search for: vacuumed

Hi @ all Does anyone has some experience with PostgreSQL and RoR? Does it gives any disadvantages or problems with PostgreSQL? I have a webapplication, that manage (read/write) many records (no. 200''000 records) and I search a ideal database. Actually, I have two options: - MySQL / - PostgreSQL And now, I would like to ascertain a good solution... Thx, ribit -- Posted via

Hi, I?ve setup a simple ctdb cluster. Actually copied the config file from an existing system. Thats what happens: Node 1, alone Number of nodes:2 pnn:0 10.0.0.1 OK (THIS NODE) pnn:1 10.0.0.2 DISCONNECTED|UNHEALTHY|INACTIVE Generation:1369816268 Size:1 hash:0 lmaster:0 Recovery mode:NORMAL (0) Recovery master:0 Node1, after start of ctdb on Node 2 Number of nodes:2 pnn:0

On 08/12/2017 07:24 PM, Fred Smith wrote: > Well. overheating is possible... we don't live in the cleanest possible > house, AND we have cats. so, in general I open up this box twice a year > and vacuum out the house dirt and cat fuzzies. I'm probably overdue for > this task. Cleaning is a good thing to do, but not with a vacuum... the vacuum could loosen components, even

On 08/13/2017 05:18 AM, ken wrote: > Also, cowboys scoff, but I always wear a grounded wrist strap when > handling electronics. It's a good idea, especially in low-humidity climates. Also noteworthy: the air moving through a hose can cause a vacuum's hose or attachment to build up a static charge, which is another reason it can be a bad idea to use a vacuum in a computer.

Hello, I've got a two node CTDB/Samba cluster that I'm having trouble with trying to add back a node after having to do an OS reload on it. The servers are running CTDB 2.5.1 and Samba 4.1.4 on AIX 7.1 TL2. The Samba CTDB databases and Samba service work fine from the node that was not reloaded. The rebuilt node is failing to re-add itself to the cluster. I'm looking for

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 05:51:33PM -0400, Steven Tardy wrote: > > > On Aug 12, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Fred Smith <fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us> wrote: > > > > I had a series of kernel hardware error reports today while I was away > > from my computer: > > > > Message from syslogd at fcshome at Aug 12 10:12:24 ... > > kernel:[Hardware Error]:

Hi, I've started my own (first) package, part of which consists in listing common physical constants (Planck's constant, the speed of light in vacuum, etc). I'm wondering what would be a good way of dealing with pairs of value/unit. > constants <- list( cel = 2.99792458e8 , #m/s > Z0 = 376.730313461, #ohm > eps0 = 8.854187817e-12,#F/m > mu0 = 4*pi*1e-7,#N/A^2

Hi Bob, On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:44:30 -0700, Computerisms Corporation via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I set up a ctdb cluster a couple months back. Things seemed pretty > solid for the first 2-3 weeks, but then I started getting reports of > people not being able to access files, or some times directories. It > has taken me a while to figure some stuff out,

Hi Martin, well, it has been over a week since my last hung process, but got another one today... >> So, not sure how to determine if this is a gluster problem, an lxc >> problem, or a ctdb/smbd problem. Thoughts/suggestions are welcome... > > You need a stack trace of the stuck smbd process. If it is wedged in a > system call on the cluster filesystem then you can blame

Hi List, I set up a ctdb cluster a couple months back. Things seemed pretty solid for the first 2-3 weeks, but then I started getting reports of people not being able to access files, or some times directories. It has taken me a while to figure some stuff out, but it seems the common denominator to this happening is vacuuming timeouts for locking.tdb in the ctdb log, which might go on

Hi, This morning our CTDB managed cluster took a nosedive. We had member machines with hung smbd tasks which causes them to reboot, and the cluster did not come back up consistently. We eventually got it more or less stable with two nodes out of the 3, but we're still seeing worrying messages, eg we've just noticed: 2017/04/19 12:10:31.168891 [ 5417]: Vacuuming child process timed

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:17:27 -0700, Computerisms Corporation via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > This occurred again this morning, when the user reported the problem, I > found in the ctdb logs that vacuuming has been going on since last > night. The need to fix it was urgent (when isn't it?) so I didn't have > time to poke around for clues, but immediately

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 22:48:57 -0800, Computerisms Corporation via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > well, it has been over a week since my last hung process, but got > another one today... > >> So, not sure how to determine if this is a gluster problem, an lxc > >> problem, or a ctdb/smbd problem. Thoughts/suggestions are welcome... > > > >

CTDB Samba Team, I have a two-node cluster successfully running a GFS2 filesystem. I compiled ctdb ver 1.12 with Samba 3.6.3 for 64-bit systems. Running on RHEL 5.7. I was able to add the cluster to the domain but after I restarted CTDB, it panics right after doing a vacuum of the serverid.tdb database. The lock file is on the GFS FS so both nodes can access it. Any ideas as to what

Dr. Mikeal Hughes wrote: > Motherboard time. Netbook is probably a throw away issue. Cost more t to > repair than buy new. > >> On Jun 20, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Fred Smith <fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us> >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:34:30PM +0300, ????????? ???????? wrote: >>>> Can anyone of you provide further hints on what I should

Hi, This occurred again this morning, when the user reported the problem, I found in the ctdb logs that vacuuming has been going on since last night. The need to fix it was urgent (when isn't it?) so I didn't have time to poke around for clues, but immediately restarted the lxc container. But this time it wouldn't restart, which I had time to trace to a hung smbd process, and

Hi, I have a samba (3.6.20) + ctdb cluster running on FreeBSD 8.2 and recently it run into problems. log.ctdb increased very quickly and consumed 100% of the disk space, the log is full of message like: 2015/03/19 08:09:06.070897 [26053]: 00.ctdb: OPERATION: monitor 2015/03/19 08:09:06.278859 [26053]: 50.samba: [info] cy_samba_control monitor : 0 2015/03/19 08:09:07.054677

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:17:56 -0700, Computerisms Corporation via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > hm, I stand correct on the problem solved statement below. Ip addresses > are simply not cooperating on the 2nd node. > > root at vault1:~# ctdb ip > Public IPs on node 0 > 192.168.120.90 0 > 192.168.120.91 0 > 192.168.120.92 0 > 192.168.120.93 0 > >

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:55:45 +0100, Alex Crow via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > This morning our CTDB managed cluster took a nosedive. We had member > machines with hung smbd tasks which causes them to reboot, and the > cluster did not come back up consistently. We eventually got it more or > less stable with two nodes out of the 3, but we're still seeing

Hi Martin, Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply >> ctdbd[89]: Unable to get RECORD lock on database locking.tdb for 20 seconds >> /usr/local/samba/etc/ctdb/debug_locks.sh: 142: >> /usr/local/samba/etc/ctdb/debug_locks.sh: cannot create : Directory >> nonexistent >> sh: echo: I/O error >> sh: echo: I/O error > > That's weird. The only