Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

RE: [CentOS] Write performance with 3ware 9550
by Bowie Bailey 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

chrism(a)imntv.com wrote: > Kirk Bocek wrote: > > I saw a definite improvement by turning off NCQ and setting StorSave > > to 'Balanced.' Are these 1.5GB/Sec or 3.0GB/Sec SATA drives? During > > my testing I changed from non-interleaved memory and 1.5GB to > > interleaved and 3.0GB. Made a big difference in bonnie++ results. > > Unfortunately, I can't say which was more important. > > > > If you have the patience, read through my recent (but lengthy) > > thread on the 3Ware 9550 titled "Calling All FS Fanatics." There's > > a lot of good info from many helpful people. I've only gotten full > > performance using JFS or XFS. > > > > I'm doing this from memory as the machine is at another location now. > I think I did this: > > turned off ncq (per Josh's suggestion) Tried that, it made a small improvement (see my previous post). > turned on write caching (it's on an oversized ups and the data isn't > critical) Write caching is on. I've got a BBU, so the data is protected. > set storsave to "performance" I prefer to leave this one as is to take advantage of the write journaling. > changed the memory interleave (thanks to kirk's suggestion). It was > off by default. This one I would like to try. Can you tell me where I can make the change? > used parted to create gpt disklabel What is the advantage of gpt over msdos? Can I make this change without recreating the filesystem? > set noatime and one other option that was suggested here for the RAID > partition Anyone know if noatime is recommended for a filesystem containing an Oracle database? What was the other option? > used mke2fs -j -b 4096 /dev/blah I used 'mkfs.ext3 /dev/blah'. It created 4K blocks. > That was it. > > Also, I tried the same array as a RAID0 device on the same box and the > performance was approximately the same (maybe ever so slightly > faster). Raid0 should be faster, particularly with writes since it doesn't have to calculate parity. -- Bowie

1 0

RE: [CentOS] Write performance with 3ware 9550
by Bowie Bailey 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Non-interleaved memory sounds interesting. Where do I change that setting? I don't want to change the StorSave setting. I'm not really looking for maximum performance here, just reasonable. If I can get the same 60 M/s speed that I got from the first server, I'll be happy. The drives are all running at 3.0GB/Sec according to the drive information in 3DM. I have read the entire "Calling All FS Fanatics" thread as it passed through the list. It was quite interesting, but the main things I got from it are: - Increase the read ahead settings - XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS are faster, but less fault-tolerant, than ext3 I have already changed the read ahead on both the physical volume and the logical volume. This gives me increased read performance, but has no effect on writes. I am sticking with ext3 since I am much more concerned about stability than performance. Bowie Kirk Bocek wrote: > I saw a definite improvement by turning off NCQ and setting StorSave > to 'Balanced.' Are these 1.5GB/Sec or 3.0GB/Sec SATA drives? During > my testing I changed from non-interleaved memory and 1.5GB to > interleaved and 3.0GB. Made a big difference in bonnie++ results. > Unfortunately, I can't say which was more important. > > If you have the patience, read through my recent (but lengthy) thread > on the 3Ware 9550 titled "Calling All FS Fanatics." There's a lot of > good info from many helpful people. I've only gotten full performance > using JFS or XFS. > > Kirk Bocek > > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first > > one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G > > drives. > > > > OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) > > CPU: dual Opteron 280 > > Memory: 16GB > > Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP > > Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled > > > > On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, > > but good enough. The second one has about 1/3 the write speed. I > > can't find any difference between the systems. Both of them have > > the same stripe size, both have ext3 filesystems, both have write > > caching and NCQ turned on. I have already increased the read ahead > > setting to 16384 on both servers. > > > > I ran the tests like this: > > > > # sync; bonnie++ -d /iotest -s 50g -n 0 -b -f > > (I have removed some extra information from the reports for brevity) > > > > And here are the results for the two servers: > > > > ------Output------- --Input-- > > --Block-- -Rewrite- --Block-- --Seeks-- > > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP > > First 50G 62893 25 46763 12 160672 19 120.6 1 > > Second 50G 18835 7 44025 12 194719 24 122.8 1 > > > > As you can see, the write performance of the second server is > > terrible. Anyone have any suggestions of what I can look for? I > > keep thinking there must be something I tweaked on the first server > > that I forgot about for the second one, but so far I haven't been > > able to find it. > > > > Any suggestions appreciated!

