On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:16 PM, wrote:
> Matt Garman wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Larry Martell
>> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Larry Martell
>> wrote:
>>> Well I spoke too soon. The importer (the one that was initially
>>> hanging that I came here to fix) hung
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>> This site is locked down like no other I have ever seen. You cannot
>> bring anything into the site - no computers, no media, no phone. You
>> ...
>> This is my client's client, and
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Messmer
wrote:
> On 10/26/2016 09:54 PM, Larry Martell wrote:
>>
>> And on the C6 client there is a similar blocked message for the ftp
>> job, blocked on nfs_flush, then the bad sequence number message I had
>> seen before, and at that point the ftp_job hu
Matt Garman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>> Well I spoke too soon. The importer (the one that was initially
>> hanging that I came here to fix) hung up after running 20 hours. There
>> were no NFS erro
On 27/10/16 21:23, Matt Garman wrote:
>
> If you have the ability to take these systems offline temporarily, you
> can also run "fsck" (file system check) on the C6 and C7 file systems.
> IIRC, ext4 can do a very basic kind of check on a mounted filesystem.
> But a deeper/more comprehensive scan
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> This site is locked down like no other I have ever seen. You cannot
> bring anything into the site - no computers, no media, no phone. You
> ...
> This is my client's client, and even if I could circumvent their
> policy I would not do that.
On 10/26/2016 09:54 PM, Larry Martell wrote:
And on the C6 client there is a similar blocked message for the ftp
job, blocked on nfs_flush, then the bad sequence number message I had
seen before, and at that point the ftp_job hung.
Are any of these systems using jumbo frames? Check the MTU in
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Matt Garman wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Larry Martell
>> wrote:
>>> Again, no machine on the internal network that my 2 CentOS hosts are
>>> on are connected to the internet. I have no way to
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>> Again, no machine on the internal network that my 2 CentOS hosts are
>> on are connected to the internet. I have no way to download anything.,
>> There is an onerous and protracted pr
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:51 AM, mark wrote:
> On 10/24/16 03:52, Larry Martell wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> Larry Martell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>
> Larry Martell wrote:
>>
>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7
I am sorry, I am stepping into the conversation late and may not fully
understand all aspects of the situation but I wonder if it may make sense
to set up a server process on the NFS server machine that simply listens
for incoming requests to perform a file copy and then does so as requested
- only
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Larry Martell wrote:
> Again, no machine on the internal network that my 2 CentOS hosts are
> on are connected to the internet. I have no way to download anything.,
> There is an onerous and protracted process to get files into the
> internal network and I will see
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>> The machines are on a local network. I access them with putty from a
>> windows machine, but I have to be at the site to do that.
>
> So that means when you are offsite there is no w
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Larry Martell wrote:
> The machines are on a local network. I access them with putty from a
> windows machine, but I have to be at the site to do that.
So that means when you are offsite there is no way to access either
machine? Does anyone have a means to access
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>>> At any rate, what I was looking at was seeing if there was any way to
>>> simplify this process, and cut NFS out of the picture. If you need
>>> only to push these files around, wha
Another alternative idea: you probably won't be comfortable with this,
but check out systemd-nspawn. There are lots of examples online, and
even I wrote about how I use it:
http://raw-sewage.net/articles/fedora-under-centos/
This is unfortunately another "sysadmin" solution to your problem.
n
On 10/24/2016 07:29 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
As I noted in my original repost, that it needs to be on a UPS
Ah. I see that now. Still, may I suggest that whenever we recommend
remedies that eliminate reliability measures, such as mounting with
"nobarrier", we also repeat caveats so that
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Larry Martell wrote:
>> At any rate, what I was looking at was seeing if there was any way to
>> simplify this process, and cut NFS out of the picture. If you need
>> only to push these files around, what about rsync?
>
> It's not just moving files around. The fil
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>>> To be clear: the python script is moving files on the same NFS file
>>> system? E.g., something like
>>>
>>> mv /mnt/nfs-server/dir1/file /mnt/nfs-server/dir2/file
>>>
>>> where
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
>> To be clear: the python script is moving files on the same NFS file
>> system? E.g., something like
>>
>> mv /mnt/nfs-server/dir1/file /mnt/nfs-server/dir2/file
>>
>> where /mnt/nfs-server is the mount point of the NFS server on the
>>
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 04:51 AM, mark wrote:
>> Absolutely add nobarrier, and see what happens.
>
> Using "nobarrier" might increase overall write throughput, but it
> removes an important integrity feature, increasing the risk of
> filesystem corruption on power loss. I wouldn't re
On 10/24/2016 04:51 AM, mark wrote:
Absolutely add nobarrier, and see what happens.
Using "nobarrier" might increase overall write throughput, but it
removes an important integrity feature, increasing the risk of
filesystem corruption on power loss. I wouldn't recommend doing that
unless y
On 10/24/16 03:52, Larry Martell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
Larry Martell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
Larry Martell wrote:
We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
external machines that FTP files to this server fairly
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> Hi Matt-
>
> Thank you for this very detailed and thoughtful reply.
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Larry Martell
>> wrote:
>>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS se
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
> Larry Martell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>>> Larry Martell wrote:
We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
external machines that FTP files to this server fairly continuously.
We
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> Hi Matt-
>
> Thank you for this very detailed and thoughtful reply.
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Larry Martell
>> wrote:
>>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS se
Hi Matt-
Thank you for this very detailed and thoughtful reply.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Matt Garman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Larry Martell
> wrote:
>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
>> external machines that FTP files to this ser
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
> external machines that FTP files to this server fairly continuously.
>
> We have another system running Centos6 that mounts the partition the files
> are FTP-ed to using
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:55 PM, wrote:
> Larry Martell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
>>> Larry Martell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
> Larry Martell wrote:
>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are
> 50 external
Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
>> Larry Martell wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
Larry Martell wrote:
> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are
50 external machines that FTP files to this server fairly
conti
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, wrote:
> Larry Martell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>>> Larry Martell wrote:
We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
external machines that FTP files to this server fairly continuously.
We
Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
>> Larry Martell wrote:
>>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
>>> external machines that FTP files to this server fairly continuously.
>>>
>>> We have another system running Centos6 that mounts the
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:21 AM, wrote:
> Larry Martell wrote:
>> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
>> external machines that FTP files to this server fairly continuously.
>>
>> We have another system running Centos6 that mounts the partition the files
>> are
Larry Martell wrote:
> We have 1 system ruining Centos7 that is the NFS server. There are 50
> external machines that FTP files to this server fairly continuously.
>
> We have another system running Centos6 that mounts the partition the files
> are FTP-ed to using NFS.
What filesystem?
mark
34 matches
Mail list logo
