Re: [CentOS] C6, lightweight window managers - opinions?

[Karl Vogel]

>> On 11/07/2017 10:37 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

> So, on my old Netbook, now happily running C6.9, I'm looking for
> opinions for a lightweight window manager. Gnome surely ain't it

  I'd've been happy to stay with Gnome if whoever wrote metacity hadn't
  broken the function-key mappings.  I use FVWM on Oracle Linux 6.9:

USER   RSS   STARTED   TIME COMMAND
vogelke160Oct-30   0:00 /usr/local/libexec/fvwm/2.6.7/Fvwm
vogelke   4248Oct-30   0:03 /usr/local/libexec/fvwm/2.6.7/Fvwm
vogelke   5728Oct-03   1:32 fvwm -s

  Can't get much lighter than that.

-- 
Karl Vogel  I don't speak for the USAF or my company

Next time it could be me on the scaffolding.
--written on blackboard by Bart Simpson
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Possibly [OT] ansible vmware inventory plugin

[Gordon Messmer]

On 11/08/2017 10:37 AM, Mark Haney wrote:
The problem is that the vmware_inventory.py script didn't come with 
2.4 in CentOS 7, even though it's in the stable branch.  I'm curious, 
is this a deliberate omission on the CentOS maintainers part?



Both the Fedora package and the vendor's package build script rely on 
"setup.py install" to install the majority of packaged files, and 
Ansible's setup.py doesn't appear to do anything with the contrib 
directory, where the dynamic inventory scripts live. It doesn't look 
like the decision to omit those files was made by downstream packagers.


My understanding is that those scripts are intended to be modified to 
fit the environment where they're used.  It *might* be useful to include 
them as "documentation" in the rpm package, but that doesn't seem like 
it would save much over making them available via the source repository.


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

[CentOS] Possibly [OT] ansible vmware inventory plugin

[Mark Haney]

This might be OT, but it is CentOS related.  I've been running Ansible 
on C7 for a handful of months now, and updated to 2.4 as soon as it was 
available. I've been building inventories by hand in that time (mostly 
due to the fact we had no actual documentation on the managed external 
customer servers). However, as we have a multiple VMware clusters, 
thought it might be time to tinker with dynamic inventories.  The 
problem is that the vmware_inventory.py script didn't come with 2.4 in 
CentOS 7, even though it's in the stable branch.  I'm curious, is this a 
deliberate omission on the CentOS maintainers part?  I couldn't find a 
package that included it.


Am I missing something obvious?

--
Mark Haney
Network Engineer at NeoNova
919-460-3330 option 1
mark.ha...@neonova.net
www.neonova.net

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

Re: [CentOS] mariadb server memory usage

[hw]

marcos valentine wrote:

This free memory can go away in less than a second


It's depends of many things. But you need to pay attention on this variables

https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/mariadb-memory-allocation/


Thanks, that´s an interesting page.

It tells you to turn off hyperthreading.  At some other place on the
mariadb website, I´ve been reading it´s generally a good idea to
leave it turned on for mariadb.

Now which is true?


In my db servers i use nagios to monitor when "free" and "available" ram is
less than 80% warning state and less than 5% critical.


Hmm, nagios, yes, I should look into that.


so I figured why not use as much as possible --- just not too much, and

this is borderline.

You can use the rule always 80% used for safe. But 20% of 46GB could be too
much ram wasted.


It would be a pity to waste it.  I think 128GB would be ideal, and the
machine might even get that once I get to shuffle the RAM sticks
around between different machines.  I still wouldn´t want to waste any.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] mariadb server memory usage

[marcos valentine]

> This free memory can go away in less than a second

It's depends of many things. But you need to pay attention on this variables

https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/mariadb-memory-allocation/

In my db servers i use nagios to monitor when "free" and "available" ram is
less than 80% warning state and less than 5% critical.


> so I figured why not use as much as possible --- just not too much, and
this is borderline.

You can use the rule always 80% used for safe. But 20% of 46GB could be too
much ram wasted.


Livre
de vírus. www.avast.com
.
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2017-11-08 9:56 GMT-02:00 hw :

> marcos valentine wrote:
>
>> Disk cache is not recommended for databases servers.
>>
>>  it'll  slow down the performance. More ram equals more performance.
>>
>> This link help me understand memory usage on linux.
>>
>> https://www.linuxatemyram.com/
>>
>> Basically you need yo worry about
>>
>> free memory is close to 0
>> used memory is close to total
>>
>
> Almost 3GB available on a 48GB machine is very close to "free memory is
> 0" and "used memory is close to total", which is why I´m wondering what
> I can get away with :)
>
> This free memory can go away in less than a second.  Maybe it never will,
> so I figured why not use as much as possible --- just not too much, and
> this is borderline.
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] mariadb server memory usage

[hw]

marcos valentine wrote:

Disk cache is not recommended for databases servers.

 it'll  slow down the performance. More ram equals more performance.

