Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6
On Apr 9, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote: Just one thing: THANK YOU ALL!!! Thanks a lot! (especially for focusing on 5.6 before 6.0) +1 -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: rord...@oregonstate.edu Unix Systems Administrator rord...@library.oregonstate.edu OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:26 AM, David Brian Chait wrote: If Karanbir says 3 weeks it takes 3 months. (as well as with CentOS 5.6) Well that and we have been a few days away from 5.6 for well over a few months now... I didn't realize it was already CentOS bashing day... oh, it's just Monday. Really, guys... give it a rest. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load balancing...
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:12 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Round robin DNS would balance load, but will cause problems if one of them goes down. Hi Sean, Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site. So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will one of them going down cause issues? I'm assuming multiple A records for the same host will be handled fine by the client lookup? example.com resolves to: host1.example.com - A.B.C.D host2.example.com - W.X.Y.Z 1. Client performs DNS lookup and gets pointed to host2. All is well. 2. host2 goes down. DNS for example.com still resolves to host2, which is unreachable. Site is down. Now, you can work around this by using a HA/failover system like heartbeat to have host1 and host2 communicating with each other and if one host goes down the other automatically takes over its IP address(es) and services. If you have control over your own DNS you can manage your zone's Time To Live so that records are less aggressively cached, etc. -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: rord...@oregonstate.edu Unix Systems Administrator rord...@library.oregonstate.edu OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Air Conditioning - ON!
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 02/22/2011 02:35 PM, Ian Murray wrote: I did think about that when when I made my earlier comment. The trouble is is that it obviously isn't working because we have these list flame-ups. I think 8 million unique machines disagree with you assessment. Who knows, maybe all 8 million are wrong and the 10-20 people who are discussing it on this list are right. Zing! Not to mention I'd think the Belgian police might be more concerned at your invitation for mischief on their systems. Just because CentOS is a relatively small operation compared to commercial offerings or maybe other community offerings, does not mean that it is any less suited for critical applications. Perhaps the CentOS project could use some more man power to insure updates are not stalled because a key player is unavailable at the wrong time, but I don't think it's a situation that only CentOS suffers from. With CentOS it is perhaps more visible -- we know when the update was available upstream and how long it took to show up in CentOS repos. This is less obvious upstream, unless you are paying close attention to every individual Open Source project that upstream draws from... in which case perhaps you could use some of that time contributing to CentOS. Problem solved. -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: rord...@oregonstate.edu Unix Systems Administrator rord...@library.oregonstate.edu OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Sun Fire X4200 M2 / CentOS 5 APIC issues
On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Ryan Ordway wrote: On Jan 9, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: Ryan Ordway wrote: I had been running CentOS 5 happily on my Sun Fire X4200 M2 systems, then I upgraded the BIOS and iLOM firmware. Now I'm running into what seems to be a fairly common problem with newer motherboards. I cannot boot unless I use the 'noapic' kernel option. If I try to boot the kernel normally, I get the error: MP-BIOS bug: 8254 timer not connected to IO-APIC I can boot using noapic, but interrupts are *HORRIBLE* with noapic on the X4200 M2. Here is a system with the new BIOS running with noapic: What firmware version is it? I'm running on the version from the FW12201_BIOS61600_4100M213.iso disk on Sun's web site and don't see that error when booting. Ahh, I may have used an old image. It's BIOS 0ABJX043, and it looks like that image you gave contains 0ABJX044. I'll try that version and see if it fixes the issue. That was definitely the problem. I had upgraded the BIOS directly from the iLOM using tftp. But I did: tftp -source tftp://aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd/path/to/ilom-bios.ima When I forced it to upgrade the BIOS with: tftp -f -source tftp://aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd/path/to/ilom-bios.ima It actually installed the 44 BIOS. I wasn't running the 43 BIOS before though... botched BIOS update maybe? In any case, it's fixed now and definitely not a CentOS/kernel problem. Ryan -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Sun Fire X4200 M2 / CentOS 5 APIC issues
