Re: [CentOS] PHP 5.2.5 when ?
John R Pierce wrote: Anup Shukla wrote: Jim Perrin wrote: Thanks to all who responded. But I repeat the question: how to upgrade CentOS4 to PHP 5.2.5 correctly? There is no "correct" method for this, there are only "less wrong" ways to do it. 1. download form php.net + make ... etc. No. This method is not advisable at all, because it circumvents the package management of the system. This point stands for every distro with a package manager, not just centos. I think 'make' to something like '/opt/php-5.2.5' would be "less wrong". At least that is where i keep my 'make'd apps. apache has php dependencies, so you'll be replacing that too? and, in turn, php has dependencies on dozens of other RPMs, like libraries, databases, yada yada.it spirals out. ___ Yes, i have been bitten by this. But at times you are left with no option. I *needed* 5.2.x and so had to compile and install apache and php both. In addition, since php wont compile with the available mysql, i had to put a copy (static) of the same. And then it was the extensions and a plethora of other things. It was more work than what i would like to put in. But given the situation that i *must* compile something on my own, i think its better to put it in "/opt" or something similar. -- Regards, Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] PHP 5.2.5 when ?
Jim Perrin wrote: On Jan 13, 2008 1:53 PM, Santa Claus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks to all who responded. But I repeat the question: how to upgrade CentOS4 to PHP 5.2.5 correctly? There is no "correct" method for this, there are only "less wrong" ways to do it. 1. download form php.net + make ... etc. No. This method is not advisable at all, because it circumvents the package management of the system. This point stands for every distro with a package manager, not just centos. I think 'make' to something like '/opt/php-5.2.5' would be "less wrong". At least that is where i keep my 'make'd apps. Suggestions? -- Regards, Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] centos command to monitor a process for exit
Jerry Geis wrote: Is there a command that will monitor a process for exiting (crash or normal exit) and then execute another command based on the said process no longer being active? Or is there a "wrapper" command that runs a process and when that process exists due to crashing or just exiting normally) that another process can be run. Thanks, Jerry Try monit. http://tildeslash.com/monit/ The link seems to be down. But the rpm is available on rpmforge and the manpage is excellent. -- Regards, Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Iptables and impersonating another O/S
Tom Laramee wrote: i have a CentOS 5.1 server running sshd (exposed to the outside world). i'd like to use iptables to fool nmap into thinking i'm running another O/S. How would that help? AFAIK, security via obscurity does not really take us long. i believe as long as you have a good set of rules protecting you, its unnecessary to do all the hard work in impersonating another OS. But its only me. -- Regards, Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wondering about CentOS 5.1 functionality
Mark Weaver wrote: Actually Fedora 7 ran it wonderfully. I used ndiswrapper and a script to initialize the adapter during the boot process. I'm running OpenSUSE 10.3 on this laptop right now and there is plenty to like about it, however I'm a RedHat man at heart and there are things that I'm used to on my RedHat systems that I don't want to give up. I'd like to get back to a RedHat based distro for this machine if I can. Not sure if its relevant. I tried Ubuntu (7 something) with ndiswrapper and it worked beautifully. Tried the firmware (using bcm43xx-fwcutter) and it worked too, however the card would take longer to connect to a network. Dont know why that happened.. i simply reverted back to ndiswrapper. As for Centos, i have never installed it on my laptop, but only on our servers. -- Regards, Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] mounting & partitioning Seagate FreeAgent external HD
