Hi All, after looking around for info on XFS(the filesystem) and its use on CentOS and/or RHEL 4. There seems to be a lot of noise about 4K Stacks (especially on linux-xfs at oss.sgi.com). So what is the best way to get XFS working with CentOS 4.3 ? And not have something like this happening. A quote from the xfs list at sgi>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 at 10:29am, Andrew Elwell wrote >>using the 2.6.9-34 centosplus SMP kernel (3GHz P4 with >hyperthreading enabled) > >what we normally (~once a day) is simply > >do_IRQ: stack overflow: 416 >[<c0107a27>]>You don't want to use the XFS in the centosplus kernel. It has major >known issues with 4K stacks (leading to overflows). Use the >kernel-module-xfs (or somesuch) RPM instead, and you should have better >luck.Do I need a kernel with 8K stacks? and is this http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-34.ELsmp-0.1-3.i686.rpm the "kernel-module-xfs" RPM he was talking about (or equivalent for `uname -r` equals 2.6.9-34.ELsmp). Regards Mark Strong This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Mark Strong wrote:> Hi All, after looking around for info on XFS(the filesystem) and its use > on CentOS and/or RHEL 4. There seems to be a lot of noise about 4K > Stacks (especially on linux-xfs at oss.sgi.com).you might want to dig into that noise...> > So what is the best way to get XFS working with CentOS 4.3 ? And not > have something like this happening.follow the centos-xfs-kernel-rpm process, you already highlighted.>> You don't want to use the XFS in the centosplus kernel. It has major >> known issues with 4K stacks (leading to overflows). Use the >> kernel-module-xfs (or somesuch) RPM instead, and you should have better >> luck. > > Do I need a kernel with 8K stacks?thats a decisions for you to take :)> > and is this > > http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-34.ELsmp-0.1-3.i686.rpm > > the "kernel-module-xfs" RPM he was talking about (or equivalent for > `uname -r` equals 2.6.9-34.ELsmp). >yes -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 14:13 +1000, Mark Strong wrote:> Hi All, after looking around for info on XFS(the filesystem) and its use > on CentOS and/or RHEL 4. There seems to be a lot of noise about 4K > Stacks (especially on linux-xfs at oss.sgi.com). > > So what is the best way to get XFS working with CentOS 4.3 ? And not > have something like this happening. > > A quote from the xfs list at sgi > >On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 at 10:29am, Andrew Elwell wrote > > > >using the 2.6.9-34 centosplus SMP kernel (3GHz P4 with > >hyperthreading enabled) > > > >what we normally (~once a day) is simply > > > >do_IRQ: stack overflow: 416 > >[<c0107a27>] > > >You don't want to use the XFS in the centosplus kernel. It has major > >known issues with 4K stacks (leading to overflows). Use the > >kernel-module-xfs (or somesuch) RPM instead, and you should have better > >luck. > > Do I need a kernel with 8K stacks? > > and is this > > http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-34.ELsmp-0.1-3.i686.rpm > > the "kernel-module-xfs" RPM he was talking about (or equivalent for > `uname -r` equals 2.6.9-34.ELsmp). > > > Regards > Mark Strong >Personally, I would not use xfs on Linux ... maybe take a look here: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060814 And see what several debain devel's say about XFS. RedHat says it is not stable enough to use in RHEL. I don't think everyone can be wrong. If you really want to use it, you can use the module you referenced above and our kernel. The standard RHEL kernel will not compile w/ anything except 4k stacks (that is how the CentOS kernel is released too) ... so if you want to do that, you'll need to figure it out. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060815/cfb46553/attachment-0002.sig>
Hi all, I'm looking turkish knowledge for centos... anybody help me please thank you very much Kemal Bozda? Devri Alem Turizm Yat?r?m Dan??manl?k A.?. Cumhuriyet Cad. No 217 Harbiye 34373 ?STANBUL T 0212 444 83 83 D 0212 368 17 03 F 0212 368 17 19 www.devrialem.com -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:18 PM To: CentOS ML Subject: Re: [CentOS] XFS and CentOS 4.3 On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 14:13 +1000, Mark Strong wrote:> Hi All, after looking around for info on XFS(the filesystem) and its use> on CentOS and/or RHEL 4. There seems to be a lot of noise about 4K> Stacks (especially on linux-xfs at oss.sgi.com).>> So what is the best way to get XFS working with CentOS 4.3 ? And not> have something like this happening.>> A quote from the xfs list at sgi> >On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 at 10:29am, Andrew Elwell wrote> >> >using the 2.6.9-34 centosplus SMP kernel (3GHz P4 with> >hyperthreading enabled)> >> >what we normally (~once a day) is simply> >> >do_IRQ: stack overflow: 416> >[<c0107a27>]>> >You don't want to use the XFS in the centosplus kernel. It has major> >known issues with 4K stacks (leading to overflows). Use the> >kernel-module-xfs (or somesuch) RPM instead, and you should have better> >luck.>> Do I need a kernel with 8K stacks?>> and is this>> http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/kernel-module-xfs-2.6.9-34.ELsmp-0.1-3.i686.rpm>> the "kernel-module-xfs" RPM he was talking about (or equivalent for> `uname -r` equals 2.6.9-34.ELsmp).>>> Regards> Mark Strong>Personally, I would not use xfs on Linux ... maybe take a look here: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060814 And see what several debain devel's say about XFS. RedHat says it is not stable enough to use in RHEL. I don't think everyone can be wrong. If you really want to use it, you can use the module you referenced above and our kernel. The standard RHEL kernel will not compile w/ anything except 4k stacks (that is how the CentOS kernel is released too) ... so if you want to do that, you'll need to figure it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060815/8607963d/attachment-0002.html>
On Tuesday 15 August 2006 06:13, Mark Strong wrote:> Hi All, after looking around for info on XFS(the filesystem) and its use > on CentOS and/or RHEL 4. There seems to be a lot of noise about 4K > Stacks (especially on linux-xfs at oss.sgi.com). > > ... > > >You don't want to use the XFS in the centosplus kernel. It has major > >known issues with 4K stacks (leading to overflows). Use the > >kernel-module-xfs (or somesuch) RPM instead, and you should have better > >luck.I don't have a full answer for you, what happen probably depends alot on both hardware and software configuration and load. But, I'll second the above statement, don't use the xfs module as shipped with the centosplus kernel (afaict it's still vanilla from 2.6.9 and it did break for me when I tested) but go with the kernel-module-xfs package. We've been running ~5 servers and ~10T on centos with the stand-alone module for quite some time and seen no problems (nfs serving on x86_64 using 3ware cards for storage) YMMW... /Peter -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060815/15a304dc/attachment-0002.sig>
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 04:18, Johnny Hughes wrote:> Personally, I would not use xfs on Linux ... maybe take a look here: > > http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060814 > > And see what several debain devel's say about XFS. >Was the update at the bottom of that article pointing to http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#dir2 there when you read it. Turns out to be a kernel bug in 2.6.17 that is fixed in 2.6.17.7 and later. What's the deal with recent kernels anyway? All kinds of stuff has been broken in fedora in the last several kernel updates and they are only up to 2.6.17-1 or so. It keeps reminding why I like Centos, but how can anyone ship something that won't boot on a mainstream box like an IBM x86 eserver? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 at 4:18am, Johnny Hughes wrote> Personally, I would not use xfs on Linux ... maybe take a look here:Almost every time I've tested performance for my workload of interest, XFS kicks the $#@)$ out of ext3 -- we're talking more than 2X write performance on the same hardware. And every time I point out how poorly ext3 performs (either on the RH lists or the ext3 list) I get ignored or told it's my hardware (despite also providing the XFS numbers proving it's not the hardware). And I won't even go into xfsdump vs. ext2/3 dump.> http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060814 > > And see what several debain devel's say about XFS.Yes, there was a bad bug with XFS recently. It's fixed now. It happens.> RedHat says it is not stable enough to use in RHEL.I've never completely understood RH's opposition to XFS. I've heard several stories -- the 4K stacks issue (which is a long way towards being resolved in recent kernels), support issues, etc. I almost wonder if it isn't a case of NIH.> I don't think everyone can be wrong.To add one more anecdotal data point, I've used XFS since RH7.3 (using pre 1.0 releases from SGI) and never lost *any* data to it. Transitioning to ext3 (to stay with officially supported kernels) was *painful* -- performance plummeted, and it forced me to rework many of my servers.> If you really want to use it, you can use the module you referenced > above and our kernel. The standard RHEL kernel will not compile w/ > anything except 4k stacks (that is how the CentOS kernel is released > too) ... so if you want to do that, you'll need to figure it out.Also (to the OP) keep in mind that x86_64 still uses 8K stacks. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Peter [windows-1252] Kjellstr?m wrote:> On Tuesday 15 August 2006 06:13, Mark Strong wrote: > > Hi All, after looking around for info on XFS(the filesystem) and its use > > on CentOS and/or RHEL 4. There seems to be a lot of noise about 4K > > Stacks (especially on linux-xfs at oss.sgi.com). > > > > ... > > > > >You don't want to use the XFS in the centosplus kernel. It has major > > >known issues with 4K stacks (leading to overflows). Use the > > >kernel-module-xfs (or somesuch) RPM instead, and you should have better > > >luck. > > I don't have a full answer for you, what happen probably depends alot on both > hardware and software configuration and load. But, I'll second the above > statement, don't use the xfs module as shipped with the centosplus kernel > (afaict it's still vanilla from 2.6.9 and it did break for me when I tested) > but go with the kernel-module-xfs package. > > We've been running ~5 servers and ~10T on centos with the stand-alone module > for quite some time and seen no problems (nfs serving on x86_64 using 3ware > cards for storage) YMMW...XFS works alot better on x86_64 kernels as they have 8k stacks. -Connie Sieh> > /Peter >