Search Results

Search found 44 results on 2 pages for 'lto 4'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • Recent Updates on Oracle Hardware Technical Resource Center

    - by uwes
    Over the last two weeks there have been some updates on the Oracle Hardware Technical Resource Center (HW TRC). The following list summarize the categories which have been added or changed. Feel free to explore. SPARC Netra T4 Servers customer and technical presentation, partner FAQ and more Oracle Solaris added: 4 customer presentations, technical presentation StorageTek Virtual Storage Manager (VSM) and Virtual Library Extension (VLE) added presentations: customer, technical, value virtual tape, role of tape in mainframe, partner FAQ, config guide T10000 Tape Drives added: sales and technical presentation, partner FAQ T9840D Tape Drives added: sales and technical presentation, FAQ LTO Tape Drives added: customer and technical presentation, partner FAQ, ordering guide and more Netra ATCA Blade Servers Netra x86 Servers added: technical presentation, partner FAQ, configuration hints and more Netra 6000 Modular System added: customer and technical presentation, partner FAQ, order menu and more

    Read the article

  • 10 tape technology features that make you go hmm.

    - by Karoly Vegh
    A week ago an Oracle/StorageTek Tape Specialist, Christian Vanden Balck, visited Vienna, and agreed to visit customers to do techtalks and update them about the technology boom going around tape. I had the privilege to attend some of his sessions and noted the information and features that took the customers by surprise and made them think. Allow me to share the top 10: I. StorageTek as a brand: StorageTek is one of he strongest names in the Tape field. The brand itself was valued so much by customers that even after Sun Microsystems acquiring StorageTek and the Oracle acquiring Sun the brand lives on with all the Oracle tapelibraries are officially branded StorageTek.See http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/storage/tape-storage/overview/index.html II. Disk information density limitations: Disk technology struggles with information density. You haven't seen the disk sizes exploding lately, have you? That's partly because there are physical limits on a disk platter. The size is given, the number of platters is limited, they just can't grow, and are running out of physical area to write to. Now, in a T10000C tape cartridge we have over 1000m long tape. There you go, you have got your physical space and don't need to stuff all that data crammed together. You can write in a reliable pattern, and have space to grow too. III. Oracle has a market share of 62% worldwide in recording head manufacturing. That's right. If you are running LTO drives, with a good chance you rely on StorageTek production. That's two out of three LTO recording heads produced worldwide.  IV. You can store 1 Exabyte data in a single tape library. Yes, an Exabyte. That is 1000 Petabytes. Or, a million Terabytes. A thousand million GigaBytes. You can store that in a stacked StorageTek SL8500 tapelibrary. In one SL8500 you can put 10.000 T10000C cartridges, that store 10TB data (compressed). You can stack 10 of these SL8500s together. Boom. 1000.000 TB.(n.b.: stacking means interconnecting the libraries. Yes, cartridges are moved between the stacked libraries automatically.)  V. EMC: 'Tape doesn't suck after all. We moved on.': Do you remember the infamous 'Tape sucks, move on' Datadomain slogan? Of course they had to put it that way, having only had disk products. But here's a fun fact: on the EMCWorld 2012 there was a major presence of a Tape-tech company - EMC, in a sudden burst of sanity is embracing tape again. VI. The miraculous T10000C: Oracle StorageTek has developed an enterprise-grade tapedrive and cartridge, the T10000C. With awesome numbers: The Cartridge: Native 5TB capacity, 10TB with compression Over a kilometer long tape within the cartridge. And it's locked when unmounted, no rattling of your data.  Replaced the metalparticles datalayer with BaFe (bariumferrite) - metalparticles lose around 7% of magnetism within 30 days. BaFe does not. Yes we employ solid-state physicists doing R&D on demagnetisation in our labs. Can be partitioned, storage tiering within the cartridge!  The Drive: 2GB Cache Encryption implemented in HW - no performance hit 252 MB/s native sustained data rate, beats disk technology by far. Not to mention peak throughput.  Leading the tape while never touching the data side of it, protecting your data physically too Data integritiy checking (CRC recalculation) on tape within the drive without having to read it back to the server reordering data from tape-order, delivering it back in application-order  writing 32 tracks at once, reading them back for CRC check at once VII. You only use 20% of your data on a regular basis. The rest 80% is just lying around for years. On continuously spinning disks. Doubly consuming energy (power+cooling), blocking diskstorage capacity. There is a solution called SAM (Storage Archive Manager) that provides you a filesystem unifying disk and tape, moving data on-demand and for clients transparently between the different storage tiers. You can share these filesystems with NFS or CIFS for clients, and enjoy the low TCO of tape. Tapes don't spin. They sit quietly in their slots, storing 10TB data, using no energy, producing no heat, automounted when a client accesses their data.See: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/storage/storage-software/storage-archive-manager/overview/index.html VIII. HW supported for three decades: Did you know that the original PowderHorn library was released in '87 and has been only discontinued in 2010? That is over two decades of supported operation. Tape libraries are - just like the data carrying on tapecartridges - built for longevity. Oh, and the T10000C cartridge has 30-year archival life for long-term retention.  IX. Tape is easy to manage: Have you heard of Tape Storage Analytics? It is a central graphical tool to summarize, monitor, analyze dataflow, health and performance of drives and libraries, see: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/storage/tape-storage/tape-analytics/overview/index.html X. The next generation: The T10000B drives were able to reuse the T10000A cartridges and write on them even more data. On the same cartridges. We call this investment protection, and this is very important for Oracle for the future too. We usually support two generations of cartridges together. The current drive is a T10000C. (...I know I promised to enlist 10, but I got still two more I really want to mention. Allow me to work around the problem: ) X++. The TallBots, the robots moving around the cartridges in the StorageTek library from tapeslots to the drives are cableless. Cables, belts, chains running to moving parts in a library cause maintenance downtimes. So StorageTek eliminated them. The TallBots get power, commands, even firmwareupgrades through the rails they are running on. Also, the TallBots don't just hook'n'pull the tapes out of their slots, they actually grip'n'lift them out. No friction, no scratches, no zillion little plastic particles floating around in the library, in the drives, on your data. (X++)++: Tape beats SSDs and Disks. In terms of throughput (252 MB/s), in terms of TCO: disks cause around 290x more power and cooling, in terms of capacity: 10TB on a single media and soon more.  So... do you need to store large amounts of data? Are you legally bound to archive it for dozens of years? Would you benefit from automatic storage tiering? Have you got large mediachunks to be streamed at times? Have you got power and cooling issues in the growing datacenters? Do you find EMC's 180° turn of tape attitude interesting, but appreciate it at the same time? With all that, you aren't alone. The most data on this planet is stored on tape. Tape is coming. Big time.

