, eth0:v1, and eth0:v2 as expected, everything works. # vserver v1 stop Now ifconfig shows that all virtual IPs have been removed although vserver-stat shows that v2 is still running. Networking with v2 doesn't work either. This only happens if the vserver, that was startet first, ist stopped. Other orderings work fine. This problem is not vserver related, we can reproduce it on non-vserver systems/kernels too. The following commands reproduce it on 90% of our systems (Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, all with Linux 2.6): # ifconfig eth0:1 1.2.3.4 # ifconfig eth0:2 1.2.3.5 # ifconfig eth0:1 del 1.2.3.4 Does anyone else have this problem? Any workaround except defining an eth0:dummy interface outside any vserver? Yep, that's default behaviour... :/ If you add the first address for a subnet, this becomes the 'primary' address for this subnet, all later added addresses becomes secondaries. Removing the primary address tears down all secondaries as well. The common workaround is to have a primary address for each used subnet on the host and only giving secondaries to the vservers. HTH Björn ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] ifconfig problem with virtual interfaces
Hi ! Björn Steinbrink write: # ifconfig eth0:1 1.2.3.4 # ifconfig eth0:2 1.2.3.5 # ifconfig eth0:1 del 1.2.3.4 Yep, that's default behaviour... :/ If you add the first address for a subnet, this becomes the 'primary' address for this subnet, all later added addresses becomes secondaries. Removing the primary address tears down all secondaries as well. The common workaround is to have a primary address for each used subnet on the host and only giving secondaries to the vservers. Hui, yes, that's it. Thank you! That explains all of our observations. One should really throw away ifconfig and only use ip instead :) By(e): Raimund. ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
[Vserver] patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1 ok ;-)
Hello Herbert, Just launch test of this patch against parisc-linux tree and seems to works fine on 2 32bit up kernel of different hw. The second system is a new vserver in preparation on which I hope to be able to test a 64bit kernel up ;-) Thx, Joel PS: btw is that patch-2.6.16-rc1-bme0.06.2.diff could be apply over patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1.diff? --- A free anti-spam and anti-virus filter on all Scarlet mailboxes More info on http://www.scarlet.be/ ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
Re: [Vserver] patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1 ok ;-)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:57:21PM +0100, Joel Soete wrote: Hello Herbert, Just launch test of this patch against parisc-linux tree and seems to works fine on 2 32bit up kernel of different hw. excellent, I would appreciate to get a posting similar to http://list.linux-vserver.org/archive/vserver/msg11977.html ... for new (test) kernels and unusual architectures (but try to avoid duplicates, i.e. same version and arch) this way we can a) easily identify issues, and b) keep some searchable record what version did work where ... The second system is a new vserver in preparation on which I hope to be able to test a 64bit kernel up ;-) Thx, Joel PS: btw is that patch-2.6.16-rc1-bme0.06.2.diff could be apply over patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1.diff? no need to, the patch-2.6.16-rc1-bme0.06.2.diff is already included in patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1.diff, it is more for the folks using vanilla kernels ... HTHaTIA, Herbert --- A free anti-spam and anti-virus filter on all Scarlet mailboxes More info on http://www.scarlet.be/ ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
[Vserver] Re: RFC: [PATCH] pids as weak references.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 13:27 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: So currently I can see to justifications for introducing a separation between kpid_t pid_t. 1) pid virtualization 2) In kernel pids that act as weak references, and avoid the problems of pid wrap-around. It is an interesting approach. But, in its current state, it is very, very hard to review. For starters, could you break it up so that the meat of the patch is separate from the easy s/foo-pid/pid_nr(foo-pid)/ stuff? -- Dave ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
[Vserver] OFF TOPIC: Core Router for growing Vserver / Dedicated server provider
Hello, hope this isn't too far offtopic here but being a troller for a long time here I've realized there is a great knowledge base so I wanted to at least see if i could get some tips. I help run a small colocation company in California and I am in the middle of recommending a new 'core router' platform for our network. We offer mainly colo and dedicated servers, and several of our clients use our space for VOIP services so quality even under high peak usage is a must. We are not huge, but as we have had near 200% growth in the past 12 months and need to expand our network asap to keep up. Simply put, I'd love to hear feedback and/or suggestions from any of you guys who have gone through this already. Our network map is real simple: [Carrier 7609] -- 100 mbit -- Our cisco 7206 -- 100 mbit -- racks [the racks on our end are a series of switches, mainly 2948gl3's] We push about 60 mbit to/from our (1) carrier at peak right now, and the router keeps up fine [its a cisco 7206 npe 150 btw, very low end on the 7206 line], and at peak we have under 50,000 packets per second, and our 7206 has little/no features enabled [just static routes and passing all traffic between 2 Ethernet 100 mbit interfaces]. To date we have had 2 problems, both were DOS attacks launched FROM one of our customer's servers flooding a full 100 mbit wire with more packets per second than the router could handle (the 2948gl3's spiked to about 50% cpu load during the attack but the 7200 literally just died for 3 minutes as the interface(s) all rebooted]. So our main goal to grow is something that can handle a lot more in this arena against a DOS, and handle our future growth. In then next 12 months we plan to add a 2nd carrier, at t3, 100mbit, or possibly oc3 speed, and possibly upgrade our main carrier to a GigE connection. Probably maxing combined in the 300 mbit range, more likely closer to half that in 12 months. Problems/Requirements - Budget is in the $5k to $20k range ($20k if its going to outlast me even past my 12 month projections) - must not 'collapse' under simple packet flow DOS attack - must handle BGP4 from 2 carriers with full route tables - We plan to buy used, prices below are based on USED, 30 day warranty ebay postings = Choices/Options that we have looked at: Option #1: Cisco VXR 7206 [$4k to $12k] Option #2: Cisco 12008 [$7k to $14k] Option #3: Cisco 6509 [$10k to $15k] Here are the 3 main options, broken down a bit more in depth. [I have not ruled out juniper all together, but not enough experience with them and lots of experience with cisco, makes cisco our better option i think, especially since its easier to find used cisco gear than it is to find used juniper gear at a decent price]. [option #1 - Cisco 7206 VXR] Estimated: $4,000 [$6,000 with 400 mhz, $12,000 with the 1 ghz cpu upgrade] 1 Cisco 7206 VXR NPE 300 mhz w/max ram 2 AC Power 2 Fast Ethernet Adapters (1 included on the NPE) + lots of experience on this unit + lots of spare cards (most compatible) + can keep old 7200 as a hot standby, minimizing long term downtime - END OF LIFE/sale/support on most of the 7200 product line over 5 years ago! The VXR model is darn close to end of life i suspect - minimal horse power here for the money, prone to death by packet attack [option #2 - Cisco GSR (12008)] Estimated: $7,000 to $14,000 [varies if I start with GigE or just 100mbit] 1 Cisco12008 GSR 40Gbps 1 Clock Scheduler Card (GSR8) 3 Switch Fabric Card (GSR8) 2 AC Power 1 4 port OC-3c/STM-1 Single Mode 1 GE card or a 4 port x 100 mbit + much higher total bandwidth/packet processing power compared to 7200, for similar money - product is long since obsolete and outclassed by the 760x cisco router, as well as just about any juniper router in the m20+ tier. - I'd bet if i buy this, cisco will classify it end of life within 3 months :) - over priced 'blade cards' to add any other functions/circuits (high costs) [option #3 - Cisco 6509 switch'router' w/MSFC2] Estimated: $10,000 - $15,000 (and up depending on config) 1 WS-C6509 Cisco Catalyst 6500 9-Slot Chassis 1 WS-C6K-9SLOT-FAN Catalyst 6000 Fan Tray for 9-Slot Systems 1 WS-C6X09-RACK Catalyst 6x09 Rack Mount Kit 2 WS-CAC-1300W 1300W AC Power Supply 1 CAB-7513AC AC Power Cord 1 WS-X6K-S1A-MSFC2 Catalyst 6500 Supervisor Engine-2, 2GE, plus MSFC-2 / PFC (WS-X6K-S1A-2GE + MSFC-2 PFC) 1 MEM-C6K-FLC24M 24MB Flash Card 1 WS-X6408A-GBIC Catalyst 6500 8-Port Gigabit Ethernet Module (Req. GBICs) 1 WS-X6348-RJ-45 Catalyst 6500 48-Port 10/100 RJ-45 Module + could consolidate router/switch into 1 [i.e. replace my 48 port switches in each rack] + still a major product with sales/support, no end of life 'soon', this is still a primary flag ship product - 'not a router' as some would say [though this one is as good as it gets for a switch with router
Re: [Vserver] patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1 ok ;-)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:57:21PM +0100, Joel Soete wrote: Hello Herbert, Just launch test of this patch against parisc-linux tree and seems to works fine on 2 32bit up kernel of different hw. excellent, I would appreciate to get a posting similar to http://list.linux-vserver.org/archive/vserver/msg11977.html Ok I will launch test and report ;-) ... for new (test) kernels and unusual architectures (but try to avoid duplicates, i.e. same version and arch) this way we can a) easily identify issues, and b) keep some searchable record what version did work where ... Yes, The second system is a new vserver in preparation on which I hope to be able to test a 64bit kernel up ;-) Thx, Joel PS: btw is that patch-2.6.16-rc1-bme0.06.2.diff could be apply over patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1.diff? no need to, the patch-2.6.16-rc1-bme0.06.2.diff is already included in patch-2.6.16-rc1-vs2.1.0.6.1.diff, it is more for the folks using vanilla kernels ... HTHaTIA, Herbert ;-) Cheers, Joel --- A free anti-spam and anti-virus filter on all Scarlet mailboxes More info on http://www.scarlet.be/ ___ Vserver mailing list Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
