Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread Goodwin, Derric
I think it is under 200 groups he belongs to. He is one of our security people 
and I think he is a member of almost all groups. The weird thing is other info 
security people (with large group memberships) can login and SU over just fine.



From: Linux on 390 Port on behalf of Mark Post
Sent: Wed 9/12/2007 5:48 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR



While not an answer to your question, and not trying to say it might not be a 
bug, I have to ask what the reason is for him being a member of so many groups? 
 If it is a bug, it needs to be fixed, but I'm wondering is there might be a 
better way to accomplish whatever is being done that requires so many group 
memberships.

Mark Post
 
-Original Message-
From: "Goodwin, Derric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Linux on 390 Port 

Sent: 9/12/2007 2:17:47 PM
Subject: LDAP & BUS ERROR

I have a batch of new SuSE 9 guests that authenticate via LDAP.

 

I have a problem with one and only one user. He is our security admin
and belongs to a lot of groups.

When ever he tries to log in or (as root) you try to SU to his ID we get
a BUS ERROR.

 

An strace on the command shows it bails in the set groups part of the SU
process.

 

Anyone seen this before? Any suggestions?

 

 

 



Derric Goodwin

Distributed Systems Integration

Acxiom CDC / TransUnion 

312-985-3312 / 312-247-0669

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390




--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Evans, Kevin R
Rob,

As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation of
our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give ant
further details on your comment below?

Thanks

Kevin

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob van der Heij
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:07 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: linux performance behind load balancer

On 9/13/07, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Finishing the thought, IBM's OMEGAMON comes to mind as well.  There's
more
> than one "decent" performance monitor Out There, so shop and compare.

But since that will present incorrect CPU breakdown per Linux process,
it may lead to wrong conclusions. ESALPS will correct the CPU usage
for virtualization effects.

Rob
--
Rob van der Heij
Velocity Software, Inc
http://velocitysoftware.com/

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Alan Altmark
On Friday, 09/14/2007 at 02:19 EDT, Rob van der Heij
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you *are* very right that performance monitor should be part of
> your Proof of Concept. We don't see a PoC fail these days because
> software does not work or cannot be found. We see it fail because
> people suffer from poor performance and have nobody to turn to for
> help in that new environment. So they get folks with Linux skills on
> discrete servers and they do all the wrong things because tuning with
> Linux on z/VM is rarely intuitive. Or folks using the wrong tools to
> measure and draw the wrong conclusions about the capacity of their
> installation and their TCO if they grow it.

Amen.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread Alan Altmark
On Friday, 09/14/2007 at 06:40 EDT, "Goodwin, Derric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is under 200 groups he belongs to. He is one of our security
people
> and I think he is a member of almost all groups. The weird thing is
other info
> security people (with large group memberships) can login and SU over
just fine.

The number of groups on setgroups() cannot exceed NGROUPS.  (And I don't
know where NGROUPS is set.)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread RPN01
I think, here at least, it would be a security red flag if the security
people asked to be added to a large list of groups. The security person
doesn't need access to the data in order to secure and monitor the data. I
think that you need to re-think how things are being done.

We handle patient data here. Our data security people are just as liable, in
terms of having access to something without the necessary authority and
'need", as anyone in data processing, or out on the hospital floor. The
government says that I can't have access to patient data, and that goes for
our security people as well.

--
   .~.Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation
   /V\RO-OE-5-55200 First Street SW
  /( )\   507-284-0844  Rochester, MN 55905
  ^^-^^   -
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but
 in practice, theory and practice are different."