    Read the article

  • How to backup 20+TB of data?

    - by Jesus Fidalgo
    We have a NAS server at the company I work for that is being used for storing photography sessions. Each session is approximately 100gb. Over the last couple of years this server has accumulated 10+ TB of data, and we are increasing the amount of photoshoots exponentially. I estimate that by the end of next year we will have 20+ TB stored on this NAS. We are currently backing this server up to tape using LTO-5 tapes with Symantec BackupExec. Since the size of this server has grown, full backups of this server are not completing overnight. Does anyone have any suggestion on how to backup this amount of data? Should we be backing it up to tape? Are there any other options which may be better?

    Read the article

  • Best labeler for the server room?

    - by Matt Simmons
    Right now, I've got a Brother P-touch labeler that prints four or five sizes of text on one long label. It has features such as italics and bold. It's...non-ideal. What do you use in your server room? I have heard of labelers that will print vertically as well as horizontally, or which can produce labels for cable management as well. I also think it would be great to be able to produce barcodes for my tapes (LTO-3). So basically, I would like a labeler that prints normal, can print cable labels, and can print barcodes. Unicorn optional. Any ideas, or could you even suggest the best labeler for each solution?

    Read the article

  • Is there still a place for tape storage?

    - by Jon Ericson
    We've backed up our data on LTO tapes for years and it's a real comfort to know we have everything on tape. A sister project and one of our data providers have both moved to 100% disk storage because the cost of disk has dropped so much. When we propose systems to potential customers these days we tend to downplay or not mention our use of tape systems for data storage since it might seem outdated. I feel more comfortable with having data saved in two separate formats: disks and tape. In addition, once data is securely written to tape, I feel (perhaps naively) that it's been permanently saved. Not having to rely on a RAID controller to be able to read back data is another plus for me. Do you see a place for tape backup these days?

    Read the article

  • Input/output (read) errors in Bacula while setting up a Tape Drive + Autochanger

    - by Kyle Brandt
    When running the label barcode command in bacula I am getting Input/output errors. I am just getting started in trying to set this up: Connecting to Storage daemon TapeDevice at ny-back01.ny.stackoverflow.com:9103 ... Sending label command for Volume "ACJ332" Slot 1 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 8, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 1, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 1, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ332" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ332", Slot 1 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ331" Slot 2 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 1, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 2, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 2, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ331" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ331", Slot 2 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ328" Slot 3 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 2, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 3, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 3, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ328" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ328", Slot 3 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ329" Slot 4 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 3, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 4, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 4, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ329" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ329", Slot 4 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ335" Slot 5 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 4, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 5, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 5, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ335" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ335", Slot 5 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ334" Slot 6 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 5, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 6, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 6, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ334" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ334", Slot 6 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ333" Slot 7 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 6, drive 0" command. 3304 Issuing autochanger "load slot 7, drive 0" command. 3305 Autochanger "load slot 7, drive 0", status is OK. block.c:1010 Read error on fd=5 at file:blk 0:0 on device "ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0). ERR=Input/output error. 3000 OK label. VolBytes=64512 DVD=0 Volume="ACJ333" Device="ULTRIUM-HH4" (/dev/st0) Catalog record for Volume "ACJ333", Slot 7 successfully created. Sending label command for Volume "ACJ330" Slot 8 ... 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot 7, drive 0" command. Bacula-dir: # Definition of file storage device Storage { Name = TapeDevice # Do not use "localhost" here Address = ny-back01.... # N.B. Use a fully qualified name here SDPort = 9103 Password = "..." Device = ULTRIUM-HH4 Media Type = LTO-4 Media Type = File Autochanger = Yes } Bacula-sd: Autochanger { Name = StorageLoader1U Device = ULTRIUM-HH4 Changer Command = "/etc/bacula/scripts/mtx-changer %c %o %S %a %d" Changer Device = /dev/sg5 } Device { Name = ULTRIUM-HH4 Media Type = LTO-4 Archive Device = /dev/st0 AutomaticMount = yes; AlwaysOpen = yes; RemovableMedia = yes; RandomAccess = no; AutoChanger = yes; RandomAccess = no; } Anyone knows what this means / why I am getting this?

    Read the article

  • gcc segmentation fault on Ubuntu 12.04

    - by Yuval F
    I am trying to compile a C program on Ubuntu precise 12.04. Here's the program: #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char** argv) { printf("Hello World!"); return 0; } My gcc version is 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5). Initially it did not find cc1 so I added a soft link. Now I get this message when I try to compile: gcc: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1) Compiling the same program with g++ works fine. I tried reinstalling build-essential, but to no avail. What am I missing? EDIT: I tried reinstalling according to @gertyvdijk's suggestion. As it did not help, here is the output of apt-cache policy gcc-4.6: gcc-4.6: Installed: 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 Candidate: 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 Version table: *** 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 0 500 http://il.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status and the output of ls -l /usr/bin/gcc: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Mar 13 2012 /usr/bin/gcc -> gcc-4.6 EDIT #2: here's a verbose compiler output: gcc -v aaa.c Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.6 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.6 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-plugin --enable-objc-gc --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64' /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/cc1 -quiet -v -imultilib . -imultiarch x86_64-linux-gnu aaa.c -quiet -dumpbase aaa.c -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -auxbase aaa -version -fstack-protector -o /tmp/ccHfcXMs.s gcc: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (program cc1) Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs> for instructions.

