ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote:
uptime=insecurity.
This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need [security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security patches often. I almost said glibc, but on those Unixes it was libc; glibc, however, wasn't getting security patches too often some long time ago as well. Because these are only kernel and libc/glibc that do require reboot (no splice or similar for me on servers, thank you).
It sounds to me like the system you are talking about, and us, sysadmins administering it, is pretty much in MS Widows ballpark already. Right?
Sorry about my rant. I still consider not well debugged code not well debugged code...
Valeri
Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime won't matter when your server gets compromised.
On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as tune2fs against ext4.
Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman matthew.garman@gmail.com wrote:
# rpm -qf `which tune2fs` e2fsprogs-1.41.12-18.el6.x86_64
That's in the CentOS 6.4 repo, I don't see a newer one through 6.7 but I didn't do a thorough check, just with google site: filter.
# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.5 (Final) # uname -a Linux lnxutil8 2.6.32-504.12.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 11 22:03:14 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
And that's a centosplus kernel in the 6.6 repo; while the regular kernel for 6.7 is currently kernel-2.6.32-573.22.1.el6.src.rpm. So I'm going to guess you'd have this problem even if you weren't using the centosplus kernel.
I suggest you do a yum upgrade anyway, 6.7 is current, clean it up, test it, and then while chances are it's still a problem, then it's probably a legit bug worth filing. In the meantime you'll have to upgrade your e2fsprogs yourself.
I did a little web searching on this, most of the hits were for much older systems, where (for example) the e2fsprogs only supported up to ext3, but the user had an ext4 filesystem. Obviously that's not the case here. In other words, the filesystem was created with the mkfs.ext4 binary from the same e2fsprogs package as the tune2fs binary I'm trying to use.
Anyone ever seen anything like this?
Well the date of the kernel doesn't tell the whole story, so you need a secret decoder ring to figure out what's been backported into this distro kernels. There's far far less backporting happening in user space tools. So it's not difficult for them to get stale when the kernel is providing new features. But I'd say the kernel has newer features than the progs supports and the progs are too far behind.
And yes, this happens on the XFS list and the Btrfs list too where people are using old progs with new kernels and it can be a problem. Sometimes new progs and old kernels are a problem too but that's less common.
-- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos