I have a smart error of possible hard drive failure on a hard drive of a cPanel server. Before I ask for replacement of new drive,
I'm going to get a new hard drive as New Primary
and make the Old Primary as Secondary Drive (To Restore)
I have the complete manual to restore. However the last time I tried to do that same thing, the system OS crash because it cannot tell which one is primary, and which is secondary (Both is SATA)
My partition is
/boot 100mb
swap 2gb
/tmp 500mb
/ rest of disk
no LVM, installed on MBR
I remember the last time I read something about e2label to rename my hdd label which cause the OS crash when new+old primary was booted together.
i had to do a file system back up because of the size of my database.
i shutdown postmaster and tar'd the files.
i recently reloaded my OS and now i'm attempting to restore the backups. i first shut down postmaster, restored the backups to the data folder and restarted postmaster.
i then su'd from root to postgres user:
Code: [postgres@austin1 pgsql]$ psql service_2_3 psql: FATAL: database "service_2_3" does not exist DETAIL: The database subdirectory "base/16385" is missing.
the backups had a database named service_2_3 but upon restoring the backups, it doesn't seem to be available.
my data directory is /var/pgsql/data.
Code: [postgres@austin1 pgsql]$ ls -lahR /var/pgsql/ | grep 16385 but that yielded nothing.
have i done something wrong while backing up? i don't think i have since i followed the postgres manual when backing up. but the administrators have not been very thorough with how they've set the system up for me.
how i can resolve this issue if you have the time.
Is it enough to restore the full server backup via the web interface of Plesk to get everything running fine after a reinstall, or is there something else I should do ? I have all kind of backups (server, domains, customers). My server is running Plesk 12 on Ubuntu 12, and I think I will have Ubuntu 14 on the new installation. My backups are on a server on the same local network than my server.
I got a new server and need to move my primary and secondary DNS. I use cpanel.
My idea was too:
1. Shut off my secondary DNS ns2. on my old server. (which I don't know how to do.) I was able to delete it from the nameserver Ip's link in whm. It deleted it but the server still has the IP assigned to it.
2. Set up my secondary dns on the new server. (cpanel wont let me because it says it already exists so I'm kind of stuck on this one too.)
3. Once the secondary is set up go to my registar and change the IP address.
4. move the sites, and turn off the primary ns server forcing everything to go to the new server or secondary dns.
I've been having this issue for almost a week now and it's driving me crazy.
I made an IP switch from one peer to another. Anyways, I setup the gateway, primary IP, subnet, etc.
Once the box was rebooted and came up with the new IPs I noted that cPanel was whining that the license was incorrect and noted that instead of xxx.xxx.xxx.98 it was recognizing xxx.xxx.xxx.99
I just switched the license over and it was done. But I'm having some major email issues as some remote hosts does not receive/send emails to my server as the hostname cannot be found since they also recognize the secondary IP .99 and not primary .98 as it should be.
I've checked the entire settings again but just can't get around it. An ipconfig shows that the primary IP is in fact .98 which keeps me puzzled:
Signed up for my 1st VPS recently, after Primary VPS had initial problems setting up my CPanel VPS, they offered me 'free full management ' for 2 months and Free Security Installation. Nice i thought. On the 16th June, experienced around 12 hours of downtime, had not moved my main sites over to them at that time so didn't kick up any fuss.
After moving my main sites over to them, soon after and they all working ok, on Wednesday 20th June night, I requested this free security installation they offered and was told APF and BFD had been installed some time in the night.
Checking sites next morning (thursday 21st - coincidently same time everyone else was having problems) saw no sites were available, was getting 'server not found'. So started 'critical support ticket':
Quote:
Hello,
I went onto the internet this morning to find my websites/IP addresses down and my control panel inaccessible. It has now been 40 minutes and its still the same. God knows how long it may have down before i checked. I tried live support twice and both times i have been cut off/ no response. Please can this problem with my VPS and your live support system be looked at.
This resulted in 20 hours of no sites for me. Same thing in the ticket, I would say, 'My IP addresses and sites are still down' and i would get response back, 'Your VPS is back up and running fine'. Great help that was!
14 hours after my 'critical' support ticket and not getting anywhere, finally speaking to someone in live support, they figured it was the firewall they had installed earlier was blocking access to everything. They excepted no responsibility for the time sites were offline or any loss of earnings saying it was my fault for not configuring the firewall.
Response was:
Quote:
The issue is that you did not request any ports to be open or any applications to be allowed through
I thought ok, maybe it was my fault, i'm new to VPS and didnt know i had to request ports to be open and no-one told/asked me either (but isnt that what managed hosting is for - to make them deal with everything).
Anyway, Regarding why it took them 14 hours to figure out the problem, Victor responded:
Quote:
You were not able to state your exact issue, so all we were able to go on wa guess work. So obviously it will take some time to figure out your issue if you do not tell us what it is exactly.
