Filipe Brandenburger (filbr...@gmail.com)

Hi Rudi,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 02:13, Rudi Ahlers <rudiahlers@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...which can't take a lot of load...
> ...the machine sky rockets at some times...

The problem you have is that the Load Average is too high?

If that is indeed your problem, there is no way that this can be a
memory or CPU issue, since those would cause crashes and not high Load
Average.

If what you have is high Load Average, check this:
- Your machine has 8GB RAM. Are you using the 64-bit version of
CentOS? There would be an overhead in using a 32-bit PAE version on a
machine with more than 4GB, last time I tried it (some years ago) the
overhead was big enough to make a difference in the server's
performance.
- Your machine has SATA. If you don't use the correct SATA settings on
the BIOS, CentOS may use it in a backwards compatible mode and you
will not get enough performance out of it (see previous posts on
problems on SATA and on AHCI). If that's the case, changing the BIOS
settings might make a huge difference, but beware that if you do your
machine may no longer boot with the OS you installed right now. Better
thing to do would be to reinstall it once you found the right setting.

And next time, please state your problem clearly ("high Load Average")
instead of jumping the gun and saying you have a CPU or RAM issue
which does not seem to be the case here.

HTH,
Filipe

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:54, Craig White <craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote:
> # ls -l /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 18 Oct 13 18:38 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 ->
> libstdc++.so.5.0.7
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 733168 Jan 8 2007 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5.0.7
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 804212 Oct 23 10:09 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 936908 May 26 15:16 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8

The libstdc++.so.6 is dated October 23rd, less than one month ago and
newer than libstdc++.so.6.0.8. It seems like it was replaced after the
RPM was installed.

> # rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
> libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5
> # rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.8
> libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5

You can check the date the RPM was installed with 'rpm -qi
libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5'.

You can also use 'rpm --verify libstdc++-4.1.2-42.el5' to check if the
files match the RPM database, I suspect 'rpm --verify ...' will tell
you that libstdc++.so.6 does not match the version that was installed
with the RPM.

> so my inclination is to remove the /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 and create a
> symlink to libstdc++.so.6.26 to replace it. Does this make sense?

Makes sense to me.

> What about the libxml2.so which apparently is there because of the devel
> package?

Same date on the offending file. Do you have any idea of what did you
install that day?

> Is this a CentOS packaging issue ?

Probably not, it's probably something that was installed from source
and not from RPM.

HTH,
Filipe

Hi Berend,


On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:12, Berend Dekens <berend@cyberwizzard.nl> wrote:
> Tony Mountifield wrote:
>> Could you post the output of: head -20
>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0*
>
> [[email protected: r...@hagrid] network-scripts]# head -20
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0*
[not the real output of the command since filenames are omitted]


On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:17, Tony Mountifield
<tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> The reason I said to use "head -20" and "ifcfg-eth0*" was that if you used
> that command literally, it would (a) output ALL eth0 aliases, and (b) prepend
> each one automatically with a filename header, assuming there is more than
> one file.


On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:42, Berend Dekens <berend@cyberwizzard.nl> wrote:
> [[email protected: r...@hagrid] ~]# cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*


Did you still not understand that we need to know what the file names are???

Please improve your comprehension skills.

HTH,
Filipe

Hi

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:32, Tom Brown <tom@ng23.net> wrote:
> # /etc/init.d/httpd start
> Starting httpd: /usr/sbin/httpd: symbol lookup error:
> /usr/lib/libaprutil-0.so.0: undefined symbol: gdbm_errno
> [FAILED]

I've had a similar problem, and it was a software that had a custom
version of gdbm library and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH in profile to make
sure that version would be used.

Do you have LD_LIBRARY_PATH set? What does this command say:

# echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH

If you do, try unsetting it before starting httpd:

# LD_LIBRARY_PATH= service httpd start

HTH,
Filipe

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:44, Neil Aggarwal <neil@jammconsulting.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the red herring.

No problem.

> I am now convinced the problem is not in the firewall.
> It must be somewhere in Apache, Tomcat, or my
> application code (Most likely).  I think I
> was seeing the firewall logs after I restarted
> Apache since the responses were rejected since they
> no longer were attached to an established connection.

Look into the number of busy httpd servers, that might be your problem
(and why it's not accepting any new connections). To do that you can
use a configured URL in Apache (I believe it is /server-status) or you
can at least estimate using "ps" and comparing with the settings for
maximum number of servers in your httpd.conf.

HTH,
Filipe