Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[John R Pierce]

Ross S. W. Walker wrote:


Yes, though slammed hardware RAID a bit. Software RAID has it's place 
don't

get me wrong, it's just knowing when and where.

Now the problem I have with your approach under the OP's
requirements is the only way to fit that kinda storage over that long a
period is with external enclosures and there isn't many systems that 
have external 4 lane serial storage
connectors builtin, so one needs a card that can perform that and if 
you are shopping for a card to do that
then you might as well get one for a few $100 more that has on board 
RAID. Also if the OP wanted to switch
distro's he will not have to worry about losing the RAID configuration 
or hosing it in the process.




I've never had any problems with linux losing track of md based raid 
mirrors or LVM configurations, and they import quite nicely into new 
systems.



I'd consider using a SAS card on the host (LSI Logic makes some nice 
ones), and each SAS port can drive 16 SATA drives on SATA/SAS backplane 
multiplexors. 
http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/host_bus_adapters/sas_hbas/lsisas3801e/index.html


I'd start with a 3U 16 bay /server/ using a SAS/SATA backplane, too, 
then when that fills up, add 16 drive expansion bays as needed...
something like http://www.aicipc.com/ProductImage.aspx?ref=RSC-3ED2-2 
(but, by all means, pick your favorite chassis or system vendor)





___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[MHR]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Lanny Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 15:48 -0700, MHR wrote:
>  
>
> > As root, go to the directory where the rpms are located (you can use
>  > 'find' for this if you don't alreayd know) and run:
>  >
>  > rpm -ivh kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
>  > kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
>
>  Mark: Syntax for the find command so I can locate those 2 packages? If I
>  can find them, then I think this will be solved quickly. TIA, Lanny
>

Either 'man find' or 'find --help' would give you faster and more
accurate results.

Best wishes!

mhr
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Ross S. W. Walker]

Yes, though slammed hardware RAID a bit. Software RAID has it's place don't
get me wrong, it's just knowing when and where.

Now the problem I have with your approach under the OP's
requirements is the only way to fit that kinda storage over that long a
period is with external enclosures and there isn't many systems that have 
external 4 lane serial storage
connectors builtin, so one needs a card that can perform that and if you are 
shopping for a card to do that
then you might as well get one for a few $100 more that has on board RAID. Also 
if the OP wanted to switch
distro's he will not have to worry about losing the RAID configuration or 
hosing it in the process.

-Ross


- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CentOS mailing list 
Sent: Tue May 06 20:39:52 2008
Subject: Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

The point was, acceptable performance can be had without purchasing a hardware 
controller. And for archival purposes on a tight budget $500 bucks means one 
controller for 3 more drives. 


On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:17 PM, John R Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ross S. W. Walker wrote:



Take these benchmarks with a grain of salt.




and, more importantly, for the thread at hand, this guy wants an 
ARCHIVE server, where performance is quite secondary, reliablity and data 
retention are more important.

If he had the budget, I'd be suggesting looking at something like 
Copan's MAID system.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos





-- 
Jason
Luck favors the prepared. 

__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Lanny Marcus]

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 15:48 -0700, MHR wrote:

> As root, go to the directory where the rpms are located (you can use
> 'find' for this if you don't alreayd know) and run:
> 
> rpm -ivh kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
> kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5

Mark: Syntax for the find command so I can locate those 2 packages? If I
can find them, then I think this will be solved quickly. TIA, Lanny

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Re: Subject: "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Lanny Marcus]

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 15:41 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 5-6-2008 2:49 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake the 
> following:

> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qa kernel*
> > kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
> > kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
> > kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
> > Linux compaq1300.HOMELAN 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 SMP Thu Mar 15 19:57:35 EDT
> > 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$

> It sounds like the last kernel upgrade didn't finish the %post% scripts. The 
> easiest thing to try would be to rpm -e the new kernel and try a yum upgrade 
> again.
> Another thing to check... Is there a symlink from /boot/grub/menu.lst to 
> /boot/grub/grub.conf?
> I have had that on my systems since time began and maybe it is a requirement 
> for things to work right. Just a guess.

Scott: Great! If I can locate kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 and
kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 I can use the rpm -e command to remove them
and then yum update again and that should update the kernel in her box.
How do I locate them? Practicing on my box (wife is using her box) and
rpm -qi shows a lot of information about the files but doesn't show
where they are located. TIA, Lanny

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Jason Clark]

The point was, acceptable performance can be had without purchasing a
hardware controller. And for archival purposes on a tight budget $500 bucks
means one controller for 3 more drives.

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:17 PM, John R Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > Take these benchmarks with a grain of salt.
> >
> >
> and, more importantly, for the thread at hand, this guy wants an ARCHIVE
> server, where performance is quite secondary, reliablity and data retention
> are more important.
>
> If he had the budget, I'd be suggesting looking at something like Copan's
> MAID system.
>
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



-- 
Jason
Luck favors the prepared.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[John R Pierce]

Ross S. W. Walker wrote:


Take these benchmarks with a grain of salt.



and, more importantly, for the thread at hand, this guy wants an ARCHIVE 
server, where performance is quite secondary, reliablity and data 
retention are more important.


If he had the budget, I'd be suggesting looking at something like 
Copan's MAID system.



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Postfix+MySQL - how to create DB

[Liam Kirsher]

I used postfixadmin and it has been fine.  (CentOS 5)
I suggest redirecting (in the http server) all postfixadmin access to 
https for security.

I found the db schema satisfactory for my needs.
The point with postfixadmin is the PHP interface to the database.
You /could/ just create whatever tables you needed and edit them with 
phpMyAdmin,
but postfixadmin gives you a simple interface that users and domain 
admins can use.


kalinix wrote:

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 22:31 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
  

Hi All,

I'm toying around with Postfix and MySQL on a CentOS 4 server (no longer
using stock postfix and mysql rpms, obviously).  I've read several
"How-TOs", and it all looks fairly easy to do.