On 9/14/07 5:38 AM, "Goodwin, Derric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think it is under 200 groups he belongs to. He is one of our security people
> and I think he is a member of almost all groups. The weird thing is other info
> security people (with large group memberships) can login and SU over just
> fine.
>
> 
>
> From: Linux on 390 Port on behalf of Mark Post
> Sent: Wed 9/12/2007 5:48 PM
> To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR
>
>
>
> While not an answer to your question, and not trying to say it might not be a
> bug, I have to ask what the reason is for him being a member of so many
> groups?  If it is a bug, it needs to be fixed, but I'm wondering is there
> might be a better way to accomplish whatever is being done that requires so
> many group memberships.
>
> Mark Post
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Goodwin, Derric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Linux on 390 Port 
>
> Sent: 9/12/2007 2:17:47 PM
> Subject: LDAP & BUS ERROR
>
> I have a batch of new SuSE 9 guests that authenticate via LDAP.
>
>
>
> I have a problem with one and only one user. He is our security admin
> and belongs to a lot of groups.
>
> When ever he tries to log in or (as root) you try to SU to his ID we get
> a BUS ERROR.
>
>
>
> An strace on the command shows it bails in the set groups part of the SU
> process.
>
>
>
> Anyone seen this before? Any suggestions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Derric Goodwin
>
> Distributed Systems Integration
>
> Acxiom CDC / TransUnion
>
> 312-985-3312 / 312-247-0669
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> --
> For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
> http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
>
> --
> For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
> http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
>
>
>
>
> --
> For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
> http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread Mark Post
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  6:38 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Goodwin, Derric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> I think it is under 200 groups he belongs to. He is one of our security 
> people and I think he is a member of almost all groups. The weird thing is 
> other info security people (with large group memberships) can login and SU 
> over just fine.

You didn't answer the question that I asked: what is the reason for him being a 
member of so many groups?  Or any of your security team, for that matter?  On 
most Linux systems I've seen, they are a member of _one_ group only.


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread Mark Post
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  8:10 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan
Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
-snip-
> The number of groups on setgroups() cannot exceed NGROUPS.  (And I don't
> know where NGROUPS is set.)

According to include/linux/limits.h:
#define NGROUPS_MAX65536/* supplemental group IDs are available */


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread Fargusson.Alan
I have been watching this discussion thinking I might learn something, and 
today I did.  I did some looking for NGROUPS, and I eventually found that the 
number of groups allowed can be determined by sysconf().  This implies that it 
can be changed by a configuration parameter.  Perhaps the program below can 
help determine the maximum on the failing system.

/*
 * Display the number of groups allowed.
 */

#include 
#include 

int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
long ngroups_max;

ngroups_max = sysconf( _SC_NGROUPS_MAX );
fprintf( stdout, "ngroups_max = %ld\n", ngroups_max );

return 0;
}


-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Alan Altmark
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:11 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR


On Friday, 09/14/2007 at 06:40 EDT, "Goodwin, Derric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is under 200 groups he belongs to. He is one of our security
people
> and I think he is a member of almost all groups. The weird thing is
other info
> security people (with large group memberships) can login and SU over
just fine.

The number of groups on setgroups() cannot exceed NGROUPS.  (And I don't
know where NGROUPS is set.)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: SLES10 SDK Installation Server

2007-09-14 Thread Tom Duerbusch
After enough playing around, I finally stubbed my foot on the solution.

>From SUSE's home directory (/home/suse) which is on a FTP server;

mkdir sdk
cd sdk
mkdir CD1
mkdir CD2
mkdir CD3
mkdir CD4
cd ..
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x-GMC-CD1.iso sdk/CD1
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x-GMC-CD2.iso sdk/CD2
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x,GMC-CD3.iso sdk/CD3
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10.SDK-s390x-GMC-CD4.iso sdk/CD4

And from Yast on the machine that wants the SDK:

1.  Forget about the Add-on Product.
2.  Under "Installation Source":
  specify Protocol: FTP
  Server name:  192.168.
  Directory on server:  sdk/CD1
  User name: suse
  Password: x

Now "Software Management" now picks up all four SDK CDs.

Yea, I know.  Everyone else "knows" this stuff .

Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting


FELINE PHYSICS:  
Law of Cat Inertia

  A cat at rest will tend to remain at rest, unless acted upon by
  some outside force - such as the opening of cat food, or a nearby
  scurrying mouse.


>>> Tom Duerbusch 9/12/2007 11:37 AM >>>
I have SLES 10 with SP1 installed.

The source is the DVD, iso image on a FTP server.
Everything installs fine and is really fast.

Now I want to add in the SDK (4 iso images to the FTP server).