    Read the article

  • HP Storageworks 448 tape drive input/output error with Ubuntu

    - by Dan D
    I'm trying to set a backup to tape of a machine using flexbackup. However any attempt to write to the tape drive (via either flexbackup or just tar) results in "/dev/st0: Input/output error" The machine seems to recognise the drive (HP Storageworks Ultrium 448) and that there's a tape in it and "mt status" seems to work... "mt -f /dev/st0 rewind" or "erase" throw no errors... root@stor001:/# mt status SCSI 2 tape drive: File number=0, block number=0, partition=0. Tape block size 0 bytes. Density code 0x42 (LTO-2). Soft error count since last status=0 General status bits on (41010000): BOT ONLINE IM_REP_EN root@stor001:/# cat /proc/scsi/scsi Attached devices: Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 Vendor: HL-DT-ST Model: DVDRAM GSA-4084N Rev: KS02 Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 05 Host: scsi2 Channel: 00 Id: 03 Lun: 00 Vendor: HP Model: Ultrium 2-SCSI Rev: S65D Type: Sequential-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 03 "tell" does however root@stor001:/# mt -f /dev/st0 tell /dev/st0: Input/output error Based on a forum post I found, I tried: root@stor001:/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/nst0 bs=1024 count=10 10+0 records in 10+0 records out 10240 bytes (10 kB) copied, 5.0815 s, 2.0 kB/s which gave the person on the forum an error but seems to work for me. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears...

    Read the article

  • Creating a tar file with checksums included

    - by wazoox
    Here's my problem : I need to archive to tar files a lot ( up to 60 TB) of big files (usually 30 to 40 GB each). I would like to make checksums ( md5, sha1, whatever) of these files before archiving; however not reading every file twice (once for checksumming, twice for tar'ing) is more or less a necessity to achieve a very high archiving performance (LTO-4 wants 120 MB/s sustained, and the backup window is limited). So I'd need some way to read a file, feeding a checksumming tool on one side, and building a tar to tape on the other side, something along : tar cf - files | tee tarfile.tar | md5sum - Except that I don't want the checksum of the whole archive (this sample shell code does just this) but a checksum for each individual file in the archive. I've studied GNU tar, Pax, Star options. I've looked at the source from Archive::Tar. I see no obvious way to achieve this. It looks like I'll have to hand-build something in C or similar to achieve what I need. Perl/Python/etc simply won't cut it performance-wise, and the various tar programs miss the necessary "plugin architecture". Does anyone know of any existing solution to this before I start code-churning ?

    Read the article

  • Looking for suitable backup solution Mac OS X to offsite Centos 6 server 1TB of working data

    - by Brady
    I'll start by saying what we have in place currently: On site file server (Mac OS X Server) that is used by GFX designers and they have a working 1TB of data. Offsite server with 2TB available storage (Centos 6) Mac OS X server rsync data to offsite server every 6 hours (rsync -avz --delete --progress -e ssh ...) Mac OS X server does full data backup to LTO 4 tape on a 10 day recycle (Mon-Fri for 2 weeks) rsync pushes about 60GB of file changes a day. The problem: The onsite tape backup is failing as 1TB of graphics files don't compress well to fit onto a 800GB LTO4 tape. Backup is incredibly slow doing a full backup. Pain in the backside getting people to remember to change the tape. Often gets forgotten etc The quick solution: Buy LTO5 Drive and tapes. However this has been turned down because of the cost... What I would like: Something that works in the same way rysnc works. Only changed data is sent over the wire and can be scheduled to run multiple times during the day. Data that is sent is compressed and sent over SSH. Something that keeps a 14day retention but doesn't keep duplicate data So as an example if I have 1TB of working data and 60GB of changes are made each day then I expect around 1.84TB of data to be stored on the offsite server. To work with the Mac OS X server and Centos 6 server. Not cost an arm and a leg. Must be a cheaper solution than buying an LTO5 drive with tapes (around £1500). Be able to be setup to run autonomously. Have some sort of control panel that will allow an admin to easily restore a file/folder. Any recommendations?

    Read the article

  • Dell 2970 - HP 1/8 G2 autoloader keeps falling off LSI 2032 SCSI chain

    - by middaparka
    I've a somewhat irritating problem with a Dell 2970 that has a HP 1/8 G2 autoloader (the Ultrium LTO 2 model) attached to the Dell/LSI 2032 non-RAID SCSI card. In essence, sometimes the autoloader/drive completely fails to appear on the SCSI chain (i.e.: there's neither a media changer or tape drive present within the device manager) and sometimes it appears but then subsequently disappears at a seemingly random (yet always inconvenient) time, resulting in backup failures. On most occasions, there are simply no errors logged in the system event log, but I did manage to capture a series of LSI_SCSI event ID 11 ("The driver detected a controller error on \Device\RaidPort0") errors followed by an event ID 129, ("Reset to device, \Device\RaidPort0, was issued") error during testing. I've tried two different cables, both with the same effect – sometimes the autoloader appears (for a while), sometimes it's completely absent. There's only one terminator I've tried to use, but as I've since successfully tested the autoloader on multiple occasions (albeit via a Adaptec U160 card on a different machine), my gut feel is that the issue doesn't lie with the terminator, or indeed the autoloader itself. As such, I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas? It's most likely not relevant, but this is all under Windows SBS 2008, running Backup Exec 12.5 SBS edition (the Dell version), both fully patched. Addidtionally, the autoloader is running the latest firmware. It's been a while since I've dealt with anything SCSI, so all suggestions will be gratefully, gratefully received.

    Read the article

  • NTBackup (on WS2k3) fails to backup remote server (WS2k8R2) with " Error: is not a valid drive, or you do not have access."

    - by Mark A
    We run an NTBackup job on a Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2 with all updates (as of Q4-2011). It works well backing up two WS2k3 servers as well as the backup server itself. However, we have been unable to successfully back up our Windows Server 2008 R2 machine ("G5-01"). It often runs for about 2GB worth of backup and then dies out with one of the below error messages. It should be more like 20GB for the full server. We have tried using the admin share (C$), an explicitly shared drive share, UNC and mapped drives. The result is the same each time, the only thing that varies is the amount of stuff backed up before it chokes. We've also run NTBbackup from the UI interface, from the command line and as a scheduled task. We are backing up to 400/800GB tapes and they have plenty of space available on them (blank media). Error: \\G5-01\c is not a valid drive, or you do not have access. Error: \\G5-01\c$ is not a valid drive, or you do not have access. Error: Y: is not a valid drive, or you do not have access. Error: Could not access or create backup catalog files. Verify that you have full access to the working folder and there is disk space available. The job is run as Administrator and we have no problems logging onto the server and transferring files. The Event Log on the WS2k8 is not much help, as it has success audits for each login. All of the hardware involved (HP DL360 G3, HP LTO Ultrium 3, Adaptec 39320A) has the latest supported drivers. We've seemingly tried a bunch of different options but are wondering where to look next to resolve the backup issue. We've been super happy with our reliable schedule task for years but this one is stumping us!