The one thing that puzzles me is the table structure for the postfix
mysql database: where is everyone getting it?  Also, I've noticed that
some people create more tables than others.  But, this looks like it's
just based on which bits of postfix people want to put into the
database.

I can just copy the SQL people have posted to create the tables I want.
I'd much rather know if there is an official source for this, though. So
far I haven't found it.

Regards,

Ranbir





Maybe postfixadmin (http://postfixadmin.sourceforge.net/) would help? at
least as a starting point...


Just my 2c


Calin

=
Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know. --
Daniel J. Boorstin

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

  


--
Liam Kirsher
PGP: http://liam.numenet.com/pgp/

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Ross S. W. Walker]

Take these benchmarks with a grain of salt.

We don't know how these hardware controllers were setup and by the numbers 
posted, not very well, or they are not very good.

A SATA and a SAS drive will have roughly the same sequential io performance. 
Where SAS shines is in random io. So if it's archive, buy SATA.

65MB/s is roughly what you will see with a single SAS or SATA drive on reads, 
around 30MB/s for writes.

Sequential io is measured in MB/s and random io in IOPS or ios per second.

Each spindle in a stripe set will roughly add 50% perf to sequential io and add 
to the IOPS by the IOPS of the spindle (IOPS+IOPS...). A mirror counts as 1 
spindle for reads and 1/2 a spindle for writes (unless RAID is capable of doing 
parallel reads then it counts as 1 1/2 of reads). A RAID 5 is always one less 
spindle due to parity and each spindle on writes counts as 1/#spindles 
(write-back cache helps lessen that hurt).

For 4k sequential ios (larger block sizes will post larger numbers).

1 spindle = 65MB/s and 175 IOPS
2 spindles = 97.5MB/s and 350 IOPS
3 spindles = 146.25MB/s and 525 IOPS
4 spindles = 219.375MB/s and 700 IOPS

(175 IOPS is from 15K SAS with 3.5ms read seek and 2ms avg latency, figure 80 
IOPS for good SATA drive)

Now any performance below those numbers is a failure of the RAID system and any 
performance above those numbers is due to caching and read-ahead.

I hope that helps.

-Ross


- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CentOS mailing list 
Sent: Tue May 06 17:20:16 2008
Subject: Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

I just posted this on my website, oddly enough.   While you need to
really understand your storage requirements to make an informed choice
between hardware or software RAID, with quad core CPUs being as cheap as
they are it's hard to not make the argument for software.
This is just hdparm over an average of 5 runs each on very similar
machines.

5 disc SAS array with 136g 10k drives and a hardware controller

Timing cached reads: 13336 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6673.96 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 98 MB in 1.18 seconds = 83.31 MB/sec

4 disc RAID 5 with 3Ware 9650SE and 500g 7200RPM drives

Timing cached reads: 6576 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3293.08 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 448 MB in 3.00 seconds = 149.20 MB/sec

Single 500g 7200 RPM SATA drive

Timing cached reads: 14220 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7119.78 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 198 MB in 3.02 seconds = 65.51 MB/sec

6 500g 7200 RPM SATA drives in a software RAID 5 array

Timing cached reads: 14364 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7191.86 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 852 MB in 3.00 seconds = 283.64 MB/sec

Jason
www.cyborgworkshop.org


Michael Semcheski wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Ed Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> 
> Situation:
> My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This
> will increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough
> est.).  This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it
> will only be used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are
> small up to 10 MB but numerous.
> 
> 
> The solution I found best was to buy a 2U server that has 8*750GB disks,
> though they'd probably be 1TB today.  Put the disks into a RAID 5 or 6. 
> Using hardware RAID, divvy them up into one 50GB drive, and one really
> large drive.  Put the OS on the 50GB drive, mount the really big drive. 
> 
> Now you have a 50GB drive and a 7*750-50 drive.  When you fill that up,
> just buy another 2U server.  When you do fill it up, the next one will
> be cheaper and or bigger.
> 
> The keys to this type of setup are:
> 1) Don't buy storage you'll need next year today.  The best time to buy
> this kind of hardware is right before you need it.
> 2) Look at the overall cost per gigabyte.  That's the metric that drives
> things.
> 3) Understand your tolerance for downtime and data protection.  If you
> have another copy, or a backup, and its not mission critical data, its
> much cheaper not to waste disks on redundancy.
> 
> We have tape backups of our systems, and factoring in the cost of tape
> and other costs, its still possible to get storage with a marginal cost
> below $1 / GB.  That includes a 3 year warranty, quad core processor,
> 4GB of RAM  which you can probably put to use elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential inf

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[MHR]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:49 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qa kernel*
>  kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
>  kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
>  kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
>
>  How can I correct this, so the box
>  will boot the latest kernel? TIA! Lanny

As root, go to the directory where the rpms are located (you can use
'find' for this if you don't alreayd know) and run:

rpm -ivh kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5

mhr
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Re: Subject: "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Scott Silva]

on 5-6-2008 2:49 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake the 
following:

On 5/6/08, Ralph Angenendt  wrote:

Lanny Marcus wrote:

If there is some place I can check in a yum database or RPM database on
her box, to verify the kernel version that's really installed (probably
the original one), please let me know where that is. Thanks much! Lanny

rpm -qa kernel*


[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qa kernel*
kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
Linux compaq1300.HOMELAN 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 SMP Thu Mar 15 19:57:35 EDT
2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$

Ralph: Thank you for the rpm command and the syntax! That confirms
what I have been seeing the past few days, that no updates are
available! The kernel-headers for the latest kernel is there, along
with the latest kernel. However, it is not shown in the GRUB menu when
I boot the box, and, the box boots the old kernel. My knowledge of
Linux, obviously, is very limited. How can I correct this, so the box
will boot the latest kernel? TIA! Lanny
It sounds like the last kernel upgrade didn't finish the %post% scripts. The 
easiest thing to try would be to rpm -e the new kernel and try a yum upgrade 
again.
Another thing to check... Is there a symlink from /boot/grub/menu.lst to 
/boot/grub/grub.conf?
I have had that on my systems since time began and maybe it is a requirement 
for things to work right. Just a guess.


