On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 05:36:36AM +, KNOPS Manfred wrote:
> Hi digimer,
>
> Sorry, I made a mistake.
> "... After rebooting centos generates a device called /dev/et0. ..."
> should be
> "... After rebooting centos generates a device called /dev/eth0. ..."
>
> CentOS made it. I got what I wan
Hi All.
I have a CentOS server:
CentOS 5.6 x86_64
2.6.18-238.12.1.el5.centos.plus
e4fsprogs-1.41.12-2.el5.x86_64
which has a 11TB ext4 filesystem. I have problems with running fsck on it
and would like to change the filesystem because I do not like the
possibility of running long fsck on it, it'
On 27.09.2012 09:10, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> I have a CentOS server:
>
> CentOS 5.6 x86_64
> 2.6.18-238.12.1.el5.centos.plus
> e4fsprogs-1.41.12-2.el5.x86_64
>
> which has a 11TB ext4 filesystem. I have problems with running fsck
> on it
> and would like to change the filesystem because
We have a computing cluster running Sun Grid Engine, which
considers this value to check if a process exceeds the memory
limit or not. So somehow I'm bound to consider it.
I installed a machine from scratch with CentOS 6.2 x64, nothing
else, I open a terminal, I run this simple bash script and VIR
Dear all,
Dear support and users:
Sorry to trouble you! I configure the shorewall firewall to forward ftp and
ssh port to another server, but failed. Can you help me check?
I cannot login both SSH and ftp!
Below is my environment: (attachment is shorewall dump)
1. Gateway (F
On 09/27/12 1:52 AM, Nux! wrote:
> Never had to deal with such a large filesystem, yet, but I'd try XFS on
> it.
XFS is fairly memory intensive.11TB file systems tend to mean
millions and millions of files.
frankly, I wouldn't run this on CentOS 5.6, I would upgrade to CentOS
6.latest and t
>> Which other mature and stable filesystem can you recommend for such
>> large
>> storage?
>
> Never had to deal with such a large filesystem, yet, but I'd try XFS on
> it.
>
> Alternatively you can look at less supported filesystems such as BTRFS.
> Or even http://zfsonlinux.org/.
>
Since its fo
Am 27.09.2012 um 10:10 schrieb Rafał Radecki:
> Hi All.
>
> I have a CentOS server:
>
> CentOS 5.6 x86_64
> 2.6.18-238.12.1.el5.centos.plus
> e4fsprogs-1.41.12-2.el5.x86_64
>
> which has a 11TB ext4 filesystem. I have problems with running fsck on it
> and would like to change the filesystem b
Am 27.09.2012 um 10:58 schrieb muiz:
> Dear support and users:
> Sorry to trouble you! I configure the shorewall firewall to forward ftp and
> ssh port to another server, but failed. Can you help me check?
> I cannot login both SSH and ftp!
> Below is my environment: (attachment is sh
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Nux! wrote:
> Alternatively you can look at less supported filesystems such as BTRFS.
What do you mean by "less suported" ?
https://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/linuxcon-japan/bo
---
LinuxCon Japan 2012 | Presentations
"On The Way to a Healthy Btrfs Towards
On 9/27/12, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> So, again, what´dya mean by "less supported"?. It´s in the mainline
> kernel since February so with the adoption by RHEL 7, it´ll become
> mainstream sooner rather than later...
>
> Just my $0.02...
Thats the whole point isn't it. Until RHEL includes its (rat
You should upgrade to a newer kernel - there are lots of improvements
to ext4 since the rhel5 kernel...
rhel/centos 6 is a start but if you don't need rhel/centos you could
try Ubuntu 12.04 to see how the 3.2.x kernel handles it.
cheers
On 27 September 2012 10:47, joel billy wrote:
> On 9/27/1
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> Which other mature and stable filesystem can you recommend for such large
> storage?
>
>
I recommend XFS
BR Bent
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 27.09.2012 10:08, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/27/12 1:52 AM, Nux! wrote:
>> Never had to deal with such a large filesystem, yet, but I'd try XFS
>> on
>> it.
>
> XFS is fairly memory intensive.11TB file systems tend to mean
> millions and millions of files.
>
> frankly, I wouldn't run this
Definitely shoot for CentOS 6.3 ...
XFS with a kernel _more recent_ than 2.6.36 (currently shipped with
CentOS6) has more improvements to the XFS code. Youtube video on XFS
[0] - I believe the kernel version noted is 2.6.39 (watch the video!)
[2].
And there's also a Youtube video on BTRFS [1] th
On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>> Is there a way to make this work correctly?
> In addition, you should ideally applying the following patches for
> Static, Alternative Routes,
On 09/26/2012 10:16 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> Is there a way to make this work correctly?
> Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the
> "track" option in the "providers" file. It might be a good idea to use
> that to generate
From: muiz
> Sorry to trouble you! I configure the shorewall firewall to forward ftp
> and
> ssh port to another server, but failed. Can you help me check?
> I cannot login both SSH and ftp!
http://www.shorewall.net/FAQ.htm#faq1a
JD
___
C
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> Is there a way to make this work correctly?
>
> In addition, you should ideally apply
On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection.
> FTP is such a
> braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode.
> What really
> needs to happen is someway to tell the kernel to recheck the routing
> after S
On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> The routes-x.y-z.diff is a unified
On 09/27/2012 01:57 AM, Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste wrote:
> We have a computing cluster running Sun Grid Engine, which
> considers this value to check if a process exceeds the memory
> limit or not. So somehow I'm bound to consider it.
>
> I installed a machine from scratch with CentOS 6.2 x64, nothing
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> I understand it may not be very precise, however I still don't
>> understant the difference compared to other x64 ditributions,
>> under CentOS the value is 7 times higher!
This might explain it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
On 2012-09-27, John R Pierce wrote:
>
> XFS is fairly memory intensive.11TB file systems tend to mean
> millions and millions of files.
>
> frankly, I wouldn't run this on CentOS 5.6, I would upgrade to CentOS
> 6.latest and then I would use XFS support for EXT4 and XFS is
> rather sk
On 09/27/12 11:15 AM, Keith Keller wrote:
> I have also run xfs_repair on a 17TB XFS filesystem on a machine with
> about 4GB of memory. It ran fine in less than one hour (~30m IIRC; that
> filesystem is on CentOS 6).
with XFS at least (and probably ext4) what counts is how many files are
in the
On 2012-09-27, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/27/12 11:15 AM, Keith Keller wrote:
>> I have also run xfs_repair on a 17TB XFS filesystem on a machine with
>> about 4GB of memory. It ran fine in less than one hour (~30m IIRC; that
>> filesystem is on CentOS 6).
>
> with XFS at least (and probably ex
kernel 2.6.32-279.9.1.el6.x86_64 does not build from the source rpm's
using the UNmodified config file and following the directions explicitly.
Previous kernels build fine from the same directions. A little help from
the developers would be greatly appreciated.
while building I get this output:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Seth Bardash
wrote:
> kernel 2.6.32-279.9.1.el6.x86_64 does not build from the source rpm's
> using the UNmodified config file and following the directions explicitly.
> Previous kernels build fine from the same directions. A little help from
> the developers would
Current CentOS 6 is 2.6.32, not 2.6.36
In that XFS Youtube video, Dave Chinner says upstream 3.0 kernel or
RHEL 6.2 [at 45:20 of the video].
Other sources [0] [1] agree.
[0] http://lwn.net/Articles/476616/
[1] http://jira.funtoo.org/browse/FL-38
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
On Thu, S
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, S
Hi.
On one of my servers aide just reported inode changes to a large bunch of files
in a variety of directories, e.g. /usr/bin, /usr/sbin etc. This machine sits
behind a couple of firewalls and it would be hard to get to.
The day before I updated "clam*" and updated the aide database right afte
I have some clients that run centos6 and I need to have users be able to
access the "failsafe terminal" from the login screen. The old options (from
4/5) for choosing your session aren't present. I've googled a bit on this
but don't seem to be using a good search string as most of the hits have
thanks very much. JD
I study this FAQ 1a/1b before. but still failed:(
在 2012-09-27 21:51:32，"John Doe" 写道：
>From: muiz
>
>> Sorry to trouble you! I configure the shorewall firewall to forward ftp
>> and
>> ssh port to another server, but failed. Can you help me check?
>> I cannot lo
33 matches
Mail list logo