This link help me understand memory usage on linux.

https://www.linuxatemyram.com/

Basically you need yo worry about

free memory is close to 0
used memory is close to total


Almost 3GB available on a 48GB machine is very close to "free memory is
0" and "used memory is close to total", which is why I´m wondering what
I can get away with :)

This free memory can go away in less than a second.  Maybe it never will,
so I figured why not use as much as possible --- just not too much, and
this is borderline.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] mariadb server memory usage

[hw]

Mark Haney wrote:

On 11/04/2017 10:05 AM, hw wrote:


Hi,

is this ok for a database server, or do I need to turn the memory allowance
down?  The machine has 48GB and mariadb is allowed about 40. The
machine is a dedicated database server.

Mysql seems to go up to what top says is virtually allocated under some
circumstances; I don´t know what mariadb does.  I don´t want anything
get killed because memory runs out.  Swap should prevent that anyway,
but perhaps I went a bit higher than I should?

Usual advice is to use 80%, and there are probably reasons for that.
Perhaps it´s better to allow for more disk cache?


KiB Mem : 49449424 total,   291772 free, 45891836 used,  3265816 buff/cache
KiB Swap: 16777212 total, 16742928 free,34284 used.  2985816 avail Mem

  PID USER  PR  NIVIRTRESSHR S  %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
 4138 mysql 20   0 48.908g 0.042t  14064 S   0.0 91.8 111:23.17 mysqld


What exactly do you mean by 'memory allowance'?  That's a pretty open question. 
 It all depends on your databases and usage.  The typical 'best practices' 
answer is to set the buffer pool to ~75-80% of RAM if the total size of all 
your DBs exceeds the total amount of RAM on the server.  The idea being that 
you want to have as much (or all) of the databases in RAM as that's much faster 
than going to disk for it. If the total size of your DBs is less than the total 
RAM, I typically allocate enough to take all DBs into RAM  +10-20% for 
projected growth.  You haven't mentioned the size of the DB(s) you're running 
on the server, nor what your usage pattern might be (heavy reads, heavy writes 
or a balance of the two).  You also didn't post the config file either.  I know 
this is a bit OT, but config files are very helpful for any issue.  Just 
looking at the RAM usage you posted, I would be a bit worried by the fact you 
only have ~300MB of 'free' RAM.  If the total in the cache is
all buffer pool, it should be fine, but I typically don't run a DB server that 
low on physical RAM.  Swap is fine, but much slower than RAM, even on SSDs.


I mean "allowing mariadb to use some amount of memory", which is mainly 
influenced
by the size of the buffer pool.

300MB?  It´s almost 3GB, isn´t it?  Considering that the server doesn´t do 
anything
else, it /might/ be fine, which is I´m worrying about it.

Of course swap is slower; it would only be there in case memory usage goes up.  
I´ll
monitor it and will see how it goes.  If I am taking a risk with setting the 
allowance
so high, I rather turn it down.


We can take this offlist if you like, I'll be happy to help you take a look at 
the configs and offer suggestions.


Thanks, I´ll send you the current config :)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update info output

[Thomas Roth]

Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, I see both of these lines, including systemd-sysv-219-42.el7_4.4.x86_64, but as quoted it also 
has the label "removed" - that had me confused.


'yum info systemd-sysv' shows that systemd-sysv-219-42.el7_4.1 is installed - as expected. And if I 
run the actual update, the 4.4 package gets installed as an update - so everything is o.k.


Regards
Thomas




On 11/07/2017 03:16 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 11/06/2017 01:01 PM, Thomas Roth wrote:

Hi all,

when I check for updates with yum, it gives me a list of packages, with
some additional info, e.g.

  --> systemd-sysv-219-42.el7_4.1.x86_64 from @updates removed (updateinfo)
  --> systemd-sysv-219-42.el7_4.4.x86_64 from updates removed (updateinfo)


yum info will tell me that I have 4.1 of this package installed, and
that 4.4 is available - from the repo updates.

What is the meaning of the "@" - it marks the older package?


@updates means currently installed.  updates without @ means available
to be installed.



And why are all packages always "removed"?



The first one would be removed because the .4 package SHOULD be
installed.  Does the list of updated packages also include
systemd-sysv-219-42.el7_4.4.x86_64?


It would seem that both mentioned packages are still available...



Yes, both are available.



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


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