--
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[lannyma]

On 5/6/08, Ralph Angenendt  wrote:
> Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > If there is some place I can check in a yum database or RPM database on
> > her box, to verify the kernel version that's really installed (probably
> > the original one), please let me know where that is. Thanks much! Lanny
>
> rpm -qa kernel*

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qa kernel*
kernel-headers-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
kernel-2.6.18-8.el5
kernel-2.6.18-53.1.14.el5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
Linux compaq1300.HOMELAN 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 SMP Thu Mar 15 19:57:35 EDT
2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$

Ralph: Thank you for the rpm command and the syntax! That confirms
what I have been seeing the past few days, that no updates are
available! The kernel-headers for the latest kernel is there, along
with the latest kernel. However, it is not shown in the GRUB menu when
I boot the box, and, the box boots the old kernel. My knowledge of
Linux, obviously, is very limited. How can I correct this, so the box
will boot the latest kernel? TIA! Lanny
>
> And: pup is a frontend to yum is a frontend to rpm which holds the
> package database.

Much better than multiple databases!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Jason]

I just posted this on my website, oddly enough.   While you need to
really understand your storage requirements to make an informed choice
between hardware or software RAID, with quad core CPUs being as cheap as
they are it's hard to not make the argument for software.
This is just hdparm over an average of 5 runs each on very similar
machines.

5 disc SAS array with 136g 10k drives and a hardware controller

Timing cached reads: 13336 MB in 2.00 seconds = 6673.96 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 98 MB in 1.18 seconds = 83.31 MB/sec

4 disc RAID 5 with 3Ware 9650SE and 500g 7200RPM drives

Timing cached reads: 6576 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3293.08 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 448 MB in 3.00 seconds = 149.20 MB/sec

Single 500g 7200 RPM SATA drive

Timing cached reads: 14220 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7119.78 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 198 MB in 3.02 seconds = 65.51 MB/sec

6 500g 7200 RPM SATA drives in a software RAID 5 array

Timing cached reads: 14364 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7191.86 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 852 MB in 3.00 seconds = 283.64 MB/sec

Jason
www.cyborgworkshop.org


Michael Semcheski wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Ed Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> 
> Situation:
> My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This
> will increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough
> est.).  This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it
> will only be used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are
> small up to 10 MB but numerous.
> 
> 
> The solution I found best was to buy a 2U server that has 8*750GB disks,
> though they'd probably be 1TB today.  Put the disks into a RAID 5 or 6. 
> Using hardware RAID, divvy them up into one 50GB drive, and one really
> large drive.  Put the OS on the 50GB drive, mount the really big drive. 
> 
> Now you have a 50GB drive and a 7*750-50 drive.  When you fill that up,
> just buy another 2U server.  When you do fill it up, the next one will
> be cheaper and or bigger.
> 
> The keys to this type of setup are:
> 1) Don't buy storage you'll need next year today.  The best time to buy
> this kind of hardware is right before you need it.
> 2) Look at the overall cost per gigabyte.  That's the metric that drives
> things.
> 3) Understand your tolerance for downtime and data protection.  If you
> have another copy, or a backup, and its not mission critical data, its
> much cheaper not to waste disks on redundancy.
> 
> We have tape backups of our systems, and factoring in the cost of tape
> and other costs, its still possible to get storage with a marginal cost
> below $1 / GB.  That includes a 3 year warranty, quad core processor,
> 4GB of RAM  which you can probably put to use elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Michael Semcheski]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Ed Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Situation:
> My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will
> increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  This
> box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be used
> very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB but
> numerous.
>

The solution I found best was to buy a 2U server that has 8*750GB disks,
though they'd probably be 1TB today.  Put the disks into a RAID 5 or 6.
Using hardware RAID, divvy them up into one 50GB drive, and one really large
drive.  Put the OS on the 50GB drive, mount the really big drive.

Now you have a 50GB drive and a 7*750-50 drive.  When you fill that up, just
buy another 2U server.  When you do fill it up, the next one will be cheaper
and or bigger.

The keys to this type of setup are:
1) Don't buy storage you'll need next year today.  The best time to buy this
kind of hardware is right before you need it.
2) Look at the overall cost per gigabyte.  That's the metric that drives
things.
3) Understand your tolerance for downtime and data protection.  If you have
another copy, or a backup, and its not mission critical data, its much
cheaper not to waste disks on redundancy.

We have tape backups of our systems, and factoring in the cost of tape and
other costs, its still possible to get storage with a marginal cost below $1
/ GB.  That includes a 3 year warranty, quad core processor, 4GB of RAM
which you can probably put to use elsewhere.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

RE: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Ross S. W. Walker]

Ed Morrison wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have 
> the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking 
> trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at 
> and concerned about.
> 
> Situation:
> My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually. This will 
> increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  
> This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be 
> used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB 
> but numerous.

Well that's a hell of a lot of storage for a cheap project. Instead of
a Dell MD3000 appliance try a Dell 860 1u server (Quad Xeon) with the
LSI PERC 5e 256/512MB RAID controller there you can chain up to 3
MD1000 JBOD SATA enclosures to it. It can handle mixed SAS/SATA drives
and can hold 45 spindles across 3 enclosures per 1u server.

