On 10/29/2013 9:03 AM, Qing Chang wrote:
> On 29/10/2013 4:46 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Hi Stan,
> thank you very much for your suggestion. But I do not have a support
> contract with RedHat,
> my subscription is per University of Toronto's contract with RehHat that
> provides access to
> the software and updates but no technical support. UofT is considering
> cancelling the
> contract next year, so I am in a process of migrating about 20 RHEL
> servers to CentOS,
> which is going very well.
That's not a good situation to be in...
> In fact my xfs installation is NOT included in my RedHat subscription, I
> am using the
> package that is in CentOS's repositories, I think that is what you
> called non-proprietary
> upstream version.
Actually, no. CentOS is a clone of the RHEL code base and shares Red
Hat's proprietary kernel. The problem you'll run into in this regard is
that most of the XFS developers are Red Hat employees. Thus they are
typically not highly motivated to help CentOS users. If your problem
turns out to be code related, you're probably out of luck unless you're
up to bisecting it yourself, reporting a bug, and a repeatable test case
that can be independently reproduced.
> Following is yum list output for xfs:
> xfsprogs.x86_64 3.1.1-7.el6 installed
This is strictly the user space tool package. XFS is a kernel module.
> I just would like to have an opinion from XFS gurus on this, if it is to
> be expected or there is
> anything I can do to tune the filesystem,
I am no guru but I'll try to give you a hand.
> or maybe there is something
> that can be done in
> the code to improve it in this respect.
If this is the case it would need to be handled by the devs, obviously.
> I am more than happy to provide more information if anyone is interested.
You haven't provided anything specific. Please follow the instructions
below and create a new thread for posting the output, as it will be
long. No need to duplicate our conversation thus far.