I just decided to do some quick tests on my system, and here's what I got...
The setup is kernel 2.6.18-92.1.13.elPAE (it's an older machine, so
this may be part of the problem). It's got a 4GB FC HBA connected to
an EMC AX4 that is definitely not optimized.
Anyway, the hardware doesn't change be
I'd far rather package RPMs than DEBs. Maybe I've only found bad
tutorials for DEBs but I've consistently found them to be a huge
headache. RPMs mostly I'm creating newer versions of software that has
existing RPMs so it's usually just a case of nabbing the old SRPM and
then just modifying th
For the times where whatever application EXPRESSLY NEEDS (emphasis
mine, usually) a newer version of the software (or $DEITY forbid, an
unsupported package), I can usually find it in EPEL (with
yum-priorities configured, please), and if it isn't there, then I
usually package my own version from the
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:50:15AM -0800, da...@lang.hm spake thusly:
> yes, I would expect that in a virtual machine you are best off with noop
> as well, the host is going to have it's own scheduler for real disk I/O,
> and so all that logic is a waste of time for the guest.
I just checked my
On 16/12/10 11:50 -0800, da...@lang.hm wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. I wonder if this will make a difference for
>> machines running on vmware through a vmdk file system? In my email
>> server case, it was a direct connection to a lun on the SAN.
>
>
"JB" == John Broome
JB> "But centos and RHEL are so 'outdated' " i hear cry across
JB> the list.
JB> Take a look at
JB> http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
JB> and you should be able to track down current versions of
JB> what you need.
The two we use
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I wonder if this will make a difference for
> machines running on vmware through a vmdk file system? In my email
> server case, it was a direct connection to a lun on the SAN.
Some years ago I read some doco from VMWare about opti
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Michael C Tiernan wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: da...@lang.hm
>
>> the other big thing is that the CFQ scheduler is really designed to
>> optimize for single rotational disks.
> What about software RAIDed disks?
>
> Does anyone know of any references for optim
On 12/16/2010 09:20 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2010-12-16 at 13:28 -0500, Brian Mathis wrote:
>> P.S. If you have servers that can go down and it's not a big deal,
>> then you are wasting company resources and your time. Either the
>> business needs it or it doesn't.
> Or you've designed your ar
- Original Message -
> From: da...@lang.hm
> the other big thing is that the CFQ scheduler is really designed to
> optimize for single rotational disks.
What about software RAIDed disks?
Does anyone know of any references for optimum performance configurations?
--
<< MCT >> Michael
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I wonder if this will make a difference for
> machines running on vmware through a vmdk file system? In my email
> server case, it was a direct connection to a lun on the SAN.
yes, I would expect that in a virtual machine you are
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2010-12-16 at 13:28 -0500, Brian Mathis wrote:
>> P.S. If you have servers that can go down and it's not a big deal,
>> then you are wasting company resources and your time. Either the
>> business needs it or it doesn't.
>
> Or you've desi
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Edmund White wrote:
> Would that also include devices like recent HP Smart Array controllers
> with 512MB-1024MB flash-backed cache?
just about anything with persistant cache is best served with noop.
I'm a little less sure about plain SSD drives being best served by noop, I
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 13:43 -0500, Allan West wrote:
>> I'm getting tired of,
>> "version x+2 has been out for months," as a reason for package requests
>> far beyond the RHEL, or even CentOS, current version.
>
> I don't have much a problem with th
John & David,
Thanks for the info. I wonder if this will make a difference for
machines running on vmware through a vmdk file system? In my email
server case, it was a direct connection to a lun on the SAN.
cheers,
ski
On 12/16/2010 11:17 AM, Jonathan Nicol wrote:
> Agreed, I've done a fair
On 2010-12-16 at 13:28 -0500, Brian Mathis wrote:
> P.S. If you have servers that can go down and it's not a big deal,
> then you are wasting company resources and your time. Either the
> business needs it or it doesn't.
Or you've designed your architecture well enough to be able to lose any
sing
Agreed, I've done a fair amount of testing on this and found that NOOP
always performs better with SANs. I always use it for Amazon EBS
volumes. On local disks I haven't found much difference between CFQ
(RedHat default) and Deadline (Ubuntu default), I imagine this depends
on your workload
Would that also include devices like recent HP Smart Array controllers
with 512MB-1024MB flash-backed cache?
--
Edmund White
ewwh...@mac.com
On 12/16/10 1:00 PM, "da...@lang.hm" wrote:
>the other big thing is that the CFQ scheduler is really designed to
>optimize for single rotational disks.
the other big thing is that the CFQ scheduler is really designed to
optimize for single rotational disks.
when you are on a SAN, raid card, SSD or anything that doesn't behave the
same way, the optimizations that CFQ does become wasted time and overhead
(including introducing delays that have l
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> Yes, please do yourself, the next sysadmin, and the whole IT industry
> a favor and use a server-centric distro. Fedora and Ubuntu are nice
> for the desktop, but running a server is not just a simple matter of
> getting the most recent pack
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 13:43 -0500, Allan West wrote:
> On 12/16/10 1:15 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 12:35 -0500, Brian Mathis wrote:
> >> Yes, please do yourself, the next sysadmin, and the whole IT industry
> >> a favor and use a server-centric distro.
> > +1
> > Use
Hi,
We have a communigate pro email server. For some time now we have had
issues where it was limited to about 800 IOPs and we could not figure
out what was going on. Well it fell off the cliff yesterday and we
tried everything. Today on a whim, I changed the I/O scheduler from CFQ
to NOOP
On 12/16/10 1:15 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 12:35 -0500, Brian Mathis wrote:
>> Yes, please do yourself, the next sysadmin, and the whole IT industry
>> a favor and use a server-centric distro.
>
> +1
>
> Use CentOS
>
>> Fedora and Ubuntu are nice
>> for the desktop
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 12:35 -0500, Brian Mathis wrote:
> Yes, please do yourself, the next sysadmin, and the whole IT industry
> a favor and use a server-centric distro.
+1
Use CentOS
> Fedora and Ubuntu are nice
> for the desktop, but running a server is not just a simple matter of
> getting
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
What are people recommending for whole system backups for macs?
Must be able to do the whole system, with exclusions, silently in
the background, with low enough priority that users don't complain
about resource hogging. Must be able to save backup
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
> On 10-12-16 09:32 AM, Matt Simmons wrote:
>> I'm against Fedora servers for a bunch of reasons, but the most
>> pressing is that their stability of package selection is not what I'd
>> call spectacular.
>>
>> It's much better, in my opinion,
On 10-12-16 09:32 AM, Matt Simmons wrote:
> I'm against Fedora servers for a bunch of reasons, but the most
> pressing is that their stability of package selection is not what I'd
> call spectacular.
>
> It's much better, in my opinion, to go with something like CentOS (or
> Scientific Linux), whic
Yes, please do yourself, the next sysadmin, and the whole IT industry
a favor and use a server-centric distro. Fedora and Ubuntu are nice
for the desktop, but running a server is not just a simple matter of
getting the most recent packages.
Stability and long term support are keys to running a se
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:32, Matt Simmons
wrote:
> I'm against Fedora servers for a bunch of reasons, but the most
> pressing is that their stability of package selection is not what I'd
> call spectacular.
>
> It's much better, in my opinion, to go with something like CentOS (or
> Scientific Li
I'm against Fedora servers for a bunch of reasons, but the most
pressing is that their stability of package selection is not what I'd
call spectacular.
It's much better, in my opinion, to go with something like CentOS (or
Scientific Linux), which is a RHEL-clone, than with what is
essentially the
On 10-12-16 08:22 AM, John BORIS wrote:
> to upgrade one of my older Fedora servers. I go to the Web Site and it
> looks like it now Desktop centric. No where on the site do I see a
> mention of a server. Now I would assume, which is a bad thing to do,
I just went to their web site, and I suspect
I guess I have been in another world for the past year or so. I am
working on a project here and went to get the latest version of Fedora
to upgrade one of my older Fedora servers. I go to the Web Site and it
looks like it now Desktop centric. No where on the site do I see a
mention of a server. No
32 matches
Mail list logo
