Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Doug Tucker wrote: Tru, I work at a university. They don't provide enough money for test environments :). Just kinda odd, last time kernel update, gfs updated at the same time so all was well. But twice now kernel has upgraded with no GFS so it went bye-bye. Is the GFS being installed, compiled against particular kernel headers, or could I just copy the /fs/gfs and /fs/gfs_locking to the new kernel /lib/modules (or symlink for that matter) and be lucky enough it would work? Please be aware that redhat releases GFS at a different time than the, usually 2-3 days later (at the earliest). In this case, here are the upstream release dates: kernel - 5/7/2008 gfs kmods - 5/9/2008 my point is that even upstream does not release these at the same time. What you should do (and what everyone who has kmods on c4 should do) is to exclude kernels from automatic updates ... then you can manually update the kernels and kmods together separately. Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Hello All; Maybe, because XFS seems to be important, is it possible to build xfs right after the kernel src build? Is this far more longer than only build the kernel? Ok nobody pay you to do Centos, ok. Centos is a very good project, but i think it's not really constructive to say ok, pay me and I will do it :) You don't do Centos because you need money but because you like what you do. Of course, forget my mail if XFS is a crap to build, but if a simple add stuff in changelog xfs.spec; rpmbuild -ba --sign mycoolXFSmodul.src.rpm is enough, maybe You could think to build xfs in the same time a kernel update is available ? Regards js. Johnny Hughes a écrit : Linux wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Tru Huynh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:40:22AM +0300, Linux wrote: What a coincidence. That is the 1st time I live such a thing. Well, show me a way to prove. /var/log/messages ? Only a small part of it. This log is after update reboot: May 11 16:06:03 x kernel: XFS: failed to read root inode nothing more? Well, that is the only unexpected part. Just to show that XFS module was loaded for WRONG kernel. As you said, you newer saw before. According to this, there is a mystery in May 11 16:06:03 because there WAS a kmod_xfs but it was 53.1.14, not 53.1.19 as updated kernel. too bad you rebooted 1 hour before the kernel-xfs module update. When was kernel-xfs module updated in repository? Just that time? If so too bad CentOS folks do not update every piece of kernel as a whole in repositories. Where is integrity? If not, yum update does not update everything at once. I have to run yum update twice maybe more. First it will load kernel then see that a new kernel is available, will go and bring its modules... Still, it is a bit annoying and confusing. I am beginning to think whether XFS is really supported in CentOS :) OK ... let me give you an official answer red hat does not even release the the gfs kmods on the same day as the kernel, that is FULLY supported and even an added expense for rhel4. we DO NOT update xfs (or the centosplus kernel) on the same day as the base centos kernels. We are NOT going to wait to release the main kernel security update for a day or more to get centosplus stuff also done. xfs IS NOT SUPPORTED in the same way as the base centos distro is and xfs is not in RHEL. Our 2 million users do not want to wait for the base kernel security updates for 2 extra days so that a very small group of people who use the xfs file system can get their updates at the same time. It might take even longer to get these built as no one pays me to build them and I have a real job and a real life ... if you can't do one of these: 1. Build your own module. 2. Exclude the kernel and only update it when the modules are ready. Then you can pay me $200.00 per hour and I will manage your server for you. Thanks, Johnny Hughes ___ 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] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:10 PM, js [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe, because XFS seems to be important, is it possible to build xfs right after the kernel src build? Is this far more longer than only build the kernel? Assuming that you've set it up as a module rather than actually compiling it into the kernel itself, it should be a case of just doing: cd $KERNEL_SOURCE_TREE make fs/xfs/xfs.ko mkdir /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VERSION/kernel/fs cp fs/xfs/xfs.ko /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VERSION/kernel/fs/xfs which will build the XFS module and stick it in the right place. Note that all that does not include the XFS userspace tools... Regards, Martyn -- Martyn Drake http://www.drake.org.uk http://www.mindthegapps.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Martyn Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:10 PM, js [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe, because XFS seems to be important, is it possible to build xfs right after the kernel src build? Is this far more longer than only build the kernel? Assuming that you've set it up as a module rather than actually compiling it into the kernel itself, it should be a case of just doing: cd $KERNEL_SOURCE_TREE make fs/xfs/xfs.ko mkdir /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VERSION/kernel/fs cp fs/xfs/xfs.ko /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VERSION/kernel/fs/xfs which will build the XFS module and stick it in the right place. Note that all that does not include the XFS userspace tools... Making kernel modules is a bit more involved than that. Please see: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BuildingKernelModules if you really feel like building modules yourself. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Akemi Yagi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Making kernel modules is a bit more involved than that. Please see: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BuildingKernelModules if you really feel like building modules yourself. You're quite right. You can tell I do it often, can't you? :) Regards, Martyn -- Martyn Drake http://www.drake.org.uk http://www.mindthegapps.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM, js [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe, because XFS seems to be important, is it possible to build xfs right after the kernel src build? Is this far more longer than only build the kernel? Ok nobody pay you to do Centos, ok. Centos is a very good project, but i think it's not really constructive to say ok, pay me and I will do it :) You don't do Centos because you need money but because you like what you do. As a matter of not annoying volunteers and developers, you want to be careful about asking people to do what you can't or won't do yourself. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
I intend to do that. Kernel's removed from automatic updates. We'll agree to disagree about the importance of not breaking an officially supported kernel filesystem on an automated upgrade because only a few of us are affected. Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. I say there is little in a new kernel that the rest of the users cannot wait 2-3 lousy days for. Wanna stretch it to a week to meet your statement of earliest, I can live with that and my statement still stands. And, I do realize this is not centos's fight, I guess my complaint is with RedHat in this case, they should be more responsible than that. If M$ took that policy and released official upgrades they knew would break even a small percentage of their users, especially something as critical as the very filesystem that your entire user data resides on, we (the linux community) would be throwing them under the rug for it. On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 05:44 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: Doug Tucker wrote: Tru, I work at a university. They don't provide enough money for test environments :). Just kinda odd, last time kernel update, gfs updated at the same time so all was well. But twice now kernel has upgraded with no GFS so it went bye-bye. Is the GFS being installed, compiled against particular kernel headers, or could I just copy the /fs/gfs and /fs/gfs_locking to the new kernel /lib/modules (or symlink for that matter) and be lucky enough it would work? Please be aware that redhat releases GFS at a different time than the, usually 2-3 days later (at the earliest). In this case, here are the upstream release dates: kernel - 5/7/2008 gfs kmods - 5/9/2008 my point is that even upstream does not release these at the same time. What you should do (and what everyone who has kmods on c4 should do) is to exclude kernels from automatic updates ... then you can manually update the kernels and kmods together separately. Thanks, Johnny Hughes ___ 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] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to do that. Kernel's removed from automatic updates. There you go. We'll agree to disagree about the importance of not breaking an officially supported kernel filesystem on an automated upgrade because only a few of us are affected. Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. I say there is little in a new kernel that the rest of the users cannot wait 2-3 lousy days for. Wanna stretch it to a week to meet your statement of earliest, I can live with that and my statement still stands. And, I do realize this is not centos's fight, I guess my complaint is with RedHat in this case, they should be more responsible than that. If M$ took that policy and released official upgrades they knew would break even a small percentage of their users, especially something as critical as the very filesystem that your entire user data resides on, we (the linux community) would be throwing them under the rug for it. 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard 2) This isn't really an issue of agreeing to disagree. XFS is *not* a Red Hat product at all. They (RH) do not support it at all. The CentOS project provides XFS as an *extra* that is NOT part of the mainline CentOS release stream. It is only supported by the CentOS group in the centosplus repository, which is a courtesy provided for free by the CentOS group. IOW, CentOS does not have to support XFS at all. That they do is a courtesy. Now, if you like the centosplus product and use it, remember to follow the guidelines for it - little things like not doing automatic updates because you already *know* that centosplus does not come out immediately when RH releases a change that CentOS picks up and releases as well. All of this is clearly discussed here from time to time, so the expectations have been set accordingly. Please try to remember this and manage your installations accordingly, too. And that's *my* soapbox, from which I will now step down and shut up. Temporarily. :-} mhr ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to do that. Kernel's removed from automatic updates. There you go. We'll agree to disagree about the importance of not breaking an officially supported kernel filesystem on an automated upgrade because only a few of us are affected. Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. I say there is little in a new kernel that the rest of the users cannot wait 2-3 lousy days for. Wanna stretch it to a week to meet your statement of earliest, I can live with that and my statement still stands. And, I do realize this is not centos's fight, I guess my complaint is with RedHat in this case, they should be more responsible than that. If M$ took that policy and released official upgrades they knew would break even a small percentage of their users, especially something as critical as the very filesystem that your entire user data resides on, we (the linux community) would be throwing them under the rug for it. 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy for me to follow. 