similar to: How to stagger fsck executions

From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 > > Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't > take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root > filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. > everything else. I am trying to avoid running them at the same time in an effort to avoid 70 minute boot times (which is

From: Warren Young Sent: April 21, 2015 14:13 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > >> > >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set > >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to > 23, and the > >> fourth to 29. > > > > Thanks but

CentOS 6 Hi All: Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been able to think of two possible solutions but neither is terrific. My first idea was to manually run fsck

From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random > > count value. This would run the risk of having two or more > > executions at the same time but it would probably not be very > > frequent. > > Using "tune2fs -c", set the

From: Warren Young Sent: April 22, 2015 20:46 > On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank > <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > > > I have done some "what if" testing. > > Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up > yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I cobbled something together in OpenEdge ABL. I have uploaded

From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30 > > On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I > am willing > > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. > > Why do you accept that? Every article I have read on the

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > > Thanks but changing the order of execution or executing them in > parallel does not help with executing them one per reboot. Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root filesystem normally runs

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 >> >> Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't >> take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root >> filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. >>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > CentOS 6 > > > My first idea was to manually run fsck on each filesystem, one every > couple of weeks. That way they will not all come due at the same time > if we reboot on a regular basis. > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count > value. This

On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 >> >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to 23, and the >> fourth to 29. > > Thanks but that is not much different then my second idea and does not > fully

On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > I have done some "what if" testing. Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I?ve updated mine to break out the stats for 3+ volumes instead of just reporting all multi-volume fscks together:

On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > CentOS 6 > > Hi All: > > Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with > fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except > doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to > stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been > able to

On 4/20/2015 9:08 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count > value. This would run the risk of having two or more executions at > the same time but it would probably not be very frequent. > > Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way of doing this? use XFS, no fsck's until/unless something catastrophic happens

On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I am willing > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. Why do you accept that? The default behavior for filesystems set up by Red Hat tools (anaconda) is not to fsck. Not by mount count, nor by time.

CentOS 4.8, BIND 9.2.4, DHCP 3.0.1 Hi All: I have a rather perplexing problem where the DNS entry in BIND for one of my network printers sporadically "disappears" from our zone file (but not the reverse zone file). We have four Lexmark printers connected locally over our internal LAN using static IP addresses. We have 3 T640n printers and a T642n printer and it is only the T642n

Hi All: I am new to rsync so be gentle with me. I have been able to get rsync working enough to be able to list modules but not transfer files. When I try to transfer a file from the client to the server I use the command: rsync -avz fapmenu fisdev::bak The client displays the following messages: @ERROR: access denied to bak from pgiprd.forsoft.com (192.168.2.19) rsync:

Hi All: It appears that the RPMforge.net site is down. Can someone confirm and possibly advise when it might be expected back? TIA Regards, Hugh -- Hugh E Cruickshank, Forward Software, www.forward-software.com

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:26:46 -0700 "Hugh E Cruickshank" <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > From: Rudi Ahlers Sent: June 9, 2020 10:22 > > > > I am looking for an offline accounting package recommendation, > > please. I enjoyed using Xero accounting, but need something that's > > offline, and where the data remains my property. Having used > >

Hi All: I am looking for some possible recommendations on the handling of our internal DNS services. First some background... Until recently our entire network was located within a single facility with internal DNS services provided by our CentOS 4.7 (using BIND). While I had problems with DHCP/DNS communications it was basically working. At the beginning of the month we moved the production

CentOS 4.8, BIND 9.2.4 Hi All: I have a rather annoying problem with rndc which I have not been able to resolve despite much searching and many attempts to correct. When making changes to our DNS entries I have tried to use the following procedures: 1. Flush the cache buffers: rndc flush 2. Stop named: rndc stop 3. Delete the journal files: rm *.jnl 4. Edit the forward and/or