For installation, the install userid is "suse".
So on the ftp server, the DVD is mounted as:
/home/suse/suse10

I currently have the 4 SDK images mounted as:
/home/suse/sdk1
/home/suse/sdk2
/home/suse/sdk3
/home/suse/sdk4

Well, using
yast
   software
  add-on product
I can specify the sdk1 directory and that works, but for only those packages on 
the first CD.

When I redo the "add-on products" to specify the second CD, to pick up the rest 
of the packages, I get:
File ./media.1/directory.yast not found on media:  ftp://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sdk2 

Right, it is not there.  It is on the first CD.

So, there must be a certain method of mounting the sdk CDs, so "add-on 
Products" can find the "media.1" directory plus get access to the other 3 CDs.

 Where is this documented?  This "add-on products" is new with SLES10 and seems 
to have a specific directory structure for all 4 CDs.  The "sles-admin.pdf" 
just shows how to use the sdks, not how to mount them.

  
Thanks

Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting


FELINE PHYSICS:  
Law of Cat Inertia

  A cat at rest will tend to remain at rest, unless acted upon by
  some outside force - such as the opening of cat food, or a nearby
  scurrying mouse.

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Mark Post
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  6:48 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Evans, Kevin
R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Rob,
> 
> As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation of
> our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give ant
> further details on your comment below?

Prior to the kernels used in SLES10 and RHEL5, the way CPU consumption was 
tracked by the Linux kernel didn't take into account that the system may be 
running in a shared/virtualized environment.  The (valid until LPARs, z/VM, 
VMware, and Xen) assumption in place was that the kernel was in complete 
control of the hardware, so any passage of time between the last clock value 
taken, and the current one, was assigned to whatever process was dispatched in 
the interval.  The problem being, of course, that the virtual machine/LPAR 
might not have been running at all during that time.  So, Linux could report 
that the CPU was 100% busy, when in fact it was only being dispatched, for 
example, 3% of the time.

Of the various performance monitors that were being marketed for mainframe 
Linux, only Velocity Software's product combined the Linux data with the z/VM 
monitor data, and normalized the Linux values to be correct.  (Obviously this 
only worked in an environment where z/VM was being used as the hypervisor.)  
This was a big factor in many cases of which monitor to choose.  Since the 
release of the "cpu accounting" patches, and incorporation into SLES and RHEL, 
that's no longer the case, unless you're still running SLES8 (Hi, Marcy!) and 
SLES9 (Hi, almost everyone else!), or RHEL3 or 4.  Now the decision is based on 
more traditional criteria, as opposed to being right or very wrong.

If you have a userid and password to access the SHARE proceedings, you can see 
Martin Schwidefsky's presentation on this at
http://www.share.org/member_center/open_document.cfm?document=proceedings/SHARE_in_Seattle/S9266XX172938.pdf

(I have no idea why I didn't ask Martin for a copy of that for the linuxvm.org 
web site.  Rats.)


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Marcy Cortes
(Hi Mark!)

That's the disadvantage of starting before everyone else and having too
many servers :)
At least I've killed the sles7's!

The problem with sles8 to sles9x is it's a new server.  That requires
the cooperation of the users.  They don't like to do that if everything
is all hunky dory.  They have other things to do (so they tell me).

I'm hoping sles9x to sles10x is a true upgrade and we can do it without
bothering the applications folks.  That's a project to figure out over
the holiday freeze, though.

I'm pretty sure all of production will be sles9x within the next 2
months - woo hoo!  The promise of better performance from WAS6.1 and
sles9x saving them a few IFLs is finally getting their attention.

(see you next week).

Marcy Cortes
 
"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."


-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Post
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:20 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer

>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  6:48 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Evans, Kevin R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Rob,
> 
> As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation 
> of our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give 
> ant further details on your comment below?

Prior to the kernels used in SLES10 and RHEL5, the way CPU consumption
was tracked by the Linux kernel didn't take into account that the system
may be running in a shared/virtualized environment.  The (valid until
LPARs, z/VM, VMware, and Xen) assumption in place was that the kernel
was in complete control of the hardware, so any passage of time between
the last clock value taken, and the current one, was assigned to
whatever process was dispatched in the interval.  The problem being, of
course, that the virtual machine/LPAR might not have been running at all
during that time.  So, Linux could report that the CPU was 100% busy,
when in fact it was only being dispatched, for example, 3% of the time.

