Re: [CentOS] CPU Compatibility Question
It certainly could be the chipset. Specifically, it's the Intel C224 Express PCH chip(set) on the Supermicro X10SLM+-LN4F motherboard. The Ethernet chips are Intel i210AT controllers. But other than the link to the upstream support site, I don't have a good source of expected compatibility data. Thanks, --Bill On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:28:54 +0200, Walter H. wrote > On 23.06.2016 02:52, listmail wrote: > > According to the compatibility chart over here: > > https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/intel > > ...anything later than 6.3 (6.4 and up) should work with the E3-12xx v3 > > family of processors. But those are not the results I am seeing. > > > > Does anyone have experience or commentary on this compatibility issue? > > > can it be the chipset, that is causing this? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CPU Compatibility Question
Hi All, Hopefully someone with broad overview of CentOS compatibility issues can comment on this: I am evaluating a Supermicro X10SLM motherboard with an Intel E3-1231 v3 CPU. Testing with boots from Live DVDs, the CentOS 6.x family is panicking at boot time. I have tried 6.8, 6.5, and 6.3, and each one panics at slightly different points, but they all seem to fail after udev starts up (or tries to). On the other hand, I was able to boot CentOS 7.0 1511 from the Live CD. According to the compatibility chart over here: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/intel ...anything later than 6.3 (6.4 and up) should work with the E3-12xx v3 family of processors. But those are not the results I am seeing. Does anyone have experience or commentary on this compatibility issue? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] NTP Vulnerability?
I just saw this: https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-353-01 which includes this: " A remote attacker can send a carefully crafted packet that can overflow a stack buffer and potentially allow malicious code to be executed with the privilege level of the ntpd process. All NTP4 releases before 4.2.8 are vulnerable." "This vulnerability is resolved with NTP-stable4.2.8 on December 19, 2014." I guess no one has had time to respond yet. Wonder if I should shut down my external NTP services as a precaution? --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Not Quite Minimal CentOS 6.2
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:22:17 -0700, listmail wrote > Also, any > ideas as to what would be launching cups would be appreciated. > I answered one of my own questions: cups was being started by the VMware tools startup script. I fixed this for now by editing the VMware startup script and removing the command that starts it. Still interested in a list of daemons that can be cleanly stopped, if one exists for 6.2 yet. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Not Quite Minimal CentOS 6.2
Hi All, I a working on configuring a not-quite minimal installation of CentOS 6.2. I tried doing the "minimal" installation available with the installer, but it's a bit too minimal to be useful. So I'm cutting down from a less minimal starting place. I'm pretty familiar with 5.x, but what I'm finding in 6.2 is a lot of new stuff, and a lot of odd behavior. For example, cups is starting at boot time, despite being disabled by chkconfig. And I'm finding things like qpidd, matahari, messagebus, and portreserve that really don't belong in a minimal setup. To clarify, I'm shooting for a simple config, like one would use for a dedicated DNS server. Can anyone point me to an up-to-date list of daemon processes that indicates what they do and whether they can be safely disabled? Also, any ideas as to what would be launching cups would be appreciated. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Bind97
I notice that CentOS 5.6 release notes say that bind97 is now included. However, my CentOS 5.6 installations have bind 9.3. I'm guessing that bind97 is not installed by default, due to the possibility of config file breakage or something. It looks like you have to explicitly install the bind97* packages. I don't see anything in the release notes about how to handle the transition from bind 9.3 to bind 9.7. Has anyone done this, or seen a list of potential pitfalls? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] FTP Migration