Tim McGeary wrote: Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System /dev/sda1 1 91201 7325720017 HPFS/NTFS This is definitely the drive. So when I try to use Webmin to mount and partition device /dev/sda (and also tried /dev/sda2) as a New Linux Native Filesystem (ext3), I get the error of: Failed to save mount : Mount failed : mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda, or too many mounted file systems So I'm guessing I'm using the wrong file system type. What should I use instead of ext3? Its NTFS ! http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-June/048553.html Hope this helps. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] anyone care to point me in the right direction? LVS
William Ottley wrote: i'm trying to setup LVS, and tried both the lvs-dr and the lvs-nat, but can't get any to work. LVS-DR did work for me partially, as-in it did not load balance. But i am sure it was a mistake on my part. Still have to find time and test it. #1 with regards to the Real Servers, is there anything that needs to be configured other that the http service? I ask this, because I suspect yes, and it has to do with what type of LVS you have: The http service + firewall rules (if applicable) 1a) lvs-dr: on the RIP of the web servers, create an lo:0 and assign the VIP to it Yes. 1b ) lvs-nat: on the RIP of the web servers, make sure the default gw points to the inside network card eth1 I have found that the default gw is not really a strict requirement. Worked for me with a different gw too, but i cannot stamp a confirmation on that. Got to recheck... just in case. 1b) lvs-nat: on the LVS, with 2 nics, eth1 (private where web servers are located): 192.168.0.100, and create a nat gateway of 192.168.0.254, where the real web servers gw is, and make it eth1:1 Looks Good. how do I go about getting diagnostic info from all this? pulse? i can't connect at all to any of the web servers.. 1. Are real servers accessible from lvs (ping/arp -n?) 2. Does telnet to port 80 (or the one to which http server is listening to) on real server from lvs work? if #1 == yes and #2 == no, it might be the firewall on the real servers. -- Regards Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Regd: Iptables Source NAT
Balaji wrote: Sir, I following problem is happend in CentOS Cluster Suite setup and "192.168.13.83" is my floating ip address and "192.168.13.179 and 192.168.13.110" are primary and secondary pc ipaddress I am taking backup from my client pc via rsync If i am correct, rsync by default uses ssh as the remote shell. It depends on how you are running rsync though. Broadly, if you can ssh to the server, you sure can run rsync. -- Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Console during Install of 5.1
Joseph L. Casale wrote: Is it possible during install to open a console window and perform some simple tasks such as lspci and mount. If so what text file editor exists in this console? You do have consoles available. Try pressing ALT+F1,ALT+F2,..,ALT+F6 You will find a shell in one of those consoles. Don't remember which one is it. I am not sure if you can do lspci or mount etc. But there is a shell available nevertheless. -- Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Regd: Iptables Source NAT
Balaji wrote: 192.168.13.179 is eth0 ipv4 ipaddress and 192.168.13.83 is eth0 ipv6 ipaddress 192.168.13.83 does not look like an ipv6 address. I would like to help, but i honestly did not understand the problem. If possible, please elaborate. -- Anup Shukla ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] script help
Anup Shukla wrote:
Tom Brown wrote:
How about
# MOUNTER=`ssh $i "mount | grep data | awk '{print \$1,\$2,\$3}'"`
alas no
MOUNTER=`ssh $i 'mount | grep data | awk "{print \$1, \$2, \$3}"'`
results in
awk: {print , , }
awk:^ syntax error
awk: {print , , }
awk: ^ syntax error
awk: {print , , }
awk:^ syntax error
awk: cmd. line:1: {print , , }
awk: cmd. line:1: ^ unexpected newline or end of string
Sorry,
MOUNTER=`ssh $i 'mount | grep data | awk "{print \\$1,\\$2,\\$3}"'`
Correction.
MOUNTER=`ssh $i "mount | grep data | awk '{print \\$1,\\$2,\\$3}'"`
This is what i tried and worked for me.
