Hello, I'm a newbie so here's my question.
I'm trying to install CentOS 6.5 on a HP Proliant 350e server. This server has 4x 1TB hard drives. I'd like to enable the hardware RAID 5 and stripe all 4 disk into one 3TB logical volume. Then install CentOS on the 3TB volume. However after I install I can't get the server to boot.
I know about the MDOS vs GPT labeling issue. I've successfully installed on one (singular) 3TB disk on other servers. I have modified the partition tables, relabeling them to GPT, prior to completing the installs.
However I've read that the Anaconda installer still tries to format as MDOS and after installing a Basic server I cannot get it to boot.
So, what am I missing? Can I load CentOS on a hardware RAID 5 volume that is 3TB (usable) or am I stuck with what most Google searches say and load the OS on one disk and then after use software RAID to RAID 5 the remaining 3 disk into a /data directory?
All help is appreciated.
Thanks --Kenny
You can simply create two virtual disks from the single RAID-5 volume.
Create one that is like 500GB for the OS volume and then create a 2nd one which uses the remainder of the space.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Kenny Noe Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:02 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] CentOS 6.5 install
Hello, I'm a newbie so here's my question.
I'm trying to install CentOS 6.5 on a HP Proliant 350e server. This server has 4x 1TB hard drives. I'd like to enable the hardware RAID 5 and stripe all 4 disk into one 3TB logical volume. Then install CentOS on the 3TB volume. However after I install I can't get the server to boot.
I know about the MDOS vs GPT labeling issue. I've successfully installed on one (singular) 3TB disk on other servers. I have modified the partition tables, relabeling them to GPT, prior to completing the installs.
However I've read that the Anaconda installer still tries to format as MDOS and after installing a Basic server I cannot get it to boot.
So, what am I missing? Can I load CentOS on a hardware RAID 5 volume that is 3TB (usable) or am I stuck with what most Google searches say and load the OS on one disk and then after use software RAID to RAID 5 the remaining 3 disk into a /data directory?
All help is appreciated.
Thanks --Kenny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Drew Weaver drew.weaver@thenap.com wrote:
You can simply create two virtual disks from the single RAID-5 volume.
Create one that is like 500GB for the OS volume and then create a 2nd one which uses the remainder of the space.
But pay attention to where you'd like /var, /home, /opt, etc to live. You may want to make them symlinks into directories on your larger volume if they each need space and you don't want separate filesystems, but then you have to juggle things after the install.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Drew Weaver drew.weaver@thenap.com wrote:
You can simply create two virtual disks from the single RAID-5 volume.
Create one that is like 500GB for the OS volume and then create a 2nd one which uses the remainder of the space.
But pay attention to where you'd like /var, /home, /opt, etc to live. You may want to make them symlinks into directories on your larger volume if they each need space and you don't want separate filesystems, but then you have to juggle things after the install.
I've long liked having /home, at least, and maybe /opt, where some things install by default, on other partitions than root. With the larger drives we're getting these days, we've modified out kickstart for pxeboot builds to give 500G to /, and everything else as one big partition. I've also considered making that / partition smaller - maybe 250G? or less, since / doesn't really need huge tracts of land... sorry, Monty Python flash there..... In any case, doing it that way lets you do a completely clean install, if necessary or desired.
mark, hoping friggin' Nixspam is letting me in today, as opposed to yesterday....
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:54 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
You can simply create two virtual disks from the single RAID-5 volume.
Create one that is like 500GB for the OS volume and then create a 2nd one which uses the remainder of the space.
But pay attention to where you'd like /var, /home, /opt, etc to live. You may want to make them symlinks into directories on your larger volume if they each need space and you don't want separate filesystems, but then you have to juggle things after the install.
I've long liked having /home, at least, and maybe /opt, where some things install by default, on other partitions than root. With the larger drives we're getting these days, we've modified out kickstart for pxeboot builds to give 500G to /, and everything else as one big partition. I've also considered making that / partition smaller - maybe 250G? or less, since / doesn't really need huge tracts of land... sorry, Monty Python flash there..... In any case, doing it that way lets you do a completely clean install, if necessary or desired.
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:54 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
You can simply create two virtual disks from the single RAID-5 volume.
Create one that is like 500GB for the OS volume and then create a 2nd one which uses the remainder of the space.
But pay attention to where you'd like /var, /home, /opt, etc to live. You may want to make them symlinks into directories on your larger volume if they each need space and you don't want separate filesystems, but then you have to juggle things after the install.
I've long liked having /home, at least, and maybe /opt, where some things install by default, on other partitions than root. With the larger drives we're getting these days, we've modified out kickstart for pxeboot builds to give 500G to /, and everything else as one big partition.
I've also
considered making that / partition smaller - maybe 250G? or less, since / doesn't really need huge tracts of land... sorry, Monty Python flash there..... In any case, doing it that way lets you do a completely clean install, if necessary or desired.
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Here at work, /home is *always* NFS-mounted. Even so, I'd think 250G is easily big enough for / to include /var, even with a moderately large d/b there.
mark
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Here at work, /home is *always* NFS-mounted. Even so, I'd think 250G is easily big enough for / to include /var, even with a moderately large d/b there.
But as a generic question: is there a way to get the installer to put some top-level directories into subdirectories on a different volume so they share space but aren't part of the root volume? You can do each as a separate mount point, but sometimes I want the effect you get with symlinks - which involves some awkward juggling for system-installed directories that already have contents.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Here at work, /home is *always* NFS-mounted. Even so, I'd think 250G is easily big enough for / to include /var, even with a moderately large d/b there.
I think 250G is overkill unless you have need for all that space. A lot of my installs are
512MB-1GB : /boot 2GB : / 2-4GB : /usr, lvm 2-4GB : /var, lvm
--- optional --- XGB : /usr/local, lvm XGB : /var/something for apache or mysql or storing penguins, lvm
/boot is never in a lvm and I usually do not put / in a lvm either; the rest are always in lvm so I can move and resize them as needed. And even that might be way too much:
My kvm-based vm host (centos 6.4):
[root@vmhost ~]# df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda2 1.9G 638M 1.2G 35% / tmpfs 7.7G 0 7.7G 0% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 472M 149M 299M 34% /boot /dev/mapper/vmhost_vg0-usr 4.0G 1.5G 2.4G 38% /usr /dev/mapper/vmhost_vg0-var 4.0G 1.2G 2.7G 30% /var fileserver:/home/raub 197G 163G 35G 83% /home/raub [root@vmhost ~]#
My nagios/rsyslog thingie:
[raub@scan ~]$ df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/vda2 2.0G 675M 1.3G 36% / tmpfs 246M 0 246M 0% /dev/shm /dev/vda1 504M 106M 373M 23% /boot /dev/mapper/nagios_vg0-usr 2.0G 584M 1.3G 31% /usr /dev/mapper/nagios_vg0-var 2.0G 440M 1.5G 23% /var fileserver:/logs 20G 651M 19G 4% /var/log/syslog [raub@scan ~]$
As you can see, even 2GB is overkill for my root partition. Remember: if you are using lvm you can move the other partitions to another drive or raid without rebooting. And, you can set all that during the install without losing your sleep.
But as a generic question: is there a way to get the installer to put some top-level directories into subdirectories on a different volume so they share space but aren't part of the root volume? You can do each as a separate mount point, but sometimes I want the effect you get with symlinks - which involves some awkward juggling for system-installed directories that already have contents.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Make /home , /var and /opt soft links to directories on /onebigpartition . I've done similar when I wanted /home off the root partition, but did not want to give it its own partition. I tried to do a rebind, but could not make it work.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Michael Hennebry hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Make /home , /var and /opt soft links to directories on /onebigpartition . I've done similar when I wanted /home off the root partition, but did not want to give it its own partition. I tried to do a rebind, but could not make it work.
I've done that after installs, but for /var at least it requires copying the contents to the target of the symlink before switching and a reboot after the change to make everything use the new location. I was wondering if it is possible to make the installer set it up that way in the first place - that is, with /var, /home, and /opt sharing space in a filesystem other than the root.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Michael Hennebry hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu wrote:
Make /home , /var and /opt soft links to directories on /onebigpartition . I've done similar when I wanted /home off the root partition, but did not want to give it its own partition. I tried to do a rebind, but could not make it work.
I've done that after installs, but for /var at least it requires copying the contents to the target of the symlink before switching and a reboot after the change to make everything use the new location. I was wondering if it is possible to make the installer set it up that way in the first place - that is, with /var, /home, and /opt sharing space in a filesystem other than the root.
Mine was post-install also. Neve tried it otherwise.
You might try this: Make the desired /home , /opt and /var directories empty. Make the desired root partition empty except for soft links. Tell the installer not to format the root partition. Maybe it will do the right thing.
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm still trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk) system and load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just can't get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
any other thoughts?
Thanks ---Kenny
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Michael Hennebry < hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Michael Hennebry hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu wrote:
Make /home , /var and /opt soft links to directories on
/onebigpartition .
I've done similar when I wanted /home off the root partition, but did not want to give it its own partition. I tried to do a rebind, but could not make it work.
I've done that after installs, but for /var at least it requires copying the contents to the target of the symlink before switching and a reboot after the change to make everything use the new location. I was wondering if it is possible to make the installer set it up that way in the first place - that is, with /var, /home, and /opt sharing space in a filesystem other than the root.
Mine was post-install also. Neve tried it otherwise.
You might try this: Make the desired /home , /opt and /var directories empty. Make the desired root partition empty except for soft links. Tell the installer not to format the root partition. Maybe it will do the right thing.
-- Michael hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "SCSI is NOT magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then." -- John Woods _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm still trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk) system and load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just can't get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
any other thoughts?
I thought that if UEFI is enabled in the bios (you didn't select some legecy mode...) the installer would detect and use it. I managed to do that accidentally on one machine that I was setting up as a master image and then found that at the time, neither clonezilla nor rear could make a bootable copy. I think they've both been fixed since. There may be some additional problem with grub and /boot on a >2TB partition, though. Mine wasn't that big.
No I haven't selected any legacy stuff in the bios. Thanks for the suggestion...
--Kenny
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm
still
trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk) system
and
load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just
can't
get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
any other thoughts?
I thought that if UEFI is enabled in the bios (you didn't select some legecy mode...) the installer would detect and use it. I managed to do that accidentally on one machine that I was setting up as a master image and then found that at the time, neither clonezilla nor rear could make a bootable copy. I think they've both been fixed since. There may be some additional problem with grub and /boot on a >2TB partition, though. Mine wasn't that big.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm still trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk) system and load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just can't get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
UEFI can address 4TB. If you are using BIOS, that could be a problem. With 512-byte sectors, 2TB is about the maximum representable offset.
BTW all the documentation I've seen about BIOS boot sequences assume 512-byte logical sectors. How is BIOS supposed to handle 1024-byte or larger logical sectors?
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm still trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk)
system
and load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just can't get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
UEFI can address 4TB. If you are using BIOS, that could be a problem. With 512-byte sectors, 2TB is about the maximum representable offset.
BTW all the documentation I've seen about BIOS boot sequences assume 512-byte logical sectors. How is BIOS supposed to handle 1024-byte or larger logical sectors?
We've gone, I think, to GPT on our new builds. Root drives are running 2TB these days for us, and we're not setting on UEFI. Note that a lot of the drives are actually 4k sectors, but present them, logically, as 512byte sectors.
mark
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Michael Hennebry wrote:
UEFI can address 4TB. If you are using BIOS, that could be a problem. With 512-byte sectors, 2TB is about the maximum representable offset.
BTW all the documentation I've seen about BIOS boot sequences assume 512-byte logical sectors. How is BIOS supposed to handle 1024-byte or larger logical sectors?
We've gone, I think, to GPT on our new builds. Root drives are running 2TB these days for us, and we're not setting on UEFI. Note that a lot of the drives are actually 4k sectors, but present them, logically, as 512byte sectors.
That is why I specified logical sectors.
On 02/27/2014 08:03 PM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm still trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk) system and load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just can't get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
any other thoughts?
I think you still need to have /boot on a non-LVM partition. A small 500MB partition is sufficient. You might also need to disable "secure boot" or some such option in the bios.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg < Nicolas.Thierry-Mieg@imag.fr> wrote:
On 02/27/2014 08:03 PM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks to all the replies... Very interesting stuff... However I'm
still
trying to understand how to have a hardware RAID 5 (4x 1TB disk) system
and
load CentOS on it. I'm looking for the UEFI bios but don't understand this. I want to install LVM on top of the single RAID volume, then I can create several LVMs like the HowTos, Wikis and Blogs all say. I just
can't
get over this first hurdle and get the OS to boot.
any other thoughts?
I think you still need to have /boot on a non-LVM partition. A small 500MB partition is sufficient.
+1 /boot cannot be on LVM (since we're using Legacy GRUB)
(If we had GRUB2, then /boot on LVM could be possibility [I've put /boot within LVM on a Debian install.])
