Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DRBD To Be Included In Linux Kernel 2.6.33

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-you-can-sleep-nights dept.

Data Storage 166

An anonymous reader writes "The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP, DRBD, has been accepted as part of the main Linux kernel. Amid much fanfare and some slight controversy, Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree, expected to release February, 2010. DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years, but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of LINBIT, based in Vienna. Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication."

cancel ×

166 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How does this differ from NBD? (1, Interesting)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397514)

How does this differ from the Network Block Device (NBD)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_block_device [wikipedia.org]

Re:How does this differ from NBD? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397560)

The "DR" stands for Distributed and Replicated. DRBD is way higher-level in function, but integrated lower-level than the simple userspace daemon that the server side of NBD uses.

Read the docs, the differences should be blindingly obvious.

Re:How does this differ from NBD? (3, Informative)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397954)

Another way of putting (some configurations of) DRBD is probably "Networked block device RAID, but more flexible".

Re:How does this differ from NBD? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397968)

You should consider a career as a teacher.

And then you should shoot yourself in your fucking brainpan.

Mod parent -1, Troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398294)

Mod the fucking parent post -1, Troll (and this post too).

Re:Mod parent -1, Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398650)

...and this one. plzkthxoklolroflbbqchickenwtf

Re:Mod parent -1, Troll (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398930)

I for one welcome our obediant mod overlords. Mod this 'underrated', robots!

Many ways (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398730)

Lot of different ways to get similar results. You might say I'm cloudy on which of these is really equivalent, is a good idea or the best way to do it, or has good performance.

There is Gluster [gluster.org] which sits on top of any existing disk file system, via FUSE, I think. No kernel module needed, only runs a daemon. I tried version 2, and it worked fine, however I didn't demand much of it. They've just come out with version 3.0 that doesn't need libfuse anymore.

Or there's Lustre, which does need a kernel module, and has its own file system.

Are some of the new file systems under development, such as btrfs, going to have distributed, networked operation as a basic feature? I recall hearing that ZFS has some ability along those lines.

Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.

I haven't heard of NBD before. Of course there's NFS, which seemingly everyone agrees is slow and obsolete.

Re:Many ways (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398852)

Are some of the new file systems under development, such as btrfs, going to have distributed, networked operation as a basic feature? I recall hearing that ZFS has some ability along those lines.

Not exactly. ZFS has send/receive functions that let you copy a filesystem snapshot (full or incremental based off a previous snapshot) to another location. These functions just use stdin and stdout, relying on rsh/ssh/nc/whatever for network communication. It's designed more for remote backup purposes, rather than high availability.

Re:Many ways (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398994)

The big problem with send and receive is that if you have any bit errors in the data stream receive will back out everything. That means its useless for long term backup where you might only need to get one file off an tape since its an all or nothing. I think ZFS's biggest failure at this point is a lack of a way to do backups without modifying the meta data on the files.

Re:Many ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399036)

Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.

Exactly the reason *FOR* DRBD.

what the fuck is this shit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397520)

How's the hope and change? Barack Obama sounds and acts more and more like George Bush on daily basis. But he's got dark skin and that's all that really matters to a liberal.

Anyhow, what the fuck is DRBD and why the fuck should I care?

Re:what the fuck is this shit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397594)

Anyhow, what the fuck is DRBD and why the fuck should I care?

Please hit the back button on your browser and never return.

Re:what the fuck is this shit? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397614)

sure thing chump. Do you still think about your sister when you jack off?

Re:what the fuck is this shit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397926)

does your sega cd render cd-i movies with more than 64 colors?

Re:what the fuck is this shit? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397686)

A conservative would have attacked something different - they'd think it was good if Obama acted like Bush! Only a liberal would call that bad...and write a blistering screed pretending to be a racist right-winger. Also note the display of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the well-known malady when otherwise normal people go into unrelated internet comment threads and express off-topic extreme hatred. Just something to keep slashdot interesting to browse at -1!

Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397534)

About 15 years ago, I worked for a place that used Tru64. It offered very similar technology to this. Frankly, we found typical hardware solutions to work better. Software is better at some things, but for work like this, you want it done as much in hardware as is possible.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397656)

But your hardware device is just another computer running software for which this feature might be useful.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (3, Insightful)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399220)

These days, at least.

15 years ago, it might have been largely done using a lot of custom logic on custom hardware, not software running on general-purpose hardware as is the norm these days.

