Discuss July 2005

discuss@lists.centos.org

190 participants
231 discussions

RE: [CentOS] Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

From: Robert Hanson <roberth(a)abbacomm.net> > exactly one of the reasons i started this thread... > 1st and most important bottom line is that CentOS works for me. And for myself as well. I deploy it like RHEL, just without the SLA. > 2nd is that I need to lay a different type of solid foundation of server > hardware with CentOS to jump from, other than the machines I build from > scratch... even though they work fine and last forever... I self-assemble personal systems, possibly even desktops on occassion. I tend to avoid it when it comes to consulting and servers, never. [ SIDE NOTE: You'll note I purposely use the term "assemble," not build. That's my Angineer (anal engineer) coming out in me, although even I slip at times. ;-] I'll deploy whatever tier-1 OEM the client has standardized on. When they are open to it, Monarch Computer has built itself as a solid tier-2 vendor that will assemble whatever you need, but they have well tested in other sales. I've yet to throw something at Monarch Computer they can't deliver for a client. 1U, 2U, 3U, 4 ... value, commodity or enterprise, they do it well at almost a "NewEgg-level" price. And did I mention they are basically the first OEM with the latest AMD stuff? Let alone have no issue in supporting 3Ware. And if you want RHEL with SLAs, they'll bundle it with software support for the hardware (RHEL AS is around only $1,300 sold as such). Of course, they'll also ship with Debian, Fedora Core, SuSE Linux, etc... too if you just want software (and hardware-only support). > unfortunately I have NEVER (looked for years too) found cheap yet rock > solid 2U - 4U rack mount cases with or without redundant power > supplies and any other goodies. $200 or much less I think would be > adequate eh? _Not_ on redundant, hot-swap power. Now if you're mainboard takes redundant power (and handles the transient), that's another story. > It's like everyone "goes stupid" when you ask where to get them > (i.e. cheap reliable solid rack mount cases) or something. I mean > really extremely brain dead never heard of em cant do it they cost > and arm and a leg and we cannot stand behind it stupid!! Monarch Computer does a good job. Most of their assemble-to-order prices are extremely competitive. It's all about volume. > Isn't there a market for that so we can build CentOS servers galore? I think people are more interested in getting the whole hardware+ software deal, or getting it at economies-of-scale volume. Monarch Computer is tough to beat in the combined price/service and I consider them a tier-2. > anyways... some of this started when Bryan and others mentioned > that the PIII chip had some advantages over some P4 versions or > something to that effect. All I said was that old P3s aren't always "worse" than P4s. Especially the "cheap" P4-Celeron chipset-interconnect designs I've seen. Especially if you can find a ServerSet IIIHE[-SL] chipset. As far as the P3 v. P4 core, P4 sucks in comparison MHz for MHz to a P3. That's why Intel is going back to it for all new designs (beyond just the current Pentium M). -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

From: Ken Godee <ken(a)perfect-image.com> > I'll also add that the "Proliant Support Pack" works as well. Definitely agree on the PSPs and HP System Insight Manager (SIM) tools available for HP platforms. Especially if the system has an integrated Lights-Out (iLO) board (typically an embedded PowerPC). -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Tony Wicks <tonyw(a)tonyw.com> > Hmm, if you drop the "gold" support it drops to 1944USD. Still strange, > we are used to paying more not less for hardware here in New Zealand. I'm really hesitant to pay that much for a crippled Celeron with an old i960 microcontroller for an SATA controller. I'd much rather go with Monarch Computer and get something better for the same price, especially in an Opteron 1xx that will eat the Celeron alive (along with the greater choice in controllers). Which brings us back to the "old" P3 DL3xx series. I'd prefer to go that direction, with an added 64-bit @ 66MHz PCI SATA controller, than pay for a P4-core Celeron. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers -- whoa!
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Tony Wicks <tonyw(a)tonyw.com> > I run Centos on Compaq dl380g1/2/3's and Dell servers. While the > Compaqs are strong hardware they are old and frankly the performance > compared to modern (cheap or otherwise) hardware is not really that > impressive. A dual 1 gig P3 dl380 and ultra 3 scsi drives get significantly > out performed by a generic celeron with software raid SATA drives. Whoa! Who said U160 SCSI was faster than SATA? That's a common farce! In fact, it's the whole reason why SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is coming about. SAS can even use SATA drives. I don't think that's is a good comparison at all. You're changing too many variables. Especially when you're comparing ultra-high density SATA drives to typical, lower-density U160 SCSI drives. Latency might be better, but throughout is clearly not. It all depends on your application. > I firmly believe the best value for money and performance is the Dell > Poweredge 750 with hardware raid SATA drives. The PE 750 is cheap > and installs out of the box (Centos 3 and 4), performes flawlessly and > is extremely fast. Depends on the app, but you might be correct for many applications. And, just because I'm curious, "hardware RAID SATA" by what controller? -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Tony Wicks <tonyw(a)tonyw.com> > Yes, the PE650/750 comes with the option of the Dell CERC (LSI logic, > actually the 6 port card) card Hmmm, now this gets interesting. What microcontroller is on that board? Is it this guy? http://www.lsilogic.com/products/megaraid/sata_150_6.html That's an IOP302 (i960-66MHz or 100MHz?). I'm always weary to thrown a yesteryear i960 at RAID. The i960s really have a 50-60MBps throughput limit. Granted, if you're going to do RAID-5, then it'll get you far better performance than a 3Ware 8506 series at writes. The 3Ware (let alone even software RAID-5) will kill it at reads, but when it comes to writes, 3Ware 8506s won't break 30MBps (and software RAID-5 will typically either do worse, or slam your CPU-memory-I/O interconnect so hard it'll be busy with nothing else). I sure wish a tier-1 OEM put an XScale solution in, instead of age-old i960 products. Oh well, wishful thinking I guess. ;-> > which is real raid and nativly supported on Centos3/4 LSI Logic (like their acquisitions Avansys and Symbios Logic) always supported Linux quite extensively. Despite i960 and standards like I2O, some vendors *COUGH*Adaptec*COUGH* didn't make all of their i960 products fully I2O-compliant and compatible with the DPT driver (it was largely just former DPT products that were, or DPT designs Adaptec took over). -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