Hi All, Please feel free to correct any misconceptions in my premises as I get to my question. I have about 6 ftp services running on a CentOS system that is going down for service, and I want to move the ftp services to a VM on another network. These are all running on Proftpd, with fairly complicated directory/permissions/rate control layouts, as proftpd nicely supports. First, it appears that RH and CentOS have dropped proftpd since I last looked and are now only shipping vsftpd in the repositories. Second, I looked at the vsftpd site, and noticed a complete absence of documentation (other than a basic bare-bones manpage), so I have no idea if vsftpd will support anything that I'm doing with proftpd, or any information about how to configure anything. Obviously I could just install the latest version of proftpd from source on the new host and get on with my life, but is there any reason to bite the bullet and try to convert my ftp sites to a new, basically undocumented ftp server? Any input appreciated, especially on conversions of complicated ftp sites from proftpd to vsftpd. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Yum broken after x86_64 upgrade
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:46:04 -0400, Robert Heller wrote > > You should not have done this. I guessing that the CentOS 5.5 > installer is not bulleted proofed for this case (eg it assumed that you > know what you were doing). In any case, this is not a supported way > to go (documented or not). The 'updater' on the CentOS 5.5 x86_64 > DVD is meant to go from CentOS < 5.5 x86_64 to CentOS 5.5 x86_64, > NOT CentOS < > 5.5 32-bit to CentOS 5.5 x86_64. > > You should have made a backup and then did a fresh install. > > The only good way to properly fix things is to backup your stuff (eg > /home/ and stuff like /var/www/ (if you are running a web server)). > Maybe backup selected files under /etc/ (eg passwd, shadow, group, > etc.) and then do a fresh install (*reformat* /, /boot, /usr, etc.). Oh well, it would have been nice if it worked. I'll scrub the system and restore a few things from the backups, although I intended to re-purpose the host anyway. Thanks for your input. --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Yum broken after x86_64 upgrade
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:20:41 -0700, Mark wrote > > > It might help if you gave us some real information, like what > hardware you're running, which actual version of CentOS and the > kernel you are > (and were) running, etc. Otherwise we're stabbing for a needle in a > haystack. > > I don't ever remember running a 'yum update' when I was using the > 32-bit version and having it update me to a 64-bit kernel. I had to > make that choice on my own first. Hardware: Supermicro with Intel 64-bit CPU The OS was CentOS 5.3 32-bit. I upgraded with the CentOS 5.5 x86_64 DVD, as stated earlier. I did not do the upgrade using yum, the upgrade broke yum. Cheers, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Yum broken after x86_64 upgrade
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:57:04 -0400, Robert Heller wrote > At Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:09:13 -0700 CentOS mailing list > wrote: > > Is there really an updater that goes from 32-bit to 64-bit? Or is > it a CentOS 5.3 64-bit to CentOS 5.5 64-bit? Well, the system was 32-bit, and it came up running a 64-bit kernel after the upgrade... > I don't believe you *really* don't want to do a 'live update' from > 32-bit to 64-bit. You should make a backup and do a fresh install of > the 64-bit system. That's the way I'm leaning... > > > > And the second question: did I make a mistake by assuming that the upgrade > > system would work as it should, or is this just a bug in the upgrade system? > > And to my first question, does anyone know what else the updater is likely > > to > > have broken? > > Again, are you sure the updater migrates from 32-bit to 64-bit and > NOT just 64-bit < 5.5 to 64-bit 5.5? Not certain of anything, we're not dealing with a documented commercial product here. ;-) I just ran it to see if it would work as advertised on the installation menu. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Yum broken after x86_64 upgrade
Hi All, I just upgraded a machine from CentOS 5.3 32-bit to CentOS 5.5 x86_64 using the updater on the release disk. Now that the machine is running 64-bit, I notice that Yum is broken, failing with the following error: ~~~ There was a problem importing one of the Python modules required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was: /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/rpm/_rpmmodule.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32 ~~~ OK, so I thought I could fix this by installing the dependency. After digging through a bunch of cascading dependencies using rpm, I got to the elfutils, which didn't want to install until I used the --ignorearch switch on rpm. However, when I try to install the 64-bit version of rpm-libs on top of that, I still get the complaint about the failed dependency on elfutils. My first question is: Would I be better off just wiping the machine and installing from scratch at this point, or is there some sane way to get yum reconstructed? And the second question: did I make a mistake by assuming that the upgrade system would work as it should, or is this just a bug in the upgrade system? And to my first question, does anyone know what else the updater is likely to have broken? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] lm_sensors and Shuttle