    Read the article

  • Unable to build my c++ code with g++ 4.6.3

    - by Mriganka
    I am facing multiple issues with building my c++ code on Ubuntu 12.04. This code was building and running fine on RH Enterprise. I am using g++ 4.6.3. Here's the output of g++ -v. g++ -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=g++ COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/4.6/lto-wrapper Target: i686-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.6/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.6 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.6 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-plugin --enable-objc-gc --enable-targets=all --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=i686-linux-gnu --host=i686-linux-gnu --target=i686-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) Here's a sample of my code: #include "Word.h" #include < string> using namespace std; pthread_mutex_t Word::_lock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; Word::Word(): _occurrences(1) { memset(_buf, 0, 25); } Word::Word(char *str): _occurrences(1) { memset(_buf, 0, 25); if (str != NULL) { strncpy(_buf, str, strlen(str)); } } g++ -c -ansi or g++ -c -std=c++98 or g++ -c -std=c++03, none of these options are able to build the code correctly. I get the following compilation errors: mriganka@ubuntu:~/WordCount$ make g++ -c -g -ansi Word.cpp -o Word.o Word.cpp: In constructor ‘Word::Word()’: Word.cpp:10:21: error: ‘memset’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp: In constructor ‘Word::Word(char*)’: Word.cpp:16:21: error: ‘memset’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp:19:34: error: ‘strlen’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp:19:35: error: ‘strncpy’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp: In member function ‘void Word::operator=(const Word&)’: Word.cpp:37:42: error: ‘strlen’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp:37:43: error: ‘strncpy’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp: In copy constructor ‘Word::Word(const Word&)’: Word.cpp:44:21: error: ‘memset’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp:45:52: error: ‘strlen’ was not declared in this scope Word.cpp:45:53: error: ‘strncpy’ was not declared in this scope So basically g++ 4.6.3 on Ubuntu 12.04 is not able to recognize the standard c++ headers. And I am not finding a way out of this situation. Second problem: In order to make progress, I included < string.h instead of < string. But now I am facing linking errors with my message queue and pthread library functions. Here's the error that I am getting: mriganka@ubuntu:~/WordCount$ make g++ -c -g -ansi Word.cpp -o Word.o g++ -lrt -I/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu Word.o HashMap.o main.o -o word_count main.o: In function `main': /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:75: undefined reference to `pthread_create' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:90: undefined reference to `mq_open' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:93: undefined reference to `mq_getattr' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:113: undefined reference to `mq_send' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:123: undefined reference to `pthread_join' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:129: undefined reference to `mq_close' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:130: undefined reference to `mq_unlink' main.o: In function `count_words(void*)': /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:151: undefined reference to `mq_open' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:154: undefined reference to `mq_getattr' /home/mriganka/WordCount/main.cpp:162: undefined reference to `mq_timedreceive' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Here's my makefile: CC=g++ CFLAGS=-c -g -ansi LDFLAGS=-lrt INC=-I/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu SOURCES=Word.cpp HashMap.cpp main.cpp OBJECTS=$(SOURCES:.cpp=.o) EXECUTABLE=word_count all: $(SOURCES) $(EXECUTABLE) $(EXECUTABLE): $(OBJECTS) $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $(INC) -pthread $(OBJECTS) -o $@ .cpp.o: $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $< -o $@ clean: rm -f *.o word_count Please help me to resolve both the issues. I searched online relentlessly for any solution of these problems, but no one seems to have encountered these issues.

    Read the article

  • Creating a tar file with checksums included

    - by wazoox
    Here's my problem : I need to archive to tar files a lot ( up to 60 TB) of big files (usually 30 to 40 GB each). I would like to make checksums ( md5, sha1, whatever) of these files before archiving; however not reading every file twice (once for checksumming, twice for tar'ing) is more or less a necessity to achieve a very high archiving performance (LTO-4 wants 120 MB/s sustained, and the backup window is limited). So I'd need some way to read a file, feeding a checksumming tool on one side, and building a tar to tape on the other side, something along : tar cf - files | tee tarfile.tar | md5sum - Except that I don't want the checksum of the whole archive (this sample shell code does just this) but a checksum for each individual file in the archive. I've studied GNU tar, Pax, Star options. I've looked at the source from Archive::Tar. I see no obvious way to achieve this. It looks like I'll have to hand-build something in C or similar to achieve what I need. Perl/Python/etc simply won't cut it performance-wise, and the various tar programs miss the necessary "plugin architecture". Does anyone know of any existing solution to this before I start code-churning ?

    Read the article

  • IT merger - self-sufficient site with domain controller VS thin clients outpost with access to termi

    - by imagodei
    SITUATION: A larger company acquires a smaller one. IT infrastructure has to be merged. There are no immediate plans to change the current size or role of the smaller company - the offices and production remain. It has a Win 2003 SBS domain server, Win 2000 file server, linux server for SVN and internal Wikipedia, 2 or 3 production machines, LTO backup solution. The servers are approx. 5 years old. Cisco network equippment (switches, wireless, ASA). Mail solution is a hosted Exchange. There are approx. 35 desktops and laptops in the company. IT infrastructure unification: There are 2 IT merging proposals. 1.) Replacing old servers, installing Win Server 2008 domain controller, and setting up either subdomain or domain trust to a larger company. File server and other servers remain local and synchronization should be set up to a centralized location in larger company. Similary with the backup - it remains local and if needed it should be replicated to a centralized location. Licensing is managed by smaller company. 2.) All servers are moved to a centralized location in larger company. As many desktop machines as possible are replaced by thin clients. The actual machines are virtualized and hosted by Terminal server at the same central location. Citrix solutions will be used. Only router and site-2-site VPN connection remain at the smaller company. Backup internet line to insure near 100% availability is needed. Licensing is mainly managed by larger company. Only specialized software for PCs that will not be virtualized is managed by smaller company. I'd like to ask you to discuss both solutions a bit. In your opinion, which is better from the operational point of view? Which is more reliable, cheaper in the long run? Easier to manage from the system administrator's point of view? Easier on the budget and easier to maintain from IT department's point of view? Does anybody have any experience with the second option and how does it perform in production environment? Pros and cons of both? Your input will be of great significance to me. Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • Back Up to Tape the Way You Shop For Groceries