2) This isn't really an issue of agreeing to disagree. XFS is *not* a Red Hat product at all. They (RH) do not support it at all. The CentOS project provides XFS as an *extra* that is NOT part of the mainline CentOS release stream. It is only supported by the CentOS group in the centosplus repository, which is a courtesy provided for free by the CentOS group. This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that. My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. IOW, CentOS does not have to support XFS at all. That they do is a courtesy. Now, if you like the centosplus product and use it, remember to follow the guidelines for it - little things like not doing automatic updates because you already *know* that centosplus does not come out immediately when RH releases a change that CentOS picks up and releases as well. I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture. Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's problem. Read boy, read. All of this is clearly discussed here from time to time, so the expectations have been set accordingly. Please try to remember this and manage your installations accordingly, too. And that's *my* soapbox, from which I will now step down and shut up. Temporarily. And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform, saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it helped you in some fashion. :D :-} mhr ___ 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] broken GFS
Doug Tucker wrote: My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. GFS is only 'officially supported' under a seperate contract from Red Hat. And, if you're a GFS customer of Red Hat's, I'm pretty darn sure the first thing they do is disable kernel updates... In fact, I seem to recall that RHEL4 ships with kernel updates disabled, you have to use `up2date --force` or something to enable them. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote: 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy for me to follow. You apparently didn't see the smiley I left out of the last sentence :-) I didn't mean it to be rude at all - no tone implied. I just noticed that you have posted several times to the list and all of them, until now, were top posts, unlike almost everyone else. I /was/ trying to be nice This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that. My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. Yes, I've been reading the thread. I you didn't mention GFS in the specific post to which I was replying, but you're right, it's there in prior posts. So all of my commentary about XFS does not apply to your post. Non-sequitur - mea culpa. :-) I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture. It was intended to be a gentle reminder. (You've obviously never seen me lecture) Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's problem. Read boy, read. snip And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform, saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it helped you in some fashion. You seem awfully touchy here - are you sure you're not lecturing me? :-) Take a breath, relax, you were not under attack, lecture or anything rude. I meant it with the best of intentions - I usually do. mhr ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:38 -0700, MHR wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:07 -0700, MHR wrote: 1) You're top posting - please stop it. In this email list, we bottom post as a matter of policy and courtesy. It's not that hard I'm sorry, that last sentence was unnecessary and just rude. I don't tell you how to set your email client and what your preference is toward how you like to read your email. I find it completely annoying to have to scroll to the bottom of a message to read a reply. I will comply with the group as a whole that I chose to join, I was unaware that bottom posting was preference. But I do not appreciate the tone, you could have easily asked nicely or referred me to the preference policy for me to follow. You apparently didn't see the smiley I left out of the last sentence :-) I didn't mean it to be rude at all - no tone implied. I just noticed that you have posted several times to the list and all of them, until now, were top posts, unlike almost everyone else. I /was/ trying to be nice It's not that hard would have gotten you b**ch slapped even with a smile on your face in person. Just stick to polite, it's not that hard :D. This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that. My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. Yes, I've been reading the thread. I you didn't mention GFS in the specific post to which I was replying, but you're right, it's there in prior posts. So all of my commentary about XFS does not apply to your post. Non-sequitur - mea culpa. :-) I already agreed and removed kernel from the update, no need to lecture. It was intended to be a gentle reminder. (You've obviously never seen me lecture) touche! Again, if you will take the time to read instead of knee-jerking a reaction in some automatic defense of your feelings, you will note that I took the aim at RedHat for the issue, and said it was not CentOS's problem. Read boy, read. snip And unfortunately, all based on improper understanding of what was written, which makes it inappropriate in a public forum. Me thinks you had seen enough of the other guy whining about his unsupported platform, saw the word XFS in my paragraph, and basically quit reading and decided to send your XFS rant at me. I hope from a therapeutic standpoint, it helped you in some fashion. You seem awfully touchy here - are you sure you're not lecturing me? :-) Take a breath, relax, you were not under attack, lecture or anything rude. I meant it with the best of intentions - I usually do. Bad thing about email, it's hard to grasp tongue in cheek humor and tone isn't it? Didn't you see my bfg at the end of my response? Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore it with less effort. :D BFG! mhr ___ 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] broken GFS
