FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-04-2008, 05:09 PM
"William L. Maltby"
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 11:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> <snip>

> Yes, dd is actually pretty slow in wall clock time. Where it wins is in
> human time since you just type a short command line and go away, and it
> duplicates any setup work you've done in addition too installing the
> packages.

But it's not as slow as most think. They just don't take advantage of
capabilities, like bs=16384. This makes a *huge* difference in both
system overhead and wall clock time.

--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-04-2008, 06:47 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

Robert Moskowitz wrote:


It will be many times faster than doing DD images of entire drives.
eg. in my case here, i can provision a new machine in 2 min and 43
seconds for a base+core minimal centos-5 install. installing over http
from a machine on a GiB/sec link and installing to a 2 disk raid-1


There is much good to say about using kickstart method than learning a
new approach like Clonezilla. I have not used kickstart since Centos
4.something, so I have no good notes and will have to dig again. But
this is pretty much a one-time clone and Clonezilla does not seem to set
up the partitioning info on the new drive so that would be one more
thing to learn.


You are reading the wrong thing about clonezilla. In disk image mode it
will duplicate the partitioning for you and it knows enough about most
filesystems to just copy the used portions. There are options to just
take one partition if you want, but if you do the whole disk it will set
up the partitions for you. It understands LVM, but not multi-disk
software raid. I'd expect it to be faster than any other way to
duplicate systems if you don't count downloading the iso and making your
initial image copy from the master.


So I take the anaconda-ks.cfg file, add stuff so it will boot off the
network and use the update repo as well as the base. Then rediscover the
command to run linux from a kickstart file on a diskette.


Piece of CAKE!


Clonezilla can also be network-booted if you have enough machines to be
worth the trouble to set up (and it can clone windows and other linux
distributions as well). There is a companion project called DRBL that
handles network booting and provides NFS storage for the clients to save
and load images.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-04-2008, 07:34 PM
Robert Moskowitz
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

I am building the Clonezilla live CD now....

Les Mikesell wrote:

Robert Moskowitz wrote:


It will be many times faster than doing DD images of entire drives.
eg. in my case here, i can provision a new machine in 2 min and 43
seconds for a base+core minimal centos-5 install. installing over
http from a machine on a GiB/sec link and installing to a 2 disk raid-1


There is much good to say about using kickstart method than learning
a new approach like Clonezilla. I have not used kickstart since
Centos 4.something, so I have no good notes and will have to dig
again. But this is pretty much a one-time clone and Clonezilla does
not seem to set up the partitioning info on the new drive so that
would be one more thing to learn.


You are reading the wrong thing about clonezilla. In disk image mode
it will duplicate the partitioning for you and it knows enough about
most filesystems to just copy the used portions. There are options to
just take one partition if you want, but if you do the whole disk it
will set up the partitions for you. It understands LVM, but not
multi-disk software raid. I'd expect it to be faster than any other
way to duplicate systems if you don't count downloading the iso and
making your initial image copy from the master.


So I take the anaconda-ks.cfg file, add stuff so it will boot off the
network and use the update repo as well as the base. Then rediscover
the command to run linux from a kickstart file on a diskette.


Piece of CAKE!


Clonezilla can also be network-booted if you have enough machines to
be worth the trouble to set up (and it can clone windows and other
linux distributions as well). There is a companion project called DRBL
that handles network booting and provides NFS storage for the clients
to save and load images.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-04-2008, 09:38 PM
Robert Moskowitz
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

William L. Maltby wrote:

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 11:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:


<snip>




Yes, dd is actually pretty slow in wall clock time. Where it wins is in
human time since you just type a short command line and go away, and it
duplicates any setup work you've done in addition too installing the
packages.



But it's not as slow as most think. They just don't take advantage of
capabilities, like bs=16384. This makes a *huge* difference in both
system overhead and wall clock time.
Well Clonezilla is busy cloning the drive, but there is a problem here
cloning to a USB attached drive.


One of the partitions is LVM and since this is a drive clone, including
the partition table and boot sector, both LVMs (source and target) have
the same name. So Clonezilla switches to using DD with probably some
bad parameters. After running an hour, it has only copied 4Gb out of
37Gb. Note that the USB port is v1.1.



Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its
internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I
had do this via Install instead.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-04-2008, 10:35 PM
"William L. Maltby"
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 11:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Yes, dd is actually pretty slow in wall clock time. Where it wins is in
> >> human time since you just type a short command line and go away, and it
> >> duplicates any setup work you've done in addition too installing the
> >> packages.
> >>
> >
> > But it's not as slow as most think. They just don't take advantage of
> > capabilities, like bs=16384. This makes a *huge* difference in both
> > system overhead and wall clock time.
> Well Clonezilla is busy cloning the drive, but there is a problem here
> cloning to a USB attached drive.
>
> One of the partitions is LVM and since this is a drive clone, including
> the partition table and boot sector, both LVMs (source and target) have
> the same name. So Clonezilla switches to using DD with probably some
> bad parameters. After running an hour, it has only copied 4Gb out of
> 37Gb. Note that the USB port is v1.1.
>
>
> Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its
> internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I
> had do this via Install instead.

I've not ever read up on clonezilla, so I don't know if this is a good
thought or not.

If you can tell clonezilla to just make the partitions and copy the
non-LVM stuff, it might then be faster to do a manual dd of the LVM PV
because you can specify a large blocksize (bs=xxxxx, I usually do a cyl
size as the blocksize) and it might go much faster.

WARNING: if you have more than one PV in the volgroup this can be dicey
because of the LV records stored on the PVs. I would not recommend it.

OTOH, if it is cranking away and you are now free to do other things,
you might want to just let it run.

Now, I wanted to make you aware of a recent experience I had using a usb
external drive. I don't know if it will/does affect you.

I moved all my CentOS torrent stuff to a brand new Tosh 80GB external
usb drive. Then on CentOS 4.6, I fired up the torrents and started
sharing with the world. Nothing else was running.

Three consecutive days, the rtorrent screen became unresponsive. The
machine was not locked up. But there was a lock in the wait channel for
the drive and it could not be broken. None of the kills (HUP, USR1,
KILL) would break the lock and kill the process.

This is usb 2.x and, again CentOS 4.6.

I have no idea of the cause or if it may behave the same in 5.x or if it
is unique to rtorrent or the Tosh drive or 4.6. I'm going to try it on
5.2 this P.M.

Sleep well! >:-)

> <snip sig stuff>

HTH
--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-04-2008, 10:37 PM
"William L. Maltby"
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> <snip>

> Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its
> internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I
> had do this via Install instead.

If it's a boot drive, remember to rebuild your initrd and modify the
init file to ignore lvm lock failures with the new VG name. Otherwise
you'll be fighting some more battles.

> <snip sig stuff>

--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-05-2008, 02:09 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

Robert Moskowitz wrote:

William L. Maltby wrote:

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 11:41 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:


<snip>




Yes, dd is actually pretty slow in wall clock time. Where it wins is
in human time since you just type a short command line and go away,
and it duplicates any setup work you've done in addition too
installing the packages.



But it's not as slow as most think. They just don't take advantage of
capabilities, like bs=16384. This makes a *huge* difference in both
system overhead and wall clock time.
Well Clonezilla is busy cloning the drive, but there is a problem here
cloning to a USB attached drive.


One of the partitions is LVM and since this is a drive clone, including
the partition table and boot sector, both LVMs (source and target) have
the same name. So Clonezilla switches to using DD with probably some
bad parameters. After running an hour, it has only copied 4Gb out of
37Gb. Note that the USB port is v1.1.



Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its
internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I
had do this via Install instead.


If you have any other system on the network that could hold a compressed
image copy you would be better off working with the disks in their
target machines instead of the USB adapter. Clonezilla can use smb,
nfs, or ssh to connect to network storage, so you can use space from
windows or linux. After saving the master image, you would just boot
the clone machines from the CD, connect to the same network location,
and restore to the local drive. That would elminate both the duplicate
LVM problem and the slowness of USB 1.1.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-05-2008, 09:06 PM
mkn0014
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

Take a look at Ghost 4 Linux when your at it ;-)

/Mats
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-06-2008, 03:58 AM
Robert Moskowitz
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

William L. Maltby wrote:

On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:


<snip>




Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its
internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I
had do this via Install instead.



If it's a boot drive, remember to rebuild your initrd and modify the
init file to ignore lvm lock failures with the new VG name. Otherwise
you'll be fighting some more battles.


ARGH!!!!

Yes, I remember getting burned by this once.

And I don't have any notes of what I did to do all this.


<snip sig stuff>





_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-06-2008, 10:36 AM
"William L. Maltby"
 
Default Three Identical systems - short cut to setting up the drives?

On Sat, 2008-07-05 at 23:58 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 17:38 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Now actually, I would have perfered renaming the LVM partition and its
> >> internal ext3 partitions. I even had a naming convention laid out if I
> >> had do this via Install instead.
> >>
> >
> > If it's a boot drive, remember to rebuild your initrd and modify the
> > init file to ignore lvm lock failures with the new VG name. Otherwise
> > you'll be fighting some more battles.
> >
> ARGH!!!!
>
> Yes, I remember getting burned by this once.
>
> And I don't have any notes of what I did to do all this.

Man gzip and cpio in case I misremember.

In a work directory:

gzip -dc <initrd name> | cpio -idmc

Down in the resulting directory, there is an init file.

Locate the ignorelockingfailure and change the VG name there.

Still in the top level working directory (<the created initrd dir/..>)

find <initdirname> | cpio -oac | gzip --best ><new initrd name>

Move it to the boot dir, change grub.conf appropriately. More perilous,
but possible: make it the same name (pls save the original somewhere)
and no grub name change needed.

> ><snip>

HTH
--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org