You might also need to disable "secure boot" or some such option in the bios. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Michael Hennebry hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Michael Hennebry hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu wrote:
Make /home , /var and /opt soft links to directories on /onebigpartition . I've done similar when I wanted /home off the root partition, but did not want to give it its own partition. I tried to do a rebind, but could not make it work.
I've done that after installs, but for /var at least it requires copying the contents to the target of the symlink before switching and a reboot after the change to make everything use the new location. I was wondering if it is possible to make the installer set it up that way in the first place - that is, with /var, /home, and /opt sharing space in a filesystem other than the root.
Mine was post-install also. Neve tried it otherwise.
You might try this: Make the desired /home , /opt and /var directories empty. Make the desired root partition empty except for soft links. Tell the installer not to format the root partition. Maybe it will do the right thing.
Is there any 'new' thinking in terms of filesystem layout? The old tree sort of made sense in the old days of tiny, slow disks that had to be micro-managed. Now it seems like it would be good to isolate the system executables and maybe even the config files in a small section that could be mounted read-only except when planning to do updates, with an option to share space among any or all of the writable parts.
On 02/26/2014 04:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Isn't this pretty much the use case for LVM? Set up the other partition as a pv on a different volume group from the root, and have three logical volumes in it. You can resize as needed.
This keeps /home and /var in separate filesystems, too, and there are advantages to that.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On 02/26/2014 04:02 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is there a way to get /home, /var, and /opt installed as directories on that other "one big partition"? /var in particular has an odd mix of OS and 'your' data and logs that may turn out to be big. And you may not know ahead of time what to allocate for it as a separate mount point.
Isn't this pretty much the use case for LVM? Set up the other partition as a pv on a different volume group from the root, and have three logical volumes in it. You can resize as needed.
This keeps /home and /var in separate filesystems, too, and there are advantages to that.
'Resize as needed' is not at all the same as sharing a pool of space. There are sometimes advantages to having things not share disk heads or spindles, but you don't need LVM for that, and sometimes (rarely) you might want to reinstall without reformatting /home, but a lot of times it just isn't worth the effort to micromanage which bit lands where, or care whether someone migrates a big file into a big database.
On 02/28/2014 08:45 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
This keeps /home and /var in separate filesystems, too, and there are advantages to that.
'Resize as needed' is not at all the same as sharing a pool of space.
Exactly, and I would posit that that is desirable when dealing with /home and /var.
There are sometimes advantages to having things not share disk heads or spindles, but you don't need LVM for that, and sometimes (rarely) you might want to reinstall without reformatting /home,
The nice thing about LVM in this context is that you can take the whole non-root volume group and import it into the new machine with minimal effort. /var is a bit tedious, but /home on the other hand benefits greatly from this. And I've used a separate /home since... well, since RHL betas were named after cities. I've reinstalled without reformatting /home on my whatever-is-the-current-hardware personal machine over a hundred times since 1998, and have *kept* the *same* /home (in essence). Admittedly, I have had to move some things out of the way (.kde, and a few other configs over the years) and of course I've moved it to different drives (about two dozen at this point, not counting backups), but my /home today still contains files from 1998, when I first started doing this (you know, things like old TRS-80 disk images for the xtrs emulator that I pulled from 20-year-old-media in the 1998-2002 timeframe).
While it would not be technically true that I've never reformatted /home during the install, since when moving to a new drive it is a bit easier to do the install with the existing /home partition or volume group unmounted, then edit /etc/fstab later, or even install to a scratch new drive, leaving the space for /home to later be copied over from the old media or a backup, but in essence I've gone 16 years with pretty much the same, ever-changing, /home on my personal machine.
Make sure that you are booting and installing the system using the UEFI bios, not the legacy bios. You'll need to check your bios setup for the setting to do this if the system supports it.
The legacy bios will force the MDOS labeling scheme that will limit the boot drive to a maximum of 2TB. The UEFI bios allows the system to boot from a large GPT labelled disk (with the required UEFI partition).
Erik
On 26/02/14 12:01 PM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Hello, I'm a newbie so here's my question.
I'm trying to install CentOS 6.5 on a HP Proliant 350e server. This server has 4x 1TB hard drives. I'd like to enable the hardware RAID 5 and stripe all 4 disk into one 3TB logical volume. Then install CentOS on the 3TB volume. However after I install I can't get the server to boot.
I know about the MDOS vs GPT labeling issue. I've successfully installed on one (singular) 3TB disk on other servers. I have modified the partition tables, relabeling them to GPT, prior to completing the installs.
However I've read that the Anaconda installer still tries to format as MDOS and after installing a Basic server I cannot get it to boot.
So, what am I missing? Can I load CentOS on a hardware RAID 5 volume that is 3TB (usable) or am I stuck with what most Google searches say and load the OS on one disk and then after use software RAID to RAID 5 the remaining 3 disk into a /data directory?
All help is appreciated.
Thanks --Kenny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 02/26/2014 03:01 PM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Hello, I'm a newbie so here's my question.
I'm trying to install CentOS 6.5 on a HP Proliant 350e server. This server has 4x 1TB hard drives. I'd like to enable the hardware RAID 5 and stripe all 4 disk into one 3TB logical volume. Then install CentOS on the 3TB volume. However after I install I can't get the server to boot.
How far does it get on the process? I set up an HP DL180 g5 server this week, and had it refuse to boot because I had not designated the boot volume when I set up the RAID. Once I went in and designated the boot volume, everything worked fine.
If you are getting GRUB, but it doesn't get all the way through to booted, there are a lot of different places to get messed up along the way. Tell us more, and we can focus on where the your particular issue is.
Ted Miller Elkhart, IN, USA
I know about the MDOS vs GPT labeling issue. I've successfully installed on one (singular) 3TB disk on other servers. I have modified the partition tables, relabeling them to GPT, prior to completing the installs.
However I've read that the Anaconda installer still tries to format as MDOS and after installing a Basic server I cannot get it to boot.
So, what am I missing? Can I load CentOS on a hardware RAID 5 volume that is 3TB (usable) or am I stuck with what most Google searches say and load the OS on one disk and then after use software RAID to RAID 5 the remaining 3 disk into a /data directory?
All help is appreciated.
Thanks --Kenny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ted, et al,
Thanks for all the input. I'm still struggling with this issue.
Here are the steps I follow: I can RAID all the disk using the HP Array Config tool. I can load CentOS. The installer sees all 4 disks but the LVM recognizes a 3TB volume) CentOS installs fine I reboot the server after install The server hangs on "Attempting to boot on c:" The only way to recover is to cold boot the server, and next time it boots it either hangs again or I get a red screen.