    - by rickramsey
    Imagine if this was how you shopped for groceries: From the end of the aisle sprint to the point where you reach the ketchup. Pull a bottle from the shelf and yell at the top of your lungs, “Got it!” Sprint back to the end of the aisle. Start again and sprint down the same aisle to the mustard, pull a bottle from the shelf and again yell for the whole store to hear, “Got it!” Sprint back to the end of the aisle. Repeat this procedure for every item you need in the aisle. Proceed to the next aisle and follow the same steps for the list of items you need from that aisle. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Not only is it horribly inefficient, it’s exhausting and can lead to wear out failures on your grocery cart, or worse, yourself. This is essentially how NetApp and some other applications write NDMP backups to tape. In the analogy, the ketchup and mustard are the files to be written, yelling “Got it!” is the equivalent of a sync mark at the end of a file, and the sprint back to the end of an aisle is the process most commonly called a “backhitch” where the drive has to back up on a tape to start writing again. Writing to tape in this way results in very slow tape drive performance and imposes unnecessary wear on the tape drive and the media, especially when writing small files. The good news is not all tape drives behave this way when writing small files. Unlike midrange LTO drives, Oracle’s StorageTek T10000D tape drive is designed to handle this scenario efficiently. The difference between the two drive types is that the T10000D drive gives you the ability to write files in a NetApp NDMP backup environment the way you would normally shop for groceries. With grocery shopping, you essentially stream through aisles picking up items as you go, and then after checking out, yell, “Got it!”, though you might do that last step silently. With the T10000D, it has a feature called the Tape Application Accelerator, which prevents the drive from having to stop after each file is written to notify NetApp or another application that the write was successful. When enabled in the T10000D tape drive, Tape Application Accelerator causes the tape drive to respond to tape mark and file sync commands differently than when disabled: A tape mark received by the tape drive is treated as a buffered tape mark. A file sync received by the tape drive is treated as a no op command. Since buffered tape marks and no op commands do not cause the tape drive to empty the contents of its buffer to tape and backhitch, the data is written to tape in significantly less time. Oracle has emulated NetApp environments with a number of different file sizes and found the following when comparing the T10000D with the Tape Application Accelerator enabled versus LTO6 tape drives. Notice how the T10000D is not only monumentally faster, but also remarkably consistent? In addition, the writing of the 50 GB of files is done without a single backhitch. The LTO6 drive, meanwhile, will perform as many as 3,800 backhitches! At the end of writing the entire set of files, the T10000D tape drive reports back to the application, in this case NetApp, that the write was successful via a tape mark. So if the Tape Application Accelerator dramatically improves performance and reliability, why wouldn’t you always have it enabled? The reason is because tape drive buffers are meant to be just temporary data repositories so in the event of a power loss, there could be data loss in certain environments for the files that resided in the buffer. Fortunately, we do have best practices depending on your environment to avoid this from happening. I highly recommend reading Maximizing Tape Performance with StorageTek T10000 Tape Drives (pdf) to decide which best practice is right for you. The white paper also digs deeper into the benefits of the Tape Application Accelerator. The white paper is free, and after downloading it you can decide for yourself whether you want to yell “Got it!” out loud or just silently to yourself. Customer Advisory Panel One final link: Oracle has started up a Customer Advisory Panel program to collect feedback from customers on their current experiences with Oracle products, as well as desires for future product development. If you would like to participate in the program, go to this link at oracle.com. photo taken on Idaho's Sacajewea Historic Biway by Rick Ramsey - Brian Zents Follow OTN on Blog | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

    Read the article

  • Is Linear Tape File System (LTFS) Best For Transportable Storage?