General purpose computing has come a long way in the past 1.5 decades.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399324)

Yeah 10 years ago I might have bought a handful of cmos chips for a particular task. Now I just buy a couple of atmel atmega8 microcontrollers. Its cheaper than a couple of logic gates and a flip flop.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (4, Interesting)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397904)

Doing it in software for purely virtual hardware is useful. I know it's been used to sync disks across the network on Xen hosts, the idea being that if the local and remote copies of the disk are kept in close sync, you can migrate a virtual machine with very low latency. Should be able to do similar tricks with other Linuxy VMMs. Having software available to do this stuff makes it easy to configure this sort of thing quickly, especially if you're budget-constrained, hardware-wise.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398362)

If you're budget constrained hardware-wise you shouldn't be using Xen in the first place. http://www.vmware.com/pdf/hypervisor_performance.pdf

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399202)

Woohoo a study by VMWare claiming that Xen is slower AND it's from 2006 AND it tests Windows 2003 guests, brilliant!

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398634)

Premium-wise and billing-wise, we are eighteen percent ahead of last year, October-wise.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (1)

dgym (584252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398782)

You can achieve live migration with iSCSI and AoE too, and if you use a SAN you will probably continue to use one of these network block device protocols.

What DRBD does it make it relatively simple to set up a redundant SAN, using commodity hardware, from which you can export iSCSI devices etc.

Of course if you are going to use local storage for your VPSs it is just as easy to set DRBD up on those hosts and forgo any network block device layer on top of it. Dual primary mode makes live migration in this scenario particularly convenient.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399026)

And you forgot to mention the price difference in the solutions.

If I want a cheap way to achieve live migration, then you can't beat a couple Linux PC's with DRBD.

If you require a serious commercial set up, then using a SAN is appealing.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398082)

I suspect that, like so many things, while there is room for the best way, there is a great deal of room for the "reasonably good and a whole lot cheaper" way.

A whole lot of progress in modern IT, especially on the server side, is less about exceeding the architectural sophistication of 70s-80s UNIX systems and mainframes, and more about making some of those capabilities available on sucktastic x86s.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (4, Interesting)

dgym (584252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398722)

I'm not about to dismiss your experience, but things have changed over the last 15 years so it might not be as relevant as it once was.

In that time processors have become much faster, memory has become much cheaper, commodity servers have also become much cheaper and a lot of software has become free. While that has happened hard disks have become only a little faster. As a result many people consider custom hardware for driving those disks to be unnecessary - generic hardware is more than fast enough and is significantly cheaper.

There might still be some compelling reasons to go with expensive redundant SAN equipment, but for many situations a couple of generic servers full of disks and running Linux and DRBD will do an admirable job. The bottleneck will most likely be the disks or the network, both of which can be addressed by spending some of the vast amount of money saved by not going with typical enterprise solutions.

Re:Similar support was in Tru64 years ago. (1)

Macka (9388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399498)

What are you talking about? Tru64 has nothing that functions like DRBD and never has. You need to re-read what DRBD actually does because you're getting confused. Also, 15 years ago Tru64 was only 1 year old, only it wasn't Tru64 back then it was DEC OSF/1 and it was really quite crude and buggy compared to the Tru64 in circulation today. So you would not have had a very spectacular experience with it.

Very Useful Software (4, Interesting)

bflong (107195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397638)

We use DRBD for some very mission critical servers that require total redundancy. Combined with Heartbeat I can fail over from one server to another without any single point of failure. We've been using it for more then 5 years, and never had any major issues with it. It will be great to have it in the mainline kernel.

Re:Very Useful Software (1)

Tuqui (96668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398876)

We use it only for mirroring the Databases, for mirroring files we use Mogilefs and other methods. The problem with DRBD is that once the primary is down, to check both machines and decide if is OK to resync the disks takes a lot of time, And only DB needs the low latency mirroring in our case.

Re:Very Useful Software (3, Interesting)

DerPflanz (525793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399134)

We have used drbd 0.7 for some mission critical server, but it gave more headaches than a warm (or even cold) standby. The main problem is keeping you nodes synchronised for the disks that are NOT in the drbd (e.g. /, /etc, /usr, etc). We put our software on drbd disk and the database on another. However, when adding services, it is easy to 'forget' to add the startup script in /etc/ha.d and the first failover results in not all services being started. Which leads to a support call.

