similar to: Вторая жизнь мягкой мебели.

Hello, I''m running a SLES10 SP1 Server as a Dom0 and as DomU. I have allocated 1024 Mb RAM to the DomU and one virtual processor (physical processor is a dual core Intel Xeon 3.4 Ghz). A warning is regularly displayed on the standard output : INIT: Id "x0" respawning too fast: disabled for 5 minutes Any idea where that come from ? Thanks in advance. Hervé Marcy

Hi all, CentOS 5.2, not yet updated to 5.3. Based on the alert on udev, I attempted to update udev and libvolume packages with the following result. A check of what's currently on the system reveals udev-095-14.19.el5 which I believe to be the affected version. Is it just that it hasn't rolled out to all the mirrors yet? Thanks in advance, -Ray [root at wh01]# yum clean all

Hi, everyone: We have a glusterfs clusters, version is 3.2.7. The volume info is as below: Volume Name: gfs1 Type: Distributed-Replicate Status: Started Number of Bricks: 94 x 3 = 282 Transport-type: tcp We native mount the volume in all nodes. When we access the file ?/XMTEXT/gfs1_000/000/000/095? on one nodes, the error is split brain. While we can access the same file on

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2014:1239 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2014-1239.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 58951923ed4a5c0b647621a4f672f2b8081d0ee560ce4ee31409e2ad3a21a3e0 libvolume_id-095-14.32.el5.i386.rpm

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2015:1652 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-1652.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 7eec67a6ed4aa7a8c9e8f641263d66b5322a391548f12c25227f5b987fd9f857 libvolume_id-095-14.33.el5_11.i386.rpm

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2009:0427 Important Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-0427.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) x86_64: 4a50d4085db16dc58e9757a597bfe9b5 libvolume_id-095-14.20.el5_3.i386.rpm 35fb59cc654969aa72ee46453cace539 libvolume_id-095-14.20.el5_3.x86_64.rpm

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2010:0593 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0593.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) x86_64: 543f0d966d9f3055838758c2f88634bc libvolume_id-095-14.21.el5_5.1.i386.rpm 07f2b3197368092619311562d1d19ab6 libvolume_id-095-14.21.el5_5.1.x86_64.rpm

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:1046 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1046.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) x86_64: e4f19abb81ff088364b30a5175dbb0d1 libvolume_id-095-14.27.el5.i386.rpm 4dfd7975585708cd23d72d1d9a9b1e82 libvolume_id-095-14.27.el5.x86_64.rpm

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:1448 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1448.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename ) x86_64: 52331ac5b121d39f5106b6ace8e8a447 libvolume_id-095-14.27.el5_7.1.i386.rpm c8a5a5509ae202817ada44f7a9ac1a05 libvolume_id-095-14.27.el5_7.1.x86_64.rpm

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce at centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request at centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner at centos.org When

Are you sure using conv=sync is what you want? I normally use conv=fdatasync, I'll look up the difference between the two and see if it affects your test. -b ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat Haley" <phaley at mit.edu> > To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com> > Cc: "Ravishankar N" <ravishankar at redhat.com>,

All - I have an example data frame x l.c.1 43.38812035 085 47.55710661 085 47.55710661 085 51.99211429 085 51.99211429 095 54.78449958 095 54.78449958 095 56.70201864 095 56.70201864 105 59.66361903 105 61.69573564 105 61.69573564 105 63.77469479 115 64.83191994 115 64.83191994 115 66.98222118 115 66.98222118 125 66.98222118 125 66.98222118 125 66.98222118 125 and I'd like to get the 3rd

Hi Guys, I was wondering what our next steps should be to solve the slow write times. Recently I was debugging a large code and writing a lot of output at every time step. When I tried writing to our gluster disks, it was taking over a day to do a single time step whereas if I had the same program (same hardware, network) write to our nfs disk the time per time-step was about 45 minutes.

Hi Ben, Sorry this took so long, but we had a real-time forecasting exercise last week and I could only get to this now. Backend Hardware/OS: * Much of the information on our back end system is included at the top of http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2017-April/030529.html * The specific model of the hard disks is SeaGate ENTERPRISE CAPACITY V.4 6TB

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pat Haley <phaley at mit.edu> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Decided to try another tests of gluster mounted via FUSE vs gluster > mounted via NFS, this time using the software we run in production (i.e. > our ocean model writing a netCDF file). > > gluster mounted via NFS the run took 2.3 hr > > gluster mounted via FUSE: the run took

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Pat Haley <phaley at mit.edu> wrote: > > Hi, > > Today we experimented with some of the FUSE options that we found in the > list. > > Changing these options had no effect: > > gluster volume set test-volume performance.cache-max-file-size 2MB > gluster volume set test-volume performance.cache-refresh-timeout 4 > gluster

Hi, Today we experimented with some of the FUSE options that we found in the list. Changing these options had no effect: gluster volume set test-volume performance.cache-max-file-size 2MB gluster volume set test-volume performance.cache-refresh-timeout 4 gluster volume set test-volume performance.cache-size 256MB gluster volume set test-volume performance.write-behind-window-size 4MB gluster

Hi All, Decided to try another tests of gluster mounted via FUSE vs gluster mounted via NFS, this time using the software we run in production (i.e. our ocean model writing a netCDF file). gluster mounted via NFS the run took 2.3 hr gluster mounted via FUSE: the run took 44.2 hr The only problem with using gluster mounted via NFS is that it does not respect the group write permissions which

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri < pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Pat Haley <phaley at mit.edu> wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> Today we experimented with some of the FUSE options that we found in the >> list. >> >> Changing these options had no effect: >> >>

All ? I have an example data frame x lc1 id 43.38812035 85 ga1 47.55710661 85 ga1 47.55710661 85 ga2 47.55710661 85 ga2 51.99211429 85 ga3 51.99211429 85 ga3 51.99211429 95 ga1 54.78449958 95 ga1 54.78449958 95 ga2 54.78449958 95 ga2 56.70201864 95 ga3 56.70201864 95 ga3 56.70201864 105 ga1 59.66361903 105 ga1 59.66361903 105 ga2 61.69573564 105 ga2 61.69573564 105 ga3 61.69573564 105 ga3