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:48:50 +0100, Ned Slider wrote > On 10/07/10 03:07, Yves Bellefeuille wrote: > > On Friday 09 July 2010 21:37, listmail wrote: > > > >> I'm trying to get lm_sensors to work on a Shuttle with an AMD K10. > >> The version of lm_sensors in the main CentOS repo is 2.10.7, which is > >> two years old now. Support for the K10 was added about a year ago. > >> > >> So, does anyone know if there are binaries available for more recent > >> versions of lm_sensors? > > > > The version at ElRepo works with my Phenom II: > > http://elrepo.org/linux/elrepo/el5/i386/RPMS/lm_sensors-2.10.8-2.el5.elrepo.i386.rpm > > > > ELRepo also has a kernel module for the AMD K10 core temperature sensor: > > http://elrepo.org/tiki/kmod-k10temp Many thanks to both Yves and Ned for the pointers. After installing lm_sensors-2.10.8.-2 from elrepo, then installing the necessary drivers (also from elrepo) for the sensors on my Shuttle SA76G2, the readings are now available. For anyone else who runs into this, the SA76G2 needs the it87 and k10temp kernel drivers. Now I just have to get the ranges set correctly. Unfortunately, Shuttle publishes absolutely nothing in the way of documentation, and their tech support people refuse to provide information, claiming that it is proprietary. I guess I'll post it in their user forums once I figure which measurements are meaningful. Thanks Again, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] lm_sensors and Shuttle
Hi All, I'm trying to get lm_sensors to work on a Shuttle with an AMD K10. The version of lm_sensors in the main CentOS repo is 2.10.7, which is two years old now. Support for the K10 was added about a year ago. So, does anyone know if there are binaries available for more recent versions of lm_sensors? Also, if anyone has knowledge of the sensors layout for recent Shuttle AMD motherboards, that would be very helpful. The sensors-detect script from 2.10.7 doesn't detect anything useful... Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Minimal kickstart.cfg requested
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:48:43 -0500, Daniel_Curry wrote > I'm looking at building about a dozen CentOS VM's for a project. I have > a desire to use kickstart for this coupled with PXE. I'm looking > for a minimal ks.cfg file specifically, I want the bare minimum of software > that is needed for a system to function. I will need sshd and yum as > the only 'services or applications' on top of the OS. Does anyone have > an example I can work with, or suggestions on getting to this minimal > configuration? I'm just looking to save some time, rather than > re-inventing what may and probably is already out there. > If you find such a thing, please post to the list. You're not the only one who could use something like that, as the installer and its defaults make it almost impossible to do consistent installations. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] xulrunner dependancy problem
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:07:14 +, Ned Slider wrote > listmail wrote: > > Is anyone else noticing a problem updating Firefox and its dependencies? > > > > It appears that xulrunner-devel 1.9.0.6-1.el5 wants xulrunner 1.9.0.5-1.el5, > > but "this is not available". Following is the output from Yum when I attempt > > to update Firefox on CentOS 5.2 X86_64: > > > > Strange - xulrunner-devel isn't a dependency of firefox or xulrunner. > > Try uninstalling xulrunner-devel, do the update, and then > reinstalling xulrunner-devel if you really need it. > Thanks, that seems to have solved the immediate problem. I don't think I need xulrunner-devel for anything, so I'll just leave that alone for now. Cheers, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] xulrunner dependancy problem
Hi, Is anyone else noticing a problem updating Firefox and its dependencies? It appears that xulrunner-devel 1.9.0.6-1.el5 wants xulrunner 1.9.0.5-1.el5, but "this is not available". Following is the output from Yum when I attempt to update Firefox on CentOS 5.2 X86_64: Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package firefox.x86_64 0:3.0.6-1.el5.centos set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: xulrunner >= 1.9.0.6-1 for package: firefox ---> Package firefox.i386 0:3.0.6-1.el5.centos set to be updated --> Running transaction check ---> Package xulrunner.x86_64 0:1.9.0.6-1.