search for: chuckm

On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > There is no...

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6.

Once upon a time, Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> said: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what > is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with > the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, > political, etc? Licensing. Sun chose an Open Source...

Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? There is no licensing issue, but there...

Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > > > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? &g...

On 12/18/2013, 04:00 , lists at benjamindsmith.com wrote: > I may be being presumptuous, and if so, I apologize in advance... > > It sounds to me like you might consider a disk-to-disk backup solution. > I could suggest dirvish, BackupPC, or our own home-rolled rsync-based > solution that works rather well:http://www.effortlessis.com/backupbuddy/ > > Note that with these

On 06/01/2015 07:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >> On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >>>> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >>>> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, politic...

Hello All, Just a short note to add my vote for a HUGE round of applause to the CentOS team for their untiring efforts in getting releases out the door. I've just upgraded several servers to 5.6 and it all "just works". None of the team's work is easy to accomplish, especially when less-than-useful complaints keep popping up from thoughtless users who don't appreciate

Hello list members, In CentOS-5.5 I'm trying to achieve static assignment of SCSI device names for a bunch of RAID-60 drives on a Supermicro motherboard. The "scsi_id" command identifies all drives ok. The board has one SATA controller and three SAS/SATA controllers ... standard on-board ICH-10 ATA channels, an on-board LSI SAS/SATA controller, and two add-on SAS/SATA

Hello list members, My adventure into udev rules has taken an interesting turn. I did discover a stupid error in the way I was attempting to assign static disk device names on CentOS-5.5, so that's out of the way. But in the process of exploring, I installed a trial copy of RHEL-6 on the new machine to see if anything had changed (since I intend this box to run CentOS-6 anyway). Lots

I need to configure a small proxy appliance which doesn't require a lot of CPU power. I'm looking for any warnings this group may have regarding CentOS-5 on the following: - Acer AspireRevo 3610 (Atom CPU) - Dell Inspiron 537s (Celeron) - Any other small machines you might recommend (UL approved) I need to implement dual NICs, and for the Dell it should be no problem finding a

On 02/12/2011 09:00 AM, Gerhard Schneider wrote: > > Sorry, I don't use CentOS 6 now so I cannot check, but: > > Could it be that RHEL6 changed the default superblock mdadm is creating? > CentOS 5 is creating a 0.9 superblock. Some "other OS" are creating 1.2 > per default. But you can change that on the command line. > > If that's the case it's not a

On 04/05/2011 09:00 AM, John R Pierce wrote: > > AFAIK, no standard raid modes verify parity on reads, as this would > require reading the whole slice for every random read. Only raid > systems like ZFS that use block checksuming can verify data on reads. > parity (or mirrors) are verified by doing 'scrubs' > > Further, even if a raid DID verify parity/mirroring on

On 01/20/2012 09:00 AM, Tait Clarridge wrote: >> > But a new problem arises ... one of the m0n0wall instances needs to use >> > DHCP to get a dynamic IP from my ISP (the others are static, so they're >> > ok). How do I get the bridge to proxy the DHCP request and forward the >> > response to the VM guest? I brought up a test instance of m0n0wall but

On 12/19/2013, 04:00 , lists at benjamindsmith.com wrote: > BackupPC is a great product, and if I knew of it and/or it was available > when I started, I would likely have used it instead of cutting code. Now > that we've got BackupBuddy working and integrated, we aren't going to be > switching as it has worked wonderfully for a decade with very few issues > and little

On 2014-09-15 , kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: > > So the ZoL folks want one more feature before calling it 1.0; otherwise > they believe it's production ready. Only your own testing can convince > you that it's truly production ready. > > --keith > That's encouraging news, something I've been looking forward to. FWIW, I've been running ZoL

On 03/12/2011 09:00 AM, compdoc wrote: >> >On the particular Supermicro motherboard I'm using, there is a very >> >long delay (10 or 15 sec) between power-on and initiation of visible >> >BIOS activity, so all disk drives have ample time to spin up and stabilize. > > Yeah, I have used Supermicro in the past and they had the same long pause > when you turn

Just a FYI folks ... I am running OwnCloud 9.0.2 on CentOS 6.7 and php-7.0 with no issues. I installed the Webtatic repo which has several versions of PHP available for CentOS 6 and 7. I then used the official OwnCloud ce:stable repo to add the cloud software. In a leap of faith, and because this CentOS VM doesn't run anything other than OwnCloud, I used the 'php70w' PHP repo

Hello List Members (and Holiday greetings!) This rambles a bit ... my apologies in advance. I am in the process of building a large CentOS-based VM host machine which will replace several individual boxes. I've done the usual hardware research and ended up with a SuperMicro motherboard, dual Xeons, lots of ECC RAM, solid power supply, and tons of cooling. When it comes to the best disk

Hello folks, I am experiencing a weird problem at bootup with large RAID-6 arrays. After Googling around (a lot) I find that others are having the same issues with CentOS/RHEL/Ubuntu/whatever. In my case it's Scientific Linux-6 which should behave the same way as CentOS-6. I had the same problem with the RHEL-6 evaluation version. I'm posting this question to the SL mailing list