Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

5 participants
34752 discussions

Re: Hot swap CPU
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> > Memory hotswap ? Sounds fishy to me, at least on IA32{,e} > platforms. Are you sure about that ? Yes. They are proprietary NUMA implementations of both IA-32 Xeon and IA-64 Itanium that allow all sorts of swapping, largley via a daughtercard (i.e., the memory comes out with the CPU on a single board). In reality, this is really an area where Blades are more manageable for far less cost though. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

RE: [CentOS] 4.1 beta for Alpha platform
by Mark A. Lewis 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

If someone can send me a link to the torrent, I can put it on an FTP. I am anxious to try it too. > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Lamar Owen > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:29 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] 4.1 beta for Alpha platform > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have tried to install this beta release on PWS 433 au > but I can not > > boot /kernels/vmlinux.gz image. Error > > is: "unsupported compressed image". Is not posible to > install under > > this Alpha model?? > > Does anyone have an ftpable mirror of this yet? Bittorrent > is great, except when you don't allow it. While I could > loophole my own policy, I shouldn't. > -- > Lamar Owen > Director of Information Technology > Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute > 1 PARI Drive > Rosman, NC 28772 > (828)862-5554 > www.pari.edu > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

autofs handling of nis maps - Centos4
by Hilliard, Jay 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

I have the following nis map (auto.facvs) * -vers=3 &:/disk1 Which allows hosts that have /disk1 exported to be mounted to /facvs/$hostname It works fine, but on Centos4, it allows me to cd /facvs/foo (where foo isn't a real host out there) I find it has mounted my local /disk1 as /facvs/foo. It seems to be ignoring the key in the map pertaining to the host if it's not a valid host. Does anyone know of a way to make it restrictive again and fail the mount if the hostname match isn't valid? -- Jay Hilliard Sr. Systems Administrator Disney Feature Animation

1 0

RE: [CentOS] Hot swap CPU
by Mark A. Lewis 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

Compaq/HP Proliant DL580/DL760 both have this. > -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org > [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Rodrigo Barbosa > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:13 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Hot swap CPU > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:59:24PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith > <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> > > > Btw, don't quote me on this one :) > > > I'm only 90% sure of the hotswapping capabilities, and > less than 50% > > > sure about the price :) > > > > There _are_ systems with hot-swap CPUs, memory and/or, > PCI[-X] slots. > > They are _not_ commodity and pricey, and require OS-level support. > > > > In fact, I believe Linux 2.6 has some support for hot-swap > -- at least > > at the PCI[-X] level, if not memory and possibly CPU as well. It > > requires extensive support though for that type of > "dynamic" flexibility. > > Memory hotswap ? > Sounds fishy to me, at least on IA32{,e} platforms. Are you > sure about that ? > > []s > > - -- > Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> "Quid quid Latine > dictum sit, altum viditur" > "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFCwuS4pdyWzQ5b5ckRAjSTAJ9hXlQ3kT4JAjSkkn/4QmYrKTFfcwCgkcPv > hsj3g/oh3Fy68DZmGXCygAI= > =y7II > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous > content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

Re: Offtopic Posts [was Re: [CentOS] [OT] Memory Models and Multi/Virtual-Cores -- WAS: 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing]
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

From: Chris Mauritz <chrism(a)imntv.com> > I agree completely. Unfortunately, even though I've killfiled the > biggest offender, I'm still getting a lot of the noise since people > continue to feed him. I assume the former is a reference to me. As far as the latter, you might re-think your singularity focus. As I've said before, you can't complain about me without complaining about others too. I.e., I try to point out things with_out_ going down into the tangent. Then people "get smart" with me believing what I say is not true. I can then either "let it go" and then people dismiss my offering of my experience and knowledge. Or I can correct them with the tangent. It's a catch-22 for all of us. > If people want to feed the trolls, please, for the love of all that's > holy, trim your posts. 8-) The funniest thing is that when people define what a "troll" is, they aren't just defining it for myself. Your partiality has been noted. ;-> > Sigh, this is the first technical list filter I've ever had to > implement (for email...usenet is another story). No offense but sometimes the "popular" thought or ignorance is worse than the so-called "distractive" discussion that sheds some light on it. People are building servers with CentOS. This stuff is pertinent. I do _not_ introduce it myself, but when it comes up, I _will_ offer my recommendations based on experience and background. If you see people only as "feeding" my so-called "trollish nature," then maybe that's a sign you're not looking at the real issue. I'm not innocent, and I'll _never_ claim to be. But some others are very guilty of wanting many tangents and are posting just as much as I in a thread! Think about it. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

16 34

RE: [CentOS] Postfix / Postini question
by Marc Powell 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf Of Barry Brimer > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:47 AM > To: centos(a)centos.org > Subject: [CentOS] Postfix / Postini question > > > > I have a mail server that handles several domains. One of these domains > has > decided to use Postini. For those not familiar with Postini, you set your > MX > records to use their mail servers. They filter mail, and deliver you only > the > clean virus/spam free mail. The idea is to only allow incoming mail from > their > mail servers so spammers are unable to send to your mail server directly. > This > is fairly simple to do with standard restriction classes for a dedicated > mail > server. I am not sure how to accomplish this on a shared mail server. > Ideally > I would like to instruct postfix to accept mail from anywhere for all > domains > except one domain (the one using Postini) and only allow mail destined for > that > specific domain to originate from Postini's mail servers. Any ideas would > be > greatly appreciated. I'm not a postfix guru but I don't believe that is possible with a shared server. However, it's been my experience that if your server is not listed as an MX (and it won't), MXs exist (and they will -- Postini's) then mail will not be delivered to your machine by anyone except Postini. The only two scenarios I am aware of in which mail would get delivered to your server instead of Postini's would be if a) you were listed as a fallback MX or b) no MX's were specified then the A record for your domain would be used. Have you looked through the postfix wiki, documentation, faq, mailing list, etc? That'd be the first place I'd go since they _are_ the postfix experts ;). -- Marc