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: xulrunner = 1.9.0.5-1.el5 for package: xulrunner-devel --> Processing Dependency: xulrunner = 1.9.0.5-1.el5 for package: xulrunner-devel ---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9.0.6-1.el5 set to be updated --> Running transaction check ---> Package xulrunner-devel.x86_64 0:1.9.0.6-1.el5 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved = Package Arch Version RepositorySize = Updating: firefox x86_64 3.0.6-1.el5.centos updates12 M firefox i386 3.0.6-1.el5.centos updates12 M xulrunner x86_64 1.9.0.6-1.el5updates10 M xulrunner i386 1.9.0.6-1.el5updates 9.9 M Updating for dependencies: xulrunner-devel x86_64 1.9.0.6-1.el5updates 3.6 M Transaction Summary = Install 0 Package(s) Update 5 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) Total download size: 48 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Running rpm_check_debug ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: Package xulrunner-devel needs xulrunner = 1.9.0.5-1.el5, this is not available. Package xulrunner-devel needs xulrunner = 1.9.0.5-1.el5, this is not available. Complete! === Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:48:55 -0700, I wrote > I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and I am seeing > a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine is idle, i.e. > no processes appear to be running. > > Both top and uptime report the same thing. Looking at top, I cannot > see any processes that are using CPU time except for top and init, > and they are not using enough cycles to push up the load average. > > According to top, there are occasional tiny (like 0.5%) bumps in the > system usage occasionally, and almost no user space usage. Again, not > enough to account for the load average I am seeing. > > I have tried a couple of kernel updates, and upgraded from CentOS > 5.0 to 5.2, none of which make any difference. > > Has anyone else seen this? And can anyone recommend a way to figure out > what is causing the load average to be this high when the machine is > idle? > A follow-up now that this issue is resolved. Thanks to the help of some kind souls on this list, I was able to determine that the problem was only manifested when the Ethernet drivers were running. This led me to update the drivers, which solved the problem. Details for others who will probably encounter this issue: 1. The problem occurs with the 2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 kernels that come with CentOS 5.2, and the supplied Intel e1000e Ethernet drivers v0.2.0 that ship with 5.2. 2. The fix is to update the e1000e drivers, which are available from the Intel web site. I installed e1000e version 0.4.1.7-NAPI. Instructions for installation come with the driver; the package I found was e1000e-0.4.1.7.tar.gz 3. You have to compile the drivers from source. They require the kernel-devel package to be installed in order to compile, of course. But if you are running the PAE kernel, you need to install kernel-PAE-devel to compile against. News to me, the naming convention makes it hard to figure out which name you need until you browse the available kernel packages. Simply doing yum install kernel-devel does not get you what you need. I hope this saves someone else the time I wasted figuring this out. :-) Cheers, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:20:53 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, I downloaded the CentOS 5.2 Live CD and booted from it. To eliminate > > load from the GUI, I forced the system into runlevel 3 and ran top. > > I see the same problem; the load average sits at about 0.40 continuously. > > This is with the ethernet drivers running, and it does not matter if the > > network cables are plugged in or not. > > > > Ok sorry for the wild goose chase earlier... > > 1. Check with the manufacturer or motherboard to see if this is a > known issue. Sometimes these items show up and are fixed with a BIOS > update. > 2. Check to see if you can pinpoint where the problem is coming > from... set up sar and iostat to see if there are excessive irq's on > one line or another. Run the system as a minimal OS when doing > this... nothing but init 1 if possible. > 3. Try Fedora 9 livecd and see if it still occurs. If it doesn't > then the problem was fixed in the main kernel between EL-5 and now. That > can help make it easier to track down for a bug in Red Hat's bugzilla. > I cannot find relevant support notes on either the Supermicro or Intel sites, but I'll send an email to Supermicro support to see if they know anything. I used vmstat to compare interrupt and context switch rates on a system with the issue and a system without the issue (older kernel). Both systems show an irq rate of about 1000/sec and cs rate of about 25/sec. The system that does not exhibit the problem is running 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5, so it seems to be something that has changed since that time frame (early CentOS 5.1, I think). Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:06:54 -0400, William Warren wrote > the issue occurs even on a live cd so the machine's software load > isn't suspect. It's the nics. > It sure does look like it. I submitted a bug to the CentOS bug tracker, so hopefully someone better equipped than I to resolve this can duplicate the issue. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:56:45 -0700, John R Pierce wrote > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 2:48 PM, listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and I am seeing > >> a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine is idle, i.e. > >> no processes appear to be running. > > > > Download the livecd and boot using it. See if the load average still > > occurs. Check to see if you have any traffic occuring on the network > > from the system. [I had a box that was kernel trojaned that had a load > > average all the time when it was on the wire and did not when it > > didn't. The kernel trojan was looking for a particular bit of traffic > > that would open up its backdoor to.] > > > > its been ages since i've had to do this, but in years past, rkhunter > was really good at finding rootkits like this. worst case, you put > it on alive CD and run it from there. > OK, I downloaded the CentOS 5.2 Live CD and booted from it. To eliminate load from the GUI, I forced the system into runlevel 3 and ran top. I see the same problem; the load average sits at about 0.40 continuously. This is with the ethernet drivers running, and it does not matter if the network cables are plugged in or not. In my mind, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of a rootkit, unless one was delivered with the Live CD. :-) So it looks like this is a bug in either the Intel GLAN driver, or some other kernel timing issue. If anyone can suggest where this bug should be reported and is likely to be addressed, please let me know. I don't know myself who would be the correct party to notify. Thanks to everyone who responded and helped me track this one down. I'm not sure if should roll back to CentOS 5.0, or just try to live with this bug until the maintainers address it, but at least I have some idea of what's wrong. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:32:42 -0400, Dan Halbert wrote > You mentioned these are Supermicro X7DBN boards. They use the Intel > > (ESB2/Gilgal) 82563EB Dual-Port Gigabit Ethernet Controller. There's > an open bug here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=403121, > "e1000: issues with Intel ESB2/Gilgal (82563EB)". It doesn't > describe your problem, but complains about other issues with that > NIC, and references related bugs. > Yes, I looked at the buglist for the driver and didn't see anything related. The NICs actually work just fine at moving data. And I have the same NICs on several other Supermicros that do not have this problem. Just for fun, I ran a backup on one of the machines, and not only did the Ethernet work well, but the "phantom" load went away while a real load was running. That's what leads me to suspect a kernel or timer bug of some sort. There was a post on the Linode site about a year ago about something that smells similar: http://www.linode.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_2729/strange_load_average.html But those guys are doing virtualization and using newer kernels that what CentOS is distributing. I wonder if anyone else has seen this problem? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:22:29 -0700 (PDT), Mark Pryor wrote > --- On Sat, 7/19/08, listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the ht flag means the cpu supports hyperthreading > lm means that you can run 64 bit. > > By the way, is it an i386 kernel? > Yes, it's the i386 kernel. > I've seen only one SuperMicro bios and it was quite complex. Are you > sure that there is no way to toggle hyperthreading in the bios? > Pretty sure, I have looked for it to no avail. > the siblings flag in cpuinfo says 2, which I thought means 2 virtual > cpu's. > There are 2 cores per chip?? > I doubt if any of the above is relevant to your problem, but if you > reinstall anytime soon you might want to consider these support > flags in how you set things up. > Do you mean install a 64-bit kernel? I do want the kernel to see each core as one CPU. Not sure what else I would do on a re-install... Thx, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:26:24 -0400, Dan Halbert wrote > listmail wrote: > > Good suggestion. Disconnecting the Ethernet cables from the NICs did not > > make a difference. However, shutting down the interfaces (e.g ifdown eth0, > > ifdown eth1) did cut the load average down to nothing (0.00). > > > > So it wasn't actual traffic, but something that the interfaces were doing, > > or something that was trying to talk to one or both of them. > > > That's interesting. A few ideas (I'm just trying divide and conquer > here -- I don't have a hypothesis): > 1. See if it's one interface or the other. Does just shutting down > one make a difference? > Nope. If either one is up, I see the load run up. Ethernet connected or not. > 2. Use tcpdump on the interface to see what's going on there, even > when the cables are disconnected. (I may be wrong about seeing > anything when it's disconnected; you may not see any traffic if the > driver knows nothing can go out.) > Can't see any traffic with the interfaces up and the Ethernet connected. > 3. Do "chkconfig --list" to find out which services are on, and shut > them down one by one to see if one is the offender. > I shut off everything, and the problem remained until I at last shut off the network service. Thanks for the ideas - I'm beginning to suspect a bug in the kernel or the timer code. --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:28:55 -0400, Dan Halbert wrote > listmail wrote: > >it has the same problem: load average 0.4 when idle. > > If you disconnect or shut down the NIC(s), does that make any difference? > Good suggestion. Disconnecting the Ethernet cables from the NICs did not make a difference. However, shutting down the interfaces (e.g ifdown eth0, ifdown eth1) did cut the load average down to nothing (0.00). So it wasn't actual traffic, but something that the interfaces were doing, or something that was trying to talk to one or both of them. Does this result suggest anything else? Thx, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Mark Pryor wrote > > Replying to my own post as a follow-up. I just checked > > another machine that > > I am burning in with CentOS 5.2, and it has the same > > problem: load average > > ~0.4 when idle. Both of these machines have Supermicro > > X7DBN motherboards, > > but one is running a single quad-core CPU (Intel Xeon) and > > the other is > > running two dual-core CPUs (Intel Xeon). Anyone else seeing > > anything like > > this? > > Do you have hyper-threading turned on in the bios? > No, the BIOS does not support hyperthreading. > What shows in > cat /proc/cpuinfo > This is an example for one of the four CPUS - they are all the same except for the processor number: === processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU5130 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 6 cpu MHz : 2000.191 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm bogomips: 4001.80 === > > do you have 2 virtual CPU's per core? > Nope. The systems are running at at 1KHz interrupt rate and doing about 20 context switches per second while idle. But as I said, this does not cause the CPU load average to move off of 0.00 on another almost identical machine. Thx, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:21:44 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote > listmail wrote: > > > > Are you running X ... how many processes (on average are running). > > Running X and logged in with applets and such, I have this: > === > top - 17:18:49 up 4:13, 3 users, load average: 0.15, 0.27, 0.32 > Tasks: 153 total, 2 running, 149 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > === > One is running X, the other is not. The one that is running X has the same load average as the one that is not. A small number of processes are running, but as I said they are not using any CPU time, according to top. === ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:50:18 -0700, listmail wrote > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Mark Pryor wrote > > --- On Sat, 7/19/08, listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle > > > To: "CentOS mailing list" > > > Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 1:48 PM > > > I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and > > > I am seeing > > > a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine > > > is idle, i.e. > > > no processes appear to be running. > > > > > > Both top and uptime report the same thing. Looking at top, > > > I cannot see > > > any processes that are using CPU time except for top and > > > init, and they are > > > not using enough cycles to push up the load average. > > > > > > According to top, there are occasional tiny (like 0.5%) > > > bumps in the > > > system usage occasionally, and almost no user space usage. > > > Again, not > > > enough to account for the load average I am seeing. > > > > > > I have tried a couple of kernel updates, and upgraded from > > > CentOS 5.0 to 5.2, > > > none of which make any difference. > > > > > > Has anyone else seen this? And can anyone recommend a way > > > to figure out > > > what is causing the load average to be this high when the > > > machine is idle? > > > > I have not seen this with any C5. However I have moved all > > /etc/cron.daily/prelink > > /etc/cron.daily/makewhatis > > > > to the weekly. > > > > check /var/log/secure for dictionary attacks > > > > check your /var/log/httpd/access_log for unusual PHP activity > > > > check http://localhost/usage for the webalizer logs, where maybe something > >will standout. > > > Thanks, Mark. I have done all of that. There was a dictionary attack > a few days ago, but there is no activity now. Since this is a new > machine that I am just burning in, I am tempted to reinstall from > scratch in case the machine somehow got hacked during burn-in. I > don't see any stuck processes, or any other clues. I have an > identical machine running a slightly older version of the kernel > (CentOS 5.0 - 2.6.18.53.1.14.el5) that does not exhibit this problem, > so I am a bit suspicious. Has anyone else noticed anything like this? > Replying to my own post as a follow-up. I just checked another machine that I am burning in with CentOS 5.2, and it has the same problem: load average ~0.4 when idle. Both of these machines have Supermicro X7DBN motherboards, but one is running a single quad-core CPU (Intel Xeon) and the other is running two dual-core CPUs (Intel Xeon). Anyone else seeing anything like this? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Mark Pryor wrote > --- On Sat, 7/19/08, listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: listmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle > > To: "CentOS mailing list" > > Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 1:48 PM > > I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and > > I am seeing > > a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine > > is idle, i.e. > > no processes appear to be running. > > > > Both top and uptime report the same thing. Looking at top, > > I cannot see > > any processes that are using CPU time except for top and > > init, and they are > > not using enough cycles to push up the load average. > > > > According to top, there are occasional tiny (like 0.5%) > > bumps in the > > system usage occasionally, and almost no user space usage. > > Again, not > > enough to account for the load average I am seeing. > > > > I have tried a couple of kernel updates, and upgraded from > > CentOS 5.0 to 5.2, > > none of which make any difference. > > > > Has anyone else seen this? And can anyone recommend a way > > to figure out > > what is causing the load average to be this high when the > > machine is idle? > > I have not seen this with any C5. However I have moved all > /etc/cron.daily/prelink > /etc/cron.daily/makewhatis > > to the weekly. > > check /var/log/secure for dictionary attacks > > check your /var/log/httpd/access_log for unusual PHP activity > > check http://localhost/usage for the webalizer logs, where maybe something >will standout. > Thanks, Mark. I have done all of that. There was a dictionary attack a few days ago, but there is no activity now. Since this is a new machine that I am just burning in, I am tempted to reinstall from scratch in case the machine somehow got hacked during burn-in. I don't see any stuck processes, or any other clues. I have an identical machine running a slightly older version of the kernel (CentOS 5.0 - 2.6.18.53.1.14.el5) that does not exhibit this problem, so I am a bit suspicious. Has anyone else noticed anything like this? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Load Average ~0.40 when idle
I am running CentOS 5 on a dual-dual-core Intel machine, and I am seeing a load average of between 0.35 and 0.50 while the machine is idle, i.e. no processes appear to be running. Both top and uptime report the same thing. Looking at top, I cannot see any processes that are using CPU time except for top and init, and they are not using enough cycles to push up the load average. According to top, there are occasional tiny (like 0.5%) bumps in the system usage occasionally, and almost no user space usage. Again, not enough to account for the load average I am seeing. I have tried a couple of kernel updates, and upgraded from CentOS 5.0 to 5.2, none of which make any difference. Has anyone else seen this? And can anyone recommend a way to figure out what is causing the load average to be this high when the machine is idle? Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] /etc/pam.d/system-auth changes in update
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:44 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote > Filipe Brandenburger wrote on Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:08:44 -0400: > > > The exact same question came up two weeks ago. > > And the answers were confusing at least me ;-) > To me as well, having now read the thread. No one seems to know why the changes were made, only that they *were* made. I'm still hoping that there might be documentation on the impact of these changes. Does anyone know, or have a link to, why system-auth was changed in the most recent update to PAM? TIA, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] /etc/pam.d/system-auth changes in update
I just did an update, and PAM was was one of the modules. Yum has placed /etc/pam.d/system-auth.rpmnew and it's different than the existing file, which is actually a link to system-auth-ac. The files are slightly different, and I'm wondering if the differences are important. I can't find any docs on the reason for the change, so before I spend time becoming a PAM expert, I'm wondering if anyone knows why this change was made, or were it might be documented. Thanks, --Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