    - by rickramsey
    Those of us in tape storage engineering take a lot of pride in what we do, but understand that tape is the right answer to a storage problem only some of the time. And, unfortunately for a storage medium with such a long history, it has built up a few preconceived notions that are no longer valid. When I hear customers debate whether to implement tape vs. disk, one of the common strikes against tape is its perceived lack of usability. If you could go back a few generations of corporate acquisitions, you would discover that StorageTek engineers recognized this problem and started developing a solution where a tape drive could look just like a memory stick to a user. The goal was to not have to care about where files were on the cartridge, but to simply see the list of files that were on the tape, and click on them to open them up. Eventually, our friends in tape over at IBM built upon our work at StorageTek and Sun Microsystems and released the Linear Tape File System (LTFS) feature for the current LTO5 generation of tape drives as an open specification. LTFS is really a wonderful feature and we’re proud to have taken part in its beginnings and, as you’ll soon read, its future. Today we offer LTFS-Open Edition, which is free for you to use in your in Oracle Enterprise Linux 5.5 environment - not only on your LTO5 drives, but also on your Oracle StorageTek T10000C drives. You can download it free from Oracle and try it out. LTFS does exactly what its forefathers imagined. Now you can see immediately which files are on a cartridge. LTFS does this by splitting a cartridge into two partitions. The first holds all of the necessary metadata to create a directory structure for you to easily view the contents of the cartridge. The second partition holds all of the files themselves. When tape media is loaded onto a drive, a complete file system image is presented to the user. Adding files to a cartridge can be as simple as a drag-and-drop just as you do today on your laptop when transferring files from your hard drive to a thumb drive or with standard POSIX file operations. You may be thinking all of this sounds nice, but asking, “when will I actually use it?” As I mentioned at the beginning, tape is not the right solution all of the time. However, if you ever need to physically move data between locations, tape storage with LTFS should be your most cost-effective and reliable answer. I will give you a few use cases examples of when LTFS can be utilized. Media and Entertainment (M&E), Oil and Gas (O&G), and other industries have a strong need for their storage to be transportable. For example, an O&G company hunting for new oil deposits in remote locations takes very large underground seismic images which need to be shipped back to a central data center. M&E operations conduct similar activities when shooting video for productions. M&E companies also often transfers files to third-parties for editing and other activities. These companies have three highly flawed options for transporting data: electronic transfer, disk storage transport, or tape storage transport. The first option, electronic transfer, is impractical because of the expense of the bandwidth required to transfer multi-terabyte files reliably and efficiently. If there’s one place that has bandwidth, it’s your local post office so many companies revert to physically shipping storage media. Typically, M&E companies rely on transporting disk storage between sites even though it, too, is expensive. Tape storage should be the preferred format because as IDC points out, “Tape is more suitable for physical transportation of large amounts of data as it is less vulnerable to mechanical damage during transportation compared with disk" (See note 1, below). However, tape storage has not been used in the past because of the restrictions created by proprietary formats. A tape may only be readable if both the sender and receiver have the same proprietary application used to write the file. In addition, the workflows may be slowed by the need to read the entire tape cartridge during recall. LTFS solves both of these problems, clearing the way for tape to become the standard platform for transferring large files. LTFS is open and, as long as you’ve downloaded the free reader from our website or that of anyone in the LTO consortium, you can read the data. So if a movie studio ships a scene to a third-party partner to add, for example, sounds effects or a music score, it doesn’t have to care what technology the third-party has. If it’s written back to an LTFS-formatted tape cartridge, it can be read. Some tape vendors like to claim LTFS is a “standard,” but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s a specification at this point, not a standard. That said, we’re already seeing application vendors create functionality to write in an LTFS format based on the specification. And it’s my belief that both customers and the tape storage industry will see the most benefit if we all follow the same path. As such, we have volunteered to lead the way in making LTFS a standard first with the Storage Network Industry Association (SNIA), and eventually through to standard bodies such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Expect to hear good news soon about our efforts. So, if storage transportability is one of your requirements, I recommend giving LTFS a look. It makes tape much more user-friendly and it’s free, which allows tape to maintain all of its cost advantages over disk! Note 1 - IDC Report. April, 2011. “IDC’s Archival Storage Solutions Taxonomy, 2011” - Brian Zents Website Newsletter Facebook Twitter