I understand that we should perhaps change the setup to include a 'correct' way to provides updates, but just putting a raid-1 in a server, with database replication somewhere else just seems to be less of a hassle.

Oh c'mon now... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397710)

All I have to say is that this is one of the inherent problems with Linux. Rather than the nice, logical, pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of .conf files scattered all over the various disk partitions. Even the clean, responsive WIndows-type GUI cannot be found in Linux. You're stuck with some cobbled-together GUI if you're lucky. Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days. I don't want to edit a hacked-up .conf file to get my modem to work, to get my video card's refresh rate correct, or to hear my speaker beep, thank you. I will stick with Windows, which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet. Heck, I remember back a few years ago our company's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux. After he found he couldn't get the accounting software to work on them the big boss yelled at him so bad that the poor guy broke down crying and swore he'd never try to push that Linux crap again. Can't say I blame him...

Re:Oh c'mon now... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398134)

There wis a local mid-sized company which recently migrated their workstations from Windows XP to Linux. Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice...it did everything they needed to do, and it was free!

Productivity dropped sharply shortly after the migration. No prob, everybody thought, just a temporary result of the learning curve. Rolling out a standard backup image was a huge hassle because there were different brands and models of workstations.

Updates would break the entire operating system and the IT staff had to hire temps just to fix driver problems and roll the dice editing config files. Users were complaining about having to sit aside all day while their workstations were being "fixed". Users were becoming frustrated with not knowing how to do anything without getting "file permissions" errors, and some of them threatened to quit altogether after a training session showed them how to use the terminal to navigate to a word document and use sudo to open it, while the same action would have been only a double-click on Windows. It took 5 months before the computers were perfectly configured and everybody got the hang of using Linux, but it still didn't solve the problem of random OS lockups which caused a lot of lost data.

Why is Linux still locking up? Windows fixed that problem years ago with 2k/XP!

Re:Oh c'mon now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398286)

Why is Linux still locking up? Windows fixed that problem years ago with 2k/XP!

Just check the fault manager logs for any MCE's or other detectable hardware problems, then send the kernel crash dump image to your OS vendor for detailed analysis.

Ooooh, Linux. Well, first I'd make sure you have workstations with at least Xeon class or equivalent processors, then go install a real OS that is suitable for workstation use.

Re:Oh c'mon now... (1, Insightful)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398378)

There wis a local mid-sized company which recently migrated their workstations from Windows XP to Linux. Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice...it did everything they needed to do, and it was free!

Productivity dropped sharply shortly after the migration. No prob, everybody thought, just a temporary result of the learning curve. Rolling out a standard backup image was a huge hassle because there were different brands and models of workstations.

Updates would break the entire operating system and the IT staff had to hire temps just to fix driver problems and roll the dice editing config files. Users were complaining about having to sit aside all day while their workstations were being "fixed". Users were becoming frustrated with not knowing how to do anything without getting "file permissions" errors, and some of them threatened to quit altogether after a training session showed them how to use the terminal to navigate to a word document and use sudo to open it, while the same action would have been only a double-click on Windows. It took 5 months before the computers were perfectly configured and everybody got the hang of using Linux, but it still didn't solve the problem of random OS lockups which caused a lot of lost data.

Why is Linux still locking up? Windows fixed that problem years ago with 2k/XP!

Uhhh,, "-1 Truth Hurts" ?

Re:Oh c'mon now... (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399064)

that looks more like some copy-paste troll.
"use the terminal to navigate to a word document and use sudo to open it" ? rrrrrrrrrrrrright.

Re:Oh c'mon now... (3, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399164)

I've been using linux as my main OS for the past 6 to 7 years and in all this time I never experienced any linux lockup., not even back in the beginning where we couldn't do away with compiling software by hand (where the "you need to know how to program to use linux!" was born) and when the only way to make my DSL modem work was to run a weird, convoluted shell script through the command line. So, that "lockup" accusation is, at least, very odd, particularly in this day and age.

Moreover, that weird accusation of "file permissions errors" and the need to have IT staff hired with the sole purpose of "fixing drivers" and "edit config files" also sounds like bullshit to me, specially in today's world and even after the GP stated that their workstations worked with XP and win2k, a pair of OSes which are more problematic, less stable and with a less extensive hardware support than today's popular linux distributions.

