[gentoo-user] symlinks missing when distcc installed
I was wondering if anyone else has noticed this problem. I recently build 2 machines, and installed distcc on both of them. I followed the Gentoo Distcc guide to get everything set up. Then, it didn't work. Distcc did not distribute any compile tasks to the other computers. I tracked it down as far as I can. It looks like there are not any links from the /usr/lib/distcc/bin directory to the distcc binary. On a working machine, the contents of /usr/lib/distcc/bin are: lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 c++ - /usr/bin/distcc lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 cc - /usr/bin/distcc lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 g++ - /usr/bin/distcc lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 gcc - /usr/bin/distcc lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 i686-pc-linux-gnu-c++ - /usr/bin/distcc lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 i686-pc-linux-gnu-g++ - /usr/bin/distcc lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15 Dec 2 2003 i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc - /usr/bin/distcc On the two new machines, the directory was completely empty. For a short term solution, I created the links on the PCs that did not have them. I checked bugs.gentoo.org and could not find anything that seemed related. Has anyone else seen this? Is it a bug? Thanks -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] symlinks missing when distcc installed
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:52:41 -0500, Dave Nebinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then, it didn't work. Distcc did not distribute any compile tasks to the other computers. I tracked it down as far as I can. It looks like there are not any links from the /usr/lib/distcc/bin directory to the distcc binary. For a short term solution, I created the links on the PCs that did not have them. Great Abap! But did distcc work after these links were created? This came up as an issue before on the list but I don't believe anyone tracked down the source of the problem... Sorry, I forgot to mention that yes, with the links added manually, distcc worked fine. The just of what was happenning is that the path to the distcc links is put in your PATH variable at the start. This way, when cc (or c++ or gcc or ...) is to be executed, the appropriate link to distcc is executed instead. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] OT: Confustion over network performance numbers
Hi, I noticed that my network seemed slow at times (when copying files). I thought I would try to do a little investigation so that I could at least get some baseline numbers for future comparison. What I have found is rather confusing to me (I know enough about networking to barely be dangerous). I have 3 pcs hooked up together on a 100Mbs switch. Here is the basic setup: PC1 and PC2 have 100Mbs tulip based cards. PC 3 has a 1 Gps gigabyte card using the sk98llin driver. I used iperf to test the speeds between various PCs. Here are the results using iperf: PC3 to PC2 iperf -c blaster Client connecting to blaster, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) [ 3] local 192.168.123.183 port 33043 connected with 192.168.123.149 port 5001 [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec112 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec PC1 to PC3 iperf -c sonata Client connecting to sonata, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) [ 3] local 192.168.123.158 port 32957 connected with 192.168.123.183 port 5001 [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 87.0 MBytes 73.0 Mbits/sec PC3 to PC1 iperf -c atlas Client connecting to atlas, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) [ 3] local 192.168.123.183 port 33041 connected with 192.168.123.158 port 5001 [ 3] 0.0-10.3 sec408 KBytes323 Kbits/sec All of the other combinations show results above 74 Mbits/sec. What has me confused is that I can transfer a file from PC1 to PC3 at 73 Mbits/sec, but doing it in the opposite direction (PC3 to PC1), the rate is only 323 Kbits/Sec (although it has been as high as 5.8n Mbits/sec). Does anyone know why transferring files in one direction is 10 to 100 times faster, or if there is some ofther testing I can do to narrow down where the bottleneck is? Thanks, Kevin ps. PC3 is by far the faster PC I have. PC 1 and PC2 are 5 to 7 year old machines. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] simple backups
Another option for doing backups is snapback2. It uses rsync, and has some really nice features. I have contributed an ebuild, and it can be found on http://bugs.gentoo.org, just search on snapback2. Kevin On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:27:34 +, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:06:27 +, Steve wrote: Fair comment... I stand corrected that rsync/rdiff-backup are appropriate for backup of user files. This issue is an old one of trade off between being able to make fast backups and being able to recover quickly. IMHO the dd approach is still valid and useful as it is one of the few ways to ensure rapid disaster recovery. I agree that an rsync approach permits more frequent backups to be made for user files. Maybe a better recommendation would have been a combination of dd to take an image of the install - then rsync to keep regular copies of user files. I'd still disagree, rsync or rdiff-backup create an exact mirror of the file tree, so you have a backup that is extremely fast to restore from, especially for individual files. If I want an image of the partition, I'll use partimage as it is several orders of magnitude faster than dd and produces smaller archives. As a backup tool dd is about as friendly as backing up to punched cards :( OK - I also admit that partimage would be a superior choice to dd... I guess my only significant point is that a backup that quickly restores devices etc. is not addressed best by trying to copy files. I guess I inferred more from the original subject than you did. For a Simple Backup where you want to duplicate everything from one drive to another I remain convinced that you want to copy the partition(s) and not the files - whereas for a more ambitious incremental backup strategy of user files we agree that rsync/rdiff approaches may well prove superior. Among the complications involved with rsync one should consider the potential consequences of a hardware failure during an update phase; the possibility that a file is accidentally deleted and the backup is refreshed before the missing file discovered. For a mail server, I can't help thinking that the ideal solution would be some (possibly bespoke) mechanism to push emails from the primary server to a secondary server (or maybe just a secondary disk) as it arrives (possibly with a queue as necessary) and not to delete data from the secondary server when it is deleted from the first, but rather to archive the eldest data regularly in order to ensure the disks do not fill. This, however, could not be considered a simple backup by most. [Neil - you'd impress me by naming a tool that would do this 'ideal solution' without the need for writing bespoke scripts...] Do we still disagree? :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
