has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/...
fs-cache is a tech preview(Zero support from redhat).
Tried cachefs on a few servers(don't remember if it was rhel 6.1 or 6.2 at the time), had problems (server hanging/unresponsive), asked redhat for support, was denied support, removed cachefs.
Unsure if newer versions are more stable.("fool me once" kind if thing)
On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Rita rmorgan466@gmail.com wrote:
has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
-- --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.-- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs like http://ccache.samba.org/
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Steven Tardy sjt5atra@gmail.com wrote:
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/...
fs-cache is a tech preview(Zero support from redhat).
Tried cachefs on a few servers(don't remember if it was rhel 6.1 or 6.2 at the time), had problems (server hanging/unresponsive), asked redhat for support, was denied support, removed cachefs.
Unsure if newer versions are more stable.("fool me once" kind if thing)
On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Rita rmorgan466@gmail.com wrote:
has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but
i
keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
-- --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.-- _______________________________________________ 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 02.03.2014 15:58, Rita wrote:
thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs like http://ccache.samba.org/
I don't see how a compiler cache could help you with your problem. That's a totally different thing.
HTH Lucian
Yes, compiler cache is different. I suppose I should ask is there something similar to cache?
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Nux! nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 02.03.2014 15:58, Rita wrote:
thanks steve. seems like we are in the same boat.
I was wondering if there was an alternative to cachefs like http://ccache.samba.org/
I don't see how a compiler cache could help you with your problem. That's a totally different thing.
HTH Lucian
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux! www.nux.ro _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Am 01.03.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Rita rmorgan466@gmail.com:
has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
we use it with nfs (latest EL6 OS version). In the last year we had two system freezes caused by cachefs. Its still a tech preview.
the nfs client performance is significant better with cachefs enabled.
-- LF
We are using CentOS 6.5 and it has been very stable. we were hit with bugs in 6.2 6.3 and 6.4.
-- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
thanks for your response.
How come I don't see any changes in the Centos 6.{3,4,5} release which mention updates to cachefs?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:22 PM, grants grants@al.com.au wrote:
We are using CentOS 6.5 and it has been very stable. we were hit with bugs in 6.2 6.3 and 6.4.
-- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I don't know why they weren't in the release notes....maybe because it's a preview release? They were issues in the Kernel. If you have a look at the output of
rpm -q kernel -changelog|less
you can see a whole swag of changes in 2.6.32-405.el6
On 03/04/14 12:34, Rita wrote:
thanks for your response.
How come I don't see any changes in the Centos 6.{3,4,5} release which mention updates to cachefs?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:22 PM, grants grants@al.com.au wrote:
We are using CentOS 6.5 and it has been very stable. we were hit with bugs in 6.2 6.3 and 6.4.
-- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Am 03.04.2014 um 04:15 schrieb Grant Street grants@al.com.au:
On 03/04/14 12:34, Rita wrote:
How come I don't see any changes in the Centos 6.{3,4,5} release which mention updates to cachefs?
I don't know why they weren't in the release notes....maybe because it's a preview release? They were issues in the Kernel. If you have a look at the output of
rpm -q kernel -changelog|less
you can see a whole swag of changes in 2.6.32-405.el6
i can confirm this - RHEL 6.5 is the way to go
https://access.redhat.com/site/solutions/374553
-- LF
Again,
thanks for the confirmation
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Leon Fauster leonfauster@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 03.04.2014 um 04:15 schrieb Grant Street grants@al.com.au:
On 03/04/14 12:34, Rita wrote:
How come I don't see any changes in the Centos 6.{3,4,5} release which mention updates to cachefs?
I don't know why they weren't in the release notes....maybe because it's a preview release? They were issues in the Kernel. If you have a look at the output of
rpm -q kernel -changelog|less
you can see a whole swag of changes in 2.6.32-405.el6
i can confirm this - RHEL 6.5 is the way to go
https://access.redhat.com/site/solutions/374553
-- LF
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi
We are testing out the efficiency of cachefs and I was wondering what values other people use to decide if * cachefs is providing value? * cache size is the right/best/optimal size? * There is enough cache hits to make it worth while? * what files are being re-used(read from cache) the most? * how do I know if file are being opened with directIO ?
I have access to /proc/fs/fscache/stats and /proc/fs/fscache/objects
But the documentation is not clear in fscache.txt
Thanks in advance.
Grant
-
Grant Street -
grants
-
Leon Fauster -
Nux! -
Rita -
Steven Tardy