On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:59, Paul Lussier wrote:
However, now when backups are run, the system becomes completely
unresponsive from an NFS client perspective, and the load average
skyrockets (e.g. into the 40s!).
Does anyone have any ideas ? I'm at a complete loss on this one.
Have you tried
Bill McGonigle writes:
I've forgotten some 2.4 stuff but there was a big-mem version of the
2.4 kernel at one point to work around problems with too much RAM.
Ah, that's right. If you're going to run 2.4 with 1GB RAM you need to
apply the rmap patches or performance will get worse the more
On Thursday 30 November 2006 11:59 am, Paul Lussier wrote:
Before yesterday we were noticing lots of NFS drop-outs on the clients
(300+ of them) and we correllated this pretty much to the backups
(amanda). The theory was that local disk I/O was beating out
nfs-client requests.
I'm not sure
On 11/30/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is bizarre.
Spare memory will ALWAYS be used to cache. This is fine and 'normal'.
--
-- Thomas
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure the topology of your SAN,
It's not a SAN. It's direct-attached storage.
but can you connect another machine to the SAN with read-only access
to those filesystems to do backups without involving the NFS server
at all? -N
In
Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11/30/06, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is bizarre.
Spare memory will ALWAYS be used to cache. This is fine and 'normal'.
I was not implying that the use of spare memory as cache was bizarre.
I *know* that spare memory will be
Neil Joseph Schelly wrote:
On Thursday 30 November 2006 11:59 am, Paul Lussier wrote:
Before yesterday we were noticing lots of NFS drop-outs on the clients
(300+ of them) and we correllated this pretty much to the backups
(amanda). The theory was that local disk I/O was beating out
On Thursday 30 November 2006 01:51 pm, Paul Lussier wrote:
It's not a SAN. It's direct-attached storage.
Winchester OpenSAN FC-based RAID array
Isn't this the storage? I assume the description meant it was a SAN. What is
the topology of that FC network?
In theory, yes, in practicality,
Paul Lussier writes:
This is bizarre.
We've got an NFS server with Dual 3Ghz Xeon CPUs as our NFS server
connected to a Winchester OpenSAN FC-based RAID array. The array is a
single 1TB partition (unfortunately).
Before yesterday we were noticing lots of NFS drop-outs on the clients
Drew Van Zandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can you ask amanda to do bandwidth limiting? I'd think this would be
a standard feature...
Yes, at least with respect to network bandwidth. I'm not sure about
Disk I/O bandwidth. But I don't think it's an amanda thing, I think
it's a poorly tuned
Paul Lussier writes:
Yesterday we added 2GB of RAM and our memory utilization now looks like this:
active - 793M
inactive - 2.3G
unused - 213M
cache - 2.9G
slab cache - 194M
swap cache - 2M
apps - 71M
buffers- 313M
swap - 4.5M
When you are in
Dave Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kupdated?!?! A 2.4 kernel??!?!?
Ahm, yeah. Are you shocked at kupdated running with a 2.4 kernel
because it shouldn't be there with a 2.4 kernel, or shocked I'm still
running a 2.4 kernel?
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853
12 matches
Mail list logo