3 2

RE: [CentOS] [OT] Memory Models and Multi/Virtual-Cores -- WAS: 4.0-> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

From: Robert Hanson <roberth(a)abbacomm.net> > or should i be more specific with the question(s)? > the reason i ask is that i just dumped 2 gig dram in a basic > P4 Intel 3.0GHz box to play with. > regards and TIA, At more than 1GiB on Linux/x86, you must use a 4G+4G kernel (this is the default) to see more than 960MiB. This causes a signficant (10%+) performance hit. On more than 4GiB, it is worsened as more extensive paging is used. If you have 1GiB or less, you should rebuild with_out_ "HIGHMEM" support which is a 1G+3G kernel, and you'll see better performance (and memory will be limited to 960MiB). In a nutshell, you should be running Linux/x86-64 on systems with more than 1GiB for optimal performance. If you have more than 4GiB of combined system and memory mapped I/O, you should be running Opterons with I/O MMUs. Intel EM64T systems will have protections in place for both earlier generation GTL+ limitations, as well as lack of an I/O MMU. Much of the additional "tangent" surrounded the fact that there are a few so-called "32-bit" Athlons that actually have a BIOS hack and Linux kernel support so it doesn't take a performance hit. Long story short, it has to do with the fact that even so-called "32-bit" Athlons have a core and underlying interconnect platform that supports 40-bit _linear_ addressing _natively_. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

4 10

with CentOS 4, and certain RAM, what specific kernel then?
by Robert Hanson 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

greetings how about some more of that practical CentOS stuff like amount of RAM vrs specific kernel info... im sure it is in a doc somewhere yet can someone enlighten... in all cases running latest" CentOS 4.... and since we all know when we have more than one processor, it is easy to choose SMP or not... and most of us can tell if we are i386, i586, i686, AMD whatever, Opteron etc... ...yet, what "kernel type" is best at what memory sizes... i know there are standard kernel and "hugemem" kernels and SMP and what have you.... are there others ive missed? at what amount of RAM should we go hugemem? is there more than one amount depending on processor? im guessing yes. is that what a lot of the discussions are about lately? do you always use a stock kernel below that? will a hugemem kernel self destruct at RAM memory amounts lower than what amount of RAM specifically calls for "hugemem"... and again... may i ask what web document spells this all out? regards and tia - rh

2 1

Re: Offtopic Posts [was Re: [CentOS] [OT] Memory Models and Multi/Virtual-Cores -- WAS: 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing]
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

From: Greg Knaddison <greg.knaddison(a)gmail.com> > Look - brevity is the soul of wit. It also keeps other folks on lists > from calling you a troll. The problem is that then the same people then start complaining about my "oversimplification." In fact, that's part of the problem here. I really _tried_ to make a recommendation without breaking down into the engineering non-sense. I really don't see how much "wit" I could do to satisify some people on that thread. > You pretty much get to blab as much as you want and argue with > people over tangent issues proving you are right, Dude, at this point, I'm tired of having my experience cut, sliced and diced by people who are like, "WTF does he think he is?" So you're right, I'm going to just state something _once_ and if people don't want to believe it, I'm just going to leave it. I tried several times in that thread, but yes, you are correct, I didn't stop, and I kept posting too. My apologies. > or you get to maintain "non-troll" status. Pick one, but don't > tangentially blab and get upset about being called a tangential > blabber. I don't have a problem with being called a "tangential blabber." What *I* have a problem is being singled out. Dude, re-read back in that last thread. Although I didn't stop posting, at some point, I realized it was going to have to go _deep_ before it would end. Now I've said my peace for the last time. I promise I will not repeat something more than once -- at the most, making only a 2nd post to "clarify" and if I didn't do a "good enough job" by then, I'll leave it be _regardless_. Your opinion is noted. But also note that someone else insinuated there was only *1* troll. I like holding everyone to the same standard. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

5 4

Re: [CentOS] [OT] Memory Models and Multi/Virtual-Cores -- WAS: 4.0 -> 4.1 update failing
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 Jun '05

29 Jun '05

From: Steven Vishoot <sir_funzone(a)yahoo.com> > As Carol Brady said "what was all that about" I dont > know if anyone else feels this way, but i think this > subjuct has been beaten to death and beyond. Not sure > if i remember right, but wasnt the original post about > upgrading from 4.0 to 4.1? How did this topic become > an engineering course? sorry for being a crab...but > come on.... If you deploy servers with more than 1GB of RAM, and definitely more than 4GB of RAM, you should be aware of what limitations there are with Intel solutions. That's what this was about. If someone else wanted to make it into a discussion of board traces and other, irrelevant non-sense, then I'm sorry for getting into that with him. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

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