The 1u device will be a SPOF but you wanted cheap...

> CentOS:
> Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to 
> archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data when 
> upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?

With the 1u server you can always upgrade the OS as the data is stored
externally. Hell you can even swap out the 1u 860 for say a 2u 2950
as needs grow which gives better redundancy as well as internal storage
for snapshots or some other use. Just get the 860 with 2x250GB drives,
and create a software mirror out of them. You can always break the mirror,
upgrade the OS and if it works re-mirror, otherwise boot the old half
and re-mirror.

> Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB storage 
> limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly for 
> stability.  I see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one using 
> this?  If so, how has it been for you?

ext3 can go up to 8TB, xfs and jfs can go up to 1EB which should hold
you.

> 
> FreeNAS
> Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add 
> new drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?

You can also check out OpenFiler which has NAS and iSCSI included.

-Ross

__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Jason]

I just purchased an equallogic SAN with 16 1TB drives for 52k at work.
Love it, scheduled snapshots, thin provisioning, iscsi only but fairly
swift at 16 spindles in a RAID 50.

Jason
www.cyborgworkshop.org


John R Pierce wrote:
> Ed Morrison wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have
>> the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking
>> trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at
>> and concerned about.
>>
>> Situation:
>> My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will
>> increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.). 
>> This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only
>> be used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10
>> MB but numerous.
>>
> 
> infrastructure to support lots of SATA drives isn't real cheap
> regardless.   you really don't want to just bolt a bunch of drives up
> inside a jumbo desktop tower and call it a server. 5 years at that
> run rate is going to be something like 12TB total storage, which using
> commodity 500GB SATA drives in raid10 will take around 48 drives.  
> Thats a lot of SATA channels...
> 
> With that many spindles, you'll also want to allocate several hot spares.
> 
> I dislike raid5 for a number of reasons, and would recommend sticking
> with mirroring, eg raid1 or raid10.   You /never/ want to build a raid5
> much over about 6-8 disks, or the raid rebuild times get ridiculous and
> double drive failures will lose huge amounts of storage.
> 
> 
> hey, have you considered the Sun x4500 ?  its a 4U(?) dual dualcore
> opteron server that comes with 48 x 500GB SATA drives. ***
> 
> 
>> CentOS:
>> Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to
>> archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data
>> when upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?
>>
> as others have said, as long as your critical data is on seperate file
> systems, there should be no issue here.
> 
>> Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB
>> storage limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly
>> for stability.  I see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one
>> using this?  If so, how has it been for you?
>>
> 
> since your data is archival in nature, it really shouldn't be that hard
> to manage it as multiple 2 TB chunks on seperate file systems.   when
> you fill 2TB, take 8 x 500GB more SATA drives, raid10 them, and mount
> them as another file system, /u01, /u02, keep an index file
> somewhere which logs which backups are where.
> 
> 
>>
>> FreeNAS
>> Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add
>> new drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?
> 
> I setup OpenFiler once, that worked quite nicely, supported NFS, SMB,
> and iSCSI, and was pretty easy to use.   I'd have to assume FreeNAS is
> similar.
> 
> 
> 
> *** heresy (for this list), Solaris 10, with its ZFS file system, is
> extremely good at handling very large storage configurations like this.
> ___
> 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

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Les Mikesell]

John R Pierce wrote:
 
infrastructure to support lots of SATA drives isn't real cheap 
regardless.   you really don't want to just bolt a bunch of drives up 
inside a jumbo desktop tower and call it a server. 5 years at that 
run rate is going to be something like 12TB total storage, which using 
commodity 500GB SATA drives in raid10 will take around 48 drives.   
Thats a lot of SATA channels...


1TB drives are available now.  5 years from now, who knows?

since your data is archival in nature, it really shouldn't be that hard 
to manage it as multiple 2 TB chunks on seperate file systems.   when 
you fill 2TB, take 8 x 500GB more SATA drives, raid10 them, and mount 
them as another file system, /u01, /u02, keep an index file 
somewhere which logs which backups are where.


If it's really rarely used and you have a sensible scheme to find it you 
could just have a drawer full of inexpensive external 1TB drives that 
you can plug in on demand, using USB, firewire, or sata connections.


--
   Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Les Mikesell]

Ed Morrison wrote:


I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have 
the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking 
trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at 
and concerned about.


Situation:
My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will 
increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  
This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be 
used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB 
but numerous.


First consider whether you can organize this into 1 TB or smaller 
partitions that are mounted separately.  If you can do that, growing the 
space is trivial - and you get the advantage that you can do raid1 
mirrors of individual drives which gives you the ability to recover data 
from any single disk.



CentOS:
Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to 
archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data when 
upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?


Don't put the permanent storage on your system drive(s) at all. Add one 
or more directories after installation and mount the additional 
partitions or raid arrays there.  Then if you do a new install, just 
uncheck the devices as disks that can be used for the system and add the 
mount points back when it is done.   But, there are lots of other ways 
to lose data.  If you'd need it after a building fire/flood or operator 
error you should build two of these and rsync to somewhere offsite.


Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB storage 
limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly for 
stability. 


I think that's 8TB if you don't boot from it.  But that's per mounted 
filesystem - if you can have smaller separate partitions, it won't matter.



FreeNAS
Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add 
new drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?


You might look at openfiler if you want an appliance.

--
  Les Mikesell
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] RE: Re: ext3 filesystems larger than 8TB

[Jeremy Sanders]

Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> ext4 is being previewed in Fedora 9 this month, so add one more to
> the list.

btrfs looks interesting too, though I expect it will be some time before it
is stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs

-- 
Jeremy Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www-xray.ast.cam.ac.uk/~jss/
X-Ray Group, Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, UK.
Public Key Server PGP Key ID: E1AAE053

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Slightly OT: Extra icons on desktop - SOLVED

[MHR]

I can't think of a better word for this than "weird."