I don't see grub at all.
Thanks --Kenny
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ted Miller Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:40 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6.5 install
On 02/26/2014 03:01 PM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Hello, I'm a newbie so here's my question.
I'm trying to install CentOS 6.5 on a HP Proliant 350e server. This server has 4x 1TB hard drives. I'd like to enable the hardware RAID 5 and stripe all 4 disk into one 3TB logical volume. Then install CentOS on the 3TB volume. However after I install I can't get the server
to boot.
How far does it get on the process? I set up an HP DL180 g5 server this week, and had it refuse to boot because I had not designated the boot volume when I set up the RAID. Once I went in and designated the boot volume, everything worked fine.
If you are getting GRUB, but it doesn't get all the way through to booted, there are a lot of different places to get messed up along the way. Tell us more, and we can focus on where the your particular issue is.
Ted Miller Elkhart, IN, USA
I know about the MDOS vs GPT labeling issue. I've successfully installed on one (singular) 3TB disk on other servers. I have modified the partition tables, relabeling them to GPT, prior to completing
the installs.
However I've read that the Anaconda installer still tries to format as MDOS and after installing a Basic server I cannot get it to boot.
So, what am I missing? Can I load CentOS on a hardware RAID 5 volume that is 3TB (usable) or am I stuck with what most Google searches say and load the OS on one disk and then after use software RAID to RAID 5 the remaining 3 disk into a /data directory?
All help is appreciated.
Thanks --Kenny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
I can RAID all the disk using the HP Array Config tool. I can load CentOS. The installer sees all 4 disks but the LVM recognizes a 3TB volume)
Shouldn't CentOS only see 1 disk (the RAID logical disk made out of your 4 physical disks)?
JD
Hi Kenny,
Yes, when you create raid vol over HP array tool. CentOS must get the 1 large hdd/disk. OS doesn't detect what under beneath in this volume and how many disk they have?
murad
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:43 PM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
I can RAID all the disk using the HP Array Config tool. I can load CentOS. The installer sees all 4 disks but the LVM
recognizes a
3TB volume)
Shouldn't CentOS only see 1 disk (the RAID logical disk made out of your 4 physical disks)?
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:43 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
I can RAID all the disk using the HP Array Config tool. I can load CentOS. The installer sees all 4 disks but the LVM
recognizes a
3TB volume)
Shouldn't CentOS only see 1 disk (the RAID logical disk made out of your 4 physical disks)?
+1 The OS should only see a single disk if the OP is using hardware RAID.
And 4 x 1TB disks in a RAID5 should come out to around 3TB of usable space.
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the installer to recognize the single RAID disk?
Thanks --Kenny
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of SilverTip257 Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:33 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6.5 install
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:43 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
I can RAID all the disk using the HP Array Config tool. I can load CentOS. The installer sees all 4 disks but the LVM
recognizes a
3TB volume)
Shouldn't CentOS only see 1 disk (the RAID logical disk made out of your 4 physical disks)?
+1 The OS should only see a single disk if the OP is using hardware RAID.
And 4 x 1TB disks in a RAID5 should come out to around 3TB of usable space.
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
----- Original Message ----- | OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 | independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the | installer to recognize the single RAID disk? | | Thanks --Kenny
Sounds to me like it's a FakeRAID (software RAID). What make/model is the RAID controller in the unit?
On 3/3/2014 10:54 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the installer to recognize the single RAID disk?
not going to read the whole thread, what sort of raid controller does this system have?
Here is the system.
HP ML350e G8 servers. They use the HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i raid controllers.
Thanks! --Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:54 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the installer to recognize the single RAID disk?
not going to read the whole thread, what sort of raid controller does this system have?
-- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Also I have the FBWC module installed to allow RAID 5.
--Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the system.
HP ML350e G8 servers. They use the HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i raid controllers.
Thanks! --Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:54 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the installer to recognize the single RAID disk?
not going to read the whole thread, what sort of raid controller does this system have?
-- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
That is a software RAID controller, only works if you install HP's driver first. Or switch to AHCI mode for individual disks.
See this article https://access.redhat.com/site/articles/118133
Thomas
On 03/03/2014 11:57 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Also I have the FBWC module installed to allow RAID 5.
--Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the system.
HP ML350e G8 servers. They use the HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i raid controllers.
Thanks! --Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:54 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the installer to recognize the single RAID disk?
not going to read the whole thread, what sort of raid controller does this system have?
-- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm going to update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated driver is available.
With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on the best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk as JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should I just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
Sooo many choices.... Just need a box that is stable, has some type of redundancy and plenty of space.
Thanks to all for your advice. I appreciate the help and guidance.
Respectfully,
--Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Eriksson < thomas.eriksson@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
That is a software RAID controller, only works if you install HP's driver first. Or switch to AHCI mode for individual disks.
See this article https://access.redhat.com/site/articles/118133
ThomasOn 03/03/2014 11:57 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
Also I have the FBWC module installed to allow RAID 5.
--Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Here is the system.
HP ML350e G8 servers. They use the HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i raid controllers.
Thanks! --Kenny
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:07 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com
wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:54 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
OK so what am I doing wrong?? Apparently anaconda is still reading 4 independent disk instead of a single 3 TB "disk". How do I get the installer to recognize the single RAID disk?
not going to read the whole thread, what sort of raid controller does this system have?
-- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm going to update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated driver is available.
With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on the best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk as JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should I just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
Sooo many choices.... Just need a box that is stable, has some type of redundancy and plenty of space.
Thanks to all for your advice. I appreciate the help and guidance.
If you don't mind losing half of the space and having that divided, the old-school approach would be to make small-ish /boot and swap paritions and the rest / on the first pair of drives, all as RAID1, with the 2nd pair also RAID1, mounted as /home or /opt, depending on what you intend to put there. There are more convenient and generalized approaches now which I'm sure someone else will describe. I still do it this way sometimes because (a) it is faster than a RAID5, especially for writes, (b) if you lose a drive it still runs at full speed in degraded mode, and (c) if the machine melts and all you can save is one drive, you can plug it into any matching controller or usb adapter and recover the files from it.
Hi Kenny,
please follow instructions in given below link;
1. http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.PAGE/public/kb/docDispla...
2. http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.PAGE/public/kb/docDispla...
murad
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm going
to
update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated driver is available.
With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on the best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk as JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should I just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
Sooo many choices.... Just need a box that is stable, has some type of redundancy and plenty of space.
Thanks to all for your advice. I appreciate the help and guidance.