And of course, let's not forget that the GP made a point in launching that long-winded anti-linux troll while intentionally keeping out fundamental details such as what linux distribution was supposed to be installed, not to mention that it was posted anonymously. To put it in other words, the GP wrote that post intending to attack the entire linux world, insinuating that that sort of problem affects each and all distros and not a specific one, and it did it so intending to be a troll.

So, it would only be seen as "-1 truth hurts" if you didn't read the post and you also considered a "your mother is a whore" type of post as "-1 truth hurts". It's not, it is meant to insult and it is perfectly void of any objective statement.

Re:Oh c'mon now... (-1, Troll)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398530)

Hungry?

Updates would break the entire operating system and the IT staff had to hire temps just to fix driver problems and roll the dice editing config files.

Wouldn't happen if the IT staff knew what they were doing.

Why is Linux still locking up?

Unsupported hardware. This goes back to the IT staff. Don't install an operating system on hardware which doesn't support it!

Re:Oh c'mon now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399238)

For some reason i dont believe Linux lockups as much as you say ive been booted 6 months so far without even one, and never have seen it but one time and it was with kde, i could understand why productivity would be slow,because linux you actually have to work and the windows users dont want to do that, thats something they have never encoutered, and if updates broke the entire system and theres only one way this would happen, if you get a kernel upgrade, on some disto's of linux you have to set it up, or it wont even boot, but experianced linux users know that, and why would you use terminal to navigate to a word document and sudo to open it, you make me laugh, the person training didnt know anything about linux. and that action is also a double click on linux, truth hurts dont it. you dont use sudo to open anything, sudo is used to install stuff btw and some other stuff you dont know about, because ive read this post and you dont know shit about linux. And if it took them all day to fix something on linux, the person fixing it sucked at a major level of suckage, he fail big time, if there was even a problem in the first place and i bet your making this shit up by reading it, i could of probably fixed it in 1 minute. "file permission" errors thats something out of all the years of using linux ive never got, 5 months to perfectly configure, omfg they fail big time, random os lockups, your stupid, a lockup that caused lots of lost data, you know if your windows manager dont load you can manually load it with a command for your info. even though its informative, its total bullshit, but i agree with one thing, i can see it taking awhile for a windows user to use linux. and most wont even take the time and say it sucks. by reading that i can truely say you dont know shit about linux, or that local mid-sized company you said, please tell me which company it is, i think ill make a valuable asset to that company, very valuable, i dont think anyone there actually used linux, even the one training. moral of story the user had to do something very stupid to cause that many lockups, i cant even lock linux up, it happend one time with kde but thats not linux its kde, kde has a hell of alot of bugs, and i think kde has made a hell of alot of mistakes, but 3.5 was awesome, never had a problem, now i use xfce, ive got to love it.

Re:Oh c'mon now... (3, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399270)

Why is Linux still locking up? Windows fixed that problem years ago with 2k/XP!

It isn't. In our mid/large company, we have hundreds of Linux workstations, and they've all been working for years without a single hitch, from day one. No permission problems, never had an update causing significant issues, don't even ALLOW users to get a command-line, etc. Vastly easier to debug when there is a problem, and has allowed the company to replace a large group of Windows experts with a small group of Linux experts, and the vastly improved productivity has allowed the company to significantly reduce the number of employees (or rather, just cease to replace them when there is turnover).

Just the other day I noticed the uptime on one of the Linux workstations was over a year at this point. No lockups. The few issues we've had with the systems have been directly traced to hardware problems.

If yours is a true story (which I seriously doubt) you should look at hiring at least one half-way decent Linux SysAdmin at a reasonable salary to fix the pathological issues with the installation which was likely done by minimum-wage idiots without a clue.

Re:Oh c'mon now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399342)

about time the real linux users step up.

Another networking module... great (1, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397756)

Just what we need, yet another networking module built into the kernel. Creating a fresh config with the 2.6 series kernels has become even more of a hassle since there are so many modules that are activated by default. To stop the insanity I have to go through and eliminate 90% of what's there so that 'make modules' doesn't take longer than the kernel proper. Most of them are targeted for special applications and don't need to be in a default build.