RE: [CentOS] CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Mark A. Lewis 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

> Depending on age of the 1850s and it seems all the 1600s have > an issue when Anaconda is trying to detect USB. Do a no usb > install on those. > Also, on the 1850, if you're using a raid card, you may need > to disable the onboard raid as it can be touchy. Otherwise, I > have 3000Rs, 1850Rs, DL360Rs (which i won't buy again as > these have been the most unreliable) and DL380s, all happily > chugging along on ver 3 and ver 4 installs. I did hit some > snags with LVM conflicts. I think the proprietary scsi > conflicted, but setting up with disk druid has always been reliable. > > John Hinton Let me guess, power supply fan failures on the 360's? If it helps, the newer ones have come a long way. On topic, I have CentOS on: DL360G1 DL380G1 and G2 DL580G1 and G2 PL8000 PL8500 No issues on any of them that I can recall. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

7 10

RE: [CentOS] CentOS on Compaq Proliant Rackmount Servers
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Robert Hanson <roberth(a)abbacomm.net> > Is it currently worth getting used dual PIII 1850R's or should I start with > used dual PIII DL380's and like 1Ghz minimum processor speed? Depends, I'll have to investigate the width of the interconnect of a ProLiant 1850 v. ProLiant DL380. This is typically dependent on the chipset. Anything i440 will _suck_. Ideally you want a ServerWorks IIIHE, although a IIILE is at least better than an i440 (but an IIIHE has far better FSB/memory width). > I couldn't find used 1850R's on eBay with more than 600Mhz. That matters little. What matters is the chipset and interconnect. Hmmm ... according to this page (2nd hand, not always ideal): http://www.bnv-bamberg.de/home/ba3294/smp/rbuild/ The ProLiant 1850 is a i440GX (_avoid_, along with i440BX). You're going to be stuck in I/O hell. The ProLiant DL380 is a ServerSet IIILE, not ideal, but better. You at least get 4-8x the I/O of a i440BX/GX. Getting _exact_ model numbers helps. I've seen a few ProLiants mentioned with ServerSet IIIHE chipsets. But I assume those aren't quickly sold. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Having problems compiling program
by Edward Croft 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

I get the errors: zip4_lnx.a(generic.o)(.text+0xb16): more undefined references to `__ctype_b' follow zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_close(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_catch_error(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_addr(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_lookup_versioned_symbol_skip(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_lookup_versioned_symbol(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_lookup_symbol(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_loaded(a)GLIBC_2.1' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_open(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_signal_error(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_global_scope(a)GLIBC_2.0' zip4_lnx.a(libdl.so): undefined reference to `_dl_lookup_symbol_skip(a)GLIBC_2.0' I have the compatibility libraries installed. I have tried using gcc296, gcc, and gcc4 and still get the message. The library,libdl.so.2 is in /lib with a symlink to /usr/lib/libdl.so Using CentOS 4.0. -- If the sane say the insane are insane, What if the sane are insane? Would that make the insane sane? Explains a lot in Washington! --E. Croft

1 0

Netowrk addresses contactor
by Chris Mason (Lists) 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

Does anyone know how to control electrical load remotely using Linux? I'm thjinking a network addressable contactor (200 Amp) but I have not been able to source one. -- Chris Mason NetConcepts (264) 497-5670 Fax: (264) 497-8463 Int: (305) 704-7249 Fax: (815)301-9759 Cell: 264-235-5670 Yahoo IM: netconcepts_anguilla(a)yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Fix passwd/shadow/group files? -- Samba 3.0 v. ADS v. CIFS
by Bryan J. Smith 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

From: Feizhou > You assume too much and you are not clear enough in what > you post. You didn't even know what a KDC was, so my assumptions were pretty easy to make. You keep saying "Samba, Samba, Samba" over and over like Samba does it all. It does _not_. > Geez....I've been trying to get whether you are saying there was a way > to do the whole ADS DC thing without a MS-Kerberos in the mix. And I've been trying to tell you that: 1) MS Kerberos extensions are now part of UNIX/Linux Kerberos 5 implementations 2) Hence why Samba 3.0 does _not_ provide this, it merely uses it. So _yes_, you _can_ bypass the need for a native Windows ADS DC on your network! But _no_, Samba 3.0 does not provide functionality for sync'ing Samba DC to MS ADS DC. It's an "all Samba" or "all MS DC" choice. > How do you get centralized user account management without > MS Kerberos? Again, MS Kerberos are just extensions to Kerberos, ones supported in new, open source Kerberos 5 servers. If they hadn't, then Samba 3.0 would not be able to act as either a member server in a MS ADS network, or emultate a MS Kerberos KDC without one. This has *0* to do with Samba. There are thousands upon thousands of enterprises running with Novell eDirectory, NsDS, Sun One, etc.. using their own management suite for Windows clients. In many cases, a few are vastly more experienced, featured and superior IMHO. I think what you're looking for is an experience where all the interfaces and schema are emulated to you can run any Microsoft management tools, tools written explicitly for undocumented MS schema and interfaces. You're looking at the problem from an impossible solution standpoint. That's the problem.

2 4

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
24
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss July 2005