Discuss March 2012

discuss@lists.centos.org

217 participants
198 discussions

Re: [CentOS] md raid 10
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, <m.roth(a)5-cent.us> 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 for years. >> >> Sorry, that doesn't work either: *everything* new seems to need a lot more power than the older stuff. Certainly, last time I upgraded my own system, I had to buy one that was 150% the power of the old one. > > That was probably before power became a big thing for servers - in most cases now power and cooling are the limiting factors for > expansion in a data center. Most of the new servers use 2.5" drives and while they might still use as much power per 1u of space due to using more blades in a chassis or having more CPUs and RAM, we get much more performance from the same space and power consumption. 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. 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.... mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] md raid 10
by Les Mikesell 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> 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 your servers permanently? For an unfortunately large number, yes. > i do not, i move the VMware-Images to new hosts / SAN storages > without any interruption and if you maintain them well this > works over many years and dist-upgrades Our servers dealing with financial exchange data live on the bleeding edge of capacity and can't afford the overhead of virtualization. So we end up replacing the backend servers wholesale every few years, re-purposing the older generation for less demanding tasks. But, within the realm of hardware with compatible drivers there's not a whole lot of difference in the effort to copy a VM image or a hardware image with clonezilla or a similar approach. I agree that VMware is great where it works, though. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [CentOS] md raid 10
by Miguel Medalha 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

> 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 drives?

1 0

hardware issues? driver issues?
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

Got a bunch of servers from Penguin. Supermicro m/b's H8QG6. We put a 3tb drive in for additional workspace for the users, and some of them won't read, others will go for weeks, then spit out DRDY errors. lshw shows the controller as an ATI SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 SATA. I did notice that it shows *-storage description: SATA controller product: SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 SATA Controller [AHCI mode] vendor: ATI Technologies Inc <snip> width: 32 bits ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ clock: 66MHz ^^^^^^^^^^^^ capabilities: storage pm ahci_1.0 bus_master cap_list >From /var/log/dmesg: pci 0000:00:0d.0: PME# supported from D0 D3hot D3cold pci 0000:00:0d.0: PME# disabled pci 0000:00:11.0: reg 10 io port: [0xd000-0xd007] pci 0000:00:11.0: reg 14 io port: [0xc000-0xc003] pci 0000:00:11.0: reg 18 io port: [0xb000-0xb007] pci 0000:00:11.0: reg 1c io port: [0xa000-0xa003] pci 0000:00:11.0: reg 20 io port: [0x9000-0x900f] pci 0000:00:11.0: reg 24 32bit mmio: [0xdfefa400-0xdfefa7ff] <...> ahci 0000:00:11.0: version 3.0 alloc irq_desc for 22 on node 0 alloc kstat_irqs on node 0 ahci 0000:00:11.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 22 (level, low) -> IRQ 22 ahci 0000:00:11.0: AHCI 0001.0100 32 slots 4 ports 3 Gbps 0xf impl SATA mode ahci 0000:00:11.0: flags: 64bit ncq sntf ilck pm led clo pmp pio slum part ccc <...> ata1: SATA max UDMA/133 abar m1024@0xdfefa400 port 0xdfefa500 irq 22 ata2: SATA max UDMA/133 abar m1024@0xdfefa400 port 0xdfefa580 irq 22 I've included the above, because I note the 32bit mmio, but the 64bit flag; also the clock speed for the controller. Now, I've been working on one with Penguin. I noticed one thing, that it was set to native IDE. After googling, I saw that the most recent spec, which included EIDE, should be good to petabytes... but I tried resetting it to AHCI anyway. The user ran one job, ok... then another last night, and it's spitting the same errors. In /var/log/messages, I see JBD: detected IO errors while flushing file data: Mar 7 00:53:28 <server> kernel: ata2.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x3 SErr 0x0 action 0x6 frozen Mar 7 00:53:28 <server> kernel: ata2.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED Mar 7 00:53:28 <server> kernel: ata2.00: cmd 61/08:00:72:4a:a4/00:00:ae:00:00/40 tag 0 ncq 4096 out Mar 7 00:53:28 <server> kernel: res 40/00:04:20:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/40 Emask 0x4 (timeout) Mar 7 00:53:28 <server> kernel: ata2.00: status: { DRDY } <...> Mar 7 00:53:28 <server> kernel: ata2: hard resetting link Mar 7 00:53:33 <server> kernel: ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) Mar 7 00:53:33 <server> kernel: ata2.00: configured for UDMA/133 Mar 7 00:53:33 <server> kernel: ata2.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0 Mar 7 00:53:33 <server> kernel: ata2: EH complete Notice the "device reported invalid CHS sector 0". The drive does have a GPT rather than an MBR. So, has anyone else seen similar problems, or have some suggestions as to something I can try? Penguin's still waiting for a response from Supermicro, and has escalated.... mark