If you don't mind losing half of the space and having that divided, the old-school approach would be to make small-ish /boot and swap paritions and the rest / on the first pair of drives, all as RAID1, with the 2nd pair also RAID1, mounted as /home or /opt, depending on what you intend to put there. There are more convenient and generalized approaches now which I'm sure someone else will describe. I still do it this way sometimes because (a) it is faster than a RAID5, especially for writes, (b) if you lose a drive it still runs at full speed in degraded mode, and (c) if the machine melts and all you can save is one drive, you can plug it into any matching controller or usb adapter and recover the files from it.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm going to update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated driver is available. With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on the best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk as JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should I just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver: - you can use HP raid tools. - your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a real smart array they will just work. - you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS releases on time... - HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except security?) for you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid: - simple, standard, etc... - not "smartarray compatible".
JD
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb FBWC or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are having troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6 but not CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
I'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm going
to
update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated driver is available. With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on the best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk as JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should I just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver:
- you can use HP raid tools.
- your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a real
smart array they will just work.
- you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS releases
on time...
- HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except security?) for
you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid:
- simple, standard, etc...
- not "smartarray compatible".
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb FBWC or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are having troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6 but not CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
It will work. Worst case scenario is: on Dells, trying to run OMSA on a running system, if /etc/issue (!) says that it's redhat santiago whatever, it runs. Some idiot put that check in (even though their bootable ISOs are CentOS).
Several years ago, I was introduced to self-abuse (that is, tech support from a company which shall remain nameless, but who *must* keep their profits up to pay for their CEO's fighter jet, and Hawaiian island, and....) The first engineer I spoke with got huffy, telling me they "didn't support CentOS", etc. I got them to give me another engineer (and another, and another....)
So it should be perfectly fine to run their driver.
mark
I'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm
going to
update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated
driver
is available. With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on
the
best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk
as
JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should
I
just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver:
- you can use HP raid tools.
- your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a real
smart array they will just work.
- you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS releases
on time...
- HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except security?) for
you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid:
- simple, standard, etc...
- not "smartarray compatible".
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
The link to the B120i array drivers pointed me to several rpm files that contain the driver. The instructions are pretty straight forward and even have a back out SOP. OK I've installed rpms before but that's from a bootable OS. I don't have that now.. I've searched for an ISO or other means to install but my google-fu failes... Help!
Thanks in advance.
--Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:36 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb FBWC or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are
having
troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6 but
not
CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
It will work. Worst case scenario is: on Dells, trying to run OMSA on a running system, if /etc/issue (!) says that it's redhat santiago whatever, it runs. Some idiot put that check in (even though their bootable ISOs are CentOS).
Several years ago, I was introduced to self-abuse (that is, tech support from a company which shall remain nameless, but who *must* keep their profits up to pay for their CEO's fighter jet, and Hawaiian island, and....) The first engineer I spoke with got huffy, telling me they "didn't support CentOS", etc. I got them to give me another engineer (and another, and another....)
So it should be perfectly fine to run their driver.
markI'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm
going to
update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated
driver
is available. With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations on
the
best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config disk
as
JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but should
I
just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver:
- you can use HP raid tools.
- your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a real
smart array they will just work.
- you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS releases
on time...
- HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except security?) for
you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid:
- simple, standard, etc...
- not "smartarray compatible".
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Kenny Noe wrote:
The link to the B120i array drivers pointed me to several rpm files that contain the driver. The instructions are pretty straight forward and even have a back out SOP. OK I've installed rpms before but that's from a bootable OS. I don't have that now.. I've searched for an ISO or other means to install but my google-fu failes... Help!
Please don't top post.
Boot off a DVD, or whatever. chroot to the system, assuming you can see the drives, and yum localinstall. If you can't see the drives... anyone ever tried to yum install into the running rescue system?
mark
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:36 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb
FBWC
or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are
having
troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6 but
not
CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
It will work. Worst case scenario is: on Dells, trying to run OMSA on a running system, if /etc/issue (!) says that it's redhat santiago whatever, it runs. Some idiot put that check in (even though their bootable ISOs are CentOS).
Several years ago, I was introduced to self-abuse (that is, tech support from a company which shall remain nameless, but who *must* keep their profits up to pay for their CEO's fighter jet, and Hawaiian island, and....) The first engineer I spoke with got huffy, telling me they "didn't support CentOS", etc. I got them to give me another engineer (and another, and another....)
So it should be perfectly fine to run their driver.
markI'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm
going to
update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated
driver
is available. With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations
on
the
best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config
disk
as
JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but
should
I
just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver:
- you can use HP raid tools.
- your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a
real
smart array they will just work.
- you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS
releases
on time...
- HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except security?)
for
you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid:
- simple, standard, etc...
- not "smartarray compatible".
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
My apologies.... what is top post and how am I doing this?
I thought I was just replying to the mailing list... Hit reply and type my message. (I'm such a noobie)
I did find dd files that have the driver update but am lost on trying to get these into the install. Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.
I appreciate your willingness to help and all the others that have replied. My apologies for being frustrating. I'll have to read more.
Regards --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:58 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
The link to the B120i array drivers pointed me to several rpm files that contain the driver. The instructions are pretty straight forward and
even
have a back out SOP. OK I've installed rpms before but that's from a bootable OS. I don't have that now.. I've searched for an ISO or other means to install but my google-fu failes... Help!
Please don't top post.
Boot off a DVD, or whatever. chroot to the system, assuming you can see the drives, and yum localinstall. If you can't see the drives... anyone ever tried to yum install into the running rescue system?
markOn Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:36 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb
FBWC
or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are
having
troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6 but
not
CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
It will work. Worst case scenario is: on Dells, trying to run OMSA on a running system, if /etc/issue (!) says that it's redhat santiago whatever, it runs. Some idiot put that check in (even though their bootable ISOs are CentOS).
Several years ago, I was introduced to self-abuse (that is, tech support from a company which shall remain nameless, but who *must* keep their profits up to pay for their CEO's fighter jet, and Hawaiian island, and....) The first engineer I spoke with got huffy, telling me they "didn't support CentOS", etc. I got them to give me another engineer (and another, and another....)
So it should be perfectly fine to run their driver.
markI'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot! I'm
going to
update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the updated
driver
is available. With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any recommendations
on
the
best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller, config
disk
as
JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but
should
I
just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver:
- you can use HP raid tools.
- your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a
real
smart array they will just work.
- you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS
releases
on time...
- HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except security?)
for
you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid:
- simple, standard, etc...
