Re: [CentOS] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
> > These aren't centos based - or even all linux, but the software-NAS > players are: > http://www.openfiler.com/ > http://www.freenas.org/ > http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=4&Itemid=67 > > Or you can just use a generic disto with separate configuration commands > for each protocol. > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikes...@gmail.com > > > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > I have, and still do use FreeNAS on my own home-server and I have to say that it works well. But, then again when something goes wrong I reinstall, and restore the backups. The thing is, how will these kind of option perform in a hosting environment where downtime isn't at all an option. We have backup generators, UPS, load balanced networks, etc Even the Tyan / SuperMicro machines that I'm looking at will have redundant power supplies & hard drives. But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that kind of uptime. The other thing which I would like to also get to, is that we could do more with a Linux based distro than with a off-the-shelf NAS. For example I could setup storage space for users and build custom applications that could manage it all - for example give a hosting client a reseller account with 1TB space and he could resell that to his clients. And I could go as far as setting up SMB / NFS / iSCSI / rsyn / SSH / FTP / sFTP / podcast / HTTP / etc, i.e. other protocols which a NAS may not necessarily support. And I could even use it as a dedicated web farm if I feel like it, running HTTP & MySQL as well if the server has enough RAM & CPU. Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the 2nd biggest concern. I'll run RAID 10 (1+0) for speed & reliability, and use 1TB / 1.5TB RAID edition server grade SATAII hard drives with hardware RAID - although I also think software RAID on a decent CPU could perform better. But the hardware RAID cards have battery backup which gives better reliability. Then I would like to build 2 devices, each syncing with the other one. The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different hardware devices and configurations to see what works best? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers CEO, SoftDux Hosting Web: http://www.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Antwort: Re: Strange connectivity problem from linux.
Les Mikesell schrieb am 27.08.2009 20:53:14: > I'd assume that 'telnet hostname 443' is intended to be a test for > an https web service - which should in fact not permit a connection > without ssl encryption. The linux version of telnet probably tries > to do some options negotiations before it says it is connected and > perhaps the windows version doesn't. A better test would be > wget https://adp.eease.com Just for completeness, s_client(1) would be an alternative for testing purposes, too. Frank. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
> Thanks for the links. I have already basically done everything > there and have the ms fonts. Unfortunately they look pretty bad.. I have not followed the thread carefully, but I've seen in a couple of screenshots that bitmaps fonts might have been used. Have you tried this? "ln -s /etc/fonts/conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps" Cheers, R-C __ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
Ryan Pugatch wrote: > Lucian @ lastdot.org wrote: > >> rpm -ivh http://repo.lastdot.org/tmp/msttcorefonts-2.0-1.noarch.rpm >> service xfs restart >> Restart your application.. >> Is it working now? >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > I removed my msttcorefonts pkg and installed yours.. no difference. > > I rebuilt freetype again just for good measure.. nothing. > > Now I somehow did manage somewhere along the line to make the fonts look > a little better. But I still think they look horrible. > > http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4732/sucko.jpg > > I am so frustrated because I have everything else just the way I want > it.. but the fonts are so jagged ;[ > > I never had jagged fonts with the standard xfce in extras and normal CentOS using the liberation fonts and the standard freetype from centos. I was using the same fonts I used in Gnome. Maybe I am missing something, why did you need to rebuild freetype? Are you using the xfce from centos 5 extras? Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
Johnny Hughes wrote: > Ryan Pugatch wrote: >> Lucian @ lastdot.org wrote: >> >>> rpm -ivh http://repo.lastdot.org/tmp/msttcorefonts-2.0-1.noarch.rpm >>> service xfs restart >>> Restart your application.. >>> Is it working now? >>> ___ >>> CentOS mailing list >>> CentOS@centos.org >>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> >> I removed my msttcorefonts pkg and installed yours.. no difference. >> >> I rebuilt freetype again just for good measure.. nothing. >> >> Now I somehow did manage somewhere along the line to make the fonts look >> a little better. But I still think they look horrible. >> >> http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4732/sucko.jpg >> >> I am so frustrated because I have everything else just the way I want >> it.. but the fonts are so jagged ;[ >> >> > I never had jagged fonts with the standard xfce in extras and normal > CentOS using the liberation fonts and the standard freetype from centos. > I was using the same fonts I used in Gnome. > > Maybe I am missing something, why did you need to rebuild freetype? > > Are you using the xfce from centos 5 extras? Here is a list of the relevant fonts I have installed: bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10-7 liberation-fonts-1.0-1.el5 libXfont-1.2.2-1.0.3.el5_1 libXfontcache-1.0.2-3.1 xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-base-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.1-2.1.el5 xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2 After you make sure liberation-fonts and bitstream-vera-fonts are installed, try making "Bitstream Vera Sans" or "Liberation Sans" your application font. Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
RedShift wrote: > Ryan Pugatch wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I can't seem to get my fonts to look decent under CentOS. I was able to >> make them look pretty good under Ubuntu, but for the life of me I can't >> make them look decent on CentOS. >> >> Screenshots: >> http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8563/ss1rzo.jpg >> http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7655/ss2ocf.jpg >> http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6040/ss3j.jpg >> http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/466/uiprefs.jpg >> >> >> Any advice is appreciated because this sucks :) >> >> Ryan > > Get the freetype source RPM and recompile it with the bytecode interpreter > enabled. I have never had to recompile a freetype RPM to have decent fonts. I am not sure this is a good idea for normal users. If you are going to do this for x86_64 you will also likely need the i386 one too. But again, I have never heard anyone needing to do this for normal fonts. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] mysql-server-5.0.82sp1-1.el4_8 upgrade
Hi, There has been update to mysql within the centosplus repository on 26th August. Please be aware, that you might need to upgrade tables after the server upgrade. 1) run CHECK TABLE 2) if the response is 'Table upgrade required. Please do "REPAIR TABLE `tablename`" to fix it!' 3) do run :o) REPAIR TABLE 4) good point is again CHECK TABLE 4) good point is OPTIMIZE TABLE Regards, David Hrbáč ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
Ryan Pugatch wrote: > > Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built. > I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM. > > Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should > I do? > > Requested output: > > [r...@localhost ~]$ rpm -qi freetype > Name: freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) > Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: CentOS > Release : 21.el5_3 Build Date: Fri 22 May 2009 > 10:04:13 AM EDT > Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:06:54 PM EDT Build Host: > builder16.centos.org > Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: > freetype-2.2.1-21.el5_3.src.rpm > Size: 626801 License: BSD/GPL dual license > Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 22 May 2009 05:22:59 PM EDT, Key ID > a8a447dce8562897 > URL : http://www.freetype.org > Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine > Description : > The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering > engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of > platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and > manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render > individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete > text-rendering library. > Name: freetype Relocations: (not relocatable) > Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: (none) > Release : 20Build Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 > 04:24:21 PM EDT > Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:25:44 PM EDT Build Host: > localhost.localdomain > Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: > freetype-2.2.1-20.src.rpm > Size: 655297 License: BSD/GPL dual license > Signature : (none) > Packager: Pugatch Ryan > URL : http://www.freetype.org > Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine > Description : > The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering > engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of > platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and > manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render > individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete > text-rendering library. > > Why do you have two freetypes installed? That shouldn't be possible. They should have conflicting files. Fix this first. Glenn ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Help Slim Down Centos Install
From: Chris Andrews > I was wondering does anyone know how I can slim down Centos install, > what I mean by slim down is whenever I install Centos with nothing but > xen. I have all type stuff that is not needed like bluetooth and etc. > This is a server, so I know that bluetooth is not need but I don't have > any other menus to remove software when install from cd. So what would > be the best way to slim this server down to only need the bare to run > xen? I think you will have to use a kickstart file.. http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Installation_Guide/s1-kickstart2-howuse.html See the 'services' and '%packages' sections of the file... Example: services --enabled=acpid,anacron,auditd,cpuspeed,crond,gpm,haldaemon,irqbalance, kudzu,lm_sensors,messagebus,microcode_ctl,netfs,network,ntpd,portmap,readahead_e arly,sendmail,smartd,sshd,syslog,sysstat,xinetd --disabled=cups,apmd,atd,autofs, avahi-daemon,bluetooth,firstboot,hidd,ip6tables,isdn,mcstrans,pcscd,restorecond, xfs,yum-updatesd And: %packages @base yum-fastestmirror yum-priorities yum-utils ... If you remove @base, you will have to list all the mandatory packages... JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] [off-topic] Question about csh.
Hi I received this request from a user and could not find the solution. I would like to know if someone already solved this: "At the command prompt I used to be able to type the first letter of a line command and then by using the up arrow key, scroll through all of the line commands, that begin with that letter, that I had previously executed." It's a machine with CentOS-5.3, x86_64, and tcsh-6.14-14.el5, but his shell is 'csh'. Thanks Marcelo ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
Hi, I'm trying to set up an iscsi 12.5 TB storage for some data backup. Doing so, I had some difficulties to find the right tool, maybe it's also a question of the system settings... The server is a 32Bit CentOS 5.3 with the recent updates. Ths iscsi connection can be establised. fdisk and parted fail to create any information on the device or fail completely. using the lvm tools (pvcreate, vgcreate, lvcreate), I could finaly create a logical volume: lvdisplay /dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 --- Logical volume --- LV Name/dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 VG NameVolGroup02 LV UUIDh7T6tD-JZw2-UEdb-q1ml-BDqp-9E0u-mAop6x LV Write Accessread/write LV Status available # open 0 LV Size12,73 TB Current LE 3337487 Segments 1 Allocation inherit Read ahead sectors auto - currently set to 256 Block device 253:4 But, I can't create a filesystem on it: mkfs.ext3 -m 2 -j -O dir_index -v -b 4096 -L iscsi2lvol0 /dev/mapper/VolGroup02-lvol0 mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) mkfs.ext3: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks (8TB using a blocksize of 4k) are currently supported. The limits information provided by red hat say, that RH EL 5.1 supports 16 TB filesystems: http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ -> Maximum filesystem size (Ext3): 16TB in 5.1 Using a block size of 8192 gives a warning, that this size is to large for that system. So my question: What is my missunderstanding or what's wrong with my system? Where are the real limits? Do I have to switch the OS to 64 Bit? Setting up large Filesystems isn't my staff of life :-) Thanks for amy how to or help of any kind - Best regards, Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. Claudia Hübner Staatsrätin für Demographischen Wandel und für Senioren im Staatsministerium Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] mysql-server-5.0.82sp1-1.el4_8 upgrade
> Hi, > There has been update to mysql within the centosplus repository on 26th > August. Please be aware, that you might need to upgrade tables after the > server upgrade. > > 1) run CHECK TABLE > 2) if the response is 'Table upgrade required. Please do "REPAIR TABLE > `tablename`" to fix it!' > 3) do run :o) REPAIR TABLE > 4) good point is again CHECK TABLE > 4) good point is OPTIMIZE TABLE > > Regards, > David Hrbáč Good hint. Please see as well "man 1 mysql_upgrade". This makes this process more handy if you have lots of databases and tables. The binary comes with the mysql-server package and is located at /usr/bin/mysql_upgrade. Best regards Alexander ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] bind
Hi I already stop the named and killall bind process. how can I clear the files under named/chroot/proc/ folder as those files are restricted me for tar backup? /var/named/chroot/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/accept_ra_defrtr /var/named/chroot/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/max_addresses /var/named/chroot/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/max_desync_factor /var/named/chroot/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/regen_max_retry /var/named/chroot/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/temp_prefered_lft Thank you __ The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
RedShift wrote:
> Ryan Pugatch wrote:
>> Yes, I changed the variable in the spec and installed the RPM I built.
>> I am on a 64-bit machine but did not install a 32-bit RPM.
>>
>> Looks like there are two versions.. the original and mine. What should
>> I do?
>>
>> Requested output:
>>
>> [r...@localhost ~]$ rpm -qi freetype
>> Name: freetype Relocations: (not relocatable)
>> Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: CentOS
>> Release : 21.el5_3 Build Date: Fri 22 May 2009
>> 10:04:13 AM EDT
>> Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:06:54 PM EDT Build Host:
>> builder16.centos.org
>> Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM:
>> freetype-2.2.1-21.el5_3.src.rpm
>> Size: 626801 License: BSD/GPL dual license
>> Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 22 May 2009 05:22:59 PM EDT, Key ID
>> a8a447dce8562897
>> URL : http://www.freetype.org
>> Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine
>> Description :
>> The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering
>> engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of
>> platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and
>> manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render
>> individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete
>> text-rendering library.
>> Name: freetype Relocations: (not relocatable)
>> Version : 2.2.1 Vendor: (none)
>> Release : 20Build Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009
>> 04:24:21 PM EDT
>> Install Date: Thu 27 Aug 2009 04:25:44 PM EDT Build Host:
>> localhost.localdomain
>> Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM:
>> freetype-2.2.1-20.src.rpm
>> Size: 655297 License: BSD/GPL dual license
>> Signature : (none)
>> Packager: Pugatch Ryan
>> URL : http://www.freetype.org
>> Summary : A free and portable font rendering engine
>> Description :
>> The FreeType engine is a free and portable font rendering
>> engine, developed to provide advanced font support for a variety of
>> platforms and environments. FreeType is a library which can open and
>> manages font files as well as efficiently load, hint and render
>> individual glyphs. FreeType is not a font server or a complete
>> text-rendering library.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why do you have two freetypes installed? That shouldn't be possible. They
> should have conflicting files. Fix this first.
One is likely i386 and the other x86_64 ...
The first thing I do when I install an x86_64 machine is exclude
*.i[3456]86 in the yum.conf file. (If I have to run i386 things, I
install an i386 machine ... but that is just me). I then remove all
i[3,4,5,6] packages and only install update x86_64 packages. I
understand that some people have to have x86_64 workstations for certain
things (cad/video editing, etc.) where they need > 8 GB RAM and the
things x86_64 can do there. They also need some i386 packages (like
firefox) since x86_64 alternatives are not good or not available. In
these cases, you need to keep as minimal a number if i386 packages on
your machine as you possibly can. Again, this is my opinion ... others
might have a different one.
If you want to see the arch of all packages with rpm queries, create a
file called .rpmmacros in a users home dir and add this line:
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Then when you do "rpm -q" queries, you will see things like this:
rpm -q freetype
freetype-2.1.9-8.el4.6.x86_64
freetype-2.1.9-8.el4.6.i386
(this was just an example from a c4 machine ... package versions not
relevant to this thread :D )
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote: > > I'm trying to set up an iscsi 12.5 TB storage for some data backup. > > Doing so, I had some difficulties to find the right tool, maybe it's > also a question of the system settings... > > The server is a 32Bit CentOS 5.3 with the recent updates. Ths iscsi > connection can be establised. > ...snip... > > The limits information provided by red hat say, that RH EL 5.1 supports > 16 TB filesystems: > > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ > > -> Maximum filesystem size (Ext3): 16TB in 5.1 > > Using a block size of 8192 gives a warning, that this size is to large > for that system. > > So my question: What is my missunderstanding or what's wrong with my > system? Where are the real limits? Do I have to switch the OS to 64 Bit? > That was discussed not so long ago. But I can't remember if it was here in the mailing list or on IRC (or somewhere else). But the conclusion was that you are better of using 64 bit and XFS for such large filesystems, and that you need a 64 bit system anyway for ext3/4 to go over 8TB. Well, that is what I remember the conclusion to be :-) Regards, Tim -- Tim Verhoeven - tim.verhoeven...@gmail.com - 0479 / 88 11 83 Hoping the problem magically goes away by ignoring it is the "microsoft approach to programming" and should never be allowed. (Linus Torvalds) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] mysql-server-5.0.82sp1-1.el4_8 upgrade
Alexander Dalloz wrote: >> Hi, >> There has been update to mysql within the centosplus repository on 26th >> August. Please be aware, that you might need to upgrade tables after the >> server upgrade. >> >> 1) run CHECK TABLE >> 2) if the response is 'Table upgrade required. Please do "REPAIR TABLE >> `tablename`" to fix it!' >> 3) do run :o) REPAIR TABLE >> 4) good point is again CHECK TABLE >> 4) good point is OPTIMIZE TABLE >> >> Regards, >> David Hrbáč > > Good hint. > > Please see as well "man 1 mysql_upgrade". This makes this process more > handy if you have lots of databases and tables. > > The binary comes with the mysql-server package and is located at > /usr/bin/mysql_upgrade. > Or mysqlcheck (see man mysqlcheck) However, if you were already using the latest centosplus mysql before the update (5.0.68) then you shouldn't need to upgrade the tables for that update. (5.0.68 -> 5.0.82sp1) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bind
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 04:11 -0700, chloe K wrote: > Hi > > I already stop the named and killall bind process. > how can I clear the files under named/chroot/proc/ folder as those > files are restricted me for tar backup? > > /var/named/chroot/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/accept_ra_defrtr Exclude them from being tarred - see "man tar". Ralph ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:53:29 +0200 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > > > > I think many dedicated NAS devices, are in fact Linux machines, using an > > embedded Linux system. > > > >> > > > > -- > > Robert Heller       -- 978-544-6933 > > Deepwoods Software     -- Download the Model Railroad System > > http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows > > hel...@deepsoft.com    -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > > > > ___ > > Yes, many NAS devices does run an embedded Linux, or UNIX OS but they > normally also run on an ARM / MIPS / etc processor which I can't get > my hand on. And they normally also have a team of developers / testers > / etc who spend their whole lives perfecting this particular piece of > equipment (either software, or hardware) I don't have that kind of > resources to my disposal, which is why I want to go the Linux, or > perhaps even UNIX route. Even if thay are using ARM / MIPS processors, the code is pretty much the same code one would run on a i686 or x86_64 processor. > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [off-topic] Question about csh.
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:17:58 +0100 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > Hi > > I received this request from a user and could not find the solution. I > would like to know if someone already solved this: > "At the command prompt I used to be able to type the first letter of a > line command and then by using the up arrow key, scroll through all of > the line commands, that begin with that letter, that I had previously > executed." > > It's a machine with CentOS-5.3, x86_64, and tcsh-6.14-14.el5, but his > shell is 'csh'. Change his shell to 'tcsh'. Even though csh and tcsh are the *same* ececutable (as is sh and bash), it checks how it was called. If tcsh is called as 'csh' it behaves like plain csh, if called as tcsh, it behaves like tcsh (with all of the added bells-and-whistles). > > Thanks > > Marcelo > > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to set up an iscsi 12.5 TB storage for some data backup. > > Doing so, I had some difficulties to find the right tool, maybe it's > also a question of the system settings... > > The server is a 32Bit CentOS 5.3 with the recent updates. Ths iscsi > connection can be establised. > > fdisk and parted fail to create any information on the device or fail > completely. > > using the lvm tools (pvcreate, vgcreate, lvcreate), I could finaly > create a logical volume: > > lvdisplay /dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 > --- Logical volume --- > LV Name /dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 > VG Name VolGroup02 > LV UUID h7T6tD-JZw2-UEdb-q1ml-BDqp-9E0u-mAop6x > LV Write Access read/write > LV Status available > # open 0 > LV Size 12,73 TB > Current LE 3337487 > Segments 1 > Allocation inherit > Read ahead sectors auto > - currently set to 256 > Block device 253:4 > > > But, I can't create a filesystem on it: > > mkfs.ext3 -m 2 -j -O dir_index -v -b 4096 -L iscsi2lvol0 > /dev/mapper/VolGroup02-lvol0 You have to smack mkfs around a bit to get it to work. The incantations are listed here, along with the various limitations. The long and short of it is that you have to use -F to tell mkfs that you're really, REALLY sure. http://www.bofh-hunter.com/2008/02/11/large-filesystem-creation/ -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On 28/08/2009, at 10:59 PM, Jim Perrin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Götz Reinicke - > IT-Koordinator wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to set up an iscsi 12.5 TB storage for some data backup. >> >> Doing so, I had some difficulties to find the right tool, maybe it's >> also a question of the system settings... >> >> The server is a 32Bit CentOS 5.3 with the recent updates. Ths iscsi >> connection can be establised. >> >> fdisk and parted fail to create any information on the device or fail >> completely. >> >> using the lvm tools (pvcreate, vgcreate, lvcreate), I could finaly >> create a logical volume: >> >> lvdisplay /dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 >> --- Logical volume --- >> LV Name/dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 >> VG NameVolGroup02 >> LV UUIDh7T6tD-JZw2-UEdb-q1ml-BDqp-9E0u-mAop6x >> LV Write Accessread/write >> LV Status available >> # open 0 >> LV Size12,73 TB >> Current LE 3337487 >> Segments 1 >> Allocation inherit >> Read ahead sectors auto >> - currently set to 256 >> Block device 253:4 >> >> >> But, I can't create a filesystem on it: >> >> mkfs.ext3 -m 2 -j -O dir_index -v -b 4096 -L iscsi2lvol0 >> /dev/mapper/VolGroup02-lvol0 > > You have to smack mkfs around a bit to get it to work. > The incantations are listed here, along with the various limitations. > The long and short of it is that you have to use -F to tell mkfs that > you're really, REALLY sure. > http://www.bofh-hunter.com/2008/02/11/large-filesystem-creation/ > For a 4K block size I think the maximum ext3 filesystem size is 8TB. You may need to use an 8K block size which gives a maximum filesystem size of 16TB. Neil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to set up an iscsi 12.5 TB storage for some data backup. > > Doing so, I had some difficulties to find the right tool, maybe it's > also a question of the system settings... > > The server is a 32Bit CentOS 5.3 with the recent updates. Ths iscsi > connection can be establised. > > fdisk and parted fail to create any information on the device or fail > completely. > > using the lvm tools (pvcreate, vgcreate, lvcreate), I could finaly > create a logical volume: > > lvdisplay /dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 > --- Logical volume --- > LV Name/dev/VolGroup02/lvol0 > VG NameVolGroup02 > LV UUIDh7T6tD-JZw2-UEdb-q1ml-BDqp-9E0u-mAop6x > LV Write Accessread/write > LV Status available > # open 0 > LV Size12,73 TB > Current LE 3337487 > Segments 1 > Allocation inherit > Read ahead sectors auto > - currently set to 256 > Block device 253:4 > > > But, I can't create a filesystem on it: > > mkfs.ext3 -m 2 -j -O dir_index -v -b 4096 -L iscsi2lvol0 > /dev/mapper/VolGroup02-lvol0 > > > mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) > mkfs.ext3: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks >(8TB using a blocksize of 4k) are currently supported. > > > The limits information provided by red hat say, that RH EL 5.1 supports > 16 TB filesystems: > > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ > > -> Maximum filesystem size (Ext3): 16TB in 5.1 > > Using a block size of 8192 gives a warning, that this size is to large > for that system. > > > So my question: What is my missunderstanding or what's wrong with my > system? Where are the real limits? Do I have to switch the OS to 64 Bit? > > Setting up large Filesystems isn't my staff of life :-) > > > Thanks for amy how to or help of any kind - Best regards, > > Götz > > Gotz, YMMV, but XFS is what I would use (and do use) as a filesystem in this instance. There are caveats, some of which are listed here: 1) Server/storage must be on stable power, backed up by a ups. I have never dealt with XFS filesystem corruption, but I have read anecdotal horror stories. 2) You need to run 64 bit, if for no other reason than memory requirements. 3) You will need to have a partition that can be used as swap space. I have not found any consistent formula, but I am running multiple servers using XFS, with 12gig of ram, 9TB filesystem, and 12 gigs was not enough memory to run xfs_check, which you should do on occasion. I wound up making a 20gig swap space on a separate partition while I was running xfs_check. That may have been excessively large, but it worked... 4) XFS is not (or has not been) part of the standard RHEL distro, so you lose the 1:1 aspects of running CentOS when you implement XFS. My experience has been that XFS is quite a bit faster than ext3, especially during file manipulation procedures. Others may not agree. It has proven rock-solid for me, both in the linux world and IRIX. Below is a link discussing the need for 64bit vs. 32bit (a bit old but still relevant): http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00391.html Hope this helps. Monty ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
Hey folks, It looks to me like the httpd on CentOS is stuck at 2.2.2 - what's up with that? Even after a yum upgrade. I need 2.2.10 or greater, and would prefer to get it via yum or at very last an RPM if at all possible. But I cannot even find an RPM out there. For some reason both EPEL and Dag Wieers do not even seem to have an httpd RPM for RHEL5 Any idea where to look? Why are we stuck at 2.2.3 which was a 2006 release? thanks, -Alan -- “Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV” - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food" ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Alan McKay wrote: > Hey folks, > > It looks to me like the httpd on CentOS is stuck at 2.2.2 - what's up > with that? Even after a yum upgrade. > > I need 2.2.10 or greater, and would prefer to get it via yum or at > very last an RPM if at all possible. But I cannot even find an RPM > out there. For some reason both EPEL and Dag Wieers do not even seem > to have an httpd RPM for RHEL5 They both try to not overwrite 'core' packages in the distro without good reason. > Any idea where to look? > Why are we stuck at 2.2.3 which was a 2006 release? Because that's the version that was stabilized and locked into EL5. EL5 was released in early 2007, so it fits. As the distro ages, so does the software. See http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/backporting/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backporting -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
H, OK, I get it. I know I can build the latest Apache on CentOS, and what we currently do is put it into /usr/local - which I guess works. I'd really prefer to have an RPM though. Certainly the CentOS team as a way in which they produce this RPM. Is this method public? And if so, is it easy to obtain, and run against the latest Apache source code to produce my own RPM? thanks, -Alan -- “Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV” - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food" ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] "gpg --verify-files" fails on some files, works on others
I have a very strange situation where the gpg command will fail to verify whether there is valid PGP data in some files. Decrypting these files works flawlessly. Here is an example: [r...@server autoimport]# gpg -vv --verify-files 01UserEnumswValues.txt.asc.txt gpg: armor: BEGIN PGP MESSAGE gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) :pubkey enc packet: version 3, algo 16, keyid F0682D87CF4ED243 data: [1022 bits] data: [1024 bits] [r...@server autoimport]# gpg -vv --verify-files 03users.txt.asc.txt gpg: armor: BEGIN PGP MESSAGE gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) :pubkey enc packet: version 3, algo 16, keyid F0682D87CF4ED243 data: [1021 bits] data: [1023 bits] gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. Note that the first file is correctly identified as OpenPGP encrypted data, and has exit status of 0. The second file gives the error "no valid OpenPGP data found", even though I'm able to decrypt the file with no problems. Both these files were encrypted with the same key, and both contain plain text CSV data. Any ideas why this is failing on some files and not others? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:48:51 -0400 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > H, OK, I get it. > > I know I can build the latest Apache on CentOS, and what we currently > do is put it into /usr/local - which I guess works. > > I'd really prefer to have an RPM though. > > Certainly the CentOS team as a way in which they produce this RPM. > Is this method public? And if so, is it easy to obtain, and run > against the latest Apache source code to produce my own RPM? You can do one of these: 1) Grab the *source* RPM from like FC10 (or whatever version of Fedora Core has the httpd version you need). 2) Grab the source RPM for CentOS 5.3 and study the .spec file. Make a new .spec using the desired source tarball from the apache.org site. In either case, make sure rpm-build is installed and all of the necessary -devel packages and fire up rpmbuild and build your own RPMs. There exist on the web various resources on what goes in a .spec file and how to run rpmbuild and about building your own RPM files. Google is your friend. > > thanks, > -Alan > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
Alan McKay wrote: > H, OK, I get it. > > I know I can build the latest Apache on CentOS, and what we currently > do is put it into /usr/local - which I guess works. > > I'd really prefer to have an RPM though. > > Certainly the CentOS team as a way in which they produce this RPM. > Is this method public? And if so, is it easy to obtain, and run > against the latest Apache source code to produce my own RPM? > It is not nearly that easy. The thing you are looking for is called the Source RPM (SRPM). However, if you are going to rebuild apache, you are going to have to rebuild many other things that link against apache. You will also render unusable all things in the enterprise repos that link against the apache version that is in CentOS. If you want the latest and greatest applications, you are using the wrong distro. Use Fedora if you want the latest and greatest stuff. CentOS is an Enterprise Distro ... it's whole purpose is the keep the ABIs/APIs is it shipped with for 7 years. This week you will replace apache, next week you will replace mysql, the week after that you'll want a new bind, then the new postfix, etc. If you want a stable version of linux for 7 years, centos is for you. If you want latest and greatest, it is not. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
Hi, On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:32, Alan McKay wrote: > It looks to me like the httpd on CentOS is stuck at 2.2.2 - what's up > with that? Even after a yum upgrade. As Jim suggested, please read this: http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/backporting/ The whole point of using an "Enterprise" distribution is to have components that are guaranteed to work together. You will receive updates that will fix critical bugs and mainly security issues, but on the other hand, you accept to use software that does not have all the latest features and bells and whistles. If you want cutting-edge, CentOS is not for you. Although you can get the latest Apache and shoehorn it into CentOS, that defeats the whole point of using CentOS in the first place... If you really need something more recent, I would advise you to look into Fedora or Ubuntu. On the other hand, with those you will need to do a full distribution upgrade every six months, as opposed to CentOS/RHEL where a major version is supported and will receive security updates for many years after its initial release. HTH, Filipe ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Alan McKay wrote: > H, OK, I get it. > > Certainly the CentOS team as a way in which they produce this RPM. > Is this method public? And if so, is it easy to obtain, and run > against the latest Apache source code to produce my own RPM? The CentOS method is to rebuild the upstream source rpms, after removing any trademarked items. You could use the httpd which is included in the testing repository. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Antwort: Re: Strange connectivity problem from linux.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:01 AM, wrote: > Les Mikesell schrieb am 27.08.2009 20:53:14: >> I'd assume that 'telnet hostname 443' is intended to be a test for >> an https web service - which should in fact not permit a connection >> without ssl encryption. The linux version of telnet probably tries >> to do some options negotiations before it says it is connected and >> perhaps the windows version doesn't. A better test would be >> wget https://adp.eease.com > > Just for completeness, s_client(1) would be an alternative for > testing purposes, too. > > Frank. > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > This is a nice tool. Gives the following error sometimes. $ openssl s_client -connect adp.eease.com:443 socket: Connection refused connect:errno=29 Thanks for pointing this tool out. -- Tharun Kumar Allu == ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 at 1:03pm, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote fdisk and parted fail to create any information on the device or fail completely. You can't use fdisk on a volume that large. parted should work fine. What was the error you were getting (exactly)? For a volume that large, you must use a GPT disk label, not the default msdos one. But, I can't create a filesystem on it: mkfs.ext3 -m 2 -j -O dir_index -v -b 4096 -L iscsi2lvol0 /dev/mapper/VolGroup02-lvol0 mke2fs 1.39 (29-May-2006) mkfs.ext3: Filesystem too large. No more than 2**31-1 blocks (8TB using a blocksize of 4k) are currently supported. As has been pointed out, you need to use "-F" to force mkfs.ext3 to make a filesystem bigger than 8TB. IMHO, this is misleading. Filesystems up to 16TB are fully supported in centos >5.1, so I don't see why the upstream vendor left the requirement for "-F" in mkfs.ext3. So my question: What is my missunderstanding or what's wrong with my system? Where are the real limits? Do I have to switch the OS to 64 Bit? You do not have to switch to 64bit, and your setup should be fully supported. Other folks have mentioned XFS, and that's an option. But if you want to stay fully compatible with upstream, then ext3 is your only option. -- Joshua Baker-LePain QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin UCSF___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] favicon.ico and robots.txt
Hello, I'm running an apache 2.2 webserver on centos 5.3. I'm seeing frequent requests for robots.txt and favicon.ico from the logs those files should be in the document root area. What are these files, is this something the rpm installs, or do i have to retrieve or generate them? Thanks. Dave. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] favicon.ico and robots.txt
favicon.ico: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=favicon.ico robots.txt: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=robots.txt On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Dave wrote: > Hello, > I'm running an apache 2.2 webserver on centos 5.3. I'm seeing > frequent requests for robots.txt and favicon.ico from the logs those files > should be in the document root area. What are these files, is this something > the rpm installs, or do i have to retrieve or generate them? > Thanks. > Dave. > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] favicon.ico and robots.txt
Robots.txt is a file that allows or denies robots from indexing or crawling the site if they behave as they should. Favicon.ico is an icon image that shows up in the address bar of a browser generally to the left of the uri. Neither are completely necessary and both are items you would create and store in the public html directory as you had noted. Cheers, Chad Dave wrote: > Hello, > I'm running an apache 2.2 webserver on centos 5.3. I'm seeing > frequent requests for robots.txt and favicon.ico from the logs those files > should be in the document root area. What are these files, is this something > the rpm installs, or do i have to retrieve or generate them? > Thanks. > Dave. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Chad Dahlstrom webmas...@taproothosting.com Green webhosting and website design www.taproothosting.com 503.349.0392 Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/pdxgreenwebhost ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > You do not have to switch to 64bit, and your setup should be fully > supported. Other folks have mentioned XFS, and that's an option. But if > you want to stay fully compatible with upstream, then ext3 is your only > option. Support for xfs has been added to RHEL 5.4 which will be released any day now. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
OK, here is the interesting part :-) I'm new here as of about 4 months ago, and I just asked some coworkers why we went with 2.2.10 instead of the 2.2.3 that comes with CentOS Apparently at the time we'd been having some problems with mod_perl crashing (and still are in fact - I'm working on it slowly but surely), and we'd hired an outside consulting company to help out with it. Their first comment was that 2.2.3 was "extremely buggy" and that we should definitely not go with it. So that's what we did. The newest release at the time was 2.2.10 and that's where we are. There was also so speculation that our DB2 client did not work so well with 2.2.3 Can someone answer me this - I see that today we have 2.2.3 patch level 22 as our most recent release. Is there a document that will tell me what patch levels were shipped with the different releases of CentOS? In particular 5.2? Maybe I don't really need > 2.2.3, I dunno. I've seen some other evidence that this outside contracting company did not seem to know as much as they let on. For starters, they did not get very far with our mod_perl problem. I got a lot further in about a week of googling, and I came into it with no knowledge of mod_perl, and no debug-level knowledge of Apache (albeit 7 or 8 years of apache config experience) thanks, -Alan -- “Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV” - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food" ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Centos 5.4
I just saw in another list email that RHEL 5.4 is due out any day now. How long does it then take for the cooresponding CentOS release to come out? I'm in the process of making a new master server image based on 5.3. Though I suppose since I'm using Kickstart/Anaconda, it should be pretty easy to change it from 5.3 to 5.4 -- “Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV” - Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food" ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
> H, OK, I get it. > > I know I can build the latest Apache on CentOS, and what we currently > do is put it into /usr/local - which I guess works. > > I'd really prefer to have an RPM though. > > Certainly the CentOS team as a way in which they produce this RPM. > Is this method public? And if so, is it easy to obtain, and run > against the latest Apache source code to produce my own RPM? there is the redhat webstack (rhwas) code base to use. it has newer http, php, mysql, postgres, etc. i have grabbed those srpms from ftp.redhat.com and built my own repo. centos has a testing repo that is doing the same kind of thing, but has been a bit spotty with keeping up with changes from upstream. maybe that has cleared up now, but since i put the effort into my own repo, i haven't kept tabs. kbsingh has talked about making a sub repo just for the webstack code, but i don't think that has ever happened. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.4
Alan McKay wrote: > I just saw in another list email that RHEL 5.4 is due out any day now. > > How long does it then take for the cooresponding CentOS release to come out? > > I'm in the process of making a new master server image based on 5.3. > Though I suppose since I'm using Kickstart/Anaconda, it should be > pretty easy to change it from 5.3 to 5.4 > We our goal for point releases is 2 - 4 weeks from the upstream release to our release. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
And just to add to the discussion... We use JFS here for large filesystems. :) (We have some 24TB filesystems in place here using JFS, with no problems like XFS has when it gets corrupted). -- David Fix Senior Systems Administrator Mr. X Inc. 35 McCaul Street, Ste. #100 Toronto, ON M5T 1V7 T: (416) 595-6222, x 241 F: (416) 595-9122 E: dav...@mrxfx.com - Original Message - From: "Akemi Yagi" To: "CentOS mailing list" Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:58:27 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto? On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > You do not have to switch to 64bit, and your setup should be fully > supported. Other folks have mentioned XFS, and that's an option. But if > you want to stay fully compatible with upstream, then ext3 is your only > option. Support for xfs has been added to RHEL 5.4 which will be released any day now. Akemi ___ 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] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:53:29 +0200 CentOS mailing list > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Robert Heller wrote: >> > >> > I think many dedicated NAS devices, are in fact Linux machines, using an >> > embedded Linux system. Something else I just realized, dedicated NAS devices can rebuild the RAID system on the fly, and offer online RAID migration and expansion, load balance, and failover - how would one do these with Linux? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers CEO, SoftDux Hosting Web: http://www.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:53 AM, David Fix wrote: > And just to add to the discussion... > > We use JFS here for large filesystems. :) (We have some 24TB filesystems > in place here using JFS, with no problems like XFS has when it gets > corrupted). Because the distro kernel does not have support fort JFS, people who are looking into using JFS would need to install either the centosplus kernel or the jfs kernel module provided by ELRepo ( http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-jfs ). Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 at 8:58am, Akemi Yagi wrote On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: You do not have to switch to 64bit, and your setup should be fully supported. Other folks have mentioned XFS, and that's an option. But if you want to stay fully compatible with upstream, then ext3 is your only option. Support for xfs has been added to RHEL 5.4 which will be released any day now. So it has. I recall looking in the beta release notes when they first came out and not seeing it. So either I just plain missed it or it's been added there since then. In any case, that's great news and something that is *long* overdue. -- Joshua Baker-LePain QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin UCSF___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 at 8:58am, Akemi Yagi wrote >> Support for xfs has been added to RHEL 5.4 which will be released any day >> now. > > So it has. I recall looking in the beta release notes when they first came > out and not seeing it. So either I just plain missed it or it's been added > there since then. In any case, that's great news and something that is > *long* overdue. Indeed. I believe the beta release notes did not mention xfs. But it is here: http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html-single/Release_Notes/ and the 5.4beta kernel does/did have xfs.ko. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Setting up large (12.5 TB) filesystem howto?
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 at 8:58am, Akemi Yagi wrote > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain >> wrote: >> >>> You do not have to switch to 64bit, and your setup should be fully >>> supported. Other folks have mentioned XFS, and that's an option. >>> But if >>> you want to stay fully compatible with upstream, then ext3 is your only >>> option. >> >> Support for xfs has been added to RHEL 5.4 which will be released any >> day now. > > So it has. I recall looking in the beta release notes when they first > came out and not seeing it. So either I just plain missed it or it's > been added there since then. In any case, that's great news and > something that is *long* overdue. > Please note that it is not unheard of for them to PULL things that they have in the beta when rolling out the release. In this case, I certainly hope that they do not do this, but it is possible. Lets hope they do keep XFS in there. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] OT: .doc,.xls,.pdf,.ppt (etc.) string parser/indexers
Does anyone have experience with linux tools to parse the text from common non-text file formats for searching? I'm trying to use the kinosearch add-on for twiki which is fine as far as the search goes, but it takes forever to generate the index. It uses xpdf to extract strings from pdf's, antiword for .doc, and since it is perl, the Spreadsheet::ParseExcel module for .xls. Some documents parse/index quickly, some extremely slowly, and in the .xls case some seem to hang forever. I think the real issue is when the parsers (correctly or incorrectly) detect a wide character set and the indexer is confused when trying to re-encode it. What is the best approach to debug something that might be in the perl character set handlers? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > Something else I just realized, dedicated NAS devices can rebuild the > RAID system on the fly, and offer online RAID migration and expansion, > load balance, and failover - how would one do these with Linux? Look at the mdadm tools for raid. Rebuilding on the fly is no problem if your hardware supports hot-swap. Expanding is more complicated and if you mange it, you then have to separately grow the filesystem into the new space. LVM might be more useful for migration/expansion. If you need mirroring/failover between two systems, look at DRBD and heartbeat. I believe openfiler uses the native linux tools with a management wrapper to integrate the steps - where nexentastor uses opensolaris/zfs where the concepts are integrated directly. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Alan McKay wrote: > Is there a document that will tell me what patch levels were shipped > with the different releases of CentOS? In particular 5.2? Two come to mind that we ship with every binary we alter, evey package we build: - one is the SRPM, which contains all sources and patches, etc - two is a summary of varying detail, and carried with every binary under RPM installation (here for the apache webserver, carried in the package: httpd): rpm -q --changelog httpd The first requires some 'diff' reading skills, but is the most accurate As to the second method, I see the following recent entries: * Tue Jul 14 2009 Karanbir Singh 2.2.3-22.el5.centos.2 - Roll in CentOS Branding * Mon Jul 06 2009 Joe Orton 2.2.3-22.el5_3.2 - add security fixes for CVE-2009-1890, CVE-2009-1891 (#509782) * Thu May 07 2009 Joe Orton 2.2.3-22.el5_3.1 - add security fixes for CVE-2008-1678, CVE-2009-1195 (#499284) * Wed Nov 12 2008 Joe Orton 2.2.3-22.el5 - add security fixes for CVE-2008-2939 (#468841) - note that the mod_proxy 2.2.9 rebase fixed CVE-2008-2634 - CVE may be explored down: http://cve.mitre.org/cve/ The values of the form (#NN) are down: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ In this case, re-branding is so common as to not pick up a centos bug number, but might and if so would be at: http://bugs.centos.org/main_page.php -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] favicon.ico and robots.txt
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:54:02 -0700 Taproot wrote: > Robots.txt is a file that allows or denies robots from indexing or > crawling the site if they behave as they should. It's a common misconception. Robots.txt does NOT allow or deny... Robots.txt only SUGGESTs what they should crawl or not. It's up to the crawler to respect the robots.txt file. The big ones like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft do follow the instruction of the robots.txt file, but many, especially the one harvesting emails, photos..., do not follow the instructions of the robots.txt. -- Thanks http://www.911networks.com When the network has to work ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
Rudi Ahlers wrote: > But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a > self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that > kind of uptime. You say that downtime is not an option, so I can say with absolute confidence there really is nothing you can build for the budget your looking for that will provide 100% uptime. Either set expectations for the budget you have or get a bigger budget to satisfy the requirements. There are really only a few storage systems in the world that will put money down on 100% SLA uptime and they are all multi million dollar systems, and even then they will just pay you for any downtime caused by the storage, that doesn't mean there won't ever be downtime. And one vendor at least - Hitachi claims they have yet to have had to pay out on that guarantee(at least as of late last year when I last talked to them). Depending on space and performance requirements you can get a system that's built for 99.999% uptime for about $90-120k in the U.S. Even my own new storage system which as configured lists for about $990k does not guarantee 100% uptime, their goal is 99.999%, so far we've had 100% uptime over the past year, we've had two soft failures on the system, one was a Fiber channel HBA firmware crashed and dumped, the system automatically restarted the HBA chip, the second was a system level software component segfaulted(the system runs on Debian), the system auto restarted it, no noticeable impacts in either case as everything is connected to at least two active-active controllers.. Providing high availability storage is not a simple task, take for example a simple thing such as drive firmware upgrades, our storage system had to undergo drive firmware upgrades this past weekend due to a bug in the Seagate SATA drives which under very rare conditions could cause data corruption. The array handled the firmware upgrades itself, upgrading one drive at a time, took about 16 hours for 200 disks, zero impact to the system. If your building a system yourself in my experience its highly unlikely that you are ever alerted to such a problem in the drive firmware yet alone have to go through the process of upgrading the drives. Fortunately critical drive firmware updates are somewhat rare, but I think they will become more common as more systems move to SATA, which for the most part is lower quality/less testing. One guy I met with a couple of years ago had an entirely SATA drive system from another vendor using Western Digital drives, and there was a NASTY firmware bug in that system as well, and it continually impacted production, the drives at random times would just flat out stall, and you had to physically remove them from the array and re-insert them to cycle them and get them up again. And the array vendor had no way of flashing drives automatically at the time, he was faced with flashing each and every drive individually in another system(s). Eventually the vendor fixed their software to allow automatic firmware updates but that's just another example of the complexities involved with high availability storage and that's just at the block storage level. On some of our Dell servers we had to manually boot with a floppy to DOS to flash some Seagate SCSI drive firmwares as the firmware they shipped with killed performance(500% faster with newer firmware for our app). Then you need to take into account things like MPIO and active-active or active-passive storage controllers. Then if you get into the file based storage then there is another layer of availability bolted on top of that as well which can further complicate things. Our last NAS vendor is well known in the ultra high performance arena, but even with an active-active NAS cluster they could not do a major software upgrade without hard cluster downtime. And fail over took upwards of 60 seconds. > Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can > be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO > will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the > 2nd biggest concern. You say IO is the biggest concern yet below you plan to use SATA disks?! Doesn't make sense. Unless you plan to have a large amount of SATA disks. SATA has 1/2 the I/O capacity of 10k RPM, and 1/3rd the I/O capacity of 15k RPM. > The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS > perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend > a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and > probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different > hardware devices and configurations to see what works best? You sound like you want something that is fast, very highly available, cheap, has lots of space, and easy to manage, such a system doesn't really exist(depending on your view of how cheap is cheap). The reason it doesn't exist is because it's really complicated to get right. Your setting yourself
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
Joe Pruett wrote: >> H, OK, I get it. >> >> I know I can build the latest Apache on CentOS, and what we currently >> do is put it into /usr/local - which I guess works. >> >> I'd really prefer to have an RPM though. >> >> Certainly the CentOS team as a way in which they produce this RPM. >> Is this method public? And if so, is it easy to obtain, and run >> against the latest Apache source code to produce my own RPM? > > there is the redhat webstack (rhwas) code base to use. it has newer http, > php, mysql, postgres, etc. i have grabbed those srpms from ftp.redhat.com > and built my own repo. centos has a testing repo that is doing the same > kind of thing, but has been a bit spotty with keeping up with changes from > upstream. maybe that has cleared up now, but since i put the effort into > my own repo, i haven't kept tabs. kbsingh has talked about making a sub > repo just for the webstack code, but i don't think that has ever happened. > ___ The RHWAS for c4 is released, the one for c5 is not released yet. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > The thing is, how will these kind of option perform in a hosting > environment where downtime isn't at all an option. We have backup > generators, UPS, load balanced networks, etc Even the Tyan / > SuperMicro machines that I'm looking at will have redundant power > supplies & hard drives. > > But the one piece of of the puzzle that I don't understand, will a > self-build-Linux NAS device, or even Openfiler / FreeNAS give us that > kind of uptime. High quality servers running an enterprise linux version can give you the same uptime as dedicated hardware if you are comfortable with not doing updates. For example I still have a RH 7.3 based box running that has only been down a few minutes in about 7 years (had to move it) but I wouldn't try that with anything exposed to the internet. I did replace several drives and rebuild the raids over that time - and it is probably about to die of old age soon. > The other thing which I would like to also get to, is that we could do > more with a Linux based distro than with a off-the-shelf NAS. For > example I could setup storage space for users and build custom > applications that could manage it all - for example give a hosting > client a reseller account with 1TB space and he could resell that to > his clients. And I could go as far as setting up SMB / NFS / iSCSI / > rsyn / SSH / FTP / sFTP / podcast / HTTP / etc, i.e. other protocols > which a NAS may not necessarily support. And I could even use it as a > dedicated web farm if I feel like it, running HTTP & MySQL as well if > the server has enough RAM & CPU. > > Ideally I would like have a highly-redundant storage device which can > be used by numerous users, and also host Virtual Machines on it. So IO > will be the biggest concern, in terms of speed, with reliability the > 2nd biggest concern. > > I'll run RAID 10 (1+0) for speed & reliability, and use 1TB / 1.5TB > RAID edition server grade SATAII hard drives with hardware RAID - > although I also think software RAID on a decent CPU could perform > better. But the hardware RAID cards have battery backup which gives > better reliability. Then I would like to build 2 devices, each syncing > with the other one. The 2 device failover is the tricky part and it introduces some new ways to fail. I've always preferred to keep things simple with mirrored disks in a hot-swap chassis so the likely failure (single disk) doesn't slow down operation and can be replaced at a convenient time. The less likely motherboard or power supply failure will cause some down time while you swap the disks into a spare chassis, though. And you still need off-site backups to cover other types of problems. > The other question is, how well will my own Linux / UNIX based NAS > perform? Surely these companies who build their own NAS devices spend > a lot of time fine-tuning the OS to deliver the best performance, and > probably spend a lot of time researching and testing different > hardware devices and configurations to see what works best? I'd try the canned openfiler/nexentastore installs to see if they meet your needs in terms of functionality and performance and if so, then decide whether you want to use a supported version or duplicate their work setting up something on generic linux/opensolaris. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] using Linux as a NAS / SAN device
on 8-27-2009 3:12 PM Rudi Ahlers spake the following: > Hi, > > I'm looking at using Linux as a NAS / SAN device, and would like some > input from other's who have done this before? > > How would it compare to commercial SAN devices, Thecus N8800SAS > (http://www.thecus.com/products_over.php?cid=11&pid=177&set_language=english) > or something similar to these? > > I would probably use hardware RAID 10, and could go with either SAS / > SATA, and then probably offer iSCSI, Samba. NFS & rsync. > In terms of servers hardware, well either Tyan / SuperMicro / Intel / > Dell would be fine as well. But, my question is rather from a linux > point of view, how would Linux compare to dedicated NAS devices, in > terms of the OS managing the device? > Have you looked at the openfiler project? Runs on linux, and has fancy web management. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] favicon.ico and robots.txt
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:46:43 -0400 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > Hello, > I'm running an apache 2.2 webserver on centos 5.3. I'm seeing > frequent requests for robots.txt and favicon.ico from the logs those files > should be in the document root area. What are these files, is this something > the rpm installs, or do i have to retrieve or generate them? Both files are *optional*. robots.txt is a per-virtual host file that tells 'friendly' robots (eg googlebot or yahoo's slurp and what not) what you want them to spider or not spider in your web site. If robots.txt is missing, the spiders spider everything they have a link to. Google for this file -- there are lots of web pages that explain what this file should contain. favicon.ico is something IE (and later FireFox, etc.) look for to put next to the URL in the location field and to save with the URL in the client's bookmarks. By default it just shows some default icon. This is mostly a vanity thing. You just create a some little 16x16 pixel version of your logo or service mark or something and bundle it into a .ico file and drop it at root of your web pages. > Thanks. > Dave. > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Need httpd / apache RPM > 2.2.3 for 5.3
At Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:11:19 -0400 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > OK, here is the interesting part :-) > > I'm new here as of about 4 months ago, and I just asked some coworkers > why we went with 2.2.10 instead of the 2.2.3 that comes with CentOS > > Apparently at the time we'd been having some problems with mod_perl > crashing (and still are in fact - I'm working on it slowly but > surely), and we'd hired an outside consulting company to help out with > it. Their first comment was that 2.2.3 was "extremely buggy" and that > we should definitely not go with it. So that's what we did. The > newest release at the time was 2.2.10 and that's where we are. > > There was also so speculation that our DB2 client did not work so well > with 2.2.3 > > Can someone answer me this - I see that today we have 2.2.3 patch > level 22 as our most recent release. > > Is there a document that will tell me what patch levels were shipped > with the different releases of CentOS? In particular 5.2? rpm -q --changelog httpd > > Maybe I don't really need > 2.2.3, I dunno. I've seen some other > evidence that this outside contracting company did not seem to know as > much as they let on. For starters, they did not get very far with our > mod_perl problem. I got a lot further in about a week of googling, > and I came into it with no knowledge of mod_perl, and no debug-level > knowledge of Apache (albeit 7 or 8 years of apache config experience) Hmmm... It sounds like you were scamed on some level... > > thanks, > -Alan > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] my fonts look horrible (centos5.3/xfce)
Johnny Hughes wrote: >> I never had jagged fonts with the standard xfce in extras and normal >> CentOS using the liberation fonts and the standard freetype from centos. >> I was using the same fonts I used in Gnome. >> >> Maybe I am missing something, why did you need to rebuild freetype? >> >> Are you using the xfce from centos 5 extras? > > Here is a list of the relevant fonts I have installed: > > bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10-7 > liberation-fonts-1.0-1.el5 > libXfont-1.2.2-1.0.3.el5_1 > libXfontcache-1.0.2-3.1 > xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-base-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.1-2.1.el5 > xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2 > > After you make sure liberation-fonts and bitstream-vera-fonts are > installed, try making "Bitstream Vera Sans" or "Liberation Sans" your > application font. > > Thanks, > Johnny Hughes > > > > I installed from extras. I rebuilt freetype to enable BCI. I'm going to reload the machine and then install your suggested fonts and MS core fonts and see how it goes. It's easier to start fresh now since I've messed with so many things :) Will follow up when I am done. Thanks Ryan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] what is the best way to delete so many queue files?
Hello, all. I found that so many unnessary queue files are saved at /var/spool/clientmqueue/ directory. I tested two way to delete these files. 1. # rm -rf /var/spool/clientmqueue/* 2. # cd /var/spool/clientmqueue/ ; find . | xargs rm -fv But this makes a few load of the system and took too much time to delete. What is the best way to delete fast without too much load? Thanks in advance. _ 암호를 잃어버렸을 때를 대비하여 미리 암호 확인용 메일 설정하세요! http://im.msn.co.kr/im/main/mainCoverDetail.asp?seq=2251&page=1&BbsCode=bbs01&ser_k=a&ser_v= ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