    Read the article

  • CLSF & CLK 2013 Trip Report by Jeff Liu

    - by jamesmorris
    This is a contributed post from Jeff Liu, lead XFS developer for the Oracle mainline Linux kernel team. Recently, I attended both the China Linux Storage and Filesystem workshop (CLSF), and the China Linux Kernel conference (CLK), which were held in Shanghai. Here are the highlights for both events. CLSF - 17th October XFS update (led by Jeff Liu) XFS keeps rapid progress with a lot of changes, especially focused on the infrastructure/performance improvements as well as  new feature development.  This can be reflected with a sample statistics among XFS/Ext4+JBD2/Btrfs via: # git diff --stat --minimal -C -M v3.7..v3.12-rc4 -- fs/xfs|fs/ext4+fs/jbd2|fs/btrfs XFS: 141 files changed, 27598 insertions(+), 19113 deletions(-) Ext4+JBD2: 39 files changed, 10487 insertions(+), 5454 deletions(-) Btrfs: 70 files changed, 19875 insertions(+), 8130 deletions(-) What made up those changes in XFS? Self-describing metadata(CRC32c). This is a new feature and it contributed about 70% code changes, it can be enabled via `mkfs.xfs -m crc=1 /dev/xxx` for v5 superblock. Transaction log space reservation improvements. With this change, we can calculate the log space reservation at mount time rather than runtime to reduce the the CPU overhead. User namespace support. So both XFS and USERNS can be enabled on kernel configuration begin from Linux 3.10. Thanks Dwight Engen's efforts for this thing. Split project/group quota inodes. Originally, project quota can not be enabled with group quota at the same time because they were share the same quota file inode, now it works but only for v5 super block. i.e, CRC enabled. CONFIG_XFS_WARN, an new lightweight runtime debugger which can be deployed in production environment. Readahead log object recovery, this change can speed up the log replay progress significantly. Speculative preallocation inode tracking, clearing and throttling. The main purpose is to deal with inodes with post-EOF space due to speculative preallocation, support improved quota management to free up a significant amount of unwritten space when at or near EDQUOT. It support backgroup scanning which occurs on a longish interval(5 mins by default, tunable), and on-demand scanning/trimming via ioctl(2). Bitter arguments ensued from this session, especially for the comparison between Ext4 and Btrfs in different areas, I have to spent a whole morning of the 1st day answering those questions. We basically agreed on XFS is the best choice in Linux nowadays because: Stable, XFS has a good record in stability in the past 10 years. Fengguang Wu who lead the 0-day kernel test project also said that he has observed less error than other filesystems in the past 1+ years, I own it to the XFS upstream code reviewer, they always performing serious code review as well as testing. Good performance for large/small files, XFS does not works very well for small files has already been an old story for years. Best choice (maybe) for distributed PB filesystems. e.g, Ceph recommends delopy OSD daemon on XFS because Ext4 has limited xattr size. Best choice for large storage (>16TB). Ext4 does not support a single file more than around 15.95TB. Scalability, any objection to XFS is best in this point? :) XFS is better to deal with transaction concurrency than Ext4, why? The maximum size of the log in XFS is 2038MB compare to 128MB in Ext4. Misc. Ext4 is widely used and it has been proved fast/stable in various loads and scenarios, XFS just need more customers, and Btrfs is still on the road to be a manhood. Ceph Introduction (Led by Li Wang) This a hot topic.  Li gave us a nice introduction about the design as well as their current works. Actually, Ceph client has been included in Linux kernel since 2.6.34 and supported by Openstack since Folsom but it seems that it has not yet been widely deployment in production environment. Their major work is focus on the inline data support to separate the metadata and data storage, reduce the file access time, i.e, a file access need communication twice, fetch the metadata from MDS and then get data from OSD, and also, the small file access is limited by the network latency. The solution is, for the small files they would like to store the data at metadata so that when accessing a small file, the metadata server can push both metadata and data to the client at the same time. In this way, they can reduce the overhead of calculating the data offset and save the communication to OSD. For this feature, they have only run some small scale testing but really saw noticeable improvements. Test environment: Intel 2 CPU 12 Core, 64GB RAM, Ubuntu 12.04, Ceph 0.56.6 with 200GB SATA disk, 15 OSD, 1 MDS, 1 MON. The sequence read performance for 1K size files improved about 50%. I have asked Li and Zheng Yan (the core developer of Ceph, who also worked on Btrfs) whether Ceph is really stable and can be deployed at production environment for large scale PB level storage, but they can not give a positive answer, looks Ceph even does not spread over Dreamhost (subject to confirmation). From Li, they only deployed Ceph for a small scale storage(32 nodes) although they'd like to try 6000 nodes in the future. Improve Linux swap for Flash storage (led by Shaohua Li) Because of high density, low power and low price, flash storage (SSD) is a good candidate to partially replace DRAM. A quick answer for this is using SSD as swap. But Linux swap is designed for slow hard disk storage, so there are a lot of challenges to efficiently use SSD for swap. SWAPOUT swap_map scan swap_map is the in-memory data structure to track swap disk usage, but it is a slow linear scan. It will become a bottleneck while finding many adjacent pages in the use of SSD. Shaohua Li have changed it to a cluster(128K) list, resulting in O(1) algorithm. However, this apporoach needs restrictive cluster alignment and only enabled for SSD. IO pattern In most cases, the swap io is in interleaved pattern because of mutiple reclaimers or a free cluster is shared by all reclaimers. Even though block layer can merge interleaved IO to some extent, but we cannot count on it completely. Hence the per-cpu cluster is added base on the previous change, it can help reclaimer do sequential IO and the block layer will be easier to merge IO. TLB flush: If we're reclaiming one active page, we should first move the page from active lru list to inactive lru list, and then reclaim the page from inactive lru to swap it out. During the process, we need to clear PTE twice: first is 'A'(ACCESS) bit, second is 'P'(PRESENT) bit. Processors need to send lots of ipi which make the TLB flush really expensive. Some works have been done to improve this, including rework smp_call_functiom_many() or remove the first TLB flush in x86, but there still have some arguments here and only parts of works have been pushed to mainline. SWAPIN: Page fault does iodepth=1 sync io, but it's a little waste if only issue a page size's IO. The obvious solution is doing swap readahead. But the current in-kernel swap readahead is arbitary(always 8 pages), and it always doesn't perform well for both random and sequential access workload. Shaohua introduced a new flag for madvise(MADV_WILLNEED) to do swap prefetch, so the changes happen in userspace API and leave the in-kernel readahead unchanged(but I think some improvement can also be done here). SWAP discard As we know, discard is important for SSD write throughout, but the current swap discard implementation is synchronous. He changed it to async discard which allow discard and write run in the same time. Meanwhile, the unit of discard is also optimized to cluster. Misc: lock contention For many concurrent swapout and swapin , the lock contention such as anon_vma or swap_lock is high, so he changed the swap_lock to a per-swap lock. But there still have some lock contention in very high speed SSD because of swapcache address_space lock. Zproject (led by Bob Liu) Bob gave us a very nice introduction about the current memory compression status. Now there are 3 projects(zswap/zram/zcache) which all aim at smooth swap IO storm and promote performance, but they all have their own pros and cons. ZSWAP It is implemented based on frontswap API and it uses a dynamic allocater named Zbud to allocate free pages. Zbud means pairs of zpages are "buddied" and it can only store at most two compressed pages in one page frame, so the max compress ratio is 50%. Each page frame is lru-linked and can do shink in memory pressure. If the compressed memory pool reach its limitation, shink or reclaim happens. It decompress the page frame into two new allocated pages and then write them to real swap device, but it can fail when allocating the two pages. ZRAM Acts as a compressed ramdisk and used as swap device, and it use zsmalloc as its allocator which has high density but may have fragmentation issues. Besides, page reclaim is hard since it will need more pages to uncompress and free just one page. ZRAM is preferred by embedded system which may not have any real swap device. Now both ZRAM and ZSWAP are in driver/staging tree, and in the mm community there are some disscussions of merging ZRAM into ZSWAP or viceversa, but no agreement yet. ZCACHE Handles file page compression but it is removed out of staging recently. From industry (led by Tang Jie, LSI) An LSI engineer introduced several new produces to us. The first is raid5/6 cards that it use full stripe writes to improve performance. The 2nd one he introduced is SandForce flash controller, who can understand data file types (data entropy) to reduce write amplification (WA) for nearly all writes. It's called DuraWrite and typical WA is 0.5. What's more, if enable its Dynamic Logical Capacity function module, the controller can do data compression which is transparent to upper layer. LSI testing shows that with this virtual capacity enables 1x TB drive can support up to 2x TB capacity, but the application must monitor free flash space to maintain optimal performance and to guard against free flash space exhaustion. He said the most useful application is for datebase. Another thing I think it's worth to mention is that a NV-DRAM memory in NMR/Raptor which is directly exposed to host system. Applications can directly access the NV-DRAM via a memory address - using standard system call mmap(). He said that it is very useful for database logging now. This kind of NVM produces are beginning to appear in recent years, and it is said that Samsung is building a research center in China for related produces. IMHO, NVM will bring an effect to current os layer especially on file system, e.g. its journaling may need to redesign to fully utilize these nonvolatile memory. OCFS2 (led by Canquan Shen) Without a doubt, HuaWei is the biggest contributor to OCFS2 in the past two years. They have posted 46 upstream patches and 39 patches have been merged. Their current project is based on 32/64 nodes cluster, but they also tried 128 nodes at the experimental stage. The major work they are working is to support ATS (atomic test and set), it can be works with DLM at the same time. Looks this idea is inspired by the vmware VMFS locking, i.e, http://blogs.vmware.com/vsphere/2012/05/vmfs-locking-uncovered.html CLK - 18th October 2013 Improving Linux Development with Better Tools (Andi Kleen) This talk focused on how to find/solve bugs along with the Linux complexity growing. Generally, we can do this with the following kind of tools: Static code checkers tools. e.g, sparse, smatch, coccinelle, clang checker, checkpatch, gcc -W/LTO, stanse. This can help check a lot of things, simple mistakes, complex problems, but the challenges are: some are very slow, false positives, may need a concentrated effort to get false positives down. Especially, no static checker I found can follow indirect calls (“OO in C”, common in kernel): struct foo_ops { int (*do_foo)(struct foo *obj); } foo->do_foo(foo); Dynamic runtime checkers, e.g, thread checkers, kmemcheck, lockdep. Ideally all kernel code would come with a test suite, then someone could run all the dynamic checkers. Fuzzers/test suites. e.g, Trinity is a great tool, it finds many bugs, but needs manual model for each syscall. Modern fuzzers around using automatic feedback, but notfor kernel yet: http://taviso.decsystem.org/making_software_dumber.pdf Debuggers/Tracers to understand code, e.g, ftrace, can dump on events/oops/custom triggers, but still too much overhead in many cases to run always during debug. Tools to read/understand source, e.g, grep/cscope work great for many cases, but do not understand indirect pointers (OO in C model used in kernel), give us all “do_foo” instances: struct foo_ops { int (*do_foo)(struct foo *obj); } = { .do_foo = my_foo }; foo>do_foo(foo); That would be great to have a cscope like tool that understands this based on types/initializers XFS: The High Performance Enterprise File System (Jeff Liu) [slides] I gave a talk for introducing the disk layout, unique features, as well as the recent changes.   The slides include some charts to reflect the performances between XFS/Btrfs/Ext4 for small files. About a dozen users raised their hands when I asking who has experienced with XFS. I remembered that when I asked the same question in LinuxCon/Japan, only 3 people raised their hands, but they are Chris Mason, Ric Wheeler, and another attendee. The attendee questions were mainly focused on stability, and comparison with other file systems. Linux Containers (Feng Gao) The speaker introduced us that the purpose for those kind of namespaces, include mount/UTS/IPC/Network/Pid/User, as well as the system API/ABI. For the userspace tools, He mainly focus on the Libvirt LXC rather than us(LXC). Libvirt LXC is another userspace container management tool, implemented as one type of libvirt driver, it can manage containers, create namespace, create private filesystem layout for container, Create devices for container and setup resources controller via cgroup. In this talk, Feng also mentioned another two possible new namespaces in the future, the 1st is the audit, but not sure if it should be assigned to user namespace or not. Another is about syslog, but the question is do we really need it? In-memory Compression (Bob Liu) Same as CLSF, a nice introduction that I have already mentioned above. Misc There were some other talks related to ACPI based memory hotplug, smart wake-affinity in scheduler etc., but my head is not big enough to record all those things. -- Jeff Liu

