Hello,
is anyone experiencing this ?
I have a sympa process (bulk.pl) which triggers this bug:
[ cut here ]
WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:5914 thread_return+0x232/0x79d() (Not tainted)
Hardware name: X8DTU-LN4+
Modules linked in: cpufreq_ondemand acpi_cpufreq freq_table mperf
Am 22.01.2012 14:08, schrieb Riccardo Veraldi:
> Hello,
> is anyone experiencing this ?
> I have a sympa process (bulk.pl) which triggers this bug:
>
> [ cut here ]
> WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:5914 thread_return+0x232/0x79d() (Not tainted)
> Hardware name: X8DTU-LN4+
> Mod
I'm getting the following warning in my logwatch,
or if I restart the spamassassin service.
I've tried yum-reinstalling the packages involved
but that didn't help.
---
/etc/cron.daily/sa-learn:
Subroutine IO::Socket::INET6::AF_INET6 redefined at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/Ex
Am 22.01.2012 14:22, schrieb Timothy Murphy:
> I'm getting the following warning in my logwatch,
> or if I restart the spamassassin service.
> I've tried yum-reinstalling the packages involved
> but that didn't help.
> ---
> /etc/cron.daily/sa-learn:
>
> Subroutine IO::
Hello all,
I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
the number of files: over 10 million each.
Now the machine is not particularly powerful: it is 64-bit machine, dual
core CPU, 3 GB RAM. So
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Riccardo Veraldi
wrote:
> Hello,
> is anyone experiencing this ?
> I have a sympa process (bulk.pl) which triggers this bug:
>
> [ cut here ]
> WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:5914 thread_return+0x232/0x79d() (Not tainted)
> Hardware name: X8DTU-
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
> backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
> the number of files: over 10 million each.
>
> Now the machine is not parti
On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:00 PM, "Hugh E Cruickshank" wrote:
> From: Les Mikesell Sent: January 17, 2012 05:56
>>
>> Big disks are cheap these days - I wouldn't worry that much about the
>> total space that much and you'll still be able to keep a lot online.
>
> This is true for current hardware ho
> Now the machine is not particularly powerful: it is 64-bit machine, dual
> core CPU, 3 GB RAM. So perhaps this is a factor in why I am having the
> following problem: once in awhile that XFS partition starts generating
> multiple I/O errors, files that had content become 0 byte, directories
> di
> Correction to the above: the XFS partition is 26TB, not 16 TB (not that it
> should matter in the context of this particular situation).
Yes, it does matter:
Read this:
*[CentOS] 32-bit kernel+XFS+16.xTB filesystem = potential disaster*
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-April/10914
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
> Correction to the above: the XFS partition is 26TB, not 16 TB (not that it
>> should matter in the context of this particular situation).
>>
>
> Yes, it does matter:
>
> Read this:
>
> *[CentOS] 32-bit kernel+XFS+16.xTB filesystem = potentia
>
> uname -a
> Linux nrims-bs 2.6.18-274.12.1.el5xen #1 SMP Tue Nov 29 14:18:21 EST
> 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> this is clearly a 64-bit OS so the 32-bit limitations ought not to apply.
>
Ok! Since you didn't inform us in your initial post, I thought I should
ask you in order to e
Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM
on a 64 bit system...
Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB
correspond to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
If you have a 64 bit system you should give it space to work properly.
___
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM
> on a 64 bit system...
> Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB
> correspond to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
> If you have a 64 bit system you should give it space to work properly.
... and the fact t
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM on
> a 64 bit system...
> Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB correspond
> to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
> If you have a 64 bit system you s
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that you should have more than 3GB of RAM
>> on a 64 bit system...
>> Since the width of the binary word is 64 bit in this case, 3GB
>> correspond to 1.5GB on a 32 bit system...
>> If you have a 64 bit system
>
> You are right - it would indeed be desirable to have more than 3 GB of
> RAM on that system. However it is not obvious to me that having that
> little RAM should cause I/O failure? Why? That it would make the
> machine slow is to be expected - and especially so given that I had to
> jack
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>
>
>> You are right - it would indeed be desirable to have more than 3 GB of
>> RAM on that system. However it is not obvious to me that having that little
>> RAM should cause I/O failure? Why? That it would make the machine slow is
>> to b
>I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
>backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
>the number of files: over 10 million each.
>
>Now the machine is not particularly powerful: it is 64-bit machine, dual
>core CPU, 3 GB RAM. So perhap
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> >I have a CentOS 5.7 machine hosting a 16 TB XFS partition used to house
> >backups. The backups are run via rsync/rsnapshot and are large in terms of
> >the number of files: over 10 million each.
> >
> >Now the machine is not particularl
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
> If this is only a 1-2 year temporary solution and the backups will be
> discarded once a permanent solution is obtained then I'm sure it will be OK.
>
> If your thinking of building a long-term backup solution this way then your
> buildin
On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x0026):
> Drive ECC error reported:port=4, unit=0.
> Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x002D):
> Source drive error occurred:port=4, unit=0.
> J
On Jan 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Boris Epstein wrote:
>
>> Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x0026):
>> Drive ECC error reported:port=4, unit=0.
>> Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0
On 2012-01-22, Boris Epstein wrote:
>
> Also, here's somethine else I have discovered. Apparently there is an
> potential intermittent RAID disk trouble. At least I found the following in
> the system log:
>
> Jan 22 09:17:53 nrims-bs kernel: 3w-9xxx: scsi6: AEN: ERROR (0x04:0x0026):
> Drive ECC e
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Keith Keller <
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2012-01-22, Boris Epstein wrote:
> >
> > Also, here's somethine else I have discovered. Apparently there is an
> > potential intermittent RAID disk trouble. At least I found the following
> in
> > the
Please verify you resolv.conf
João Rodrigues
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Hüvely Balázs wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I installed a squid 3.1.10.i686 squid to a centos 6.2i686. The proxy is
> working fine with the default config.
> After I decided to use it as a transparent proxy, I added two lin
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>> I'm getting the following warning in my logwatch,
>> or if I restart the spamassassin service.
>> I've tried yum-reinstalling the packages involved
>> but that didn't help.
>> ---
>> /etc/cron.daily/sa-learn:
>>
>> Subroutine IO::Socket::INET
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 15:50 -0800, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> We have been looking at implementing deduplication on a backup server.
> >From what I have been able to find the available documentation is
> pretty thin. I ended up trying to install LessFS on this CentOS 5.7
> box but we have now enco
On 2012-01-22, Boris Epstein wrote:
>
> The RAID is on the controller level. Yes, I believe the controller is a
> 3Ware 9xxx series - I don't recall the details right now.
The details are important in this context--the 9550 is the problematic
one (at least for me, though I've seen others with sim
Hello Phil,
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:39:03 -0500 Phil Schaffner
wrote:
> wwp wrote on 01/20/2012 09:56 AM:
> > Hello there,
> >
> >
> > I'm looking at different desktop activity types (in Desktop Settings),
> > and on my CentOS 6, I only have "desktop". No folderview, for instance.
> >
> > Does
30 matches
Mail list logo