I went back and reread most of the emails on the original thread, and
both Ross and Bill suggested that something about "misc" might be off.

So, I created a new mount point called "other," pointed fstab at it,
modified my scripts and symlinks that used to reference /misc, and
rebooted.

Voila!

/other was automounted, as I wanted, and there's only one icon on the
desktop for it.

I did notice along the way that /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit had a mount -a
with a -t list of types of FSs to mount, which did not include ext2 or
ext3.  I added those, and that did not help the /misc situation.

Apparently, there is something funny about /misc in FC8 (is that true
in CentOS?).

Anyway, problem solved, thanks to all, enjoy your day, etc., etc.

mhr
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[John R Pierce]

Scott Thistle wrote:

Actually, I am on rh436 course now. Why not set up centos51 as iscsi
target itself?
  


that just pushes the file management issues off to another system, where 
you still have to solve them


he wants an archive server, which is more of a NAS device then a SAN.   
iSCSI addresses the SAN space, providing flexible block storage to 
multiple systems



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[John R Pierce]

Ed Morrison wrote:

Hi:

I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have 
the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking 
trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at 
and concerned about.


Situation:
My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will 
increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  
This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only 
be used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 
MB but numerous.




infrastructure to support lots of SATA drives isn't real cheap 
regardless.   you really don't want to just bolt a bunch of drives up 
inside a jumbo desktop tower and call it a server. 5 years at that 
run rate is going to be something like 12TB total storage, which using 
commodity 500GB SATA drives in raid10 will take around 48 drives.   
Thats a lot of SATA channels...


With that many spindles, you'll also want to allocate several hot spares.

I dislike raid5 for a number of reasons, and would recommend sticking 
with mirroring, eg raid1 or raid10.   You /never/ want to build a raid5 
much over about 6-8 disks, or the raid rebuild times get ridiculous and 
double drive failures will lose huge amounts of storage.



hey, have you considered the Sun x4500 ?  its a 4U(?) dual dualcore 
opteron server that comes with 48 x 500GB SATA drives. ***




CentOS:
Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to 
archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data 
when upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?


as others have said, as long as your critical data is on seperate file 
systems, there should be no issue here.


Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB 
storage limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly 
for stability.  I see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one 
using this?  If so, how has it been for you?




since your data is archival in nature, it really shouldn't be that hard 
to manage it as multiple 2 TB chunks on seperate file systems.   when 
you fill 2TB, take 8 x 500GB more SATA drives, raid10 them, and mount 
them as another file system, /u01, /u02, keep an index file 
somewhere which logs which backups are where.





FreeNAS
Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add 
new drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?


I setup OpenFiler once, that worked quite nicely, supported NFS, SMB, 
and iSCSI, and was pretty easy to use.   I'd have to assume FreeNAS is 
similar.




*** heresy (for this list), Solaris 10, with its ZFS file system, is 
extremely good at handling very large storage configurations like this.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Scott Thistle]

Actually, I am on rh436 course now. Why not set up centos51 as iscsi
target itself?


On 5/6/08, Matt Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Ed Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> >  I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have the
> $
> > to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking trunning CentOS
> > 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at and concerned
> about.
> >
> >  Situation:
> >  My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will
> > increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).
> This
> > box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be used
> > very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB but
> > numerous.
> >
> >  CentOS:
> >  Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to
> > archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data when
> > upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?
> >
> >  Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB storage
> > limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly for stability.
> > I see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one using this?  If so,
> how
> > has it been for you?
> >
> >
> >  FreeNAS
> >  Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add
> new
> > drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >
> >  Ed
>
> I haven't used this and maybe I understand the concept, but what about
> RedHat's GFS?  From what has been told to me, you take a cluster of
> servers and it turns them into a large disk array.  Someone correct me
> if I'm wrong.
>
> --
> -matt
> ___
> 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

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Matt Shields]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Ed Morrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi:
>
>  I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have the $
> to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking trunning CentOS
> 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at and concerned about.
>
>  Situation:
>  My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will
> increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  This
> box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be used
> very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB but
> numerous.
>
>  CentOS:
>  Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to
> archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data when
> upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?
>
>  Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB storage
> limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly for stability.
> I see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one using this?  If so, how
> has it been for you?
>
>
>  FreeNAS
>  Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add new
> drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Ed

I haven't used this and maybe I understand the concept, but what about
RedHat's GFS?  From what has been told to me, you take a cluster of
servers and it turns them into a large disk array.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong.

-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Joshua Baker-LePain]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 at 12:11pm, Ed Morrison wrote


Situation:
My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will 
increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  This 
box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be used very 
infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB but numerous.


CentOS:
Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to 
archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data when 
upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?


You have to be careful, but it's quite easy to leave partitions (and thus 
their data) alone when you are updating/reinstalling the OS.


Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB storage 
limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly for stability.  I 
see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one using this?  If so, how has 
it been for you?


You cannot boot from a device larger than 2TiB, but that's the only 
limitation at that size.  I run several multi-TB servers (including over 
8TB) on CentOS-5 with no issues (using ext3).


You do not want to use ReiserFS.  It's not supported under CentOS, and 
it's future is far less than certain (and I do not want to restart *that* 
OT conversation).  ext3 is the default FS under CentOS and works pretty 
well.


--
Joshua Baker-LePain
QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin
UCSF
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] I need storage server advice

[Ed Morrison]

Hi:

I need advice on implementing a storage server.  I really do not have 
the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking 
trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS.  Here is what I am looking at 
and concerned about.


Situation:
My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually.  This will 
increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.).  
This box will just be a data archive and once it is full it will only be 
used very infrequently if not used at all. Files are small up to 10 MB 
but numerous.