- not "smartarray compatible".
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies.... what is top post and how am I doing this?
I thought I was just replying to the mailing list... Hit reply and type my message. (I'm such a noobie)
I did find dd files that have the driver update but am lost on trying to get these into the install. Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.
I appreciate your willingness to help and all the others that have replied. My apologies for being frustrating. I'll have to read more.
You just top posted, again. #0: fuck Outlook, and anything like it. FOLLOW, or intercollate, with the responses to your email. Follow, as in put your response AT THE BOTTOM, of the email, not the top.
Just the way I'm responding to the email, above. Think of it as a conversation - you know what someone's said, *before* you respond. Top posting means I have no idea what you're responding to - you're not talking to someone in person.... And for anyone coming into an email thread late... I, and I think most folks, have *zero* intention of going to the bottom of an email which contains everything said in the thread, esp. with nothing edited out, and reading down a message, then paging up to read the response, then paging up *again* to read the next response.
That's a M$ asinine introduction, and I despise it, since it makes it incredibly difficult to follow what's going on.
I dunno, though - just dd'ing in the driver isn't going to work, if you mean that you dd'd the driver itself in, or was there an .rpm? If the latter, you need to find out what it does when it installs - where the actual driver's supposed to go, in what subdirectory, and then, of course, the last step would be to insmod it, and *then* rebuild the initrd so that it's included on boot.
mark
Regards --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:58 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
The link to the B120i array drivers pointed me to several rpm files
that
contain the driver. The instructions are pretty straight forward and
even
have a back out SOP. OK I've installed rpms before but that's from a bootable OS. I don't have that now.. I've searched for an ISO or
other
means to install but my google-fu failes... Help!
Please don't top post.
Boot off a DVD, or whatever. chroot to the system, assuming you can see the drives, and yum localinstall. If you can't see the drives... anyone ever tried to yum install into the running rescue system?
markOn Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:36 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb
FBWC
or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are
having
troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6
but
not
CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
It will work. Worst case scenario is: on Dells, trying to run OMSA on
a
running system, if /etc/issue (!) says that it's redhat santiago whatever, it runs. Some idiot put that check in (even though their bootable
ISOs
are CentOS).
Several years ago, I was introduced to self-abuse (that is, tech
support
from a company which shall remain nameless, but who *must* keep their profits up to pay for their CEO's fighter jet, and Hawaiian island, and....) The first engineer I spoke with got huffy, telling me they "didn't support CentOS", etc. I got them to give me another engineer (and another, and another....)
So it should be perfectly fine to run their driver.
markI'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com
> Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot!
I'm
going to > update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the
updated
driver > is available. > With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any
recommendations
on
the > best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller,
config
disk
as > JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but
should
I > just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three?
If you use HP's fakeraid driver:
- you can use HP raid tools.
- your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a
real
smart array they will just work.
- you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS
releases
on time...
- HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except
security?)
for
you...
if you use AHCI + mdraid:
- simple, standard, etc...
- not "smartarray compatible".
JD _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 03/04/2014 02:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies.... what is top post and how am I doing this?
I thought I was just replying to the mailing list... Hit reply and type my message. (I'm such a noobie)
I did find dd files that have the driver update but am lost on trying to get these into the install. Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.
I appreciate your willingness to help and all the others that have replied. My apologies for being frustrating. I'll have to read more.
You just top posted, again. #0: fuck Outlook, and anything like it. FOLLOW, or intercollate, with the responses to your email. Follow, as in put your response AT THE BOTTOM, of the email, not the top.
Just the way I'm responding to the email, above. Think of it as a conversation - you know what someone's said, *before* you respond. Top posting means I have no idea what you're responding to - you're not talking to someone in person.... And for anyone coming into an email thread late... I, and I think most folks, have *zero* intention of going to the bottom of an email which contains everything said in the thread, esp. with nothing edited out, and reading down a message, then paging up to read the response, then paging up *again* to read the next response.
That's a M$ asinine introduction, and I despise it, since it makes it incredibly difficult to follow what's going on.
I dunno, though - just dd'ing in the driver isn't going to work, if you mean that you dd'd the driver itself in, or was there an .rpm? If the latter, you need to find out what it does when it installs - where the actual driver's supposed to go, in what subdirectory, and then, of course, the last step would be to insmod it, and *then* rebuild the initrd so that it's included on boot.
mark
Google for "anaconda driverdisk", and you will find many write-ups on howto supply drivers during installation.
Thomas
Thanks will do that....
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Thomas Eriksson < thomas.eriksson@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
On 03/04/2014 02:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies.... what is top post and how am I doing this?
I thought I was just replying to the mailing list... Hit reply and
type
my message. (I'm such a noobie)
I did find dd files that have the driver update but am lost on trying to get these into the install. Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.
I appreciate your willingness to help and all the others that have replied. My apologies for being frustrating. I'll have to read more.
You just top posted, again. #0: fuck Outlook, and anything like it. FOLLOW, or intercollate, with the responses to your email. Follow, as in put your response AT THE BOTTOM, of the email, not the top.
Just the way I'm responding to the email, above. Think of it as a conversation - you know what someone's said, *before* you respond. Top posting means I have no idea what you're responding to - you're not talking to someone in person.... And for anyone coming into an email thread late... I, and I think most folks, have *zero* intention of going to the bottom of an email which contains everything said in the thread, esp. with nothing edited out, and reading down a message, then paging up to read the response, then paging up *again* to read the next response.
That's a M$ asinine introduction, and I despise it, since it makes it incredibly difficult to follow what's going on.
I dunno, though - just dd'ing in the driver isn't going to work, if you mean that you dd'd the driver itself in, or was there an .rpm? If the latter, you need to find out what it does when it installs - where the actual driver's supposed to go, in what subdirectory, and then, of
course,
the last step would be to insmod it, and *then* rebuild the initrd so
that
it's included on boot.
markGoogle for "anaconda driverdisk", and you will find many write-ups on howto supply drivers during installation.
Thomas
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Mark,
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
Respectfully --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies.... what is top post and how am I doing this?
I thought I was just replying to the mailing list... Hit reply and type my message. (I'm such a noobie)
I did find dd files that have the driver update but am lost on trying to get these into the install. Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying.
I appreciate your willingness to help and all the others that have replied. My apologies for being frustrating. I'll have to read more.
You just top posted, again. #0: fuck Outlook, and anything like it. FOLLOW, or intercollate, with the responses to your email. Follow, as in put your response AT THE BOTTOM, of the email, not the top.