2 2

Recent kernel update vs usb disk
by wwp 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

Hello there, since kernel update 2.6.32-220.4.1.el6, one of my USB external SATA drives is not mounting. With kernel 2.6.32-131.21.1.el6, it auto-mounts in GNOME desktop when I plug the disk. When I plug the disk, this wakes it up and I see in /var/log/messages: kernel: usb 2-4.2: USB disconnect, address 11 kernel: usb 2-2: new high speed USB device using ehci_hcd and address 13 kernel: usb 2-2: New USB device found, idVendor=1ca1, idProduct=18a9 kernel: usb 2-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3 kernel: usb 2-2: Product: Usb Sata Bridge kernel: usb 2-2: Manufacturer: SYMWAVE kernel: usb 2-2: SerialNumber: 3559443452593133 kernel: usb 2-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice kernel: scsi11 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices but it's not getting mounted. Any hint where I could grab more information? Regards, -- wwp

2 4

CentOS 6.2 software raid 10 with LVM - Need help with degraded drive and only one MBR
by Jonathan Vomacka 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

CentOS Community, I have a dedicated server with 4 hard drives in a RAID 10 software configuration running LVM. My OS is CentOS 6.2. Earlier today, I rebooted my system and my system did not come back online. I opened a ticket with my datacenter who informed me that one of my hard drives is no longer recognized by the bios and has failed. I was told that an OS reinstall was needed. I don't understand why a reinstall would be necessary when the drives are in RAID 10. Apparently when the datacenter did the initial OS install, they ONLY installed the MBR on one drive instead of all 4 leaving the other 3 drives unbootable. Is this a way to salvage this with a liveCD without having to reload the OS? This server is a very important mail server running OpenLDAP and MySQL. I figured maybe I could install the MBR using a liveCD which may fix the system. If an OS reload is the ONLY option, is there a way to reload it without touching the /var or /opt filesystems? (yes they were created as a seperate partition) however I am not sure if OpenLDAP or MySQL installs anything to /usr which I would be completely screwed... Please help

14 29

kickstart partitioning and cylinder boundary
by Erez Zarum 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

As I understand anaconda uses parted to partition (starting from centos 6), using this as example (kickstart configuration file): clearpart --all --drives=sda --initlabel part /boot --asprimary --size=200 --fstype=ext2 --ondisk=sda part swap --asprimary --size=16384 --fstype=swap --ondisk=sda part / --asprimary --size=512000 --fstype=ext4 --ondisk=sda part /scratch --asprimary --size=1 --grow --fstype=ext4 --ondisk=sda I can see no problems in parted: GNU Parted 2.1 Using /dev/sda Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) p Model: Adaptec OS (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 1999GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 211MB 210MB primary ext2 boot 2 211MB 537GB 537GB primary ext4 3 537GB 554GB 17.2GB primary linux-swap(v1) 4 554GB 1999GB 1445GB primary ext4 Yet, fdisk –l report: Disk /dev/sda: 1999.3 GB, 1999307276288 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243068 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0006e122 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 26 204800 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 26 65297 524288000 83 Linux /dev/sda3 65297 67386 16777216 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda4 67386 243069 1411177472 83 Linux As you can see, /dev/sda1 End at 26 and /dev/sda2 Start at 26. But, fdisk –lu report otherwise: Disk /dev/sda: 1999.3 GB, 1999307276288 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 243068 cylinders, total 3904897024 sectors Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x0006e122 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 2048 411647 204800 83 Linux Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary. /dev/sda2 411648 1048987647 524288000 83 Linux /dev/sda3 1048987648 1082542079 16777216 82 Linux swap / Solaris /dev/sda4 1082542080 3904897023 1411177472 83 Linux I assume I can ignore it and it’s a bug on fdisk? This does not happen on 5.7.