CentOS:
Upgrading to the newer CentOS flavors.  I will not have the ability to 
archive this data to tape and I am concerned about loosing the data when 
upgrading the OS.  How best to handle this?


Storage limitation.  It is my understanding that there is a 2 TB storage 
limitation with Linux (and windows) in general particularly for 
stability.  I see that ReiserFS can go up to 16 TB.  Is any one using 
this?  If so, how has it been for you?



FreeNAS
Anyone using FreeNAS?  What is your experience?  How easy is it to add 
new drives and keep your data?  Upgrading to newer versions?


Thanks,

Ed
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] httpd reverse proxy

[Craig White]

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 11:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote on Mon, 05 May 2008 23:49:11 -0500:
> 
> > Its actually very useful to access backend hosts on private networks or 
> > to transparently spread the load across several machines.
> 
> If you proxy it, not with a Redirect, yes. It seemed he wanted just a 
> redirect.

I wanted to proxy it...I was willing to accept a redirect as a temporary
measure.

Thanks all

Craig

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Bob Taylor]

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 09:25 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 16:11 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> > Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > > If there is some place I can check in a yum database or RPM database on
> > > her box, to verify the kernel version that's really installed (probably
> > > the original one), please let me know where that is. Thanks much! Lanny
> > 
> > rpm -qa kernel*
> > 
> > And: pup is a frontend to yum is a frontend to rpm which holds the
> > package database.
> 
> Ralph: Thank you for the above! I need to leave now, but I will check
> that out, ASAP! Lanny

Have you looked at the file /etc/rpm/platform? If it has been changed
you will not get any kernel updates.
-- 
Bob Taylor

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] SELinux, postfix and milters

[Michael Saavedra]

Hi all,

I'm trying to add some milters (particularly spamass-milter and 
clamav-milter, which I acquired through rpmforge) to my postfix 
configuration on Centos5 with the targeted SELinux policy..


I'm running into difficulty getting postfix to communicate through the 
unix domain sockets created by the milters, because selinux keeps 
blocking them. I've attempted to use audit2allow to fix this, and made 
some progress in allowing postfix to write to the socket. I'm getting 
stuck on the following audit.log error, though.



type=AVC msg=audit(1210016235.033:6265): avc:  denied  { use } for 
pid=17995 comm="cleanup" path="socket:[372498]" dev=sockfs ino=372498 
scontext=root:system_r:postfix_cleanup_t:s0 
tcontext=root:system_r:postfix_smtpd_t:s0 tclass=fd
type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1210016235.033:6265): arch=c03e syscall=47 
success=yes exit=1 a0=9 a1=7fff0ec2f220 a2=0 a3=0 items=0 ppid=17983 
pid=17995 auid=0 uid=89 gid=89 euid=89 suid=89 fsuid=89 egid=89 sgid=89 
fsgid=89 tty=(none) comm="cleanup" exe="/usr/libexec/postfix/cleanup" 
subj=root:system_r:postfix_cleanup_t:s0 key=(null)



I use audit2allow to try to fix this, but the resulting rule:

allow postfix_cleanup_t postfix_smtpd_t:fd use;

does nothing to help. Has anyone succesfully added unix domain socket 
based milters to postfix without disabling selinux? If anyone has any 
suggestions, I'd be grateful.


Thanks,
Michael Saavedra
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

RE: [CentOS] Port forwarding "File" ?

[Ross S. W. Walker]

Andrew @ ATM Logic wrote:
> 
> Can someone tell me what, and where the file that contains 
> the port forwarding info is on a standard install?  I had a 
> server fail, I have mounted the drive and need to get this info back.

/etc/sysconfig/iptables and /etc/sysconfig/ip6tables

-Ross

__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Port forwarding "File" ?

[Andrew @ ATM Logic]

Can someone tell me what, and where the file that contains the port
forwarding info is on a standard install?  I had a server fail, I have
mounted the drive and need to get this info back.
 
Thanks.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Lanny Marcus]

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 16:11 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > If there is some place I can check in a yum database or RPM database on
> > her box, to verify the kernel version that's really installed (probably
> > the original one), please let me know where that is. Thanks much! Lanny
> 
> rpm -qa kernel*
> 
> And: pup is a frontend to yum is a frontend to rpm which holds the
> package database.

Ralph: Thank you for the above! I need to leave now, but I will check
that out, ASAP! Lanny

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Ralph Angenendt]

Lanny Marcus wrote:
> If there is some place I can check in a yum database or RPM database on
> her box, to verify the kernel version that's really installed (probably
> the original one), please let me know where that is. Thanks much! Lanny

rpm -qa kernel*

And: pup is a frontend to yum is a frontend to rpm which holds the
package database.

Ralph


pgpCNiSZucjPc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: Subject: [CentOS] "yum update" did not update kernel on one box

[Lanny Marcus]

On 03 May 2008, Kai Schaetzl  wrote:
>Message: 9
?Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 16:31:50 +0200
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>Lanny Marcus wrote on Sat, 3 May 2008 07:28:10 -0500:
> Linux compaq1300.HOMELAN 2.6.18-8.el5

>Ok. I just asked because you never mentioned you had actually checked. 
>Just a kernel missing when you update is not proof ;-)
>I see that you have priority protections in place. Disable all your
>extra repos, then disable the protections (basically go back to your
>inital repo setup) and then do a check-update. You are using the
>mirrorlist and not a specific CentOS mirror, do you?

Kai: This is a follow on to my prior reply to this. I removed the
plugins=1 line in /etc/yum.conf and I removed 6 repositories. Then, I
did "yum clean all" and got "Cleaning up Everything". Then, I did "yum
update" and got, "No packages marked for update/obsoletion". Then, "yum
update kernel" and got "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion". Then
the yum.conf file type is shown as Cisco VPN Settings, so I couldn't
open/view it with a text editor. 