    Read the article

  • Compile error with initializer_list when trying to use it to initialize member value of class

    - by ilektron
    I am trying to make a class initializable from an initialization_list in a class constructor's constructor's initialization list. It works for a std::map, but not for my custom class. I don't see any difference other than templates are used in std::map. #include <iostream> #include <initializer_list> #include <string> #include <sstream> #include <map> using std::string; class text_thing { private: string m_text; public: text_thing() { } text_thing(text_thing& other); text_thing(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il); text_thing& operator=(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il); operator string() { return m_text; } }; class static_base { private: std::map<string, string> m_test_map; text_thing m_thing; static_base(); public: static static_base& getInstance() { static static_base instance; return instance; } string getText() { return (string)m_thing; } }; typedef std::pair<const string, const string> spair; text_thing::text_thing(text_thing& other) { m_text = other.m_text; } text_thing::text_thing(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il) { std::stringstream text_gen; for (auto& apair : il) { text_gen << "{" << apair.first << ", " << apair.second << "}" << std::endl; } } text_thing& text_thing::operator=(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il) { std::stringstream text_gen; for (auto& apair : il) { text_gen << "{" << apair.first << ", " << apair.second << "}" << std::endl; } return *this; } static_base::static_base() : m_test_map{{"test", "1"}, {"test2", "2"}}, // Compiler fine with this m_thing{{"test", "1"}, {"test2", "2"}} // Compiler doesn't like this { } int main() { std::cout << "Starting the program" << std::endl; std::cout << "The text thing: " << std::endl << static_base::getInstance().getText(); } I get this compiler output g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -std=c++11 -MMD -MP -MF"static_base.d" -MT"static_base.d" -o "static_base.o" "../static_base.cpp" Finished building: ../static_base.cpp Building file: ../test.cpp Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -std=c++11 -MMD -MP -MF"test.d" -MT"test.d" -o "test.o" "../test.cpp" ../test.cpp: In constructor ‘static_base::static_base()’: ../test.cpp:94:40: error: no matching function for call to ‘text_thing::text_thing(<brace-enclosed initializer list>)’ m_thing{{"test", "1"}, {"test2", "2"}} ^ ../test.cpp:94:40: note: candidates are: ../test.cpp:72:1: note: text_thing::text_thing(std::initializer_list<std::pair<const std::basic_string<char>, const std::basic_string<char> > >&) text_thing::text_thing(std::initializer_list< std::pair<const string, const string> >& il) ^ ../test.cpp:72:1: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided ../test.cpp:67:1: note: text_thing::text_thing(text_thing&) text_thing::text_thing(text_thing& other) ^ ../test.cpp:67:1: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 2 provided ../test.cpp:23:2: note: text_thing::text_thing() text_thing() ^ ../test.cpp:23:2: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 2 provided make: *** [test.o] Error 1 Output of gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu 4.8.1-2ubuntu1~13.04' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.8/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,java,go,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.8 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.8 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-plugin --with-system-zlib --disable-browser-plugin --enable-java-awt=gtk --enable-gtk-cairo --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64/jre --enable-java-home --with-jvm-root-dir=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64 --with-jvm-jar-dir=/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64 --with-arch-directory=amd64 --with-ecj-jar=/usr/share/java/eclipse-ecj.jar --enable-objc-gc --enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.8.1 (Ubuntu 4.8.1-2ubuntu1~13.04) It compiles fine with the std::map constructed this way, and if I modify the static_base to return the strings from the maps, all is fine and dandy. Please help me understand what is going on here.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2