1 0

Live CD Build Error
by Faysal Banna 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Good day Guys I have worked around that Problem with yum and statically specified the release as 4.4 CentOS but now another problem with chroot arises . when i chroot chroot $LIVE chroot: cannot run command `/bin/bash': No such file or directory and to display the ls $LIVE/bin/ alsaunmute dd gtar mknod rpm traceroute arch df gunzip mktemp rvi traceroute6 ash dmesg gzip more rview true ash.static dnsdomainname hostname mount sed umount awk doexec igawk mt setfont uname basename domainname ipcalc mv setserial unicode_start bash dumpkeys kbd_mode netstat sh unicode_stop bsh echo kill nice sleep unlink cat ed ksh nisdomainname sort usleep chgrp egrep link pgawk stty vi chmod env ln ping su view chown ex loadkeys ping6 sync ypdomainname cp false login ps tar zcat cpio fgrep ls pwd tcsh csh gawk mail red touch cut gettext mailx rm tracepath date grep mkdir rmdir tracepath6 Regards. .... 'Good day Sir. 'I am trying to do LiveCD as described in Scientific Linux Live CD Page <http://linux.web.psi.ch/livecd/build.html> Yet i fail.... 'the system is running CentOs kernel 2.6.9-42.0.2.plus.c4smp 'with 8GB ram and two CPU's each Duo Core 64bit ' 'the error is nevertheless due to yum installation as described in your posted message. 'root@H-1 Build# yum -c $LIVE/etc/yum.conf --installroot=$LIVE install yum rootfiles shadow-utils \ '> bind-utils gnupg vim-enhanced vixie-cron crontabs passwd which kudzu dhclient \ '> pciutils eject alsa-utils mkisofs wget 'Setting up Install Process 'Setting up repositories 'not using ftp, http[s], or file for repos, skipping - Null is not a valid release or hasnt been released yet 'Cannot find a valid baseurl for repo: update 'Error: Cannot find a valid baseurl for repo: update 'root@H-1 Build# 'Regards 'Faysal Banna 'Meteorological Services 'Rafic Hariri International Airport 'Beirut - Lebanon 'Phone +961-1-628160 ' +961-3-258043 '

1 0

Training Material: Books about linux but targeting Centos installations
by Erick Perez 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Hi, I am about to give a training session in Linux, using Centos 4.4 as a base. I want to give my students (MS windows administrators) printed books about Linux and hopefully Centos based. It is a total of 20 books. I'm also interested in purchasing 20 copies of the DVD of Centos 4.4 x86/x86_64 distro. My initial search at amazon returned no useful results. It can be RHEL 4, Centos 4 or fedora 4 based but I really want them to be Centos if possible, given the fact that I often scracth RHEL intallations in favor of Centos (i know is the same base, but I would like to match the book with the distro). The books have to be focused to Linux administration and installation (like web,ssh.mail.etc). There is no need to cover in-depth programming (perl,bash,etc). Can anyone in the Centos community have some references of these books/DVDs for purchase? Thanks, -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Erick Perez Panama Sistemas Integradores de Telefonia IP y Soluciones Para Centros de Datos Panama, Republica de Panama Cel Panama. +(507) 6694-4780 ------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