Of the various performance monitors that were being marketed for
mainframe Linux, only Velocity Software's product combined the Linux
data with the z/VM monitor data, and normalized the Linux values to be
correct.  (Obviously this only worked in an environment where z/VM was
being used as the hypervisor.)  This was a big factor in many cases of
which monitor to choose.  Since the release of the "cpu accounting"
patches, and incorporation into SLES and RHEL, that's no longer the
case, unless you're still running SLES8 (Hi, Marcy!) and SLES9 (Hi,
almost everyone else!), or RHEL3 or 4.  Now the decision is based on
more traditional criteria, as opposed to being right or very wrong.

If you have a userid and password to access the SHARE proceedings, you
can see Martin Schwidefsky's presentation on this at
http://www.share.org/member_center/open_document.cfm?document=proceeding
s/SHARE_in_Seattle/S9266XX172938.pdf

(I have no idea why I didn't ask Martin for a copy of that for the
linuxvm.org web site.  Rats.)


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: SLES10 SDK Installation Server

2007-09-14 Thread Rich Smrcina

Which is what I suggested on August 14 (but in a much more general
sense).  Tom, if you didn't understand the answer you could have said
something instead of playing around for a month... :)

Tom Duerbusch wrote:

After enough playing around, I finally stubbed my foot on the solution.


From SUSE's home directory (/home/suse) which is on a FTP server;


mkdir sdk
cd sdk
mkdir CD1
mkdir CD2
mkdir CD3
mkdir CD4
cd ..
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x-GMC-CD1.iso sdk/CD1
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x-GMC-CD2.iso sdk/CD2
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x,GMC-CD3.iso sdk/CD3
mount -o loop,ro SLE-10.SDK-s390x-GMC-CD4.iso sdk/CD4

And from Yast on the machine that wants the SDK:

1.  Forget about the Add-on Product.
2.  Under "Installation Source":
  specify Protocol: FTP
  Server name:  192.168.
  Directory on server:  sdk/CD1
  User name: suse
  Password: x

Now "Software Management" now picks up all four SDK CDs.

Yea, I know.  Everyone else "knows" this stuff .

Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting


--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2008 - Chattanooga - April 18-22, 2008

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread barton

Forgive the soap box. This is old news.  Linux process data in any virtual 
environment is
wrong.  This was measured and presented in a production environment as off by 
order of
magnitude. This is true for all releases and distributions of linux.  ibm 
claims there is
a fix in sles10, this has never been validated in any presentation. i don't 
like claims
that sound suspiciously like vaporware.

Why is this data bad? it's useless.
1) imagine someone doing application tuning and using this data and thinking 
they've
improved their app performance - and their data is wrong, leads to wrong 
conclusion
2) system utilization high, logon to any linux using linux tools, you might 
think top is
the hog, but if the system utilization is high, you will make very poor choices 
of what
processes or linux server to kill
3) if you are making poc decisions based on this data, you will think the 
mainframe is dog
slow. this is bad for all of us and leads to poor financial decisions.

This gives a very good platform a bad image.

6 years ago when velocity software analyzed this, we found a way to correct and 
record the
process data. (for all linux releases and distributions) thus this data is 
useful for all
of the above. no other vendor (other than velocity software) has presented a 
solution for
this problem - and validated in any public forum.

So when i hear about installations planning on dependancies on garbage data, i 
think about
 how many people would drive cars without gas gauges or speedometers? was the 
used car
salesperson ethical in taking advantage of the naive buyer?






Evans, Kevin R wrote:

Rob,

As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation of
our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give ant
further details on your comment below?

Thanks

Kevin

-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob van der Heij
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:07 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: linux performance behind load balancer

On 9/13/07, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Finishing the thought, IBM's OMEGAMON comes to mind as well.  There's


more


than one "decent" performance monitor Out There, so shop and compare.



But since that will present incorrect CPU breakdown per Linux process,
it may lead to wrong conclusions. ESALPS will correct the CPU usage
for virtualization effects.

Rob
--
Rob van der Heij
Velocity Software, Inc
http://velocitysoftware.com/


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
begin:vcard
fn:Barton Robinson
n:Robinson;Barton
adr;dom:;;PO 390640;Mountain View;CA;94039-0640
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Sr. Architect
tel;work:650-964-8867
note:If you can't measure it, I'm just not interested
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://velocitysoftware.com
version:2.1
end:vcard



Re: SLES10 SDK Installation Server

2007-09-14 Thread Tom Duerbusch
Hi Rich

I looked back at the August 14th topicwrong topic.
The August 14th wasn't about SDK but about the install images and mksles10root, 
which based on advise, I went with the DVD flavor.  I agree, the DVD is much, 
much easier.

In the SDK part, what I was doing wrong, was mounting CD1, CD2, CD3 and CD4 
directly on the home directory (/home/suse/CD1 /home/suse/CD2 etc.).  The SDK 
CD1 was found, but it couldn't find the other CDs.  When I updated Yast to 
directly look for CD2, I got a "media not available" message.

Anyway, the key seemed to be "/home/suse/sdk/CD1  etc".  But what still bothers 
me, is that in "Installation Source", I still specify "sdk/CD1", which finds 
"sdk/CD2 etc".  

But with the prior mount structure "/home/suse/CD1", specifying the 
"Installation Source" of "CD1", wouldn't find "CD2 etc..".

But, with the different tangents I was on, there might have been something else 
not setup correctly.

Anyway, I had a request for "subversion", which was on the SDK.
The rest of the time was spent with DB2/UDB 9.1 under SLES10 SP1 with the beta 
of the new DB2/VSE.

Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting

FELINE PHYSICS:  
Law of Cat Inertia

  A cat at rest will tend to remain at rest, unless acted upon by
  some outside force - such as the opening of cat food, or a nearby
  scurrying mouse.


>>> Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/14/2007 11:43 AM >>>
Which is what I suggested on August 14 (but in a much more general
sense).  Tom, if you didn't understand the answer you could have said
something instead of playing around for a month... :)

Tom Duerbusch wrote:
> After enough playing around, I finally stubbed my foot on the solution.
>
>>From SUSE's home directory (/home/suse) which is on a FTP server;
>
> mkdir sdk
> cd sdk
> mkdir CD1
> mkdir CD2
> mkdir CD3
> mkdir CD4
> cd ..
> mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x-GMC-CD1.iso sdk/CD1
> mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x-GMC-CD2.iso sdk/CD2
> mount -o loop,ro SLE-10-SDK-s390x,GMC-CD3.iso sdk/CD3
> mount -o loop,ro SLE-10.SDK-s390x-GMC-CD4.iso sdk/CD4
>
> And from Yast on the machine that wants the SDK:
>
> 1.  Forget about the Add-on Product.
> 2.  Under "Installation Source":
>   specify Protocol: FTP
>   Server name:  192.168.
>   Directory on server:  sdk/CD1
>   User name: suse
>   Password: x
>
> Now "Software Management" now picks up all four SDK CDs.
>
> Yea, I know.  Everyone else "knows" this stuff .
>
> Tom Duerbusch
> THD Consulting

--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: 414-491-6001
Ans Service:  360-715-2467
rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina 

Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org 
WAVV 2008 - Chattanooga - April 18-22, 2008

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread barton

There are some issues with WAS right now that seriously impact Linux under 
z/VM.  Rob's
out of town, he can explain  better.  The problem is that the current JDK polls 
every
10ms.  this means the WAS servers stay in queue. We have been seeing the total 
to virtual
storage over allocation ratios that sites can attain have been dropping, traced 
it down to
servers not dropping from queue. Rob tracked it down to the WAS polling. We're 
hoping for
relief next year. So be careful about the performance feecher of 6.1.



Marcy Cortes wrote:


(Hi Mark!)

I'm pretty sure all of production will be sles9x within the next 2
months - woo hoo!  The promise of better performance from WAS6.1 and
sles9x saving them a few IFLs is finally getting their attention.

(see you next week).

Marcy Cortes


-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Post
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:20 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer



On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  6:48 AM, in message


<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Evans, Kevin R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Rob,

As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation
of our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give
ant further details on your comment below?



Prior to the kernels used in SLES10 and RHEL5, the way CPU consumption
was tracked by the Linux kernel didn't take into account that the system
may be running in a shared/virtualized environment.  The (valid until
LPARs, z/VM, VMware, and Xen) assumption in place was that the kernel
was in complete control of the hardware, so any passage of time between
the last clock value taken, and the current one, was assigned to
whatever process was dispatched in the interval.  The problem being, of
course, that the virtual machine/LPAR might not have been running at all
during that time.  So, Linux could report that the CPU was 100% busy,
when in fact it was only being dispatched, for example, 3% of the time.

Of the various performance monitors that were being marketed for
mainframe Linux, only Velocity Software's product combined the Linux
data with the z/VM monitor data, and normalized the Linux values to be
correct.  (Obviously this only worked in an environment where z/VM was
being used as the hypervisor.)  This was a big factor in many cases of
which monitor to choose.  Since the release of the "cpu accounting"
patches, and incorporation into SLES and RHEL, that's no longer the
case, unless you're still running SLES8 (Hi, Marcy!) and SLES9 (Hi,
almost everyone else!), or RHEL3 or 4.  Now the decision is based on
more traditional criteria, as opposed to being right or very wrong.

If you have a userid and password to access the SHARE proceedings, you
can see Martin Schwidefsky's presentation on this at
http://www.share.org/member_center/open_document.cfm?document=proceeding
s/SHARE_in_Seattle/S9266XX172938.pdf

(I have no idea why I didn't ask Martin for a copy of that for the
linuxvm.org web site.  Rats.)


Mark Post



--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
begin:vcard
fn:Barton Robinson
n:Robinson;Barton
adr;dom:;;PO 390640;Mountain View;CA;94039-0640
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Sr. Architect
tel;work:650-964-8867
note:If you can't measure it, I'm just not interested
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://velocitysoftware.com
version:2.1
end:vcard



Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Mark Post
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  4:11 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, barton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> There are some issues with WAS right now that seriously impact Linux under 
> z/VM.  Rob's
> out of town, he can explain  better.  The problem is that the current JDK 
> polls every
> 10ms.  this means the WAS servers stay in queue. We have been seeing the 
> total to virtual
> storage over allocation ratios that sites can attain have been dropping, 
> traced it down to
> servers not dropping from queue. Rob tracked it down to the WAS polling. 
> We're hoping for
> relief next year. So be careful about the performance feecher of 6.1.

It was Rob working with me on the Linux/390 wiki system that led him to the 
discovery that the IBM JDK was issuing 10ms sleeps.  It wasn't just in the 
newer versions of the JDK, it was in the 1.4.2 ones as well.  So, upgrading to 
a newer version of WAS and it's associated Java, shouldn't be any worse in that 
regard.


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Marcy Cortes
Production I'm not so worried about because it has adequate capacity (no
paging) and the servers run all the time anyway so don't drop from queue
because of real work.  They've benchmarked and measured (with Velocity
tools :) the differences betweens sles9x/was6 and sles8/was5 and see
significant differences.  We'll let you know for sure next week with the
real workload going through.

But this might explain the increased paging load on our test system,
which already was bursting at the seams.

Do you know what level of the JDK that started in? 


Marcy Cortes 
 
"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."


-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
barton
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 1:12 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer

There are some issues with WAS right now that seriously impact Linux
under z/VM.  Rob's out of town, he can explain  better.  The problem is
that the current JDK polls every 10ms.  this means the WAS servers stay
in queue. We have been seeing the total to virtual storage over
allocation ratios that sites can attain have been dropping, traced it
down to servers not dropping from queue. Rob tracked it down to the WAS
polling. We're hoping for relief next year. So be careful about the
performance feecher of 6.1.



Marcy Cortes wrote:

> (Hi Mark!)
>
> I'm pretty sure all of production will be sles9x within the next 2 
> months - woo hoo!  The promise of better performance from WAS6.1 and 
> sles9x saving them a few IFLs is finally getting their attention.
>
> (see you next week).
>
> Marcy Cortes
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Mark Post
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:20 AM
> To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
> Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer
>
>
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  6:48 AM, in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Evans, Kevin R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Rob,
>>
>>As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation 
>>of our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give 
>>ant further details on your comment below?
>
>
> Prior to the kernels used in SLES10 and RHEL5, the way CPU consumption

> was tracked by the Linux kernel didn't take into account that the 
> system may be running in a shared/virtualized environment.  The (valid

> until LPARs, z/VM, VMware, and Xen) assumption in place was that the 
> kernel was in complete control of the hardware, so any passage of time

> between the last clock value taken, and the current one, was assigned 
> to whatever process was dispatched in the interval.  The problem 
> being, of course, that the virtual machine/LPAR might not have been 
> running at all during that time.  So, Linux could report that the CPU 
> was 100% busy, when in fact it was only being dispatched, for example,
3% of the time.
>
> Of the various performance monitors that were being marketed for 
> mainframe Linux, only Velocity Software's product combined the Linux 
> data with the z/VM monitor data, and normalized the Linux values to be

> correct.  (Obviously this only worked in an environment where z/VM was

> being used as the hypervisor.)  This was a big factor in many cases of

> which monitor to choose.  Since the release of the "cpu accounting"
> patches, and incorporation into SLES and RHEL, that's no longer the 
> case, unless you're still running SLES8 (Hi, Marcy!) and SLES9 (Hi, 
> almost everyone else!), or RHEL3 or 4.  Now the decision is based on 
> more traditional criteria, as opposed to being right or very wrong.
>
> If you have a userid and password to access the SHARE proceedings, you

> can see Martin Schwidefsky's presentation on this at 
> http://www.share.org/member_center/open_document.cfm?document=proceedi
> ng
> s/SHARE_in_Seattle/S9266XX172938.pdf
>
> (I have no idea why I didn't ask Martin for a copy of that for the 
> linuxvm.org web site.  Rats.)
>
>
> Mark Post


--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or
visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread Mark Post
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at  4:57 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcy
Cortes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
-snip-
> Do you know what level of the JDK that started in? 

It's been around for a while.  The version I was running at the time Rob first 
investigated was an older 1.4.2 release.


Mark Post

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: LDAP & BUS ERROR

2007-09-14 Thread John Summerfield

Alan Altmark wrote:

On Friday, 09/14/2007 at 06:40 EDT, "Goodwin, Derric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think it is under 200 groups he belongs to. He is one of our security

people

and I think he is a member of almost all groups. The weird thing is

other info

security people (with large group memberships) can login and SU over

just fine.

The number of groups on setgroups() cannot exceed NGROUPS.  (And I don't
know where NGROUPS is set.)



07:57 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ find /usr/include/ -type f | xargs egrep
'define.*\<(NGROUPS|NGROUPS_MAX)\>'
/usr/include/sys/param.h:# define NGROUPS   NGROUPS_MAX
/usr/include/bits/posix1_lim.h:# define NGROUPS_MAX 8
/usr/include/X11/Xos.h:#define NGROUPS 16
/usr/include/linux/limits.h:#define NGROUPS_MAX65536/*
supplemental group IDs are available */
07:57 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$




--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please do not reply off-list

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390


Re: linux performance behind load balancer

2007-09-14 Thread John Summerfield

barton wrote:

Forgive the soap box. This is old news.  Linux process data in any
virtual environment is
wrong.  This was measured and presented in a production environment as
off by order of
magnitude. This is true for all releases and distributions of linux.
ibm claims there is
a fix in sles10, this has never been validated in any presentation. i
don't like claims
that sound suspiciously like vaporware.


Your own comments don't sound any better, to me. Are you claiming that
the accounting patches mentioned elsewhere don't work as claimed? Can
you support that claim?




--

Cheers
John

-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please do not reply off-list

--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390