Re: du vs df size difference

Ryan Pugatch wrote:
> 
> Oh, and no sparse files either :)

Last time I saw this issue, no sparse files, nothing legit, it was a 
corrupted FS. :(

--

-- 
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/

Re: Asterisk and VOIP was Re: CentOS for non-tech user

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@...> wrote:

> But even with old-school phone switches, your support contract would
> require software updates at regular intervals and unless you had
> redundant hot-failover equipment, that would involve scheduled downtime.

Not with Nortel. Patches were optional -- updates, new features and
additional licenses were sold as separate products. That's in the PBX
(Option) line of switches (almost all of which have been "dual core"
-- redundant -- for about 25 years). In the Key System switches
(Norstar), patches were unavailable, though you could buy keycodes to
enable additional features. If you wanted to update you bought a new
version of the software on a flash medium (if one was available).

Traditional telephone switches are expected to up 24/7 unless you are
doing a major upgrade -- and that's usually scheduled months in
advance. The goal is to achieve the "five 9s" (99.999% up time).

--

-- 
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.3

Re: du vs df size difference

Florin Andrei wrote:

> Last time I saw this issue, no sparse files, nothing legit, it was a 
> corrupted FS. :(
>

Well, if I mount to another directory the size is right.  My next step 
will be to fsck probably.

Ryan

Re: du vs df size difference

Clint Dilks wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> He means a situation where you have something this this
> 
> You create a partion lets say /dev/hda1 you use it as you / partition
> you create a directory called /data and copy some data into it
> You then have a second partiton /dev/hda2 and you mount /dev/hda2 off of 
> /data
> 
> This mean that the data originally copied to the /data directory on hda1 
> is still taking up space on hda1 but you cant see it.

In this case, if I mount my partition to, say, /mnt/tmp, it would still 
show the 'wrong' size.  In my situation, it did not, so that indicates 
this is not my issue.

Ryan

Re: SATA cards?

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:52 PM, ML  wrote:

> I have a server that is IDE drives and I dont have any so I wanted to
> put in a sata PCI card.
>
> Will CentOS be able to see the drives as they will be connected to the
> card?

That's certainly the goal!    In addition to the linux-ata link
already mentioned, you might review this CentOS mailing list thread
about cards:

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2009-September/082549.html

  -- Steve

Re: SATA cards?

At Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:31:11 -0400 CentOS mailing list
<centos@...> wrote:

> 
> If the SATA controller is supported then CentOS will be able to see
> the drives. You might have a look at
> http://linux-ata.org/driver-status.html

*Some* SATA controllers (at least NV's ahci on-board ones) seem to need
the irqpoll kernel option to work.

> 
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:52 PM, ML <mailinglists@...> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have a server that is IDE drives and I dont have any so I wanted to
> > put in a sata PCI card.
> >
> > Will CentOS be able to see the drives as they will be connected to the
> > card?
> >
> > -ML
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@...
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@...

CentOS Enterprise IPA (Identity, Policy, and Audit) Server

I have just completed building the RPMS for the CentOS Enterprise IPA
(Identity, Policy, and Audit) Server.

This is based on the sources from the Red Hat Enterprise IPA server.

Documentation can be downloaded here:

http://www.centos.org/docs/5/pdf/eipa/1.0/

The RPMS are located in the testing repository.

http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/SRPMS/CEIPA/

http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/i386/RPMS/CEIPA/

http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/x86_64/RPMS/CEIPA/

For anyone who wants to test EIPA, please install and provide feedback
on this thread:

http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3880

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@...

Re: CentOS Enterprise IPA (Identity, Policy, and Audit) Server

Neat!

Thanks!

-Kristopher Kane

Re: CentOS Enterprise IPA (Identity, Policy, and Audit) Server

On 09/30/2009 07:43 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I have just completed building the RPMS for the CentOS Enterprise IPA
> (Identity, Policy, and Audit) Server.
> 
> This is based on the sources from the Red Hat Enterprise IPA server.
> 
> Documentation can be downloaded here:
> 
> http://www.centos.org/docs/5/pdf/eipa/1.0/
> 
> The RPMS are located in the testing repository.
> 
> http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/SRPMS/CEIPA/
> 
> http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/i386/RPMS/CEIPA/
> 
> http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/x86_64/RPMS/CEIPA/
> 
> For anyone who wants to test EIPA, please install and provide feedback
> on this thread:
> 
> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3880
> 

I forgot to mention that the CentOS Directory Server is already part of
the regular CentOS Extras repository, and should install from there as a
dependency for CentOS EIPA

Re: OT: What's wrong with RAID5

On 09/24/2009 07:35 AM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
> 
> Am 24.09.2009 um 07:43 schrieb Fajar Priyanto:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> Sorry for the OT.
>> I've got an IBM N3300-A10 NAS. It runs Data Ontap 7.2.5.1.
>> The problem is, from the docs it says that it only supports either
>> RAID-DP or RAID4.
>> What I want to achieve is Max Storage Capacity, so I change it from
>> RAID-DP to RAID4, but with RAID4, the maximum disk in a RAID Group
>> decrease from 14 to 7. In the end, either using RAID-DP or RAID4, the
>> capacity is the same.
>>
>> Now, why RAID5 is not supported? I believe using RAID5, I can get more
>> storage capacity, can't I?
>> I also notice with some onboard RAID controller, they only support
>> either RAID0, RAID1, or RAID1+0. No RAID5.
>>
>> What's wrong with RAID5, is there any technical limitation with RAID5?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it depends on the disk-size:
> http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/technology/features/article.php/3839636

This info is VERY relevant ... you will almost ALWAYS have a failure on
rebuild with very large RAID 5 arrays.  Since that is a fault in a
second drive, that failure will cause the loss of all the data.  I would
not recommend RAID 5 right now ... it is not worth the risk.