Just the way I'm responding to the email, above. Think of it as a conversation - you know what someone's said, *before* you respond. Top posting means I have no idea what you're responding to - you're not talking to someone in person.... And for anyone coming into an email thread late... I, and I think most folks, have *zero* intention of going to the bottom of an email which contains everything said in the thread, esp. with nothing edited out, and reading down a message, then paging up to read the response, then paging up *again* to read the next response.
That's a M$ asinine introduction, and I despise it, since it makes it incredibly difficult to follow what's going on.
I dunno, though - just dd'ing in the driver isn't going to work, if you mean that you dd'd the driver itself in, or was there an .rpm? If the latter, you need to find out what it does when it installs - where the actual driver's supposed to go, in what subdirectory, and then, of course, the last step would be to insmod it, and *then* rebuild the initrd so that it's included on boot.
markRegards --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:58 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
The link to the B120i array drivers pointed me to several rpm files
that
contain the driver. The instructions are pretty straight forward and
even
have a back out SOP. OK I've installed rpms before but that's from a bootable OS. I don't have that now.. I've searched for an ISO or
other
means to install but my google-fu failes... Help!
Please don't top post.
Boot off a DVD, or whatever. chroot to the system, assuming you can see the drives, and yum localinstall. If you can't see the drives... anyone ever tried to yum install into the running rescue system?
markOn Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:36 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
Thanks again to all the replies...
If we purchased a "true" HP RAID HW controller, like the P222 512mb
FBWC
or P420 1GB FBWC, would this work? I've read online that folks are
having
troubles with getting drives recognized in CentOS.
Also HP states the fakeraid driver is available for RedHat Linux 6
but
not
CentOS. Has anyone installed this? Thoughts / Comments?
It will work. Worst case scenario is: on Dells, trying to run OMSA on
a
running system, if /etc/issue (!) says that it's redhat santiago whatever, it runs. Some idiot put that check in (even though their bootable
ISOs
are CentOS).
Several years ago, I was introduced to self-abuse (that is, tech
support
from a company which shall remain nameless, but who *must* keep their profits up to pay for their CEO's fighter jet, and Hawaiian island, and....) The first engineer I spoke with got huffy, telling me they "didn't support CentOS", etc. I got them to give me another engineer (and another, and another....)
So it should be perfectly fine to run their driver.
markI'm testing on my box now and will post my results.
Thanks --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:12 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
> From: Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com > > > Well shoot! Thanks for the link. Definitely explains allot!
I'm
> going > to > > update the box with the latest HP SPP and double check the
updated
> driver > > is available. > > With this RAID controller and 4x 1TB are there any
recommendations
on
> the > > best way to install CentOS? Should I skip the controller,
config
disk
> as > > JBOD and RAID from there? I'd like to get the OS on a RAID but
should
> I > > just build the OS on one disk and then RAID the remaining three? > > If you use HP's fakeraid driver: > - you can use HP raid tools. > - your disks will be smartarray compatible, you can plug them on a
real
> smart array they will just work. > - you are dependent on HP to release new drivers for the new OS
releases
> on time... > - HP new policy: out of warranty, no more updates (except
security?)
for
> you... > > if you use AHCI + mdraid: > - simple, standard, etc... > - not "smartarray compatible". > > JD > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Kenny Noe knoe501@gmail.com wrote:
Mark,
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
You can. Notice I just did.
Click the ellipsis [...] Edit accordingly. Click send. :)
Respectfully --Kenny
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies.... what is top post and how am I doing this?
I thought I was just replying to the mailing list... Hit reply and
type
my message. (I'm such a noobie)
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:00:08 -0500 Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
There is a cursor-down key (usually indicated by a downward-pointing arrow, and located on the right-hand side of your keyboard) that you can use to move your cursor to the bottom of the quoted message before you start typing your response.
You can also use the PgDn key (usually located close to the cursor-down key) to move down one screen at a time instead of one like at a time if you wish.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:00:08PM -0500, Kenny Noe wrote:
Mark,
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
Here is my favorite example of top posting and why it is bad.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:31 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
You just top posted, again. #0: fuck Outlook, and anything like it. FOLLOW, or intercollate, with the responses to your email. Follow, as in put your response AT THE BOTTOM, of the email, not the top.
No, don't blame Outlook. Blame---I don't know who--even mutt puts the cursor at the top of the email--which makes sense. Start at the beginning. Then, you can go down through the letter and do inline posting, as if it were a conversation. Trimming is also important. I remember being on a martial arts list back in the 90's, when everyone used AOL and there were folks who would, at the end of a 100 line post, just say, Good post.
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php (in this case, the section on top-posting and trimming--trimming is as, IMHO, as, or more important to making an email readable.)
And, if you can't do it because you're on a cell phone, then wait till you get to a computer and post your reply then. (Although, even on cell phones, one can scroll down if they really want to.)
Anything else I say will make me feel like I'm now a grouchy old man cursin' out the durn kids on my lawn, but anyway---look at it this way--many on this list (and any list that has experienced people--and this used to be true of the better MS lists as well, don't know if it still is), will figure--if you're too lazy to bother posting in a way that makes it easy to read, as Mark says, no one is going to go to the bottom of the email to see what it was all about.
On 3/4/2014 4:59 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
the gmail web interface hides the whole replied message and starts you at the top. further, it doesn't > 'quote' the replied text.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 3/4/2014 4:59 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
the gmail web interface hides the whole replied message and starts you at the top. further, it doesn't > 'quote' the replied text.
-- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
I am sending this reply from my gmail account (web interface). :-)
Akemi
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:48 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 3/4/2014 4:59 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
the gmail web interface hides the whole replied message and starts you at the top. further, it doesn't > 'quote' the replied text.
Click the 3 little dots and it unhides the quoted part. Whether it shows bars down the side for html or >'s for plain text is optional. And obviously you can move the cursor before you start typing.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Scott Robbins scottro@nyc.rr.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:00:08PM -0500, Kenny Noe wrote:
Mark,
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
Here is my favorite example of top posting and why it is bad.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Good example. Stop it! :-)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:00:08PM -0500, Kenny Noe wrote:
Mark,
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
Since nobody has actually mentioned a solution for him (specifically that he's not seeing how to not top post; or at least I haven't noticed one, sorry if I missed and this is just redundant): in the gmail web interface, you'll want to look for the grayed out boxed ellipsis in the mail as you start to respond (it'll look something like [...]), hover over it, it'll say 'show trimmed text', click that and you'll see the entirety of the email message and you can bottom post your response.like I did for this one.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:43 AM, zGreenfelder zgreenfelder@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:00:08PM -0500, Kenny Noe wrote:
Mark,
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place
where
you want to type?
