Discuss April 2011

discuss@lists.centos.org

312 participants
282 discussions

Re: [CentOS] [OT] ups advice
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

Kevin Thorpe wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, admin lewis <adminlewis(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> I have a Dell PowerEdge T310 *tower* server.. I have to buy an ups by apc... anyone could help me giving an hint ? >> a simple "smart ups 1000" could be enough ? > > It depends on how long you want it to run. Your choice is a small UPS to give your server just enough time to shut down or a big UPS to allow you to > carry on working for some time. And it depends on what you're trying to deal with: if it's occasional brown or blackouts, or power flickers (let's not talk about Chicago, for example), then you need enough power to provide all it will draw for a couple minutes at most. If you're looking at longer power outages, you'll need something a lot bigger, though one suitable for the above purpose would usually allow it to shut down gracefully; it's not like Linux takes a long, long time to shutdown. <snip> > people have laptops. If you're running big processes on the server then you need long enough to let them complete or shut down gracefully. Heh. Depends on your definition of "big processes", says the guy whose users normally are running jobs that run for *days*, if not weeks. mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:37:15 AM Christopher Chan wrote: >> I used XFS extensively when I was running mail server farms for the mail queue filesystem and I only remember one or two incidents when the filesystem was marked read-only for no reason (seemingly - never had the time to find out why) but a reboot fixed those. > > I've had that happen, recently, with ext3 on CentOS 4. I've had that happen, also. It usually indicates a drive dying. mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
by Lars Hecking 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

> OTOH, gparted doesn't see my software raid array either. Gparted it rather > practical for regular plain vanilla partitions, but for more advanced stuff and > filesystems, fdisk is probably better. For filersystems > 2TB, you're better off grabbing a copy of GPT fdisk.

5 6

Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
by Peter Kjellström 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

On Thursday, April 14, 2011 04:15:10 PM Sorin Srbu wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > >Behalf Of Peter Kjellström > >Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:31 PM > >To: centos(a)centos.org > >Subject: Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations > > > >On Tuesday, April 12, 2011 03:10:33 PM Lars Hecking wrote: > >> > OTOH, gparted doesn't see my software raid array either. Gparted it > >> > rather practical for regular plain vanilla partitions, but for more > >> > advanced stuff and filesystems, fdisk is probably better. > >> > >> For filersystems > 2TB, you're better off grabbing a copy of GPT fdisk. > > > >Even better, use LVM and stay away from partitioning completely. > > Wasn't there some gotchas' regarding LVM's and ext4?? I might be imagining > things things... If you can't find anything better than "I might be imagining things" then maybe, for the sake of singnal to noise, either don't contribute or chase down some additional data first... Then again, the thread is about 40T fs size and ext4 tops out at 16T at the moment so... /Peter

1 0

CentOS 5.5 yum update with reference to 5.6
by Bernard Fay 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

Hello group, I have a CentOS 5.5 server freshly installed. When I do a yum updated package_name, I have referenced to 5.6. Why? Here is an example: yum update vsftpd --changelog Loaded plugins: changelog, fastestmirror, security addons/other | 192 B 00:00 base/other_db | 11 MB 00:50 extras/other_db | 442 kB 00:01 updates/other_db | 2.8 MB 00:11 http://centos.arcticnetwork.ca/*5.6*/updates/x86_64/repodata/other.sqlite.b…: [Errno -1] Metadata file does not match checksum Trying other mirror. updates/other_db | 2.7 MB 00:22 Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * addons: mirror.science.uottawa.ca * base: mirror.science.uottawa.ca * extras: mirror.science.uottawa.ca * updates: mirror.science.uottawa.ca Skipping security plugin, no data Setting up Update Process Resolving Dependencies Skipping security plugin, no data --> Running transaction check ---> Package vsftpd.x86_64 0:2.0.5-16.el5_6.1 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution Changes in packages about to be updated: vsftpd-2.0.5-16.el5_6.1.x86_64 * Fri Mar 4 17:00:00 2011 Jiri Skala <jskala(a)redhat.com> - 2.0.5-16.el5_6.1 - Resolves: #681893 - CVE-2011-0762 vsftpd: remote DoS via crafted glob pattern * Thu Apr 8 18:00:00 2010 Jiri Skala <jskala(a)redhat.com> - 2.0.5-16.el5_5.1 - Resolves: #580055 - vsftpd prematurely closes connection just before processing of post-auth command - Resolves: #580396 - vsftpd issues in RHEL5 Dependencies Resolved ======================================================================================================================================== Package Arch Version Repository Size ======================================================================================================================================== Updating: vsftpd x86_64 2.0.5-16.el5_6.1 updates 139 k Transaction Summary ======================================================================================================================================== Install 0 Package(s) Upgrade 1 Package(s) Total download size: 139 k The version installed is 5.5: [root@future_qljnl51p yum.repos.d]# lsb_release -a LSB Version: :core-3.1-amd64:core-3.1-ia32:core-3.1-noarch:graphics-3.1-amd64:graphics-3.1-ia32:graphics-3.1-noarch Distributor ID: CentOS Description: CentOS release 5.5 (Final) Release: 5.5 Codename: Final -- Bernard