Doug Tucker wrote: Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore it with less effort. the other key part of bottom posting is to delete all but what you're replying to. noone needs to see the whole thread quoted in every message, just enough context to frame the response. And, delete the .SIG stuff on the end, too. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:37 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: Doug Tucker wrote: My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. GFS is only 'officially supported' under a seperate contract from Red Hat. And? It's official. In fact, ext3 is only officially supported from them these day without a $$$ contract. Which is why we're all here! :D And, if you're a GFS customer of Red Hat's, I'm pretty darn sure the first thing they do is disable kernel updates... In fact, I seem to recall that RHEL4 ships with kernel updates disabled, you have to use `up2date --force` or something to enable them. Yes, but kernel is disabled from EL4 reguardless of filesystem, so GFS has nothing to do with that. YOu can just edit the up2date file to remove that. I merely believe that GFS filesystem updates should be released in conjuntion with kernel with all the other filesystems built in, treating it no differently since it is officially supported, just not put in the standard kernel build to put separation between it and the $$ extra product. And that is merely, an opinion. ___ 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] broken GFS
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 13:00 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: Doug Tucker wrote: Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore it with less effort. the other key part of bottom posting is to delete all but what you're replying to. noone needs to see the whole thread quoted in every message, just enough context to frame the response. And, delete the .SIG stuff on the end, too. I'm still annoyed. Forgot to mention I hate having to move my cursor in a different location than where it is when I hit the reply button before I can type too. Honestly, I see zero benefit in this. And looking at my other tech threads (isc.org and opennms.org) and everyone appears to be top posting, although I guess, they could all be breaking the rules. Humor turned off for a minute, completely and honestly, can someone explain to me *why* this is the etiquette here? In every fashion, I find it sooo much harder to follow. Does it date back to some dead text based mail client that actually made this easier for some reason? Left first paragraph at the top, because I find it too relevant in this one to remove. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Humor turned off for a minute, completely and honestly, can someone explain to me *why* this is the etiquette here? In every fashion, I find it sooo much harder to follow. Does it date back to some dead text based mail client that actually made this easier for some reason? This is linked from the CentOS FAQ: http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not that hard would have gotten you b**ch slapped even with a smile on your face in person. Just stick to polite, it's not that hard :D. snicker Bad thing about email, it's hard to grasp tongue in cheek humor and tone isn't it? Didn't you see my bfg at the end of my response? Actually, I wasn't sure what that was I just googled BFG and got BF Goodrich, BFG Tech, Big F**king Gun and Big Friendly Giant, but I'm guessing you meant Big Fat Grin (or some other F* word :-). Seriously, though, I try to read email as if it had no tone (unless the language or emoticons make it abundantly clear) and always, always take a deep breath before I respond - shot myself in the foot enough times to remember a few of them when I want to blast off. I also try to proof the responses, and frequently delete them so I can wait a while before I write anything. But, technically, since we're writing and not speaking, it's all tongue-in-cheek, isn't it? ;^) Do you honestly, like having to scroll down with the rolly thing on your mouse 9 times to get to the reply only to find it is not something you cared to read? I say toss it at the top in my face where I can ignore it with less effort. I'll let others handle the arguments here - I just try to go with the flow, and I can read it either way. I will admit, though, that some of the posts here contain WAY too much back-data. Edit, edit, edit! 'nuff said! ;^))) mhr BFG! YEAH! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that. My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. Sorry pal, it's me who stole your thread with XFS. I feel obliged to give an answer although which I do not have to but I'll. I've been so far away from CentOS/RHEL that I even did not know the difference between XFS and GFS which is officially supported by Redhat guys. And CentOS' guys kindness about giving us a chance to use XFS is really attracks my appreciation. Up to this was for my apology. BUT (a big one); People who prepare and maintain a distro have (and should have) many concerns in mind. Security is one of them and integrity is another. But in this situation, integrity is simply ignored (on the behalf of GFS situation because I backed down from my XFS related complains) Disabling kernel upgrades simply solves the situation but raises some other questions about What else can be broken with security apprehensions? I do not know which one to choose: - Absolutely not-working server because of missing updates - Maybe will be attacked server because of missing security updates. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
This is linked from the CentOS FAQ: http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Akemi LOL! This is just TOO good. 1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. ...all but dead...I run a usenet server here, had 3 logins last month...user base is over 4000... 2.We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. OMG. I haven't used a usenet reader in 10 years for anything. Assumed Forte Agent went out of development years ago. I'll stop there, there is not a single thing on that page I can agree with anymore, technology, email and the web have moved on beyond that ideology of old. I'm already at about 50% of the time reading email on my iphone mail app. Like it or not for the religious users (and I'll count myself there in many categories), eventually most of our mail will be read on a handheld device. So the 2 line preview pane at the top before deciding to atually open the message becomes very relevant, which does not lend itself useful in bottom posting. I can't remember the last time I saw a desktop user regardless of client not read their mail using the preview pane. They need to just rename that, as people even rarely click to open the message anymore. Again, not good when bottom posting. I got poo-poo'd off about my GFS/kernel release schedule, for being in some small minority. So, where are bottom posters, in terms of majority these days? Maybe it's time, to update with the times? Go ahead, let the bashing begin! I'm off to another building, taking my email in my pocket with me... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Linux wrote: People who prepare and maintain a distro have (and should have) many concerns in mind. Security is one of them and integrity is another. But in this situation, integrity is simply ignored (on the behalf of GFS situation because I backed down from my XFS related complains) Disabling kernel upgrades simply solves the situation but raises some other questions about What else can be broken with security apprehensions? I do not know which one to choose: - Absolutely not-working server because of missing updates - Maybe will be attacked server because of missing security updates. specific to GFS... GFS is a clustered file system. You do NOT run automatic updates willy-nilly on a production cluster, there's just far too many ways it can go bad. You test them on a staging environment before approving their deployment, then you have to have a specific process for applying the patches to the cluster, and if they are major patches, this usually involves bringing the cluster down, applying the tested and approved patches to all cluster members, then bringing the cluster back up one node at a time, then going back live for production. If the patches are minor, you may be able to do a rolling upgrade, where you bring down one cluster member, patch it, put it back online, then bring down the next, etc... The cluster administrator have to determine the appropriate maintenance process, then follow it religiously. btw, what is WITH all these lame gmail addresses? linuxlist ? centoslist ?? Do I call you Mr Linux, or Mr List ? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Doug Tucker wrote: On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 12:37 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: Doug Tucker wrote: My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my statement I said: Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that someone hijacked my thread with. So I'm agreeing that XFS should never be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together. GFS is only 'officially supported' under a seperate contract from Red Hat. And? It's official. In fact, ext3 is only officially supported from them these day without a $$$ contract. Which is why we're all here! :D But, RHCS and RHGFS are not part of RHEL, and not part of base CentOS (before centos-5 that is). It is an addon repository. We do update it, but it takes a back seat to the main centos repo. Regardless ... I am building those updates and they should be released after I QA them sometime later today. And, if you're a GFS customer of Red Hat's, I'm pretty darn sure the first thing they do is disable kernel updates... In fact, I seem to recall that RHEL4 ships with kernel updates disabled, you have to use `up2date --force` or something to enable them. Yes, but kernel is disabled from EL4 reguardless of filesystem, so GFS has nothing to do with that. YOu can just edit the up2date file to remove that. I merely believe that GFS filesystem updates should be released in conjuntion with kernel with all the other filesystems built in, treating it no differently since it is officially supported, just not put in the standard kernel build to put separation between it and the $$ extra product. And that is merely, an opinion. Sure ... the reason they want you to manually update the kernel is that for all but the most basic of systems, you have to think BEFORE you update it. All I am saying is that GFS (and any other ADDED repo besides Base or Updates) will get updates ... however they are not normally going to be as fast as the Base and Updates repos. That is just how it goes. Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Doug Tucker wrote: This is linked from the CentOS FAQ: http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Akemi LOL! This is just TOO good. 1. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. ...all but dead...I run a usenet server here, had 3 logins last month...user base is over 4000... 2.We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. OMG. I haven't used a usenet reader in 10 years for anything. Assumed Forte Agent went out of development years ago. I'll stop there, there is not a single thing on that page I can agree with anymore, technology, email and the web have moved on beyond that ideology of old. I'm already at about 50% of the time reading email on my iphone mail app. Like it or not for the religious users (and I'll count myself there in many categories), eventually most of our mail will be read on a handheld device. So the 2 line preview pane at the top before deciding to atually open the message becomes very relevant, which does not lend itself useful in bottom posting. I can't remember the last time I saw a desktop user regardless of client not read their mail using the preview pane. They need to just rename that, as people even rarely click to open the message anymore. Again, not good when bottom posting. I got poo-poo'd off about my GFS/kernel release schedule, for being in some small minority. So, where are bottom posters, in terms of majority these days? Maybe it's time, to update with the times? Go ahead, let the bashing begin! I'm off to another building, taking my email in my pocket with me... OK ... you are officially an ass .. I will no longer reply to your mails or help you in any way. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:50 PM, John R Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: btw, what is WITH all these lame gmail addresses? linuxlist ? centoslist ?? Do I call you Mr Linux, or Mr List ? Nothing to do with gmail. About calling me, it's a nice thing but probably not needed. And I also know about usenet etiquette. Well, I post in so many different threads and I do not want someone googling and finding all about me. Besides, you people have the right to ignore my-type people since not using real (or reallike nick)names. Instead of deceiving people with different names on different platforms, I prefer being honest about hiding my i.d. and I think this is also my right (as your ignoring right) But if it'll satisfy someone, I can choose some real-looking nicknames from now on :) Thanks... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Johnny Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK ... you are officially an ass .. I will no longer reply to your mails or help you in any way. Yes. When I signed on with CentOS it was explicitly written into my requirements that *I* be the only 'official' ass. Yes, a non-compete clause is involved, so can all just STEP OFF! :-P /humor -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Yes. When I signed on with CentOS it was explicitly written into my requirements that *I* be the only 'official' ass. Yes, a non-compete clause is involved, so can all just STEP OFF! :-P /humor Haha, thanks for the humorous remark! It has been said that If you get too serious, you'll spoil all the fun. I imagine that most of the folks subscribed are System Administrators, Engineers and Architects. I'd also leap to the unproven assumption that the majority are overworked, underpaid, stressed, and stuff like that. If that doesn't make for a bunch of terse, grumpy, and otherwise friendly-and-cheer-challenged folks at times, well, you're better folks than myself, which, admittedly, isn't all that difficult, and a little humor can go a long way. Personally, I'd prefer top posting, I don't have an issue reading messages staged that way. To me, scrolling down to see history makes a great deal of sense, as it means I see the most pertinent portion of a message first. (Arguably pertinent, however if it wasn't for the most recent content, the message wouldn't have been sent.) However, I don't care enough to make an issue out of it, while some obviously have strong preferences to bottom posting. What is REALLY not helpful is top, bottom, top, bottom posting, and thus I go with the norm. Either way, while building and sending escalatory non-main-topic content (ie, flame wars) are as traditional as bottom posting, I think we'd be better off without. Peace, Jacob Leaver Sr. Systems Administrator ReachONE Internet ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
All I am saying is that GFS (and any other ADDED repo besides Base or Updates) will get updates ... however they are not normally going to be as fast as the Base and Updates repos. That is just how it goes. I can totally live with that, I was just b**ching about RH's approach. I'm not expecting centos to do anything more, I appreciate the fact that this exists, as it keeps me from having to use debian :). ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
OK ... you are officially an ass .. I will no longer reply to your mails or help you in any way. Wow. My apologies, I thought that was actually a productive reply, not even sure how you got offended, but I will apologize anyway, I don't intend to ever offend anyone. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed to all, and I was just having some fun and trying to bring some humor to everyone's day. Thanks for having a sense of humor, I'll respectfully bow out now. There you go, man Keep as cool as you can Face piles of trials with smiles It riles them to believe That you perceive The web they weave... And keep on thinking free - In the Beginning, On the Threshold of a Deam, the Moody Blues :-) mhr ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] broken GFS
This is the 2nd time this has happened to me. There was a kernel release over the weekend to .67.0.15, yet, they did not release the updated GFS to go along with it, so when the machine rebooted, there was no gfs file system in the new running kernel which in turn wreaked havoc on my cluster. I truly wish they would not do that :). I guess I shall have to not allow automatic yum updates from these machines. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Well, I should add a terrible story for XFS... I did a yum update and after updating many packages I rebooted and viola... Old xfs module ruined my 1.2TB partition. After updating to correct module and hours of xfs_repair I had to move and rename 500 subfolders from lost+found. I am using CentOS because I have to (for cPanel). I am not very comfortable with it (indeed I am a pro gentooer for 5-7 years) On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the 2nd time this has happened to me. There was a kernel release over the weekend to .67.0.15, yet, they did not release the updated GFS to go along with it, so when the machine rebooted, there was no gfs file system in the new running kernel which in turn wreaked havoc on my cluster. I truly wish they would not do that :). I guess I shall have to not allow automatic yum updates from these machines. ___ 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] broken GFS
This is the 2nd time this has happened to me. There was a kernel release over the weekend to .67.0.15, yet, they did not release the updated GFS to go along with it, so when the machine rebooted, there was no gfs file system in the new running kernel which in turn wreaked havoc on my cluster. I truly wish they would not do that :). I guess I shall have to not allow automatic yum updates from these machines. Use the yum's exclude functionality. Man yum.conf for the syntax. I think it will just be exclude=kernel. You also might want to remove the non gfs kernels from your installation and get a staging environment for patching set up (if this is a production system). Best Patrick ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:00:18PM +0300, Linux wrote: Well, I should add a terrible story for XFS... I did a yum update and after updating many packages I rebooted and viola... You seem to enjoy living dangerously ? Don't you ever use a testing machine before rolling the updates on a production server? We appreciate your trust in our project, but you should always test on your own setup. Old xfs module ruined my 1.2TB partition. After updating to correct module and hours of xfs_repair I had to move and rename 500 subfolders from lost+found. That is the 1st time I hear such a story: if the xfs module is not installed for your new kernel, the only thing that should happen is the inability to mount the XFS filesystem. I am using CentOS because I have to (for cPanel). That's trolling, CPanel is NOT CentOS... Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xBEFA581B pgpoqJrT1KNlf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
Tru, I work at a university. They don't provide enough money for test environments :). Just kinda odd, last time kernel update, gfs updated at the same time so all was well. But twice now kernel has upgraded with no GFS so it went bye-bye. Is the GFS being installed, compiled against particular kernel headers, or could I just copy the /fs/gfs and /fs/gfs_locking to the new kernel /lib/modules (or symlink for that matter) and be lucky enough it would work? On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:48 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:00:18PM +0300, Linux wrote: Well, I should add a terrible story for XFS... I did a yum update and after updating many packages I rebooted and viola... You seem to enjoy living dangerously ? Don't you ever use a testing machine before rolling the updates on a production server? We appreciate your trust in our project, but you should always test on your own setup. Old xfs module ruined my 1.2TB partition. After updating to correct module and hours of xfs_repair I had to move and rename 500 subfolders from lost+found. That is the 1st time I hear such a story: if the xfs module is not installed for your new kernel, the only thing that should happen is the inability to mount the XFS filesystem. I am using CentOS because I have to (for cPanel). That's trolling, CPanel is NOT CentOS... Tru ___ 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] broken GFS
Upstream updates cluster packages about a week after OS patches. I found that out when putting in a new cluster and 4.6 came out. The cluster packages lagged behind a week deliberately for stability's sake. Scott On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Doug Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tru, I work at a university. They don't provide enough money for test environments :). Just kinda odd, last time kernel update, gfs updated at the same time so all was well. But twice now kernel has upgraded with no GFS so it went bye-bye. Is the GFS being installed, compiled against particular kernel headers, or could I just copy the /fs/gfs and /fs/gfs_locking to the new kernel /lib/modules (or symlink for that matter) and be lucky enough it would work? On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:48 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:00:18PM +0300, Linux wrote: Well, I should add a terrible story for XFS... I did a yum update and after updating many packages I rebooted and viola... You seem to enjoy living dangerously ? Don't you ever use a testing machine before rolling the updates on a production server? We appreciate your trust in our project, but you should always test on your own setup. Old xfs module ruined my 1.2TB partition. After updating to correct module and hours of xfs_repair I had to move and rename 500 subfolders from lost+found. That is the 1st time I hear such a story: if the xfs module is not installed for your new kernel, the only thing that should happen is the inability to mount the XFS filesystem. I am using CentOS because I have to (for cPanel). That's trolling, CPanel is NOT CentOS... Tru ___ 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 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:20:46PM -0500, Doug Tucker wrote: Tru, Hi Doug, I work at a university. They don't provide enough money for test environments :). Sure, but they could probably understand if it's 'critical' ;) Just kinda odd, last time kernel update, gfs updated at the same time so all was well. But twice now kernel has upgraded CentOS can't rebuild if upstream hasn't released the corresponding src.rpm. Upstream's GFS is often released later than the kernel RHSA... with no GFS so it went bye-bye. Is the GFS being installed, compiled against particular kernel headers, or could I just copy the /fs/gfs and /fs/gfs_locking to the new kernel /lib/modules (or symlink for that matter) and be lucky enough it would work? No idea. Cheers, Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xBEFA581B pgpBkO33c4XUl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Tru Huynh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:00:18PM +0300, Linux wrote: Well, I should add a terrible story for XFS... I did a yum update and after updating many packages I rebooted and viola... You seem to enjoy living dangerously ? Don't you ever use a testing machine before rolling the updates on a production server? We appreciate your trust in our project, but you should always test on your own setup. Indeed that was my low-value testing machine. But I cannot afford a third machine just for testing with the same hardware. Besides, if you suggest a VM testing, it is not a real testing, not better than you people do... Old xfs module ruined my 1.2TB partition. After updating to correct module and hours of xfs_repair I had to move and rename 500 subfolders from lost+found. That is the 1st time I hear such a story: if the xfs module is not installed for your new kernel, the only thing that should happen is the inability to mount the XFS filesystem. What a coincidence. That is the 1st time I live such a thing. Well, show me a way to prove. I am using CentOS because I have to (for cPanel). That's trolling, CPanel is NOT CentOS... Neither I am a troll, nor do I know its meaning. And I do not have an intention to blame CentOS for anything. I have to use CentOS because it's the best of the choises CPanel requires. I am not keen on CentOS way of eating yoghurt. [1] This log is after update reboot: May 11 16:06:03 x kernel: XFS: failed to read root inode And this is the last yum.log beginning from a month before: --- Apr 02 23:40:03 Updated: krb5-libs.x86_64 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:40:04 Updated: cups-libs.x86_64 1:1.2.4-11.14.el5_1.6 Apr 02 23:40:04 Updated: openldap.x86_64 2.3.27-8.el5_1.3 Apr 02 23:40:05 Updated: dbus.x86_64 1.0.0-6.3.el5_1 Apr 02 23:40:11 Updated: ghostscript.x86_64 8.15.2-9.1.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:40:12 Updated: tk.x86_64 8.4.13-5.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:40:13 Updated: kpartx.x86_64 0.4.7-12.el5_1.3 Apr 02 23:40:13 Updated: device-mapper-multipath.x86_64 0.4.7-12.el5_1.3 Apr 02 23:40:23 Updated: cups.x86_64 1:1.2.4-11.14.el5_1.6 Apr 02 23:40:23 Updated: autofs.x86_64 1:5.0.1-0.rc2.55.el5.3 Apr 02 23:40:23 Updated: krb5-libs.i386 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:40:24 Updated: cups-libs.i386 1:1.2.4-11.14.el5_1.6 Apr 02 23:40:33 Updated: ghostscript.i386 8.15.2-9.1.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:40:33 Updated: dbus.i386 1.0.0-6.3.el5_1 Apr 02 23:40:33 Updated: openldap.i386 2.3.27-8.el5_1.3 Apr 02 23:40:34 Updated: tk.i386 8.4.13-5.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:41:13 Installed: kernel.x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 Apr 02 23:41:23 Updated: tzdata.noarch 2007k-2.el5 Apr 02 23:41:24 Updated: krb5-devel.i386 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:41:25 Updated: krb5-workstation.x86_64 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:41:26 Updated: krb5-devel.x86_64 1.6.1-17.el5_1.1 Apr 02 23:41:30 Updated: kernel-headers.x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 Apr 02 23:41:30 Installed: kmod-xfs.x86_64 0.4-1.2.6.18_53.1.14.el5 May 11 00:34:48 Updated: ImageMagick.x86_64 6.2.8.0-4.el5_1.1 May 11 00:34:52 Updated: ImageMagick.i386 6.2.8.0-4.el5_1.1 May 11 00:34:57 Updated: kernel-headers.x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.19.el5 May 11 00:35:04 Updated: squid.x86_64 7:2.6.STABLE6-5.el5_1.3 May 11 00:35:04 Updated: sos.noarch 1.7-9.2.el5 May 11 00:35:36 Installed: kernel.x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.19.el5 May 11 01:28:19 Installed: hddtemp.x86_64 0.3-0.14.beta15.el5.centos May 11 01:40:35 Installed: apt.x86_64 0.5.15lorg3.2-1.el5.rf May 11 17:13:03 Installed: kmod-xfs.x86_64 0.4-1.2.6.18_53.1.19.el5 According to this, there is a mystery in May 11 16:06:03 because there WAS a kmod_xfs but it was 53.1.14, not 53.1.19 as updated kernel. By the way, sorry for stealing some GFS thread but I see something parallel in deep. Thanks. [1] There is a proverb like Every knight has his own way of eating yoghurt which means you can eat yoghurt in different ways and also envied people can eat it differently, which none of them is wrong. In the end, yoghurt, a very useful nutrient, is eaten anyway. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:40:22AM +0300, Linux wrote: What a coincidence. That is the 1st time I live such a thing. Well, show me a way to prove. /var/log/messages ? This log is after update reboot: May 11 16:06:03 x kernel: XFS: failed to read root inode nothing more? Apr 02 23:41:30 Installed: kmod-xfs.x86_64 0.4-1.2.6.18_53.1.14.el5 kmod-xfs for 2.6.18_53.1.14.el5 May 11 00:35:36 Installed: kernel.x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.19.el5 ... May 11 17:13:03 Installed: kmod-xfs.x86_64 0.4-1.2.6.18_53.1.19.el5 and the corresponding kmod-xfs module (2.6.18-53.1.19.el5) According to this, there is a mystery in May 11 16:06:03 because there WAS a kmod_xfs but it was 53.1.14, not 53.1.19 as updated kernel. too bad you rebooted 1 hour before the kernel-xfs module update. Tru -- Tru Huynh (mirrors, CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xBEFA581B pgp33QZqvymE7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Tru Huynh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:40:22AM +0300, Linux wrote: What a coincidence. That is the 1st time I live such a thing. Well, show me a way to prove. /var/log/messages ? Only a small part of it. This log is after update reboot: May 11 16:06:03 x kernel: XFS: failed to read root inode nothing more? Well, that is the only unexpected part. Just to show that XFS module was loaded for WRONG kernel. As you said, you newer saw before. According to this, there is a mystery in May 11 16:06:03 because there WAS a kmod_xfs but it was 53.1.14, not 53.1.19 as updated kernel. too bad you rebooted 1 hour before the kernel-xfs module update. When was kernel-xfs module updated in repository? Just that time? If so too bad CentOS folks do not update every piece of kernel as a whole in repositories. Where is integrity? If not, yum update does not update everything at once. I have to run yum update twice maybe more. First it will load kernel then see that a new kernel is available, will go and bring its modules... Still, it is a bit annoying and confusing. I am beginning to think whether XFS is really supported in CentOS :) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] broken GFS
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 04:20:46 Doug Tucker wrote: Tru, I work at a university. They don't provide enough money for test environments :). Just kinda odd, last time kernel update, gfs updated at the same time so all was well. But twice now kernel has upgraded with no GFS so it went bye-bye. Is the GFS being installed, compiled against particular kernel headers, or could I just copy the /fs/gfs and /fs/gfs_locking to the new kernel /lib/modules (or symlink for that matter) and be lucky enough it would work? From my experience, if the production server is running OK, and the update is not security-related, then there is NO NEED to update in your situation. If you DO want to update for whatever reason, test it first in a testbed. Trust me. It comes from a traumatic experience :) -- Fajar Priyanto | Reg'd Linux User #327841 | Linux tutorial http://linux2.arinet.org 07:51:43 up 54 min, 2.6.22-14-generic GNU/Linux Let's use OpenOffice. http://www.openoffice.org The real challenge of teaching is getting your students motivated to learn. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