The last thing I did was to copy these files on my box and replace the
files on my wife's box with my files: (a) etc/yum/folder (b)
etc/yum.repos.d (c) /etc/yum.conf file

Same problem.

It is as if there is a YUM or RPM database, somewhere, that believes the
Kernel has been updated, and it has not been updated?

I find it very hard to believe that the Kernel was in fact updated, but
that it is still shown as the original Kernel that was on the CentOS5
Install DVD.

So, this continues to be a an unsolved mystery, but not like the
ReiserFS guy.  :-)

>BTW: I notice that your mail is missing any threading information, so
>that it doesn't thread at all. I see that other people who use Gmail do
>get the threading information, so there's probably some option not
>activated in your Gmail account.

I changed the setting for my subscription to the CentOS Mailing list,
from the Daily Digest to Individual messages.  This reply is to your
message that was in the Digest I received Sunday morning. In the future,
I will be replying to individual messages (using Gmail on the web or
with Evolution), so, hopefully, the threading will be better, if not
perfect. Gmail doesn't use Folders, they use Labels, and I don't have
that working on the web yet, but I can move the CentOS messages into the
CentOS Label in Evolution and because it's IMAP, they get moved into the
CentOS Label on the web too. Something else for me to check out, but
that's on the Gmail web site somewhere and will be much easier to cure
than this mystery about the kernel update on one box.

All of your ideas about the problem updating the Kernel in my wife's box
are very much appreciated! I believe now that when I updated the Kernel
(and 2 other packages) on my box and on my daughter's box, it was with
PUP and then later, I did a "yum update" to update everything else on
those boxes. 

If there is some place I can check in a yum database or RPM database on
her box, to verify the kernel version that's really installed (probably
the original one), please let me know where that is. Thanks much! Lanny

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS5.1 PHP 5.2 RPMs?

[James Fidell]

David Williams wrote:

 James Fidell wrote:

Is there a PHP 5.2 build for CentOS5.1 anywhere?  Unfortunately I
need a
fix for a SOAP bug that is present in the current 5.1.6 release.


Tske a look at Jason Litka's site:


http://www.jasonlitka.com/yum-repository/


That's what I'm using at the moment.  I am being harrassed for something
more "official" :(  Such is life.  They'll have to wait.

James
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS5.1 PHP 5.2 RPMs?

[David Williams]

> > >  James Fidell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is there a PHP 5.2 build for CentOS5.1 anywhere?  Unfortunately I
> > > > > need a
> > > > > fix for a SOAP bug that is present in the current 5.1.6 release.
> > > > >
> > > > Tske a look at Jason Litka's site:

http://www.jasonlitka.com/yum-repository/

Archives:
http://www.jasonlitka.com/archives/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] images gone after yum update

[Ray Van Dolson]

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 03:48:01PM +0200, Geert Batsleer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> yesterday I upgraded a centos 4.6 box via yum and now it seems that
> certain pages, especially swf files stopped working.
> 
> Does anyone know if ImageMagick got broken  on x64? I don't see any
> other package wich could have caused this problem.
> 
> kind regards,
> 
> Geert
> 
> PS Below is the output of my yum update
> 
> May 05 13:20:56 Updated: firefox.x86_64 1.5.0.12-0.15.el4.centos

Well, firefox got updated, so perhaps your flash plugin is not present
in the "new" firefox directory.

Ray
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] images gone after yum update

[Geert Batsleer]

Hi,

yesterday I upgraded a centos 4.6 box via yum and now it seems that certain
pages, especially swf files stopped working.

Does anyone know if ImageMagick got broken  on x64? I don't see any other
package wich could have caused this problem.