Since nobody has actually mentioned a solution for him (specifically that he's not seeing how to not top post; or at least I haven't noticed one, sorry if I missed and this is just redundant): in the gmail web interface, you'll want to look for the grayed out boxed ellipsis in the mail as you start to respond (it'll look something like [...]), hover over it, it'll say 'show trimmed text', click that and you'll see the entirety of the email message and you can bottom post your response.like I did for this one.
-- Even the Magic 8 ball has an opinion on email clients: Outlook not so good. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ok thanks to all for showing me the errors of my ways.... <grin>
--Kenny
Kenny Noe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:43 AM, zGreenfelder zgreenfelder@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:00:08PM -0500, Kenny Noe wrote:
My apologies for your frustration.... However I don't see a way to "bottom" post my replies. FYI... I'm using gmail.
Are you saying the gmail interface gives no way to click at the place where you want to type?
Since nobody has actually mentioned a solution for him (specifically that he's not seeing how to not top post; or at least I haven't noticed one, sorry if I missed and this is just redundant):
Since I've never used gmail (and refuse to ever do so), I don't know the interface... other that to note that *all* webmail ranges from "mostly useable" (I'm using squirrelmail here at work for my own account) to utterly lousy (i.e., Lookout, er, Outlook Web Access).
in the gmail web interface, you'll want to look for the grayed out boxed ellipsis in the mail as you start to respond (it'll look something like [...]), hover over it, it'll say 'show trimmed text', click that and you'll see the entirety of the email message and you can bottom post your response.like I did for this one.
Ok thanks to all for showing me the errors of my ways.... <grin>
Hallelujah, brethren and sistran, he has Seen the Light, and come to the True Unix Way.... <g>
mark
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:25 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Since I've never used gmail (and refuse to ever do so), I don't know the interface... other that to note that *all* webmail ranges from "mostly useable" (I'm using squirrelmail here at work for my own account) to utterly lousy (i.e., Lookout, er, Outlook Web Access).
Heh. If you use gmail's web interface, you don't even care about how someone responds. It will automatically hide the parts you've already seen, regardless of how they are quoted or whether they are above/below the new parts. It replaces them with ellipses (...) that you can click to expand in case you've forgotten the context, and it (optionally) places the message in its thread context with the posts you have already read collapsed, but likewise easily expanded. And of course if you need to find something that isn't already arranged to be a click away you can search for it. Google knows how to search.
Also, I'm willing to bet that that Outlook Web server that you are ranting about is the decade+ old 2003 version. The 2010 version is not bad at all (and I say that reluctantly, not being a big MS fan in general). Sometimes newer is better. Especially 10 years newer.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:25 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Since I've never used gmail (and refuse to ever do so), I don't know the interface... other that to note that *all* webmail ranges from "mostly useable" (I'm using squirrelmail here at work for my own account) to utterly lousy (i.e., Lookout, er, Outlook Web Access).
Heh. If you use gmail's web interface, you don't even care about how someone responds. It will automatically hide the parts you've already seen, regardless of how they are quoted or whether they are above/below the new parts. It replaces them with ellipses (...) that
Oh, what a wonderful interface... for folks who have no memory, or care where a conversation's been. Thanks for giving me another reason (I should want to search inside an email that's maybe 40 or 60 lines long, to see what someone said?) that I *never* want to use it. <snip>
Also, I'm willing to bet that that Outlook Web server that you are ranting about is the decade+ old 2003 version. The 2010 version is not bad at all (and I say that reluctantly, not being a big MS fan in general). Sometimes newer is better. Especially 10 years newer.
Nope, they've upgraded us to 2010 last year. The one good thing is that they seem to have gotten rid of the vile ActiveX controls in the calendar, and I now can see and turn off the "send reminders every 15 min by default" when I've scheduled vacation time w/ my manager in firefox, rather than having to go home, and fire up the work WonDoze laptop.....
mark
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:58 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Heh. If you use gmail's web interface, you don't even care about how someone responds. It will automatically hide the parts you've already seen, regardless of how they are quoted or whether they are above/below the new parts. It replaces them with ellipses (...) that
Oh, what a wonderful interface... for folks who have no memory, or care where a conversation's been.
I don't think you get it. It caters exactly to both of those situations. The things you have already read are conveniently out of the way, assuming that you'll remember them and not want to waste the screen space - yet displayed at a click without a full screen redraw if you want them.
Thanks for giving me another reason (I should want to search inside an email that's maybe 40 or 60 lines long, to see what someone said?) that I *never* want to use it.
No, the search is for other things that might be anywhere in your mailbox or subfolders. Remember just a few words? - no problem. Want messages in threads you have responded to before but might have missed the last reply back? - easy, and fast.
Also, I'm willing to bet that that Outlook Web server that you are ranting about is the decade+ old 2003 version. The 2010 version is not bad at all (and I say that reluctantly, not being a big MS fan in general). Sometimes newer is better. Especially 10 years newer.
Nope, they've upgraded us to 2010 last year. The one good thing is that they seem to have gotten rid of the vile ActiveX controls in the calendar, and I now can see and turn off the "send reminders every 15 min by default" when I've scheduled vacation time w/ my manager in firefox, rather than having to go home, and fire up the work WonDoze laptop.....
I find the 2010 version very usable from a Mac/firefox window with no ActiveX. I almost never bother firing up a vpn on a laptop to run outlook at home just for mail-related things.
On 3/3/2014 11:52 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
HP ML350e G8 servers. They use the HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i raid controllers.
those are, I believe, 'fake raid' interfaces, where the actual raid is done in the device driver.
you're generally better off configuring that sort of interface for JBOD, and doing the raid with linux mdraid.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:14 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 3/3/2014 11:52 AM, Kenny Noe wrote:
HP ML350e G8 servers. They use the HP Dynamic Smart Array B120i raid controllers.
those are, I believe, 'fake raid' interfaces, where the actual raid is done in the device driver.
you're generally better off configuring that sort of interface for JBOD, and doing the raid with linux mdraid.
Which will mean you need a non-raid or RAID1 partition to boot from.
-
Akemi Yagi -
Asif Murad Khan -
Drew Weaver -
Erik Laxdal -
Frank Cox -
James A. Peltier -
John Doe -
John R Pierce -
Kenny Noe -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Mauricio Tavares -
Michael Hennebry -
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg -
Scott Robbins -
SilverTip257 -
Ted Miller -
Thomas Eriksson -
zGreenfelder