Discuss April 2011

discuss@lists.centos.org

312 participants
282 discussions

Centos 6 Update?
by David Brian Chait 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

All, As much as I hate to ask, how is this project coming along? We are approaching the 4 month post-release point... -David

11 11

centos 5.6 live cd - not installable to " hard drive?"
by Johan Scheepers 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

Good day, Downloaded centos 5.6 live cd from... http://mirror.nexcess.net/CentOS/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.i… it is dated 06-04-2011. No option to install on hard disk. Have I missed it somehow? Please some advice. Maybe the address if an installable cd iso please. Thanks Johan

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by Les Mikesell 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

On 4/7/2011 8:47 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf >> Of David Sommerseth >> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM >> To: centos(a)centos.org >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update? >> >> Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux. > > [Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]: > > Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release... They come up every time that the methodology and resources of the developers don't produce the results expected by the users. The fact that this has historically only happened around release times is coincidental. People are (correctly) fearful of putting blind faith in optimistic engineers who say everything will be fine without saying why they believe that or why they reject suggestions for changes that might be improvements. While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are driving people away. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

8 13

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by Hendrik 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

2011/4/6 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists(a)karan.org>: > On 04/06/2011 09:53 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: >>> That's not hard to do - stop reading them then. >> >> And once again we are avoiding a proper solution. >> > > No, once again you dont understand the issues, the problem or the > efforts going into the solution. > > Really, try stopping reading for a few weeks. You might surprise yourself. Do you notice nothing? Or is that the Indian mentality? -- Hendrik

13 14

why are warning be treated as errors?
by Steve Clark 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

Hello, I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into the following problem. From what I read -Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see that flag on in the following. Any ideas? gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -Iinclude -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include include/linux/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include include/linux/autoconf.h -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__ -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -march=i386 -mregparm=3 -include /home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot/code16gcc.h -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -ffreestanding -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-stack-protector -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -m32 -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)" -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)" -D"DEBUG_HASH=57" -D"DEBUG_HASH2=38" -c -o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.tmp_wakemain.o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakemain.c cc1: warnings being treated as errors arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_suspend': arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2008:3: error: statement with no effect arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_resume': arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2085:3: error: statement with no effect make[5]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.o] Error 1 make[4]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic] Error 2 Thanks, -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark(a)netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com

5 6

Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
by Brian Mathis 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Sorin Srbu <sorin.srbu(a)orgfarm.uu.se> wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf >>Of David Sommerseth >>Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 3:42 PM >>To: centos(a)centos.org >>Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update? >> >>Which is why I'm investigating a migration to Scientific Linux. > > [Lurking on the sideline and watching the argument(s)]: > > Funny how these discussions come up just in time for each new release... > -- > /Sorin Yes, stating the obvious. When there's nothing new the project should be focusing on improving things to become stronger to withstand the storm of the next release cycle. It only becomes obvious that has not been done at times like this when the storm has arrived. // Brian Mathis

1 0

Re: [CentOS] ZFS @ centOS
by Chuck Munro 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

On 04/05/2011 09:00 AM, rainer(a)ultra-secure.de wrote: > > That is really a no-brainer. > In the time it takes to re-build such a "RAID", another disk might just > fail and the "R in "RAID" goes down the toilet. Your 19-disk RAID5 just > got turned into 25kg of scrap-metal. > > As for ZFS - we're using it with FreeBSD with mixed results. > The truth is, you've got to follow the development very closely and work > with the developers (via mailinglists), potentially testing > patches/backports from current - or tracking current from the start. > It works much better with Solaris. > Frankly, I don't know why people want to do this ZFS on Linux thing. > It works perfectly well with Solaris, which runs most stuff that runs on > Linux just as well. > I wouldn't try to run Linux-binaries on Solaris with lxrun, either. > During my current work building a RAID-6 VM Host system (currently testing with SL-6 but later CentOS-6) I had a question rolling around in the back of my mind whether or not I should consider building the Host with OpenSolaris (or the OpenIndiana fork) and ZFS RAID-Z2, which I had heard performs somewhat better on Solaris. I'd then run CentOS Guest OS instances with VirtualBox. But ... I've been reading about some of the issues with ZFS performance and have discovered that it needs a *lot* of RAM to support decent caching ... the recommendation is for a GByte of RAM per TByte of storage just for the metadata, which can add up. Maybe cache memory starvation is one reason why so many disappointing test results are showing up. Chuck