2 1

gdm in 6.2 missing keyboard menu?
by James Pearson 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

I have a box running 6.0 that gives a keyboard layout menu via gdm when logging in. I've just installed a 6.2 box, but there is no keyboard layout menu I've found a bugzilla entry at: <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746923> which says that with gdm in 6.2, it now only shows keyboard layouts listed in /etc/sysconfig/keyboard However, I've added a list of keyboard layouts as suggested by that BZ, but I still don't get a keyboard menu. Is there anything else I've missed? Thanks James Pearson

2 1

Re: [CentOS] LibreOffice rpm's vs Centos testing repo
by James B. Byrne 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

On Mon, February 27, 2012 12:10, nux(a)li.nux.ro wrote: > Ljubomir Ljubojevic writes: > >> Those packages do not need to stay in testing repo. All >> that is >> necessary is for several people use packages from >> testing repo and >> report that they are working without issues to the >> Centos-devel mailing >> list in this thread: >> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-September/008159.html >> , >> and packages will be moved to Extras repo. > > Hi, > > Several people have tested this successfully. You can even > get slightly > newer packages from here: > http://li.nux.ro/download/nux/libreoffice/el6/x86_64/ that > Karanbir hasn't > yet got around to putting in testing (there's a *-release > rpm there, too). > I would advise against using libeoffice.org supplied RPMs > at this stage as > RHEL are also getting ready to release LO 3.4.5 in EL6 > that will (hopefully) > gracefully upgrade my packages. > For what it is worth, I am running LibreOffice 3.5.0 installed from rpms provided by the document foundation and having no troubles with write or calc. I do not really use the other parts so on those I cannot comment. In fact, the experience is far better than I had with OpenOffice-3.3, which was so bad I went back to the 3.2 version provided with CentOS. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3

3 3

Software RAID1 with CentOS-6.2
by Kahlil Hodgson 07 Mar '12

07 Mar '12

Hello, Having a problem with software RAID that is driving me crazy. Here's the details: 1. CentOS 6.2 x86_64 install from the minimal iso (via pxeboot). 2. Reasonably good PC hardware (i.e. not budget, but not server grade either) with a pair of 1TB Western Digital SATA3 Drives. 3. Drives are plugged into the SATA3 ports on the mainboard (both drives and cables say they can do 6Gb/s). 4. During the install I set up software RAID1 for the two drives with two raid partitions: md0 - 500M for /boot md1 - "the rest" for a physical volume 5. Setup LVM on md1 in the standard slash, swap, home layout Install goes fine (actually really fast) and I reboot into CentoS 6.2. Next I ran yum update, added a few minor packages and performed some basic configuration. Now I start to get I/O errors on printed on the console. Run 'mdadm -D /dev/md1' and see the array is degraded and /dev/sdb2 has been marked as faulty. Okay, fair enough, I've got at least one bad drive. I boot the system from a live usb and run the short and long SMART tests on both drive. No problems reported but I know that can be misleading, so I'm going to have to gather some evidence before I try to return these drives. I run badblocks in destructive mode on both drives as follows badblocks -w -b 4096 -c 98304 -s /dev/sda badblocks -w -b 4096 -c 98304 -s /dev/sdb Come back the next day and see that no errors are reported. Er thats odd. I check the SMART data in case badblocks activity has triggered something. Nope. Maybe I screwed up the install somehow? So I start again and repeat the install process very carefully. This time I check the raid array straight after boot. mdadm -D /dev/md0 - all is fine. mdadm -D /dev/md1 - the two drives are resyncing. Okay, that is odd. The RAID1 array was created at the start of the install process, before any software was installed. Surely it should be in sync already? Googled a bit and found a post were someone else had seen same thing happen. The advice was to just wait until the drives sync so the 'blocks match exactly' but I'm not really happy with the explanation. At this rate its going to take a whole day to do a single minimal install and I'm sure I would have heard others complaining about the process. Anyway, I leave the system to sync for the rest of the day. When I get back to it I see the same (similar) I/O errors on the console and mdadm shows the RAID array is degraded, /dev/sdb2 has been marked as faulty. This time I notice that the I/O errors all refer to /dev/sda. Have to reboot because the fs is now readonly. When the system comes back up, its trying to resync the drive again. Eh? Any ideas what is going on here? If its bad drives, I really need some confirmation independent of the software raid failing. I thought SMART or badblocks give me that. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the drives. Could a problem with the mainboard or the memory cause this issue? Is it a SATA3 issue? Should I try it on the 3Gb/s channels since there's probably little speed difference with non-SSDs? Cheers, Kal

11 18

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 March 2012