Re: [sipx-users] Even fresher install of 4.6
You should always do a yum update to make sure the OS is up to date before a sipXecs install (if installing from RPM) or directly after install if installing from ISO. Also, fyi and just so folks remember, the ISO is not re-created with every build of the code, only when there is a release that the development team feels it's necessary. So a 'yum update' is very critical for ISO installs. Mike On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Albershardt k...@nv.net wrote: On Jul 9, 2012, at 18:52 , Tony Graziano wrote: I did the same install over the weekend without these kind of issues. Centos 6.2 minimal install. Set network info Yum install epel-release Yum update Reboot Yum groupinstall sipxecs I did use a vmware environment though. SINCE this is a Linux host, I think maybe you need a leap second fix for your kernel. Really, I think that's the problem. Waiting won't help. I didn't realize that a system built after July 1st and running ntp would have leap second vulnerabilities. I have experience with precision time broadcast television in the early 1980s and then a decade of working with SONET. Guess I don't understand some of the subtleties the *nix kernel brings to the table here. Could this be some kind of issue between clocks on the VM host and the child VM? ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ -- Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services eZuce, Inc. 300 Brickstone Square Suite 201 Andover, MA. 01810 O.978-296-1005 X2015 M.207-956-0262 @mpicher http://twitter.com/mpicher linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=35504760trk=tab_pro www.ezuce.com There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't. ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
Re: [sipx-users] Even fresher install of 4.6
As usual, I did the system update first: Built another Centos 6 VM from scratch this afternoon: Allocated 3 CPUs and 4GB of RAM to the VM ran 'yum update' and restarted VM. Completed 4.6 install per wiki. Still trying to understand how a leap second issue might affect a system installed, updated, and restarted _after_ July 1st? On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:48 , Michael Picher wrote: You should always do a yum update to make sure the OS is up to date before a sipXecs install (if installing from RPM) or directly after install if installing from ISO. Also, fyi and just so folks remember, the ISO is not re-created with every build of the code, only when there is a release that the development team feels it's necessary. So a 'yum update' is very critical for ISO installs. Mike On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Albershardt k...@nv.net wrote: On Jul 9, 2012, at 18:52 , Tony Graziano wrote: I did the same install over the weekend without these kind of issues. Centos 6.2 minimal install. Set network info Yum install epel-release Yum update Reboot Yum groupinstall sipxecs I did use a vmware environment though. SINCE this is a Linux host, I think maybe you need a leap second fix for your kernel. Really, I think that's the problem. Waiting won't help. I didn't realize that a system built after July 1st and running ntp would have leap second vulnerabilities. I have experience with precision time broadcast television in the early 1980s and then a decade of working with SONET. Guess I don't understand some of the subtleties the *nix kernel brings to the table here. Could this be some kind of issue between clocks on the VM host and the child VM? ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ -- Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services eZuce, Inc. 300 Brickstone Square Suite 201 Andover, MA. 01810 O.978-296-1005 X2015 M.207-956-0262 @mpicher http://twitter.com/mpicher linkedin www.ezuce.com There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't. ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
Re: [sipx-users] Even fresher install of 4.6
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Kurt Albershardt k...@nv.net wrote: As usual, I did the system update first: Built another Centos 6 VM from scratch this afternoon: Allocated 3 CPUs and 4GB of RAM to the VM ran 'yum update' and restarted VM. Completed 4.6 install per wiki. Still trying to understand how a leap second issue might affect a system installed, updated, and restarted _after_ July 1st? Was the VM created before July 1st? I think run into something similar when I reverted a snapshot / re installed 4.6.0. Check if ntpd up and running and time in sync George ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
[sipx-users] Even fresher install of 4.6
Built another Centos 6 VM from scratch this afternoon: Allocated 3 CPUs and 4GB of RAM to the VM ran 'yum update' and restarted VM. Competed 4.6 install per wiki. ran sipxecs-setup, answered questions, got: Configuring system, this may take a few minutes... then for the next ~50 minutes, memory usage on the VM stayed at 2.76GB and CPU at 52-53% (of 3 CPUs.) then memory jumped to 3.99GB, java restarted several times with lower CPU and RAM numbers. after about 5 minutes, sipxecs-setup ended with the expected: done. Now I see a similar java CPU load as the previous VM install had: 5084 sipx 20 0 3014m 546m 13m S 227.0 13.3 9:07.83 java [root@sipx ~]# ps aux -ww | grep 5084 sipx 5084 211 13.3 3086832 559556 ? Ssl 17:41 11:44 /usr/bin/java -Dcom.ibm.tools.attach.enable=no -Dprocname=sipxconfig -XX:MaxPermSize=128M -Xmx1024m -Djava.io.tmpdir=/var/sipxdata/tmp -Djetty.lib.dir=/usr/share/java/sipXecs/sipXconfig -Djetty.conf.dir=/etc/sipxpbx -Djetty.log.dir=/var/log/sipxpbx -Dorg.apache.lucene.lockdir=/var/sipxdata/tmp/index -Dorg.apache.commons.loging.Log=org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JLogger -Djava.awt.headless=true org.mortbay.jetty.Server /etc/sipxpbx/sipxconfig-jetty.xml root 6142 0.0 0.0 103240 864 pts/0S+ 17:47 0:00 grep 5084 [root@sipx ~]# Note that I have not connected to the machine via HTTP yet - no config has even begun. I'm going to let this one cook overnight as well... ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
Re: [sipx-users] Even fresher install of 4.6
I did the same install over the weekend without these kind of issues. Centos 6.2 minimal install. Set network info Yum install epel-release Yum update Reboot Yum groupinstall sipxecs I did use a vmware environment though. SINCE this is a Linux host, I think maybe you need a leap second fix for your kernel. Really, I think that's the problem. Waiting won't help. On Jul 9, 2012 7:52 PM, Kurt Albershardt k...@nv.net wrote: Built another Centos 6 VM from scratch this afternoon: Allocated 3 CPUs and 4GB of RAM to the VM ran 'yum update' and restarted VM. Competed 4.6 install per wiki. ran sipxecs-setup, answered questions, got: Configuring system, this may take a few minutes... then for the next ~50 minutes, memory usage on the VM stayed at 2.76GB and CPU at 52-53% (of 3 CPUs.) then memory jumped to 3.99GB, java restarted several times with lower CPU and RAM numbers. after about 5 minutes, sipxecs-setup ended with the expected: done. Now I see a similar java CPU load as the previous VM install had: 5084 sipx 20 0 3014m 546m 13m S 227.0 13.3 9:07.83 java [root@sipx ~]# ps aux -ww | grep 5084 sipx 5084 211 13.3 3086832 559556 ? Ssl 17:41 11:44 /usr/bin/java -Dcom.ibm.tools.attach.enable=no -Dprocname=sipxconfig -XX:MaxPermSize=128M -Xmx1024m -Djava.io.tmpdir=/var/sipxdata/tmp -Djetty.lib.dir=/usr/share/java/sipXecs/sipXconfig -Djetty.conf.dir=/etc/sipxpbx -Djetty.log.dir=/var/log/sipxpbx -Dorg.apache.lucene.lockdir=/var/sipxdata/tmp/index -Dorg.apache.commons.loging.Log=org.apache.commons.logging.impl.Log4JLogger -Djava.awt.headless=true org.mortbay.jetty.Server /etc/sipxpbx/sipxconfig-jetty.xml root 6142 0.0 0.0 103240 864 pts/0S+ 17:47 0:00 grep 5084 [root@sipx ~]# Note that I have not connected to the machine via HTTP yet - no config has even begun. I'm going to let this one cook overnight as well... ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ -- LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 sip: helpd...@voice.myitdepartment.net Helpdesk Customers: http://myhelp.myitdepartment.net Blog: http://blog.myitdepartment.net ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
Re: [sipx-users] Even fresher install of 4.6
On Jul 9, 2012, at 18:52 , Tony Graziano wrote: I did the same install over the weekend without these kind of issues. Centos 6.2 minimal install. Set network info Yum install epel-release Yum update Reboot Yum groupinstall sipxecs I did use a vmware environment though. SINCE this is a Linux host, I think maybe you need a leap second fix for your kernel. Really, I think that's the problem. Waiting won't help. I didn't realize that a system built after July 1st and running ntp would have leap second vulnerabilities. I have experience with precision time broadcast television in the early 1980s and then a decade of working with SONET. Guess I don't understand some of the subtleties the *nix kernel brings to the table here. Could this be some kind of issue between clocks on the VM host and the child VM? ___ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