RE: [CentOS] Write performance with 3ware 9550
by Bowie Bailey 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

chrism(a)imntv.com wrote: > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 at 4:22pm, Bowie Bailey wrote > > > > > > > I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the > > > > first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate > > > > 320G drives. > > > > > > > > OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) > > > > CPU: dual Opteron 280 > > > > Memory: 16GB > > > > Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP > > > > Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled > > > > > > > > On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing > > > > spectacular, but good enough. The second one has about 1/3 the > > > > write speed. I can't find any difference between the systems. > > > > Both of them have the same stripe size, both have ext3 > > > > filesystems, both have write caching and NCQ turned on. I have > > > > already increased the read ahead setting to 16384 on both > > > > servers. > > > Turn off NCQ. Last I knew, this was still 3ware's recommendation. > > > > I can try that, but when I tested on the first server, I found that > > disabling NCQ increased the read performance by 10M/s and decreased > > the write performance by 10M/s. Maybe I'll get different results > > from the Seagate drives. > > Here's what I'm getting from a dual Opteron 275 box, Centos 4.4-64bit, > 2gb RAM and an 8 drive array of 750gig Seagates: > > Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > localhost.locald 4G 248901 96 138957 40 308874 > 42 625.8 > > I've been applying all the various tricks that came up during the last > couple of threads. Turning NCQ off definitely made a big difference > for me. With NCQ off, I get these results: Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP Second 50G 20853 8 41899 11 192713 23 116.9 1 Write performance increased by 2M/s and read performance decreased by 2M/s. What tweaks have you applied so far? I would expect a 4-drive array to be slower than an 8-drive array, but not this much! -- Bowie

2 1

Multiple Instances of Apache on the same IP
by Tony Molloy 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Hi All, I'm trying to run multiple instances ( 2 ) of Apache on a single IP address. I need this because I need the two instances to run as different users. I've set up two config files with the following: config-1 config-2 ServerRoot "/etc/httpd" ServerRoot "/etc/httpd" Listen 10.220.1.156:80 Listen 10.220.1.156:8080 Include conf.d/*.conf Include conf.d/*.conf User apache User backuppc Group apache Group backupp DocumentRoot "/var/www/html" DocumentRoot "/var/www/html" When I start either apache it works but when I try to start both the second one doesn't start. Error Message: When I start config-1 first and then config-2 I get the following error message Starting httpd: (98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 0.0.0.0:443 no listening sockets available, shutting down Unable to open logs When I start config-2 first and the config-1 I get nothing. I suspect the problem is loading the SSL module which in both cases is trying to listen on port 443. So short of removing the ssl.conf file from conf.d or creating duplicate conf.d directories one without the ssl.conf file is there anyway to do this. Regards, Tony -- Tony Molloy. Dept. of Comp. Sci. University of Limerick

4 6

centos plus kernel jfs support
by Feizhou 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

Does it have posix acls enabled? The details on http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/centosplus/Readme.txt only mention basic read and write support.

1 0

Re: yum repository for kde 3.5 on Centos4.0(solved)
by ankush grover 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

On 10/13/06, ankush grover <ankushcentos(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hey friends, > > I am using Centos 4.0 and I want to upgrate to Kde 3.5.x. Can anyone > tell me the yum repository for the same so that I don't have to > download the rpms manually just > > yum upgrade kde > > > > I checked on the > http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/redhat/4/i386/RPMS.stable/ > > but kde-redhat-release-3.4.1-1.el4.noarch.rpm rpms are there. I need kde 3.5.x > > > Thanks & Regards > > Ankush Grover > sorry for the mistake the site do contains the kde 3.5.x rpms. Sorry once again without reading the full information on the website and sending this email. Thanks & Regards Ankush Grover

1 0

yum repository for kde 3.5 on Centos4.0
by ankush grover 13 Oct '06

13 Oct '06

hey friends, I am using Centos 4.0 and I want to upgrate to Kde 3.5.x. Can anyone tell me the yum repository for the same so that I don't have to download the rpms manually just yum upgrade kde I checked on the http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/redhat/4/i386/RPMS.stable/ but kde-redhat-release-3.4.1-1.el4.noarch.rpm rpms are there. I need kde 3.5.x Thanks & Regards Ankush Grover

1 0

RE: [CentOS] Write performance with 3ware 9550
by Bowie Bailey 12 Oct '06

12 Oct '06

Frank Büttner wrote: > Have both controller the same firmware? Yes. They both have FE9X 3.04.00.005. -- Bowie

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss