search for: spindle

...2a728f7072bed1553a0f0af seems praiseworthy, but since 'all-am' is automatically added by Automake as a prerequisite of the 'install' target, its effect is to stop people running 'make install' as root: make install-am make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/libguestfs/x86_64-spindle/src' make -C ../generator stamp-generator make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/libguestfs/x86_64-spindle/generator' make[3]: `stamp-generator' is up to date. make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/libguestfs/x86_64-spindle/generator' *** Error: Don't run 'make' or 'ma...

...efficient, particularly the way we implement it in guestmount. If you use 'guestfish --live' and the 'upload' command, you should be able to get full disk speed easily. > If I have more than one guest, will they share the 6-8 MB bandwidth ? If the guest storage is on different spindles, then you should be able to max out each spindle (using guestfish, not guestmount). If they all share the same disk spindle, then of course it will share the disk bandwidth. > Are there anyway to improve the performance ? Definitely use guestfish, or the libguestfs API directly. If you want...

...ne provide some guidance on how to get around this? I''ve been banging on this for a few days and my heads really starting to hurt. define amanda::disklist ( $configs, $diskdevice = undef, $dumptype, $ensure = present, $interface = undef, $order = 20, $spindle = undef ) { include amanda::params include amanda::virtual concat::fragment { "amanda::disklist/$title": target => "$amanda::params::configs_directory/$configs/disklist", ensure => $ensure, order => $order, content...

...some load to reproduce the necessary conditions. The cases we have seen involve servers running 10-30 guests under kvm. Load is in acceptable norms when the processes are run, such as load avg 5-15 on a 24 core (12 core with HT enabled) server. We also verify before starting such a process that the spindle with the file we're working on is not being unduly hammered by another process. These servers have one hardware raid controller each (Dell H700 controller with write cache enabled) and multiple raid arrays (separate sets of physical spindles). Interestingly, the IO storm is not limited to the...

> Tilghman Lesher wrote: >> On Sunday 18 January 2004 12:01, Adthrawn wrote: >> >>> Spell out RAID - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Bingo. >> >> >> That's "Independent Disks". It's the independence of each spindle >> that >> is valued, not the cost proposition. If one spindle goes, it's not >> all >> of your data which goes with it. Consider that many (most?) SCSI >> disks >> aren't inexpensive. >> > > The original meaning of the acronym was "...

Hi there I''m busy with some tests on the above hardware and will post some scores soon. For those that do _not_ have the above available for tests, I''m open to suggestions on potential configs that I could run for you. Pop me a mail if you want something specific _or_ you have suggestions concerning filebench (varmail) config setup. Cheers This message posted from

It gets all the way through the install, and then when it reboots, grub can't find the kernel. Grub can't find the kernel because the kernel was not instaled for some reason? I looked at the box through rescue mode and in /boot there is no kernel. Any ideas what might have happened? Cheers...james

...tant to ageing than standard DVD+R/-R. Great for archiving my data. But the media seems to be quite expensive. I guess mostly because all the places I found were selling it in most expensive option: as single disc in a nice (and useless) case. Haven't found a single place that sells them on spindle. At the end, I ended up buying a 3-pack, with each media in bulky movie-type case (what a waste of space). Does anybody know of any place that sells DVD-RAM media cheap (in bulk, on spindle)? Thanks, Aleksandar Milivojevic ---------------------------------------------------------------- This me...

Hi experts, I have few issues about ZFS and virtualization: [b]Virtualization and performance[/b] When filesystem traffic occurs on a zpool containing only spindles dedicated to this zpool i/o can be distributed evenly. When the zpool is located on a lun sliced from a raid group shared by multiple systems the capability of doing i/o from this zpool will be limited. Avoiding or limiting i/o to this lun until the load from the other systems decreases would over...

...s improves on the ufs inode errors that require system shutdown and fsck. So, I am recommending that we buy small jbods, do raidz2 and let zfs handle the raiding of these boxes. As we need more storage, we can add boxes and place them in a pool. This would allow more controllers and move spindles which I would think would add reliability and performance. I am thinking SATA II drives. Any recommendations and/or advice is welcome. thanks, keith

Hi: I need advice on implementing a storage server. I really do not have the $ to spend for a Dell iSCSI storage divice and I am thinking trunning CentOS 5.x with ftp or FreeNAS. Here is what I am looking at and concerned about. Situation: My current storage needs are approximately 1.5 TB annually. This will increase to about 3.5 TB annually over the next 5 years (rough est.). This box

On August 16, 2023 spindles seven wrote: > roy at franks:~$ sudo apt -t bookworm-backports install samba winbind > Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... > Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have > requested an impossible situatio...

18.08.2023 10:47, spindles seven via samba ?????: > On August 16, 2023 spindles seven wrote: >> roy at franks:~$ sudo apt -t bookworm-backports install samba winbind >> Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... >> Done Some packages could not be installe...

11.03.2024 17:40, spindles seven via samba: > Hi > > After seeing that Bookworm Backports has now got Samba version 4.19.5, I decided to update my samba machines. However, I find that those running on AMD64 architecture, the update doesn't appear. Machines running on arm architectures (armel & arm64)...

I have 8 WD SATA HDD with raid ready (3mbps) hard disks on a 8 port 3ware controller.(on raid 5.) Does anyone have a comparison on SATA raid and SAS raid disk. As you know SAS disk are very expensive and I would like to know from experts in the list who could suggest which of the following would be the best. Option 1) 2 servers each having 2.0TB raid disk with SAS drives, 2GB ram and standard

...because the starve each other fighting over the disk. What is the best way to soften the impact of such a situation? Does it make sense to use a hardware raid instead? How would the raid type affect the performance in this case? Would the fact that the I/O load gets distributed across multiple spindles in, say, a 4 disk hardware raid-5 have a big impact on this? I'm currently facing the problem where I fear that random disk I/O by too many VMs on a physical system could cripple their performance even though I have plenty of CPU cores/RAM left to run them. Has anyone experience with this...

Is there anyway to enable NCQ on CentOS 4.6? I guess anouther question is on a somewhat high activity mail server with a single SATA2 drive will it do any good? Matt

I''m currently researching an upgrade to (raid1-ed) btrfs from mostly reiserfs (which I''ve found quite reliable (even thru a period of bad ram and resulting system crashes) since data=ordered went in with 2.6.16 or whatever it was. (Thanks, Chris! =:^)) on multiple md/raid-1s. I have some questions that don''t appear to be addressed well on the wiki, yet, or where

> On Jan 6, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Gary Greene <ggreene at minervanetworks.com> wrote: >> >> >> Almost every controller and drive out there now lies about what is and isn?t flushed to disk, making it nigh on impossible for the Kernel to reliably know 100% of the time that the

I currently am getting good speeds out of my existing system (8x 2TB in a RAIDZ2 exported over fibre channel) but there''s no such thing as too much speed, and these other two drive bays are just begging for drives in them.... If I go to 10x 2TB in a RAIDZ3, will the extra spindles increase speed, or will the extra parity writes reduce speed, or will the two factors offset and leave things a wash? (My goal is to be able to survive one controller failure, so if I add more drives I''ll have to add redundancy to compensate for the fact that one controller would then...