3 2

Mirrors
by Kai Schaetzl 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

I noticed that I didn't get any of the 5.6 updates rsynced yet, so I checked my mirror and then the mirrors list. This mirror is indeed not on the list anymore and also not on the status page. However, I see other mirrors still on the list that are lagging for days. And I see that this mirror has a full 5.6 directory (maybe not complete, though, but quite full). I don't see any removal announcement about it on centos-mirror either. So, I'm wondering if this mirror is now a mirror or not or if it has just fallen off the list somehow? Talking of: ftp://rsync.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/centos/ I also notice that /5 is a directory and not a symlink as 4 and 3 are. But this is the same on mirror.centos.org. Why isn't it a symlink? Kai

1 0

Re: [CentOS] why are warning be treated as errors?
by Steve Clark 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

On 04/07/2011 09:13 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Steve Clark<sclark(a)netwolves.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am trying to compile RHEL-6 kernel srpm on Fedora 14 and run into the >> following problem. From what I read >> -Werror flag causes warnings to be treated as errors - but I don't see that >> flag on in the following. Any ideas? >> >> gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.wakemain.o.d -nostdinc >> -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -nostdinc -isystem >> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-redhat-linux/4.5.1/include -Iinclude >> -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include >> include/linux/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude >> -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/include -include >> include/linux/autoconf.h -g -Os -D_SETUP -D_WAKEUP -D__KERNEL__ >> -I/home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot >> -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -march=i386 -mregparm=3 -include >> /home/sclark/rpmbuild/BUILD/kernel-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/../../../boot/code16gcc.h >> -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -ffreestanding >> -fno-toplevel-reorder -fno-stack-protector -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 >> -m32 -D"KBUILD_STR(s)=#s" -D"KBUILD_BASENAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)" >> -D"KBUILD_MODNAME=KBUILD_STR(wakemain)" -D"DEBUG_HASH=57" -D"DEBUG_HASH2=38" >> -c -o arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/.tmp_wakemain.o >> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakemain.c >> cc1: warnings being treated as errors >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_suspend': >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2008:3: error: statement with no effect >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c: In function 'lapic_resume': >> arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:2085:3: error: statement with no effect >> make[5]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.o] Error 1 >> make[4]: *** [arch/x86/kernel/apic] Error 2 >> >> Have you checked on the Fedora forums, or mailing list? >> >> I googled for it. I thought that since RHEL-6 is going to soon be Centos 6 that someone on this list might know the answer. I am only using RHEL-6 til Centos 6 is released and will have to recompile the srpm for the kernel then so I thought I would get a head start. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark(a)netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com

1 0

Re: [CentOS] KVM Host Disk Performance
by Chuck Munro 07 Apr '11

07 Apr '11

On 04/04/2011 09:00 AM, compdoc wrote: > > It's possible to set up guests to use a block device that will get you the > same disk I/O as the underlying storage. > > Is that what you're seeing? What speed does the host see when benchmarking > the RAID volumes, and what speeds do the guests see? > > Yes, I have been going on the assumption that I get close to native block device performance, but the test results tell me otherwise. I see array rebuild data rates which seem reasonable ... in the order of 60 to 80 MBytes/sec. I'm using 256k chunks, with the stride size set to match the number of data drives. Using bonnie++, I mounted one of the Guest RAID-6 filesystems on the Host, ran the default tests, unmounted, then booted the Guest and ran the same default tests. The amount of RAM assigned was the same for both, to level the playing field a bit. Direct comparisons between the two were difficult to judge, but the general result was that the Host was between 2:1 and 3:1 better than the Guest, which seems to be a rather large performance gap. Latency differences were all over the map, which I find puzzling. The Host is 64-bit and the Guest 32-bit, if that makes any difference. Perhaps caching between Host and Guest accounts for some of the differences. At the moment my questions tend to be a bit academic. I'm primarily wondering if RAID-10 is paranoid enough given the current quality of WD CaviarBlack drives (better than dirt-cheap consumer drives, but not enterprise grade). My second question relates to whether or not the added overhead of using something like qcow2 would be offset by the advantages of more space efficiency and the copy-on-write feature. I'd love to hear what other software RAID users think, especially regarding large-capacity drives. It's rare for a modern drive to hand out bad data without an accompanying error condition (which the md driver should handle), but I have read that uncaught bad data is possible and would not be flagged in RAID arrays which don't use parity calculations. Chuck

7 8

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...
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