Regards,
A.S
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] script help
Tom Brown wrote:
How about
# MOUNTER=`ssh $i "mount | grep data | awk '{print \$1,\$2,\$3}'"`
alas no
MOUNTER=`ssh $i 'mount | grep data | awk "{print \$1, \$2, \$3}"'`
results in
awk: {print , , }
awk:^ syntax error
awk: {print , , }
awk: ^ syntax error
awk: {print , , }
awk:^ syntax error
awk: cmd. line:1: {print , , }
awk: cmd. line:1: ^ unexpected newline or end of string
Sorry,
MOUNTER=`ssh $i 'mount | grep data | awk "{print \\$1,\\$2,\\$3}"'`
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] script help
Tom Brown wrote:
# MOUNTER=`ssh $i 'mount | grep data | awk '{print$1,$2,$3}''`
How about
# MOUNTER=`ssh $i "mount | grep data | awk '{print \$1,\$2,\$3}'"`
Regards
A.S
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks
Anup Shukla wrote: I created 500G slices. Partitioned and mounted them Then did a simple "time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data1 bs=1k count=120" This gave me a speed of over 150MB/s Then i deleted entire RAID thing.. recreate 2 LUNs 30G, and whatever is left. Create a PV on the bigger drive with 1 VG and 3 LVs of equal sizes. Format and run the dd command again. The speed is 130MB/s now. Its a bit confusing. Does LVM slow down things? Or i did something that is not really of any relevance to check IO speed. I used mkfs.ext3 -m0 -E stride=96 -O dir_index /dev/sdb1 ... I have a RAID5 volume consisting of 6 disk with stripe size = 64k I hope the stride=96 is optimal. Should i stick with LVM, or go back to the older way? Thank you. On second thoughts, i have gone completely off-topic now. It isn't CentOS anymore. So it would be appropriate for me to end this topic here. Thanks for the help. Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks
Morten Torstensen wrote: Anup Shukla wrote: Still, given the suggestion, i will surely try to reduce the number of slices. I would make one system LUN at say 20GB and one data LUN with the rest of the RADI5 space. On the system LUN I would make a /boot filesystem and a LVM partition with at least a / filesystem and swap. Usually I make /, /usr, /opt, /home, /var and /tmp but it varies a bit depending on what kind of machine it is. The data LUN I would use as a PV directly for LVM and not bother with partitions at all. I created 500G slices. Partitioned and mounted them Then did a simple "time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data1 bs=1k count=120" This gave me a speed of over 150MB/s Then i deleted entire RAID thing.. recreate 2 LUNs 30G, and whatever is left. Create a PV on the bigger drive with 1 VG and 3 LVs of equal sizes. Format and run the dd command again. The speed is 130MB/s now. Its a bit confusing. Does LVM slow down things? Or i did something that is not really of any relevance to check IO speed. I used mkfs.ext3 -m0 -E stride=96 -O dir_index /dev/sdb1 ... I have a RAID5 volume consisting of 6 disk with stripe size = 64k I hope the stride=96 is optimal. Should i stick with LVM, or go back to the older way? Thank you. Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks [SOLVED]
Peter Kjellstrom wrote: Reconsider the "multiple 500G" part. Slicing a raid-set up typically has bad performance effects (how bad depends on the controller). This results from that linux now considers several parts of your one raidset as devices to be scheduled independently. Ok, looks like i am not done yet then. I would like to spend some more time trying to do a performance benchmark. But, unfortunately, time is the constraint here for me. Still, given the suggestion, i will surely try to reduce the number of slices. Thank you for the information. Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks [SOLVED]
Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the space as follows
swap 8G
/boot 100M
/ 20G
-- and remaining space to /data{1,2,3,N} (equal sizes)
However after the installation and reboot, i got an error about bad
partition for /data8
I had hit the 2T limit.
Then i found this page at
http://www.knowplace.org/pages/howtos/linux_large_filesystems_support.php
which speaks of using Parted/LVM2 and XFS.
If i understand this correctly,
I need to have 1 disk to host the CentOS installation.
And i can use the other 5 disks in a RAID array
(label type gpt...)
Is it not possible to partition and use the existing RAID 5 volume?
I really am not sure about how to proceed for this big disk problem.
Any ideas/links will really help.
Dell PERC 5/i "does" have an option to create multiple LUNs.
So, i have been quite moronic in not trying to apply logic initially.
As for now, i am creating a small "system" disk,
and multiple 500G "data" disks.
I do not really need to have 1 big partition for the data.
So this is a lot simpler setup i believe,
and no chance of hitting the 2T limit.
A big thanks to everyone who guided me, and my apologies if this
qualifies as a "waste of time" post.
This, for sure, is the best list i have ever experienced.
Thank you all again.
Regards,
A.S
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.
Morten Torstensen wrote: Anup Shukla wrote: So finally, i am putting a 300G SATA to act as the "system" drive. Then use the other 750G's to be the big RAID 5 Volume (XFS) If you use a hardware RAID adapter, you can make two LUNs from the disks. So make one big RAID5 array but two logical drives. I would still use LVM anyway for management down the road. Not all hardware RAID adapters might support this, but if yours does you will get data protection for "free" on your system drive. //Morten Thats making me feel miserable .. ;) I had this thought, and then a message on the list said the same and now one more message saying the same. I am literally scavenging through Dell PERC guides to find out if and how this can be done. Hope this is possible with Dell PERC. Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.
Johnny Hughes wrote: James A. Peltier wrote: Johnny Hughes wrote: I know that XFS gets all the press about being a great performing file system ... but if you want the best stability on CentOS, you should at least consider ext3 instead. I have worked very hard to get stable code for xfs in centos-4 and centos-5, and lots of people use it, but (IMHO) ext3 is still much more stable with the CentOS Kernels. That is my $0.02 ... I'm sure other people will tell you I am all hosed up :D EXT3 performance is lacking in many areas and its support for larger file systems is still a problem. However, it is rock solid and hopefully EXT4 will address the performance and file system limit issues. I don't disagree with that assessment, however newer versions of ext3 have switches to use to improve performance and they work on bigger file systems. Still, ext3 support is indeed lacking on larger filesystems and yes, hopefully ext4 will address this. But ... still, if spending a fortune on HUGE drives for an enterprise file system I would still think that one should at least see if ext3 will meet their needs before automatically shifting to XFS. I have seen many a filesystem be unrecoverable with XFS, especially on 4K stack systems (which CentOS i386 is). Believe me, I have personally put a lot of time and effort into the xfs filesystem modules that are in CentOS Plus and CentOS Extras ... and I use them in some places, but I just want to be on record saying that ext3 is more stable and I recommend its use unless it just _WILL_NOT_WORK_, that's all :D Thanks, Johnny Hughes I am not an expert in filesystems. But, yes, in all these years on Linux, i have never found ext3 go bad for me ever. Infact, i have never tried any other fs till date. Going by the comments and views of everyone, i would prefer to go with ext3. The drive is a large one, but i have no particular need to make one big partition on it. I can as well have several small partitions (in fact thats what i want) with each partition being the data store for 1 mogstored daemon. Now i am not sure if thats the best possible solution, but i still got time to implement it and do my benchmarks. For now, ext3 is surely the fs of choice. Cannot afford to lose anything thats going to be stored on this server. A big thanks to everyone. Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.
Sorry, the previous mail i sent was not correctly quoted. Corrections below. Anup Shukla wrote: Peter Kjellstrom wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote: ... I think its finally got into my head now. :) From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling) GRUB cannot boot from gpt labeled drives. So no matter how i partition them, it just wont boot. Correct. So finally, i am putting a 300G SATA to act as the "system" drive. Then use the other 750G's to be the big RAID 5 Volume (XFS) That will work. Another way is to see if the raid-controller can present two volumes from your raid5, one small (for OS) and one big (for gpt large fs). If this works then you'll get one device on which you can use msdos partitions and boot from and one (>2T) on which you use gpt (or simply lvm directly on the device). /Peter Yes, thought about it. But DELL PERC does not seem to be able to do that. That is atleast what i have found out till now. Wish it was possible. Just in case, if anyone knows better, please let me know. I have a Dell PE2950 Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.
Peter Kjellstrom wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007, Anup Shukla wrote: ... I think its finally got into my head now. :) From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling) GRUB cannot boot from gpt labeled drives. So no matter how i partition them, it just wont boot. Correct. So finally, i am putting a 300G SATA to act as the "system" drive. Then use the other 750G's to be the big RAID 5 Volume (XFS) Yes, thought about it. But DELL PERC does not seem to be able to do that. That is atleast what i have found out till now. Wish it was possible. Just in case, if anyone knows better, please let me know. I have a Dell PE2950 That will work. Another way is to see if the raid-controller can present two volumes from your raid5, one small (for OS) and one big (for gpt large fs). If this works then you'll get one device on which you can use msdos partitions and boot from and one (>2T) on which you use gpt (or simply lvm directly on the device). /Peter Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.