I had been running CentOS 5 happily on my Sun Fire X4200 M2 systems, then I upgraded the BIOS and iLOM firmware. Now I'm running into what seems to be a fairly common problem with newer motherboards. I cannot boot unless I use the 'noapic' kernel option. If I try to boot the kernel normally, I get the error: MP-BIOS bug: 8254 timer not connected to IO-APIC I can boot using noapic, but interrupts are *HORRIBLE* with noapic on the X4200 M2. Here is a system with the new BIOS running with noapic: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a Linux aphrodite 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5.centos.plus #1 SMP Fri Dec 7 07:05:12 EST 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat /proc/interrupts CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 0: 149047419 568805 215848 76392 XT-PIC timer 1: 0 2 0 0 XT-PIC i8042 2: 0 0 0 0 XT-PIC cascade 4:399 80 58 26 XT-PIC serial 5:138 19 4 4 XT-PIC ehci_hcd:usb2 7: 16203243 179851060 180334480 180522274 XT-PIC ioc0, eth1 8: 1 0 0 0 XT-PIC rtc 9: 0 0 0 0 XT-PIC acpi 11:764 64 17 21 XT-PIC ohci_hcd:usb1 12: 2 2 0 0 XT-PIC i8042 14: 77 6 13 3 XT-PIC ide0 15: 15353489 192264 58884 10141 XT-PIC eth0 NMI: 0 0 0 0 LOC: 149884909 149891944 149889634 149890602 ERR: 377601098 MIS: 0 Compare this to an identical system running an identical kernel, but the older BIOS: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a Linux selene 2.6.18-53.1.4.el5.centos.plus #1 SMP Fri Dec 7 07:05:12 EST 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat /proc/interrupts CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 0: 415472769 0 0 0IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 2 0 0 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 4:270 0 10 17IO-APIC-edge serial 8: 1 0 0 0IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 12: 4 0 0 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 14: 25 74 0 0IO-APIC-edge ide0 58:323464 0 0 IO-APIC-level ohci_hcd:usb1 66: 26 0 0 0 IO-APIC-level ehci_hcd:usb2 74: 5940 981922 7254524 IO-APIC-level ioc0 82: 2026 53828037 0 138601 IO-APIC-level eth0 90: 2237 61820570 0 689058 IO-APIC-level eth1 NMI: 0 0 0 0 LOC: 415433007 415433000 415432928 415432856 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 Note the huge ERR count with XT-APIC, and ioc0 and eth1 sharing an interrupt (SAS controller and my private network interface) Does anyone know if this has been fixed in the mainline kernel, and if so if this can be integrated into the CentOS 5.1 kernel (namely the CentOS Plus kernel)? Thanks! Ryan -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Sun Fire X4200 M2 / CentOS 5 APIC issues
On Jan 9, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: Ryan Ordway wrote: I had been running CentOS 5 happily on my Sun Fire X4200 M2 systems, then I upgraded the BIOS and iLOM firmware. Now I'm running into what seems to be a fairly common problem with newer motherboards. I cannot boot unless I use the 'noapic' kernel option. If I try to boot the kernel normally, I get the error: MP-BIOS bug: 8254 timer not connected to IO-APIC I can boot using noapic, but interrupts are *HORRIBLE* with noapic on the X4200 M2. Here is a system with the new BIOS running with noapic: What firmware version is it? I'm running on the version from the FW12201_BIOS61600_4100M213.iso disk on Sun's web site and don't see that error when booting. Ahh, I may have used an old image. It's BIOS 0ABJX043, and it looks like that image you gave contains 0ABJX044. I'll try that version and see if it fixes the issue. Thanks! Ryan -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Clustering MySQL
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: Matt Shields wrote: the code). But I saw a presentation at the Boston MySQL Meetup.com group about how to do master-master in mysql 5. We're about to implement this in the next few weeks. If it's done this way both that is imho, a mysql-5.1 only feature, where you can have rbr and multimaster setups that actually work. and 5.1 isnt quite ready for release as yet :D I'm running a multi-master setup with 5.0 in production with a moderate amount of success. I did try 5.1 a few months ago and it died a horrible, fiery death. You will definitely need auto_increment_increment and auto_increment_offset and replicate-same-server-id set to 0. FYI, I recently took a MySQL High Availability class, and multi-master is definitely not a standard configuration. It was only briefly touched on, and only one other person there had it running in production. But, while it's not officially supported they do their best to make it work. Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What does 5.1 give you that makes it easier than 5.0? Ryan -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Clustering MySQL
On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Matt Shields wrote: On Dec 11, 2007 1:39 PM, J. Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... But I saw a presentation at the Boston MySQL Meetup.com group about how to do master-master in mysql 5. We're about to implement this in the next few weeks. ... I've run into issues with crash recovery in master-master mode: - master A is at position X - master B, replicating from A, gets to position X - master A syncs to its filesystem that it's at position X - master A receives some inserts, and is now at position Y - master B, replicating from A, gets to position Y - master A crashes before the position gets synced to filesystem - master A gets rebooted, recovers from innodb log, but has itself only marked at position X - master B requests position Y from master A, but that position doesn't exist yet, so replication breaks. Perhaps someone here knows the proper recovery procedure at this point? If this were master-slave, I'd probably do an LVM Snapshot and get a fresh copy of the master db. The same could be done for master-master. The problem is you'll have some inconsistency between your master A's view of the database and the master B's view. You lose any changes to the data on master B. It would be nice to be able to merge any changes from B that hadn't made their way to master A yet. At that point you're examining binlogs. Ryan -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Clustering MySQL
On Dec 11, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: Ryan Ordway wrote: Specifically, what makes you say it is a 5.1 only feature? What does 5.1 give you that makes it easier than 5.0? specifically - rbr Ahh, true. ( i think were just tryign to use mysql like too much of a real database, while we seem to have clearly outgrown its capabilities :( ) I think the MySQL AB folks would object to that statement. ;-) Ryan -- Ryan Ordway E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] OSU Libraries, Corvallis, OR 97331Office: Valley Library #4657 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
