similar to: centos7.6 nvme support

Hi, all We use AMD Rome CPUs, like EPYC 7452. RHEL said that RHEL 7.6.6 began to support these cpus(detials: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/amd) , but we found that CentOS7.6 with kernel 3.10.0-957.21.3.el7.x86_64 also works fine. So, my questions are: 1) Is there any place that i can find the cpu support info? 2) Dose the kernel 3.10.0-957.21.3.el7.x86_64 from CentOS7.6 already

Asterisk users, I posted the following email to the Fedora users list <https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-March/msg04154.html> and it got no responses, so now I'm calling on your expertise. Please take a look at it and share your knowledge on the subject with me. Additionally, let me know if you believe what I am trying to do is critically flawed. It's possible

Hello, everyone. I am testing samba 4.10RC4's the compatibility with python3. I compiled samba 4.10rc4 successfully in CentOS7.6 with Python3.6.6. but when I run samba-tool domain provision --use-rfc2307 --interactive It stuck and did not give any error messages. then I enable debug samba-tool domain provision --use-rfc2307 --interactive -d7 it throw info like： INFO: Current debug

Hello! I want to share some findings with the community about hugh timeouts/delays since upgraded to samba 4.8 end of last year and a patch fixing this in our setup. It would be great if someone from samba dev team could take a look and if acceptable apply the patch to the common code base. It may also affect current stable and release candidates. The patch expects the patch from BUG 13503

Hi, Alexander Thanks for your reply . Because we using CentOS7.6 with kernel 3.10.0-957.21.3.el7.x86_64 in production . We want to know which version of CentOS(or CentOS7.6) started to support AMD ROME CPUs and is it necessary to upgrade ? Thanks.

Could anyone either recommend a website or howto on optimizing Linux to run asterisk. Such examples of what I mean are.. Renice of asterisk pid's Forcing irq smp_affinity (For interupt hogging T1 cards) .. That kind of stuff, I looked on the wiki and nothing directly mentions server optimization. Or, is this something that *should* be totally irrelevent when dealing with Asterisk. P.S. I

Hi, I''ve got a machine that''s hosting a number of virtual machines (58 + the dom0) and I''m having some weird issues with packet loss and high latency that happens when ksoftirqd spikes in CPU usage. The machine itself is CentOS 5 x86_64 running the stock Xen packages (3.1.2). It''s a dual quad-core w/ hyperthreading, 48 gigs of ram, and using Adaptec

Hi, Just trying to figure out / solve some echo issues with one of our systems. The server is a Dell R710 running Asterisk 1.6.x and Dahdi 2.2.x The card in the server is a TE121P (with VPMADT032 echo canceller) We are experiencing some weird echo issues with our Cisco 79xx phones, only when we are dialing out via the PRI. The echo is like a side tone, where we can hear ourselves speaking. The

Hi All, We have a xen server and using 8 core processor. I can see that there is 99% iowait on only core 0. 02:28:49 AM CPU %user %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal %idle intr/s 02:28:54 AM all 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.65 0.00 0.02 2.24 85.08 1359.88 02:28:54 AM 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.21 0.00 0.20 3.19 0.40 847.11 02:28:54 AM

I built a new server about 10 days ago running CentOS 5.latest, and it's been presenting a message shortly after booting: irq 58: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option) Call Trace: <IRQ> [<ffffffff800bb712>] __report_bad_irq+0x30/0x7d [<ffffffff800bb945>] note_interrupt+0x1e6/0x227 [<ffffffff800bae41>] __do_IRQ+0xbd/0x103

Hi Jens and Rusty, On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei at canonical.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei at canonical.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> These patches try to support multi virtual queues(multi-vq) in one >> virtio-blk device, and maps each virtual queue(vq) to blk-mq's >> hardware queue. >>

Hi Jens and Rusty, On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei at canonical.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei at canonical.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> These patches try to support multi virtual queues(multi-vq) in one >> virtio-blk device, and maps each virtual queue(vq) to blk-mq's >> hardware queue. >>

On 01/12/2015 00:20, Ming Lin wrote: > qemu-nvme: 148MB/s > vhost-nvme + google-ext: 230MB/s > qemu-nvme + google-ext + eventfd: 294MB/s > virtio-scsi: 296MB/s > virtio-blk: 344MB/s > > "vhost-nvme + google-ext" didn't get good enough performance. I'd expect it to be on par of qemu-nvme with ioeventfd but the question is: why should it be better? For

On 01/12/2015 00:20, Ming Lin wrote: > qemu-nvme: 148MB/s > vhost-nvme + google-ext: 230MB/s > qemu-nvme + google-ext + eventfd: 294MB/s > virtio-scsi: 296MB/s > virtio-blk: 344MB/s > > "vhost-nvme + google-ext" didn't get good enough performance. I'd expect it to be on par of qemu-nvme with ioeventfd but the question is: why should it be better? For

On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 17:02 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 01/12/2015 00:20, Ming Lin wrote: > > qemu-nvme: 148MB/s > > vhost-nvme + google-ext: 230MB/s > > qemu-nvme + google-ext + eventfd: 294MB/s > > virtio-scsi: 296MB/s > > virtio-blk: 344MB/s > > > > "vhost-nvme + google-ext" didn't get good enough performance. > >

Has anyone had any compatibility issues with a TE110P card installed on a Dell Poweredge 1950? I noted the following error on the LCD display of the Dell Poweredge 1950: E1711 PCI PErr Slot 1 E171F PCIE Fatal Error B0 D4 F0. The Dell hardware owners manual states that it means the system BIOS has reported a PCI parity error on a component that resides in PCI configuration space at bus 0,

On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 11:59 -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme? > > What would be the advantage over virtio-blk? Multiqueue is not supported > by QEMU but it's already supported by Linux (commit 6a27b656fc). I expect performance would be better. Seems google cloud VM uses both nvme and virtio-scsi. Not sure if virtio-blk is also

> What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme? What would be the advantage over virtio-blk? Multiqueue is not supported by QEMU but it's already supported by Linux (commit 6a27b656fc). To me, the advantage of nvme is that it provides more than decent performance on unmodified Windows guests, and thanks to your vendor extension can be used on Linux as well with speeds comparable to

> What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme? What would be the advantage over virtio-blk? Multiqueue is not supported by QEMU but it's already supported by Linux (commit 6a27b656fc). To me, the advantage of nvme is that it provides more than decent performance on unmodified Windows guests, and thanks to your vendor extension can be used on Linux as well with speeds comparable to

Thanks Ming, from a first quick view this looks great. I'll look over it in a bit more detail once I get a bit more time.