Re:Another networking module... great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397790)

make oldconfig

Or if you're really certain you want nothing new

yes n | make oldconfig

Re:Another networking module... great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397974)

or
make allnoconfig

Re:Another networking module... great (1, Flamebait)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397852)

Maybe stop building kernels by hand and you'll be a lot happier, then, eh? Seriously, there's virtually no reason to build a custom kernel unless you have some pretty unusual requirements. So quit wasting your time. And if you insist on building kernels by hand for no particularly good reason, quit bitching. It's not like you don't have a choice.

Re:Another networking module... great (2, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398042)

People who build (and test) their own custom kernels are important. Sometimes, a bug won't show up except with some weird combination of kernel options, because some code path dependencies are missed with the fully configured kernels that the distros build for you.

Re:Another networking module... great (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398096)

People who build (and test) their own custom kernels are important. Sometimes, a bug won't show up except with some weird combination of kernel options, because some code path dependencies are missed with the fully configured kernels that the distros build for you.

Well, that's very noble. Nevertheless, those who make the choice to build their own kernels, as valuable as they may be, are still making a choice, and that choice means putting up with the tedium of configuring and building the kernel out. Don't like it? Stop doing it.

Re:Another networking module... great (5, Informative)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399000)

i'm sorry to say, but that's not a good attitude. and i'm being polite here.

developers need testers. some arrogant assholes might claim they don't, but then they're known as ones. now, to attract testers you not only are polite to them, you also do not discourage them by breaking or ignoring things that hamper them (but might not concern casual users), you actually should build tools and other support functionality for testing.
essentially, having less testers will impact quality of the software for everybody else, so casual users also should desire for the project to have more testers.

i'm glad that at least some kernel hackers recognise this, and 2.6.32 actually has support for new configuration method, which looks at already loaded modules and some other stuff to create trimmed down kernel config - http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges#head-11f54cdac41ad6150ef817fd68597554d9d05a5f [kernelnewbies.org]

Re:Another networking module... great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399546)

"i'm sorry to say, but that's not a good attitude. and i'm being polite here."

Who's bad attitude?

"developers need testers"

Mainly because the carelessly way they do their job. I've found *big* amounts of software where "developers need testers" just because they follow the rule "if it compiles, deliver".

Gentoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398178)

He runs Gentoo you insensitive clod!

Re:Another networking module... great (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398330)

    Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications. It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.

    Anyone who bitches about it just hasn't had enough practice.

Re:Another networking module... great (1, Troll)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397866)

Oh noes! It takes like 10 minutes to compile the default kernel for all those users that compile their own kernel! Clearly linux is going down the tubes! What insanity!

What's with all the idiotic posts?

Re:Another networking module... great (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397980)

Just wait 'til next week when the Gentoo folks finish compiling and finally see this story.

Re:Another networking module... great (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398338)

    They'll never be done compiling. :)

Re:Another networking module... great (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398682)

That's a good thing. They would have no idea what to do if they had nothing to compile.

Re:Another networking module... great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397908)

yes no | make oldconfig

Re:Another networking module... great (4, Informative)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397942)

You want "make localmodconfig", which I think was also added recently, possibly to 2.6.32 actually. This builds a kernel using a local .config file, except that it only compiles modules that show up in lsmod. So if you boot off your vendor kernel with a squillion modules, let it load the modules you actually *use* then do make localmodconfig, you can make a kernel that only contains those modules. I don't know what it does if module names etc change, maybe you'd need manual fixup then - should still be less work than you currently are doing though.

There's some explanation here, though it might be for an out-of-date version of the patch:
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-09/msg04230.html [derkeiler.com]

As the other reply said, make oldconfig is also useful to important settings from a previously configured kernel, can save a lot of time.

Re:Another networking module... great (1, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399358)

What’s wrong with simply using “make oldconfig”?

Re:Another networking module... great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398070)

They're modules though, the ones that your not using are just taking up space on the hard drive.

Re:Another networking module... great (1)

soundguy (415780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398792)

They're modules though, the ones that your not using are just taking up space on the hard drive.

You mean my TWO TRILLION BYTE hard drive? How about coming up with an issue that actually matters?

Re:Another networking module... great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399214)

That's the point: the measly amount of disk space used is the only drawback to unneeded modules.

Re:Another networking module... great (4, Insightful)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398394)

They are called modules for a reason: You can add or remove at will, including whether or not you bother to build them at all. To say modules are "built into the kernel" is incorrect; module code is included with the kernel source code, but the modules themselves are only built and used if you choose.