3 3

Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
by Christopher Chan 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

On Thursday, April 14, 2011 02:54 PM, Sorin Srbu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf >> Of Christopher Chan >> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:49 PM >> To: centos(a)centos.org >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations >> >>>> While we are at it, disks being directly connected to the raid card will >>>> mean there won't be bus contention from nics and what not whereas >>>> software raid 5/6 would have to deal with that. >>> >>> Could that really be an issue as well? What kind of traffic levels are we >>> speaking of now? Approximately? That is to say, in as much this can be >>> quantified at all. >>> >>> I've never really seen this problem. >> >> Oh yeah, we are on PCIe and NUMA architectures now. I guess this point >> no longer applies just like hardware raid being crap no longer applies >> because they are not underpowered i960/tiny cache boards anymore. > > I'm sorry, I can't quite "read you". Is your reply meant to be sarcastic? If I > misunderstood it, I apologize. > > Anyway, what I meant before was that I haven't really the problem with smaller > systems, like for eg department backups. Maybe up to 10TB-file systems, with not > too many user's homefolders, in the hundreds maybe, but still a lot of data > being transferred each day. I know what you meant...and yes, the bus has plenty of bandwidth to not have to worry unless you are sticking it on a 1x lane slot.

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by Hendrik 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

2011/4/5 Dag Wieers <dag(a)wieers.com>: >> You are one of the few who care to give updates, so thanks for that. > > Nobody else really can give an update, the process is pretty much closed to > the general public. So if the only person why can provide information is off > by 2 months, I'd rather have no information at all. Now is the time to change that. Maybe CentOS just needs a new leadership? -- Hendrik

36 166

bizarre system slowness
by Florin Andrei 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

Running v5 64bit on a Dell 1950. A cluster of 3 DB machines, identical hardware. One of them suddenly became slower 2 weeks ago. tar -zxf with a large file on this machine takes 1.5 minutes, but takes only 10 seconds on any of its siblings. CPU usage seems high while untarring, with lots of user and sys cycles being used, but almost no wait cycles. It doesn't matter whether I untar on a local disk, or on a fiber channel SAN volume, it's slow anyway. scp a file over the network is slow too: 6 MB/s to this machine, 70 MB/s to its siblings. However, this is just as fast on all systems, including the "sick" one: # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=1M count=100000 100000+0 records in 100000+0 records out 104857600000 bytes (105 GB) copied, 2.59213 seconds, 40.5 GB/s real 0m2.600s user 0m0.025s sys 0m2.550s /proc/cpuinfo looks fine. Nothing suspect in dmesg. Reboot doesn't fix it. Power off / power on doesn't fix it. Single mode is slow too, and I tried a couple different kernels. Dell's online diagnostics program could find nothing wrong with it. /var/log/messages was full of "ntpd[7313]: frequency error -1707 PPM exceeds tolerance 500 PPM" messages. There was a lot of messages about "the system limit for the maximum number of semaphore sets has been exceeded"; there was indeed a lot of leftover semaphores created by NRPE (owned by the nagios user); I deleted them but nothing has changed, so they were a symptom, not the cause. I'm still kind of hoping it's a software issue, but chances are slim. OTOH, I can't imagine any hardware problem that would exhibit these symptoms. Any idea what to test? -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/

7 8

Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations
by Christopher Chan 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:32 PM, Sorin Srbu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf >> Of Christopher Chan >> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:45 PM >> To: centos(a)centos.org >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] 40TB File System Recommendations >> >> While we are at it, disks being directly connected to the raid card will >> mean there won't be bus contention from nics and what not whereas >> software raid 5/6 would have to deal with that. > > Could that really be an issue as well? What kind of traffic levels are we > speaking of now? Approximately? That is to say, in as much this can be > quantified at all. > > I've never really seen this problem. Oh yeah, we are on PCIe and NUMA architectures now. I guess this point no longer applies just like hardware raid being crap no longer applies because they are not underpowered i960/tiny cache boards anymore.

2 1

a pc running centos 5.5 x64 (yum update to 5.6), can't hibernate, from shutdown menu.
by zoge 14 Apr '11

14 Apr '11

from the gnome menu, system->shutdown, then press the hibernate button on the popup window. during the process, the system stoped ,after shrink memory and free many pages. any suggest? tnks.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
...
29
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss April 2011