Re: [CentOS] Anything Like Solaris' Live Upgrade?
On 01/28/13 21:27, James A. Peltier wrote: > - Original Message - > | Does anyone know of any sort of Linux utility that does something > | like > | what Solaris' Live Upgrade > | (http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-7933/index.html) does? > | > | In my past life as a Solaris sys-admin, I found this an extremely > | useful > | tool for upgrading and patching running systems, as well as for > | maintaining redundant boot environments on separate system disks for > | disaster situations. > > Nothing really until BTRFS comes of age. I suppose you could snapshot your > LVM volumes before performing the upgrade but to my knowledge there is > nothing similar to Live Upgrade for CentOS > It does sound like you can do the roughly the same with LVM snapshots. Reading the introduction of the solaris document you linked; it seems as if the solaris upgrade is applied on say a snapshot; and then the system is rebooted into the upgraded environment; and if it works, great, if not you need a reboot back into the original state. Wheras with CentOS 6; you take a snapshot of the root partition (easy as "lvcreate --snapshot --name RootSnapshot --size 2G /dev/VolGroup/Root"), and then do an upgrade with a reboot. If it works; you're set, if not, just revert back to the snapshot (lvconvert --merge VolGroup/RootSnapshot) and reboot; you'd be back to the state before the upgrade. -xrx ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Anything Like Solaris' Live Upgrade?
On 01/28/13 22:14, Tim Evans wrote: > On 01/28/2013 01:05 PM, xrx wrote: >> On 01/28/13 21:27, James A. Peltier wrote: >>> - Original Message - >>> | Does anyone know of any sort of Linux utility that does something >>> | like >>> | what Solaris' Live Upgrade >>> | (http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-7933/index.html) does? >>> | >>> | In my past life as a Solaris sys-admin, I found this an extremely >>> | useful >>> | tool for upgrading and patching running systems, as well as for >>> | maintaining redundant boot environments on separate system disks for >>> | disaster situations. >>> >>> Nothing really until BTRFS comes of age. I suppose you could snapshot your >>> LVM volumes before performing the upgrade but to my knowledge there is >>> nothing similar to Live Upgrade for CentOS >>> >> It does sound like you can do the roughly the same with LVM snapshots. >> Reading the introduction of the solaris document you linked; it seems as >> if the solaris upgrade is applied on say a snapshot; and then the system >> is rebooted into the upgraded environment; and if it works, great, if >> not you need a reboot back into the original state. >> >> Wheras with CentOS 6; you take a snapshot of the root partition (easy as >> "lvcreate --snapshot --name RootSnapshot --size 2G /dev/VolGroup/Root"), >> and then do an upgrade with a reboot. If it works; you're set, if not, >> just revert back to the snapshot (lvconvert --merge >> VolGroup/RootSnapshot) and reboot; you'd be back to the state before the >> upgrade. > Thanks. You also need to manage the grub and fstab configurations to > allow the second boot environment to be visible, bootable, and mountable. > > Are you talking about CentOS? There is no need to change the fstab or grub; the upgrade gets applied on the main volume (where the OS can be upgraded on the fly without a reboot if it works out; or optionally with a reboot if you want to be extra sure). The snapshot is only there if the update goes bad; in which case you'd run the merge command to revert back to the original state. -xrx ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Anything Like Solaris' Live Upgrade?
On 01/28/13 22:54, Tim Evans wrote: > On 01/28/2013 01:20 PM, xrx wrote: >> On 01/28/13 22:14, Tim Evans wrote: >>> On 01/28/2013 01:05 PM, xrx wrote: >>>> On 01/28/13 21:27, James A. Peltier wrote: >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> | Does anyone know of any sort of Linux utility that does something >>>>> | like >>>>> | what Solaris' Live Upgrade >>>>> | (http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-7933/index.html) does? >>>>> | >>>>> | In my past life as a Solaris sys-admin, I found this an extremely >>>>> | useful >>>>> | tool for upgrading and patching running systems, as well as for >>>>> | maintaining redundant boot environments on separate system disks for >>>>> | disaster situations. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing really until BTRFS comes of age. I suppose you could snapshot >>>>> your LVM volumes before performing the upgrade but to my knowledge there >>>>> is nothing similar to Live Upgrade for CentOS >>>>> >>>> It does sound like you can do the roughly the same with LVM snapshots. >>>> Reading the introduction of the solaris document you linked; it seems as >>>> if the solaris upgrade is applied on say a snapshot; and then the system >>>> is rebooted into the upgraded environment; and if it works, great, if >>>> not you need a reboot back into the original state. >>>> >>>> Wheras with CentOS 6; you take a snapshot of the root partition (easy as >>>> "lvcreate --snapshot --name RootSnapshot --size 2G /dev/VolGroup/Root"), >>>> and then do an upgrade with a reboot. If it works; you're set, if not, >>>> just revert back to the snapshot (lvconvert --merge >>>> VolGroup/RootSnapshot) and reboot; you'd be back to the state before the >>>> upgrade. >>> Thanks. You also need to manage the grub and fstab configurations to >>> allow the second boot environment to be visible, bootable, and mountable. >>> >>> >> Are you talking about CentOS? There is no need to change the fstab or >> grub; the upgrade gets applied on the main volume (where the OS can be >> upgraded on the fly without a reboot if it works out; or optionally with >> a reboot if you want to be extra sure). The snapshot is only there if >> the update goes bad; in which case you'd run the merge command to revert >> back to the original state. > Thanks, again. What you've described is sort of the bass-ackward to > what LU does. > > It creates one or more "alternate boot environment(s)," then newfs's it, > mounts it, copies the running system to it, then applies > upgrades/patches to it. It does not touch the running environment > (except to create a housekeeping database for the multiple boot > environments). The target boot environment is made bootable, and the > grub configuration is updated to include the second bootable > environment, and the /etc/fstab file on the second environment is > modified to reflect the disks/LV's it uses. > > The whole idea is not to touch the running system, apply changes to the > alternate system, then boot to the alternate when change is done. Once > the reboot to the new environment is done, you can further use LU to > replace the un-upgraded/un-patched original environment with a copy of > the new one. Right, but if the end result is being able to recover from a bad upgrade; they both do the job. In fact, I'd argue that what you described sounds a lot worse (in being complicated, & always requiring a reboot) than what CentOS 6 does for the same use case. If you're going to have downtime in the time required to reboot solaris, try out the upgrade, and reboot again if the upgrade was borked; then not touching the running environment isn't a huge advantage since you'd need to arrange a lot of downtime anyway. With CentOS, instead of the downtime being on a reboot; it will (or rather may) be during/after the update (yum does not take very long). If the update goes bad; then you can go back to the untouched environment with a merge & reboot. So the CentOS method could be a lot faster & easier overall. Is there any particular reason you prefer LU over snapshots if both can give you the non-updated environment, if required, at the end? -xrx ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Making a clone of an LVM-based EL5 install
Hi Ben, Off-list as Antonio had the same message, but I would HIGHLY recommend CloneZilla; it would only back up the used portion of the drive unlike dd (which would save you a lot of time), and it hasn't failed me yet in 5 years. I recommend the "alternative-stable" release; it has more drivers. http://sourceforge.net/projects/clonezilla/files/clonezilla_live_alternative/20130314-quantal/clonezilla-live-20130314-quantal-i386.iso/download (this is unrelated to the issue you fixed; clonezilla's image would also be missing the sata_nv driver) -xrx On 03/19/13 22:28, Lists wrote: > Thanks! > > Your reply in conjunction with a google search that found the below > website and resolved this completely! > > http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/CreateNewInitrd > > The final line being something like > mkinitrd --with sata_nv initrd-2.6.18-194.32.1.el5.img 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 > > -Ben > > On 03/19/2013 08:37 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> On 03/18/2013 03:36 PM, Lists wrote: >>> -) When booting from the newly imaged drive, it starts the boot just >>> fine but quits at: >>> >>> Activating logical volumes >>> Volume group "VolGroup00" not found >> The only reason that I can think of that would cause this is an initrd >> that doesn't contain the driver for the whatever adapter the disk is >> attached to. >> >> Boot the rescue image and identify the adapter module. When you've >> identified it, go back to the live system and make a new initrd using >> "--with ". Don't replace the existing initrd, just >> create a new one in /boot. If you then clone the disk, you should be >> able to boot the cloned disk to grub. Edit the kernel definition and >> change the path to the initrd, selecting the one you've created for the >> new system. It should boot properly, at which point you can replace the >> standard initrd path or fix grub's configuration file. >> >> ...and if you don't want to clone the system again, you can just boot >> the rescue environment, chroot to the sysimage, and make the initrd there. >> ___ >> 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
[CentOS] Network issue - Windows works but CentOS does not
Bcast:172.12.34.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::219:bbff:fe34:fa70/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:6800 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:34 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:4616962 (4.4 MiB) TX bytes:4827 (4.7 KiB) Interrupt:16 Memory:f600-f6012800 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:19:BB:34:FA:78 BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:16 Memory:fa00-fa012800 loLink encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > traceroute 172.12.34.1: traceroute to 172.12.34.1 (172.12.34.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 172.12.34.112 (172.12.34.112) 3000.686 ms !H 3000.673 ms !H 3000.661 ms !H > traceroute 172.12.34.112 traceroute to 172.12.34.112 (172.12.34.112), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 172.12.34.112 (172.12.34.112) 0.041 ms 0.011 ms 0.009 ms -xrx ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Network issue - Windows works but CentOS does not
On 10/27/12 21:54, xrx wrote: > I am having an extremely strange issue with a BL460c1 (G1) blade on a > c7000 enclosure. I could not for the life of me get the machine to ping > the gateway or any other blade on the same enclosure (yes, the subnet > mask was correct & quadruple-checked); although pinging to the local IP > works. I was almost convinced that it was a network or hardware issue; > until I asked someone to try installing Windows on that blade to verify > that it was not working as well; however to my surprise it worked fine > in Windows after installing the network driver; by just setting the IP > address (which was the same IP I was trying to configure CentOS with). I finally solved it; although a mystery remains. After getting a hint between differences in the network traffic between windows and linux, it turns out that if I specify the VLAN manually in CentOS; everything pings and works fine. However, the strange part is that Windows did not require specifying the VLAN. I grudgingly installed Windows myself to verify that it works out of the box (the settings show it's set to VLAN 0 or disabled). I did a wireshark comparison between Windows Server 2008 R2 & CentOS on the same blade. What's unusual is that although both have pretty much identical ARP requests down to the mac addresses, the reply for the Windows one is normal with no mention of the VLAN; while the reply for the CentOS one has a 802.1Q Virtual LAN header with the ID (which I guess CentOS does not understand when its network is not configured for VLANs; and so repeats the ARP requests several times). Anyway, I'm glad it's working fine now; hope this helps anyone in a similar situation at some point. -xrx ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