As concerns the "insanity" of configuring a kernel, here again you have a choice: Use Ubuntu. But if you want a fast, lean, mean machine you really do want to craft your kernel to fit your specific needs.

Great! More bloat. (-1, Troll)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397792)

This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel. For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for. It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default. Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.

Re:Great! More bloat. (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397816)

so when you get to that part of the kernel config, don't enable it.

Re:Great! More bloat. (1)

TD-Linux (1295697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397834)

It's a good thing the kernel supports modules, so that the 0.1% of users that use this feature can still have it supported without any performance or memory usage detriment to the other 99.9% of users.

No bloat, no sense (4, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397846)

It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.

Your "requirement": "something that the majority of Linux users need, or want" is irrelevant. There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true, probably MOST of them.

"it's just another layer of complexity" - NOT if you don't install the userland packages or load the kernel module.

"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Re:No bloat, no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398098)

He does have a good point about being flagged for compilation by default.

Re:No bloat, no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398352)

iff the distro maintainer actually *does* compile it by default.

GPP has no points.

Re:No bloat, no sense (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398480)

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Nor cunnilingus.

Re:No bloat, no sense (1, Flamebait)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398522)

It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.

I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied. If it's just a module that's fine by me. Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel. I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.

"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have an opinion? (maybe I pissed you off by using bloat and linux in the same sentence?) Go back and read what I wrote. I did NOT say it was not a useful feature. I said the vast majority of Linux users do not need this feature. Big difference. Or are you suggesting that more than a small fraction of users need HA and clustering capabilities?

Stupid obligatory car analogy, if 1% of the owners smoke it doesn't make sense to equip all the cars with ash trays? No, you simply keep it as an option.

Re:No bloat, no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398584)

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

Sure you are. GP is also permitted to call you a douchebag and/or a butthurt whiner for complaining when he tells you it's a *stupid* opinion.

Re:No bloat, no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399104)

moral of story theres more invalid than valid here at slashdot, but hay it is freespeech, doesnt mean people know what there talking about.

Re:No bloat, no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399400)

I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied. If it's just a module that's fine by me. Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel. I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.

You're an idiot, plain and simple. Being inside the source tree doesn't mean it will bloat the kernel. It's a module, can you grasp the concept? If you don't want it, simply don't compile it and/or load it. There, was that so difficult?

As for not seeing the benefit of being in tree, again, you're an idiot. It is so fucking bleedingly obvious -- being in tree makes it less prone to breakage, if something is introduced to the kernel that breaks that functionality, whoever introduced the change is also responsible for picking up the pieces and supergluing them back together. Being merged into the kernel means it will always work without much effort.

Re:No bloat, no sense (1)

bmcage (785177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399446)

It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.

I missed where its a module and not "To Be Included in Linux Kernel" as the title implied. If it's just a module that's fine by me. Just keep it as a module and don't compile it into the kernel. I do see benefit of including the source as official Linux versus the previous third-party status.

Do you even know how linux works and what is meant with the kernel tree? Just type lsmod to see your modules, and do man modprobe to see how modules are loaded and unloaded.

Obviously the distribution must compile the entire kernel, with all modules, detect your requirements, and then load automatically those pieces that are needed for you at startup.

Re:Great! More bloat. (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397858)

It's not a layer, it's a module. Even if distros compile it, the result is just an extra driver file in the directory. It is only loaded if you need it. How does that add any bloat?

Even at a source code level, it is completely self contained in a directory, other than a couple of one-line changes to tell the build system to compile.

Re:Great! More bloat. (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398400)

Honestly, unless you are tuning your operating system for some very specialized use, bloat isn't an issue.

The vast majority of users don't need to worry about bloat, and you'd have to seriously try to screw up Linux to make it as bloated as, say, Windows 7.

I am looking right now that the C:\WINDOWS directory for a windows 7 machine and its sitting at 11GB in size.

Re:Great! More bloat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397862)

From the summary:

DRBD has existed as open source and available in major distros for 10 years

So distros already ship it. It's just one less patch for the distros to look after, and it sounds like the code got cleaned up a bit as part of the kernel merge.

For your information:

  • Many kernel features (including DRDB) are available as modules. So if you don't use them, they don't take up any memory, and don't slow down your system. The only downside is an extra (unused) module file on disk.
  • No-one paying for a Linux distro wants to recompile their kernel. You lose vendor support, which is why you paid for it in the first place. You also lose the ability to apply your vendor's kenrel security updates. For serious company use (not hobbyists) these are big problems.

Re:Great! More bloat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397880)

Call em crazy, but are there not things like modules. The modules are then either not installed or not linked into the kernel unless they are actually needed.

As you stated it really up to the distributions. Having it be part of the mainline kernel makes less work for me and I would imagine the distributors as well. I can update my systems without having to spend my time worrying about compiling that third party module.

Re:Great! More bloat. (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399222)

This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel.

So it's great that they don't need, nor they are forced to, have this kernel module in their kernel. And it is also great that, as everyone (including you) has access to the source code, it is possible to cherry pick what feature to have in the OS kernel. Isn't linux awesome?

For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.

Source, please? Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?

It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.

My guess is not many. But you know what? As it's a kernel module, if a distro doesn't include it then you can include it and if a distro does include it then you can also remove it. Isn't linux awesome?

Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.

And thankfully that's what linux gives you. More so, even if you don't need it you can also remove it. It's an odd bloat to have, being able to not only remove hand-picked features right out of the OS kernel and but also add them if you see fit. Isn't linux awesome?

I need your collective advice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397808)

Figured you astute Slashdotters could help me out on this one. You see, I work night shift doing help desk work for a (nameless) U.S. cable TV company. It was quiet and my boss was on break. Since I was all alone with no cube-mates I seized the opportunity to "break wind."

Anyhoo, when I did I think I overdid it. I'm 99.9% sure I shat myself. I can feel the fecal matter streaming down my leg under my work slacks (no casual day until tomorrow).

So, what do I do? My boss is back now and keeps checking in on how I'm doing, since I'm a new hire. I'm pretty certain he can smell what's going on. I feel trapped!

Has this happened to any of you? Just wondering how I can sneak to the restroom and if I am able to, how I can work around this. No change of clothes here at work.

Re:I need your collective advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397842)

Wait for the boss to leave then high tail it to the bath room. Even if you don't have a change of clothes you can at least get rid of most of the stuff off your person.

Re:I need your collective advice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397996)

I here you bro. Went out to taco bell for lunch. A couple hours later, I let off some gas. Didn't realize it for a couple minutes, but when I shifted, I discovered I was sitting in a pool of liquid shit. I don't know if it was bad taco meat, or maybe the dude who fucked me in the bathroom used too much lube. Not that I would quit either. Anyone tried shoving a tampon up your ass? Maybe that would help.

Have people finally woken up? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398142)

Over five hours and we have an article on Linux and a puzzle and not even 200 posts between them? Have people finally abandoned Slashdork for a real tech site instead of this geek Oprah show wannabe?

Re:Have people finally woken up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398232)

You got it, man. Lame-o...

Linux FS rocks (4, Interesting)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398250)

I admin AIX systems for my day job... One thing that's really nice about AIX is that the filesystem and underlying block device is highly integrated. This means that to resize a volume you can run a single command that does it on the fly. For AIX admins who are new to Linux it seems a step backwards and they liken it to HP-UX or some earlier volume management...

Ahh, but the beauty of having separate filesystem and block device is that it's so damn flexible. I can build an LVM volume group on iSCSI LUNs exported from a another system. In that VG I can create a set of LUNs that I can use for the basis of my DRBD volume. In that DRBD volume I can carve out other disks. Or I can multipath them. Or create a software RAID.

Anyhoo, DRBD is a really cool technology. It gives the ability to create HA pairs on the cheap. You can put anything from a shared apache docroot there to the disks for Oracle RAC. With fast networking available for cheap, almost any shop can have the toys that were once only affordable to big companies...

Re:Linux FS rocks (4, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398268)

Or you could have ZFS where you don't even need to resize.. it just happens.

And you still have block device representations if you want them, along with all the other benefits of zfs.

Re:Linux FS rocks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398612)

As soon as you're paying for Oracle RAC, you're so far gone from the Realm of Cheap that saving some bucks with DRBD isn't a concern any more.

Re:Linux FS rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399038)

Usally here as ive noticed and its happend to me, several time and ive mentioned positive things about linux and that was very true, I didint even get a rateing, bunch of people to busy calling me names, Either slashdot actually got flooded with linux users, and i can see you use linux and it totally is awesome what your talking about, I was gonna post about it under my actual name, but didnt because i figured it would get bashed on, but im sure the older this post gets you'll see tons of that. But im glad to see it got a 5 star rating, it deserves it. just for instance google slashdot and read what it says on the top entry, Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues. Put a windows section on here and i can post for a entire week about issues with windows, maybe thats why there isnt a windows section, that should give you a hint, In reality geeks wont to here about all operating systems, they really dont care about the issues, they care for what it can do, they dont care about ease of use, and if they cant do it, they will learn. Just to be cleared up Linux is the kernel, theres olot of distros using the kernel, nothing more. argue as you please, for i know this been using linux for years. Just ask linus torvalds, or any developer of a reliable distro and it isnt ubuntu, better yet go in ##slackware and ask them what linux is, put it like this is Slackware a distro of Linux, or is it actually linux. Go to freenode then ##slackware

Re:Linux FS rocks (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399366)

Uuum, what stops you from doing the same thing on Linux? Every partition / logic volume can be partitioned again, and so on.

Maybe I don’t get the difference.

Re:Linux FS rocks (1)

Wodin (33658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399684)

He was saying that in AIX it's all integrated and therefore easy and AIX admins tend to think of the way it's done in Linux as a step backwards, BUT with the Linux way of doing things it's much more flexible exactly because "every partition / [logical] volume can be partitioned again, and so on."

Yawn. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398356)

It's 2010 and Linux *still* has no ZFS or DTrace. What a joke.

I am amazed anyone would use Linux for anything other than maybe controlling a toaster. Even then I wouldn't trust it to not burn the bread.

to be honest, i dont really like drbd (4, Interesting)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398376)

I dont like drbd (though i've used it for a while)... its a massive convoluted and complex mess and fairly inflexible.

Personally, im hoping dm-replicator gets near completion sometime soon though details of it are rather scarce (i do have a kernel built with the dm-replicator patches, but trying to do anything with it seems near impossible)...

I do a fair amount of work inside the storage world and drbd is just such a mess in so many ways.

I sounds very critical and so forth to drbd and thats not the way i mean to come across. What I really am trying to say is that its bloated for the small amount of functionality it does and with a couple of minor tweeks could do much MUCH more. Its a kewl piece of software, but like many FOSS projects has a hideous, weighty config prone to confusion (something you just dont need with DR).

Still, that is the way it is!

Re:to be honest, i dont really like drbd (1)

Macka (9388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399642)

Don't hold your breath for dm-replicator, it's still a way off. And even when it does hit you'll only get active-passive replication. Active-active isn't even on the road map yet and DRBD has that today. In addition there is no support today for dm-replicator in any of the popular linux cluster stacks where DRBD is very well supported and has been for a many years.

Puzzled (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30398492)

Yes but what does it all mean?

2002 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398878)

FreeBSD users have been doing it for 7 years with the default kernel. I guess that's one reason why it's more popular with companies that depend on HA, such as Bank of America. I love having ZFS as well, the combination is sooooo bad ass :-)

For those that run BRDB and want to try it, can read this [74.125.77.132] .

Re:2002 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399110)

uhm. just read that link and yeah, 2002. it reads like linux-ha circa 2002 /w pre-v8 DRBD + heartbeat v1. HA concepts are similar across the board but HA on linux has come a long way in the last 5 years or so. if youve already written DRBD off as inferior at least check out www.clusterlabs.org and see where the CRM/failover software side of linux HA is at these days. its quite impressive and compliments DRBD perfectly as a rock-solid FOSS HA solution.

Re:2002 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30399600)

Yeah, that one is very old. It's a very different ballgame now with FreeBSD as well. We can still stack the vblock devices as we like, as many as we like. But now it's possible to do more, a lot more. GGate s exceptionally good now, a lot has happend in six years.

Personally I prefer ZFS at the bottom, with encrypted network replication to the HA nodes.

Compared to VMS clusters... (2, Informative)

pesc (147035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30399304)

Ah, Linux gets disk level clustering?

It is interesting to compare with what VMS offered 25 years ago [wikipedia.org] :
- VMS could have multiple nodes (can DRBD? It is not obvious from the web site.)
- All VMS nodes have read and write access to the file systems
- The distributed lock manager [wikipedia.org] helps with file locking in this case.
- VMS has the concept of quorum [hp.com] to avoid the "split brain" syndrom mentioned on the web page.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?