kind regards,

Geert

PS Below is the output of my yum update

May 05 13:20:25 Updated: cups-libs.x86_64 1:1.1.22-0.rc1.9.20.2.el4_6.6
May 05 13:20:25 Updated: GeoIP.x86_64 1.4.4-1.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:25 Updated: seamonkey-nspr.x86_64 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:29 Updated: ImageMagick.x86_64 6.0.7.1-17.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:38 Updated: nautilus.x86_64 2.8.1-4.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:38 Updated: speex.x86_64 1.0.4-4.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:38 Updated: unrar.x86_64 3.7.8-1.el4.rf
May 05 13:20:39 Updated: rsync.x86_64 3.0.2-1.el4.rf
May 05 13:20:43 Updated: squid.x86_64 7:2.5.STABLE14-1.4E.el4_6.2
May 05 13:20:44 Updated: cups-libs.i386 1:1.1.22-0.rc1.9.20.2.el4_6.6
May 05 13:20:47 Updated: cups.x86_64 1:1.1.22-0.rc1.9.20.2.el4_6.6
May 05 13:20:47 Updated: seamonkey-nspr.i386 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:48 Updated: seamonkey-nss.x86_64 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:49 Updated: seamonkey-nss.i386 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:49 Updated: speex.i386 1.0.4-4.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:49 Updated: libgnomecups.i386 0.1.12-5.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:50 Updated: libgnomecups.x86_64 0.1.12-5.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:50 Updated: dkms.noarch 2.0.19-2.el4.rf
May 05 13:20:56 Updated: firefox.x86_64 1.5.0.12-0.15.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:56 Updated: GeoIP-data.x86_64 20080301-1.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:56 Updated: GeoIP-devel.x86_64 1.4.4-1.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:57 Updated: ImageMagick-devel.x86_64 6.0.7.1-17.el4_6.1
May 06 15:34:14 Updated: perl-DBI.x86_64 1.604-1.el4.rf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# tail -n 100 /var/log/yum.log
Mar 27 12:01:49 Updated: krb5-libs.x86_64 1.3.4-54.el4_6.1
Mar 27 12:01:49 Updated: krb5-libs.i386 1.3.4-54.el4_6.1
Mar 27 12:01:51 Updated: krb5-workstation.x86_64 1.3.4-54.el4_6.1
Mar 27 12:01:52 Updated: krb5-devel.x86_64 1.3.4-54.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:25 Updated: cups-libs.x86_64 1:1.1.22-0.rc1.9.20.2.el4_6.6
May 05 13:20:25 Updated: GeoIP.x86_64 1.4.4-1.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:25 Updated: seamonkey-nspr.x86_64 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:29 Updated: ImageMagick.x86_64 6.0.7.1-17.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:38 Updated: nautilus.x86_64 2.8.1-4.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:38 Updated: speex.x86_64 1.0.4-4.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:38 Updated: unrar.x86_64 3.7.8-1.el4.rf
May 05 13:20:39 Updated: rsync.x86_64 3.0.2-1.el4.rf
May 05 13:20:43 Updated: squid.x86_64 7:2.5.STABLE14-1.4E.el4_6.2
May 05 13:20:44 Updated: cups-libs.i386 1:1.1.22-0.rc1.9.20.2.el4_6.6
May 05 13:20:47 Updated: cups.x86_64 1:1.1.22-0.rc1.9.20.2.el4_6.6
May 05 13:20:47 Updated: seamonkey-nspr.i386 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:48 Updated: seamonkey-nss.x86_64 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:49 Updated: seamonkey-nss.i386 1.0.9-16.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:49 Updated: speex.i386 1.0.4-4.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:49 Updated: libgnomecups.i386 0.1.12-5.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:50 Updated: libgnomecups.x86_64 0.1.12-5.el4_6.1
May 05 13:20:50 Updated: dkms.noarch 2.0.19-2.el4.rf
May 05 13:20:56 Updated: firefox.x86_64 1.5.0.12-0.15.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:56 Updated: GeoIP-data.x86_64 20080301-1.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:56 Updated: GeoIP-devel.x86_64 1.4.4-1.el4.centos
May 05 13:20:57 Updated: ImageMagick-devel.x86_64 6.0.7.1-17.el4_6.1
May 06 15:34:14 Updated: perl-DBI.x86_64 1.604-1.el4.rf
[
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Tunning EAP-TTLS with PAP

[Sergio Belkin]

Hi,
I have a freeradius server that is working well in  university. We use
EAP-TTLS and PAP protocols. Users from Windows can use Securew2. Users
from Linux and Mac OS X luckily have native support for EAP-TTLS and
PAP. (if you think is Off Topic, keep reading on). On Ubuntu I can use
the nm-applet for setting the connection up. But I'd want to find a
way to automatize it, that it finds the TTLS certificate and verifies
the server name (I didn't see this feature in Linux). Could you help
me to do this? (What tools/apps and file config should I look?)

Thanks in advance!

-- 
--
Open Kairos http://www.openkairos.com
Watch More TV http://sebelk.blogspot.com
Sergio Belkin -
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS5.1 PHP 5.2 RPMs?

[Karanbir Singh]

James Fidell wrote:
It will definitely be a part of the centosplus repo ( to ensure we get 
some upgrade path sanity from centos-4 ), however it might also be 
available as a separate repo itself.

What's the status of this now?  I don't see it in the centosplus repo
yet.


there are a few things stuck in the testing repo, and were working on 
changing the way in which we do testing of packages so as to have them 
unstuck and either deleted or moved into stable ( and mirror.centos.org 
). So till that process is not done, I am not pushing anything new into 
testing.


- KB
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS5.1 PHP 5.2 RPMs?

[James Fidell]

Karanbir Singh wrote:

James Fidell wrote:

Karanbir Singh wrote:

James Fidell wrote:
Is there a PHP 5.2 build for CentOS5.1 anywhere?  Unfortunately I 
need a

fix for a SOAP bug that is present in the current 5.1.6 release.


Not yet, but we are working on it - there should be something there in
the next few days.


Will this be as part of the centosplus repository, or elsewhere?


It will definitely be a part of the centosplus repo ( to ensure we get 
some upgrade path sanity from centos-4 ), however it might also be 
available as a separate repo itself.



If you have centosplus enabled, you will see it for sure!


What's the status of this now?  I don't see it in the centosplus repo
yet.

James
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] httpd reverse proxy

[Kai Schaetzl]

Les Mikesell wrote on Mon, 05 May 2008 23:49:11 -0500:

> Its actually very useful to access backend hosts on private networks or 
> to transparently spread the load across several machines.

If you proxy it, not with a Redirect, yes. It seemed he wanted just a 
redirect.

Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] httpd reverse proxy

[Kai Schaetzl]

Craig White wrote on Mon, 05 May 2008 16:38:00 -0700:

> that's what I ended up doing...you took the first message in the thread

I see. That message wasn't here when I wrote that.

Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Postfix+MySQL - how to create DB

[kalinix]

On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 22:31 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm toying around with Postfix and MySQL on a CentOS 4 server (no longer
> using stock postfix and mysql rpms, obviously).  I've read several
> "How-TOs", and it all looks fairly easy to do.
> 
> The one thing that puzzles me is the table structure for the postfix
> mysql database: where is everyone getting it?  Also, I've noticed that
> some people create more tables than others.  But, this looks like it's
> just based on which bits of postfix people want to put into the
> database.
> 
> I can just copy the SQL people have posted to create the tables I want.
> I'd much rather know if there is an official source for this, though. So
> far I haven't found it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ranbir
> 


Maybe postfixadmin (http://postfixadmin.sourceforge.net/) would help? at
least as a starting point...


Just my 2c


Calin

=
Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know. --
Daniel J. Boorstin

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos