Re: [CentOS] cups printing to a remote network
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:30:48PM -0500, Gregory P. Ennis wrote: > Everyone, > > I have an need to be able to print to an HP1320 that is usb connected to > a Fedora 17 desktop on a remote network from a Centos 5.8 cups print > server on an internal network. The desktop is in a remote network that > belongs to to a different client than the one owning the cups print > server. > > The F17 usb HP1320 connection works fine, and I can also get the F17 > system to poll the cups print server in order to print to any of the > printers on the internal network. So far I have not been able to figure > out a way to print to the remote HP1320 from inside the internal > network. > > I am about ready to ask the remote client to provide a static ip address > that we can use that to be able to connect separately from them. It > just seems there ought to be a way to do this. I am unable to poll the > desktop unit on the remote network from the internal network because of > firewall restrictions on the remote network. > > Any ideas > > Greg Ennis (1) VPN, or somewhat simpler, some sort of tunnelled SSH connection. (2) Maybe get the remote people to establish an email account for the printer. Securing this against malmail might be tricky. I recently got a Konica Bizhub 20p printer, when nosing around the telnet interface to it, I noticed it had a built-in ability to suck print jobs from a POP server. Absent such an ability on the printer itself, a dummy user could get your mailed print jobs, perform some kind of authentication (perhaps with procmail), and then spool the job. It could email you back when the job was spooled. Dave I had not thought of using POP service. I could poll that fairly easily; I would expect it to be a little slower, but I can see how it would work. I have not played with tunneled ssh connections, but that would probably work the best. I could dump the print job in a directory on the internal server, and poll that directory from the remote machine. Thanks much for your ideas Greg ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cups printing to a remote network
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 11:30:48PM -0500, Gregory P. Ennis wrote: > Everyone, > > I have an need to be able to print to an HP1320 that is usb connected to > a Fedora 17 desktop on a remote network from a Centos 5.8 cups print > server on an internal network. The desktop is in a remote network that > belongs to to a different client than the one owning the cups print > server. > > The F17 usb HP1320 connection works fine, and I can also get the F17 > system to poll the cups print server in order to print to any of the > printers on the internal network. So far I have not been able to figure > out a way to print to the remote HP1320 from inside the internal > network. > > I am about ready to ask the remote client to provide a static ip address > that we can use that to be able to connect separately from them. It > just seems there ought to be a way to do this. I am unable to poll the > desktop unit on the remote network from the internal network because of > firewall restrictions on the remote network. > > Any ideas > > Greg Ennis (1) VPN, or somewhat simpler, some sort of tunnelled SSH connection. (2) Maybe get the remote people to establish an email account for the printer. Securing this against malmail might be tricky. I recently got a Konica Bizhub 20p printer, when nosing around the telnet interface to it, I noticed it had a built-in ability to suck print jobs from a POP server. Absent such an ability on the printer itself, a dummy user could get your mailed print jobs, perform some kind of authentication (perhaps with procmail), and then spool the job. It could email you back when the job was spooled. Dave -- The principles of accounting are not arbitrary. They are natural law. -- Mencius Moldbug ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] cups printing to a remote network
Everyone, I have an need to be able to print to an HP1320 that is usb connected to a Fedora 17 desktop on a remote network from a Centos 5.8 cups print server on an internal network. The desktop is in a remote network that belongs to to a different client than the one owning the cups print server. The F17 usb HP1320 connection works fine, and I can also get the F17 system to poll the cups print server in order to print to any of the printers on the internal network. So far I have not been able to figure out a way to print to the remote HP1320 from inside the internal network. I am about ready to ask the remote client to provide a static ip address that we can use that to be able to connect separately from them. It just seems there ought to be a way to do this. I am unable to poll the desktop unit on the remote network from the internal network because of firewall restrictions on the remote network. Any ideas Greg Ennis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Urgent help on replacing /var
On 8/3/12, John R Pierce wrote: > if you had any database servers like postgresql or mysql, and their data > files were in the default locations under /var, your databases are > undoubtably corrupted, unless you stopped the DB server(s) before doing > this copy. I think the fortunate thing is that everything else important on the server was running in their own VMs with their own LVM partitions. So luckily there doesn't seem to be anything important affected by my stupidity, the most important I wanted saved were the LVM configuration and VM configs which fortunately were in standalone XML files. I *think* I probably could had quickly reinstall a bare minimum C6 to fix it, but after realizing my epic foolishness with replacing /var, I didn't want to take any chances of anaconda wiping all the LVM partitions. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Urgent help on replacing /var
On 8/3/12, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Friday, August 03, 2012 06:24:46 AM Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: >> In a moment of epic stupidity, having ran out of space on the root >> partition of a server due to /var chewing up the space, I added a >> separate drive for the purpose of mounting it as /var > ... > > This sort of things pops up from time to time from a thread back in > April. Lesson learnt, never try to fix things I'm not familiar with when feeling pressured by relentless error messages, especially if nobody else is complaining yet. >> rpm -qa | while read line; do echo $line && rpm --setperms $line; done >> > By extension: > > rpm -qa | while read line; do echo $line && rpm --setugids $line; done > > should handle ownerships. Then, reenable selinux in permissive mode, and > set it to relabel on the next boot. Thanks for this tip, I'll try it and then see if there is anything else in audit log that needs attention. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 : Tip for significantly increasing battery life / reducing power consumption (Thinkpad X220 Tablet)
On 03/08/12 17:05, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> As per http://www.williambrownstreet.net/blog/?p=387, add the
> following kernel arguments to the GRUB boot configuration:
>
> pcie_aspm=force i915.i915_enable_rc6=1 i915.lvds_downclock=1
> i915.i915_enable_fbc=1
>
> As measured using PowerTop, this made the power consumption decrease
> from 20W to 11W !
> (I had already decreased it from 25W to 20W with the usual tips of
> disabling hardware, shutting down services, switching tuned profiles,
> etc.)
Thanks for the tips. I've got a X220 and power consumption is typically
less than 10W, with various powertop tweaks on Fedora 17, giving me
8-9hrs of battery life.
The biggest win was setting i915.i915_enable_rc6=1 on the kernel command
line, although I've read that this can cause some instability, depending
on you kernel and usage -- had a couple of crashes/freezes a 6 months
ago, but it seems pretty stable now. The benefits for a laptop
definitely out-weigh the inconvenience or a few rare freezes, but it
would be different for a server.
Might try out the other kernel line options and see if I can do better :-)
Here's my /etc/rc.d/rc.local file in case you are interested:
-
#!/bin/bash
echo 5 > /proc/sys/vm/laptop_mode
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/sched_mc_power_savings
echo ondemand > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo 1500 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_writeback_centisecs
for i in /sys/bus/usb/devices/*/power/autosuspend; do echo 1 > $i; done
for i in /sys/bus/usb/devices/*/power/level; do echo auto > $i; done
echo min_power > /sys/class/scsi_host/host0/link_power_management_policy
echo min_power > /sys/class/scsi_host/host1/link_power_management_policy
echo Y > /sys/module/snd_hda_intel/parameters/power_save_controller
echo 1 > /sys/module/snd_hda_intel/parameters/power_save
for i in /sys/bus/{pci,i2c}/devices/*/power/control; do echo auto > $i; done
iwconfig wlan0 power on
-
Cheers,
Kal
--
Kahlil (Kal) Hodgson GPG: C9A02289
Head of Technology (m) +61 (0) 4 2573 0382
DealMax Pty Ltd(w) +61 (0) 3 9008 5281
Suite 1415
401 Docklands Drive
Docklands VIC 3008 Australia
"All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore,
if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all
means, do not use a hammer." -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Urgent help on replacing /var
On 8/3/12, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 08/03/2012 11:52 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: >> I'll probably have to slowly hunt down the relevant selinux context >> one by one when nobody's screaming about the server being down. > > Would restorecon not help get this bootrapped ? and then with selinux in > permissive mode, watch the audit log like a hawk. fixfiles/restorecon managed to get init 5 past syslogger but it got stuck still at NFS statd which locks up the entire server. But with setenforce to permissive, the system appears to work fine and yes I would be doing that watch the audit log thing during the next scheduled down time. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 08/04/12 8:26 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > Dunno if IBM did much to JFS after that... haven´t been following > their work wrt JFS... JFS is the primary file system for AIX on their big Power servers, and on those, it performs very very well. the utilities are are fully integrated so growing a file system is a one step process that takes care of both the LVM and JFS online in a single command. # chfs -size=+10G /home hard to be much simpler than that! -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM, ashkab rahmani wrote: > thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs?? > is it comparable with others?? I was very pro-JFS... until I lost 10gig of very important data, and back then (2002) there was no way to recover a JFS volume (the data was in RAID, but some corruption ocurred and I lost the whole drive, I mean, I ended up with a blank root). Back in 2004 I asked one of the IBMers at the JFS team about it and he had this to say: - "IBM will continue to invest in jfs as long as we feel that our customers get value from it." Q: Will JFS be enhanced eventually with features from ReiserFS 4? (can it be done without a complete rewrite?). "Possibly some. Samba has been asking for streams support for a while, and if reiser4 leads the way in an implementation that does not break unix file semantics, jfs (and possibly other file systems) may follow." - Dunno if IBM did much to JFS after that... haven´t been following their work wrt JFS... FC ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years. FUD alert... https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-japan/bo --- LinuxCon Japan 2012 | Presentations On The Way to a Healthy Btrfs Towards Enterprise Btrfs has been on full development for about 5 years and it does make lots of progress on both feature and performance, but why does everybody keep tagging it with ""experimental""? And why do people still think of it as a vulnerable one for production use? As a goal of production use, we have been strengthening several features, making improvements on performance and keeping fixing bugs to make btrfs stable, for instance, ""snapshot aware defrag"", ""extent buffer cache"", ""rbtree lock contention"", etc. This talk will cover the above and will also show problems we are facing with, solutions we are seeking for and a blueprint we are planning to lay out. For this session, I'll focus on its features and performance, so for the target audience, it'd be better to have a basic knowledge base of filesystem. Liu Bo, Fujitsu Liu Bo has been working on linux kernel development since late 2010 as a Fujitsu engineer. He has been working on filesystem field and he's now focusing on btrfs development. FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario - George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > What is the age of BTRFS? BTRFS presentation, mid-2007 https://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/btrfs-ukuug.pdf That makes it 6 years in development. Next... FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario - George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as > their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does > support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I > like tried and true over experimental. Isn't XFS on linux tried and true by now? It's always worked great for me. Does ext4 resolve the issue of slow fsck? Recently I had a ~500GB ext3 filesystem that hadn't been checked in a while; it took over 20 minutes to fsck. Meanwhile, a few months ago I had a problematic ~10TB XFS filesystem, and it took about 1-2 hours to fsck (IIRC 1.5 hrs). This was also a reason I switched away from reiserfs (this was well before Hans Reiser's personal problems)--a reiserfsck of a relatively modest filesystem took much longer than even an ext3 fsck. If I get some time I will try it on some spare filesystems, but I'm curious what other people's experiences are. I've looked into ZFS on linux, but it still seems not quite ready for real production use. I'd love to test it on a less crucial server when I get the chance. Their FAQ claims RHEL 6.0 support: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
One disadvantage I've seen with XFS is that you cannot shrink [0] the
file system.
For a box dedicated to network storage this shouldn't be a problem.
But in my instance I made /var a bit too large and needed to reclaim
space for /.
[0] http://xfs.org/index.php/Shrinking_Support
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 08/04/12 7:01 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
>> hello
>> i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
>> i want to share it on network via nfs.
>> which file system is better for it?
>>
>
>
> we are using XFS with CentOS 6.latest on 80TB file systems, works quite
> well. handles a mix of many tiny files and very large files without
> any special tuning.
>
> Theres one big issue with NFS that requires a workaround... XFS requires
> 64 bit inodes on a large file system ('inode64'), and by default, NFS
> wants to use the inode as the unique ID for the export, this doesn't
> work as that unique ID has to be 32 bits, so you have to manually
> specify a unique identifier for each share from a given server. I
> can't remember offhand what the specific option is, but you can specify
> 1, 2, 3, 4 for the share identifiers, or any other unique integer. if
> you only export the root of a file system, tis is not a problem. this
> problem is squarely an NFS implementation problem, that code should have
> been fixed eons ago.
>
>
> --
> john r pierceN 37, W 122
> santa cruz ca mid-left coast
>
> ___
> 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] find errors in a directory of files
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:19:39PM -0400, Tim Dunphy wrote:
> hello list,
>
> I'm trying to write a script that will search through a directory of trace
> logs for an oracle database. From what I understand new files are always
> being created in the directory and it's not possible to know the exact
> names of the files before they are created. The purpose of this is to
> create service checks in nagios. Because you don't know the names of the
> files ahead of time traditional plugins like check_logs or
> check_logfiles.plwon't work.
>
> Here's what I was able to come up with:
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
>
>
> log1='/u01/app/oracle/admin/ecom/udump/*'
> crit1=($(grep 'ORA-00600' $log1))
> crit2=($(grep 'ORA-04031' $log1))
> crit3=($(grep 'ORA-07445' $log1))
>
>
>
> if [ $crit1 ] ; then
>echo "$crit1 on ecom1"
>status=2
>
>
> elif [ $crit2 ]; then
> echo "$crit2 on ecom1"
> status=2
>
> elif [ $crit3 ]; then
> echo "$crit3 on ecom1"
> status=2
> fi
>
>
> echo $status
> exit $status
>
>
> This is a very early version of the scripts, so as you can see I'm echoing
> a test message at the end letting you know the exit status.
>
> The problem with this script is that it is only able to detect one error in
> the logs. If you echo more than one test phrase into a log file or into
> multiple log files it still only picks up one error message.
>
> I was just wondering if anyone on the list might have a suggestion on how
> best to accomplish this task?
>
> Thanks
> Tim
I'm not sure I understand the problem well. But, perhaps something like
this
#!/bin/sh
for log in /u01./udump/*
do
egrep -e 'ORA-00600|ORA-04031|ORA-07445' ${log}
done
this will find any line matching any of the ORA- keys. You can
capture the return code if you wish.
Output of egrep could be passed to wc to echo instead a count of the
errors. Filenames could be produced, too, with a bit more scripting,
which you can obviously handle.
Dave
--
The principles of accounting are not arbitrary. They are natural law.
-- Mencius Moldbug
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] find errors in a directory of files
hello list, I'm trying to write a script that will search through a directory of trace logs for an oracle database. From what I understand new files are always being created in the directory and it's not possible to know the exact names of the files before they are created. The purpose of this is to create service checks in nagios. Because you don't know the names of the files ahead of time traditional plugins like check_logs or check_logfiles.plwon't work. Here's what I was able to come up with: #!/bin/bash log1='/u01/app/oracle/admin/ecom/udump/*' crit1=($(grep 'ORA-00600' $log1)) crit2=($(grep 'ORA-04031' $log1)) crit3=($(grep 'ORA-07445' $log1)) if [ $crit1 ] ; then echo "$crit1 on ecom1" status=2 elif [ $crit2 ]; then echo "$crit2 on ecom1" status=2 elif [ $crit3 ]; then echo "$crit3 on ecom1" status=2 fi echo $status exit $status This is a very early version of the scripts, so as you can see I'm echoing a test message at the end letting you know the exit status. The problem with this script is that it is only able to detect one error in the logs. If you echo more than one test phrase into a log file or into multiple log files it still only picks up one error message. I was just wondering if anyone on the list might have a suggestion on how best to accomplish this task? Thanks Tim -- GPG me!! gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys F186197B ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 08/04/12 12:48 PM, ashkab rahmani wrote: > thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs?? > is it comparable with others?? it works very well on IBM AIX, but I see very little support or usage from the Linux community. -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 08/04/12 7:01 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote:
> hello
> i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
> i want to share it on network via nfs.
> which file system is better for it?
>
we are using XFS with CentOS 6.latest on 80TB file systems, works quite
well. handles a mix of many tiny files and very large files without
any special tuning.
Theres one big issue with NFS that requires a workaround... XFS requires
64 bit inodes on a large file system ('inode64'), and by default, NFS
wants to use the inode as the unique ID for the export, this doesn't
work as that unique ID has to be 32 bits, so you have to manually
specify a unique identifier for each share from a given server. I
can't remember offhand what the specific option is, but you can specify
1, 2, 3, 4 for the share identifiers, or any other unique integer. if
you only export the root of a file system, tis is not a problem. this
problem is squarely an NFS implementation problem, that code should have
been fixed eons ago.
--
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
thank you very much. what do you think abou jfs?? is it comparable with others?? ——— Ashkan R On Aug 5, 2012 12:02 AM, "Joerg Schilling" < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Karanbir Singh wrote: > > > On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. > > > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not > > > > Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At > > the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your > > work in the past, I know you can do better than this. > > I would not call it a rant but a food for thought. > > ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4. > ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years. > > What is the age of BTRFS? > > The experience with various filesystems tells that it takes 8-10 years to > make > a new filesystem mature. > > Also the OP did not ask for CentOS, but for a filesystem comparison. > > So comparing filesystems seems to be the question. For ZFS, I know that it > took until three years ago to get rid of nasty bugs. At that time, ZFS was > 8. > > So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years. > > ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need > flexible > snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you ask it > to > verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS "problem" > is > true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of the > Linux > buffer cache. > > And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp > patents > are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-) > > > There are few fs use cases where COW is not the best. > > Jörg > > -- > EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 > Berlin >j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) >joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > ___ > 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] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 04.08.2012 20:32, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. >> > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not > ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need > flexible > snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you > ask it to > verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS > "problem" is > true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of > the Linux > buffer cache. > > And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp > patents > are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-) Jorg, Given your expertise then, can you say how mature/stable/usable is ZFS on Linux, specifically CentOS? That's what everybody is probably most interested in. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. > > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not > > Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At > the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your > work in the past, I know you can do better than this. I would not call it a rant but a food for thought. ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4. ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years. What is the age of BTRFS? The experience with various filesystems tells that it takes 8-10 years to make a new filesystem mature. Also the OP did not ask for CentOS, but for a filesystem comparison. So comparing filesystems seems to be the question. For ZFS, I know that it took until three years ago to get rid of nasty bugs. At that time, ZFS was 8. So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years. ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need flexible snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you ask it to verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS "problem" is true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of the Linux buffer cache. And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp patents are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-) There are few fs use cases where COW is not the best. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your work in the past, I know you can do better than this. Regards, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219| Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Urgent help on replacing /var
On Friday, August 03, 2012 12:03:01 PM Karanbir Singh wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/03/2012 04:25 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > rpm -qa | while read line; do echo $line && rpm --setugids $line; done > > should handle ownerships. Then, reenable selinux in permissive mode, and > > set it to relabel on the next boot. > > maybe add --setperms as well Hmm, I thought by including that in my quoted text that it was implied that one should do both My bad. It was a long day I'm not sure if both can be used on a single command line, since both --setperms and --setugids are implemented via popt aliases; I reserve the right to be wrong, of course. I also forgot to specify in my reply that these commands would only repair files owned by packages; any non-package-owned files in /var won't be helped by either --setperms or --setugids; but it will give the OP a good start. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
Reindl Harald wrote: > face the truth! > > there is no ZFS for linux > there will never be > > that you do not like GPL, Linux etc. at all will > not change anything, not now and not in the future What do you expect from spreading lies against me? You are off topic, so please stop this nonsense. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
Nux! wrote: > ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no > testing. > If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology > preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes. Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not. Nux! wrote: > ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no > testing. > If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology > preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes. Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 04.08.2012 16:36, ashkab rahmani wrote: > thank you. very usefull > i think i'll try btrfs or jfs, > i'll send you btrfs result for you. Please note: The Btrfs code of CentOS 6.3 is based on kernel 2.6.32. This is very experimental. If you want to try Btrfs, then use kernel 3.2 or higher. (there are thousands of bug fixes and improvements since 2.6.32) Anyway, I still recommend ext4 or xfs. Best regards, Morten ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 08/04/2012 09:36 AM, ashkab rahmani wrote: > thank you. very usefull > i think i'll try btrfs or jfs, > i'll send you btrfs result for you. > > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! wrote: > >> On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote: >>> thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario. >>> but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true? >>> On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote: > hello > i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided. > i want to share it on network via nfs. > which file system is better for it? > thank you No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-) As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS and it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora. Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it in some scenarios. ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no testing. If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes. Personally, I would use ext4 ... faster is not always better. As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I like tried and true over experimental. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 04.08.2012 15:36, ashkab rahmani wrote: > thank you. very usefull > i think i'll try btrfs or jfs, > i'll send you btrfs result for you. Ilsistemista.net seems to have some good articles about filesystems. e.g. http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/linux-a-unix/33-btrfs-vs-ext3-vs-ext4-vs-xfs-performance-on-fedora-17.html Check them out. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
thank you. very usefull i think i'll try btrfs or jfs, i'll send you btrfs result for you. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Nux! wrote: > On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote: > > thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario. > > but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true? > > > > ——— > > Ashkan R > > On Aug 4, 2012 6:39 PM, "Nux!" wrote: > > > >> On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote: > >> > hello > >> > i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided. > >> > i want to share it on network via nfs. > >> > which file system is better for it? > >> > thank you > >> > ——— > >> > Ashkan R > >> > ___ > >> > CentOS mailing list > >> > CentOS@centos.org > >> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >> > >> No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-) > >> > >> As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS > >> and > >> it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora. > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > >> > >> Nux! > >> www.nux.ro > >> ___ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS@centos.org > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >> > > ___ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it > in some scenarios. > ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no > testing. > If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology > preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes. > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 04.08.2012 15:19, ashkab rahmani wrote: > thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario. > but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true? > > ——— > Ashkan R > On Aug 4, 2012 6:39 PM, "Nux!" wrote: > >> On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote: >> > hello >> > i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided. >> > i want to share it on network via nfs. >> > which file system is better for it? >> > thank you >> > ——— >> > Ashkan R >> > ___ >> > CentOS mailing list >> > CentOS@centos.org >> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-) >> >> As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS >> and >> it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora. >> >> -- >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> Nux! >> www.nux.ro >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Well, I think ext4 is pretty fast. Maybe XFS has a slight edge over it in some scenarios. ZFS on linux is still highly experimental and has received close to no testing. If you are in mood for experiments EL6.3 includes BTRFS as technology preview for 64bit machines. Give it a try and let us know how it goes. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
thank you i have redundancy but i have simplified scenario. but i think ext4 is notbas fast as others. is it true? ——— Ashkan R On Aug 4, 2012 6:39 PM, "Nux!" wrote: > On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote: > > hello > > i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided. > > i want to share it on network via nfs. > > which file system is better for it? > > thank you > > ——— > > Ashkan R > > ___ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-) > > As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS and > it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora. > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On 04.08.2012 15:01, ashkab rahmani wrote: > hello > i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided. > i want to share it on network via nfs. > which file system is better for it? > thank you > ——— > Ashkan R > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos No redundancy? That's a lot of data to lose. :-) As for your question, I'd use ext4. It has caught up a lot with XFS and it's THE file system supported by RHEL and Fedora. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [SOLVED] iptables rule question for Centos 5
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 02:37:54AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > Moving the port to a non-standard port is better than nothing ... but > only be a very slight bit. It might work on the least knowledgeable > script kiddies who only look at port 22, but it will do nothing to hide > the fact that it is an open to the world ssh port on an nmap scan, etc. Depends on what problem you're trying to solve... If you're being targetted by an attacker then, yes, a port scan will expose the port anyway. BUT if you're just seeing random internet noise then simply changing the port will stop this because your random zombie doesn't port scan before hand (it takes too long, especially if you DROP traffic to all other ports). This means that you're not wasting CPU cycles negotiating SSL; you're not wasting disk space on logs, CPU on fail2ban or similar, resources on accepting connections etc etc. Since I moved my port a year ago the number of random attacks on my host has dropped to zero. It's a very very small win, but it is a win :-) -- rgds Stephen ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 : Tip for significantly increasing battery life / reducing power consumption (Thinkpad X220 Tablet)
> You could also consider just sticking to tuned and then having a look at the > power management options as provided there. tuned-adm list will show you > some predefined power management options which *can* be tweaked. I have made many tests with tuned and written small scripts to switch from one profile to the other (laptop-battery-powersave on battery, default on AC). Gains where in the 1W to 2W range vs. 9W gain with the kernel arguments (which is nice now that I'm around 12W, but it was 25W at the beginning!) > Do you know what those options due to your machine in order to make the > battery last longer? I mean really, do you know what they do? They are related to Intel graphic drivers (follow links in OP): http://www.williambrownstreet.net/blog/?p=387 http://askubuntu.com/questions/38117/battery-life-decreased-after-upgrade-to-11-04 I don't know much more, but what I know is that this single change increased battery life on my laptop by a factor of two, that the fan is not running at full speed all the time (it also was on AC), and that nothing was broken for the last two days I have been working with it. > These could be bad options for a number of users and since it's set at kernel > boot time how can you override it once the OS has booted? Can you disable > this without altering boot parameters and rebooting? If the answer is yes > than a tuned configuration should be created or altered to set them > dynamically. Setting of these at boot time are likely just wrong. You > likely only want these to be turned on when the laptop is not attached to > power, which you can create hooks for. Definitely, these could be bad options for some users (or, more likely, irrelevant ones). I posted to the list, so that when somebody will search for 'centos 6 thinkpad power consumption too high' he will bump into the Ubuntu related post I linked to (which provides additional links to the root cause) but also that this person will see that it worked pretty well in my particular case. > This is not a bug, it's a feature/workaround on specific hardware, that > tweaks specific settings to get around a specific issue with the driver. > Create a profile and submit it upstream. The above links rather point to a regression. I assume that CentOS users are experienced enough to do their own risks/benefits analysis before applying such tweaks. We can probably agree that we disagree on that point. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] [SOLVED] iptables rule question for Centos 5
On 08/04/2012 01:43 AM, Keith Roberts wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012, SilverTip257 wrote: > >> To: CentOS mailing list >> From: SilverTip257 >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] [SOLVED] iptables rule question for Centos 5 >> >> Marvin, >> >> You're leaving SSH open to the world with that. >> If this is a box behind a firewall, then it's not _as much of a >> concern_ ... otherwise you're opening that server up to ssh brute >> force attempts. >> >> Your existing configuration is probably set up to drop/reject if >> traffic does not match any of your rules, so you've nearly solved the >> "blocking all other traffic" from server2. But you really should put >> a specific rule on server1 with source as server2 and dest port 22 >> being accepted. >> >> -s server2 -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT > Or move the SSH port to a non-standard one? > Moving the port to a non-standard port is better than nothing ... but only be a very slight bit. It might work on the least knowledgeable script kiddies who only look at port 22, but it will do nothing to hide the fact that it is an open to the world ssh port on an nmap scan, etc. Three much better options are: 1. Use a --source in the IPTABLES rules if you only connect from a limited number of places. 2. Some kind of VPN (like openvpn) 3. Port Knocking: http://www.portknocking.org/view/faq 2 and 3 can both be open from everywhere, and all 3 do not show as an open ssh port from remote scans, which is what you want. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