James A. Peltier wrote:
James A. Peltier wrote:
Anup Shukla wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the space as follows
swap 8G
/boot 100M
/ 20G
-- and remaining space to /data{1,2,3,N} (equal sizes)
However after the installation and reboot, i got an error about bad
partition for /data8
I had hit the 2T limit.
Then i found this page at
http://www.knowplace.org/pages/howtos/linux_large_filesystems_support.php
which speaks of using Parted/LVM2 and XFS.
If i understand this correctly,
I need to have 1 disk to host the CentOS installation.
And i can use the other 5 disks in a RAID array
(label type gpt...)
Is it not possible to partition and use the existing RAID 5 volume?
I really am not sure about how to proceed for this big disk problem.
Any ideas/links will really help.
Thank you.
Regards,
A.S
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
My understanding is that grub and lilo are not able to boot off of GPT
labeled disks currently. Given the size of currently available disks,
this will probably change soon, however, for now you need a small
partition to boot a large disk.
sorry, a bit quick off the trigger, but essentially, if you wanted to
use a single RAID-5 volume of this size (even if you configured it as
you said) the GPT label for the volume would be what gets you cuz of the
boot loader.
The use of LVM and XFS, just have to do with the way they handle larger
disks. With LVM you can lay out the disks in a bit more fine tuned
manner that allows you go get around some limitations in certain file
systems. XFS is just recommended because it is a very good performer
and was meant to handle large file systems from its inception. Feel
free to use JFS, ReiserFS or your local don-juan-ho file system you like
I think its finally got into my head now. :)
From what i understand (after your replies and some more googling)
GRUB cannot boot from gpt labeled drives.
So no matter how i partition them, it just wont boot.
So finally, i am putting a 300G SATA to act as the "system" drive.
Then use the other 750G's to be the big RAID 5 Volume (XFS)
Yes, i lose if the 300G fails, but i think i can do something about that
later.
Thanks for the replies.
Regards,
A.S
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Centos 5 on Large Disks.
Hi All,
Sorry if this has been answered many times.
But i have been going through a lot of pages (via google search).
The more i search, the more its confusing me.
I have a server with 6 (750G each) SATA disks with H/W Raid 5.
I plan to allocate the space as follows
swap 8G
/boot 100M
/ 20G
-- and remaining space to /data{1,2,3,N} (equal sizes)
However after the installation and reboot, i got an error about bad
partition for /data8
I had hit the 2T limit.
Then i found this page at
http://www.knowplace.org/pages/howtos/linux_large_filesystems_support.php
which speaks of using Parted/LVM2 and XFS.
If i understand this correctly,
I need to have 1 disk to host the CentOS installation.
And i can use the other 5 disks in a RAID array
(label type gpt...)
Is it not possible to partition and use the existing RAID 5 volume?
I really am not sure about how to proceed for this big disk problem.
Any ideas/links will really help.
Thank you.
Regards,
A.S
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Peculiar situation while build httpd-2.2.6 from provided spec
Matthew Miller wrote: Do you have redhat-rpm-config installed? Or let me put that more strongly. :) Clearly, you do not have redhat-rpm-config installed. You need it. Jz! Never knew about it. Thanks a million Matthew. Regards, A.S ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Peculiar situation while build httpd-2.2.6 from provided spec
Hi all,
While build a rpm from the httpd-2.2.6 sources (spec file included in
the source package), i had a situation where packaging would fail at the
step where several link are created for "logs" etc directories.
<<..snip from httpd.spec...>>
# symlinks for /etc/httpd
ln -s ../..%{_localstatedir}/log/httpd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/httpd/logs
ln -s ../..%{_localstatedir}/run $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/httpd/run
ln -s ../..%{_libdir}/httpd/modules $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/httpd/modules
ln -s ../..%{_libdir}/httpd/build $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/httpd/build
<<..>>
It had me scratching my head for quite a while before figuring out that
the %_sysconfdir macro wrongly gets translated to /usr/etc (should be /etc)
Putting "%_sysconfdir /etc" in my .rpmmacros file did the trick and the
package got built cleanly.
Does this qualify as a bug?
Anyone else faced the same problem?
Regards.
A.S.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