14 hours to figure it out why my IP's and sites were down because my original ticket was vague!?!
As someone new to VPS's i would think that this is there fault. But Victor clearly makes out that they are not to blame and it is all my fault! Everything is up and working fine now and I was at first surprised with the high levels of service and support but after experience, its its like banging your head against a brick wall chatting with these guys!
I have the following three servers, which I'll call A, B, and C:
Server A - Web hosting server that uses cPanel on CentOS.
Server B - Free subdomain service (similar to afraid.org but on a much smaller scale), using PowerDNS with a MySQL database backend, on Debian.
Server C - Backup DNS server for the cPanel web hosting server, using the free cPanel "DNS Only" on CentOS.
Originally I had just A and B set up (they're two separate VPSes on the one dedicated server, I own the dedi and some friends and I have VPSes on it). Now I've got a VPS at a different data centre, and am using that for C.
To have a secondary DNS server for server B, I believe I can use MySQL replication to replicate the PowerDNS database to another server, then have a PowerDNS install on that server. My question is, is it possible to have server C as a backup DNS server for both server A (cPanel server) and server B (PowerDNS server)? ie. is there a way to check both PowerDNS and the cPanel BIND9 for domains (have them on different ports, and make one query the other if the lookup fails, perhaps)? Or perhaps use both the MySQL backend and the bind backend simultaneously in PowerDNS, and replace bind with PowerDNS (although I guess cPanel wouldn't like this)?
I have two nameservers, each running physically on a different server on different networks. Now I've noticed that whenever the primary NS goes down, clients requesting authoritative NS record lookups refuse to connect to the secondary NS, which I know is certainly up and running. The secondary NS has its own zone files and when you specifically request that server to resolve NS requests, it does the work. But generic NS lookups without specifying the server appears to fail when the primary server is down.
Does anyone know what might be happening here? I know that the domain registrar has both nameservers recorded for the domains I'm trying to resolve, but what is the point of a secondary NS, when it isn't contacted when the primary nameserver is down?
I got a new dedicated server, and I put the primary domain name to be zeonwebhosting.com.
However, when I setup the nameservers, and go to GoDaddy.com and NameCheap.com to change the nameservers on my domains, I get an "Errors were detected" on GoDaddy.com and a "nRRPResponseCode 531" on NameCheap.
I fixed everything in WHM and got a server administrator to fix some things for me, and it didn't work yet. Now I am thinking that the problem might not be with the server, but with the domain.
ZeonWebHosting.com is registered at GoDaddy.com, and since I was not sure what nameservers I should put as it is the primary domain name, I used the parked nameservers on GoDaddy, and used the Total DNS feature to change the A and MX Records to point to my server's IPs.
I tried putting the ns1.zeonwebhosting.com and ns2.zeonwebhosting.com DNSs on GoDaddy, but still I got the "Errors were detected" error. I tried almost everything possible. I even redid cPanel just to make sure that everything was OK with the cPanel configuration.
Also there is another problem with the server. I can't seem to be able to delete Nameservers from "Networking Setup > Nameserver IPs" in WHM. I get this message when trying to delete one of the nameservers: "Sorry, the nameserver ip 66.79.191.196 cannot be removing since it is still registered with an ICANN register."
We currently have gps devices which report x,y coords. The devices currently report to a fully qualified name: servername.mydomain.com. And only one fully qualified name.
We would like to have redudancy, so if the main server goes down, then the secondary takes over. I assume this is accomblished via DNS.
So out first task is to create name servers at our domain registar and have them register them, for example:
Then on the both servers we setup DNS to accept the a record of servename.mydomain.com points to? This is where I get confused. Does the firstserver DNS say point to itself, and the second DNS server point to itself?
The plan from PrimaryVPS is a little bit downgraded. While as they are offering opening and quarterly payment special offer, you can find 256MB/15GB plan at comparable price.
Now, lets see the standard unixbench result. Each VPS took two benchmarking, one in peak hour and one in non-peak hour:
1. PRIMARYVPS is faster in overall result from CPU, IO to OS. While I could not believe that some results from VEGGIEHOST is even slower than a P2-233 BASELINE machine.
2. Though VEGGIEHOST is slower, its performance is VERY STABLE in both peak hour and non-peak hour. This is because VEGGIEHOST is now using a "hard limit" to ensure its "equal share" CPU policy since late March. This was confirmed by their support once I encountered performance drop for half in April.
Next test is using Apache Benchmark (ab) to test the theoretical webpages processing limit and also see the network throughput (from Hong Kong) in peak hour:
VEGGIEHOST
PHP Code:
1. Simple HTML static page - About 300pg/s2. Simple LAMP dynamic page - About 50pg/s3. Complex LAMP dynamic page - About 5pg/s4. Longest total time for #1 - About 800ms5. Longest total time for #3 - About 2000ms6. Throughput from remote - About 64KBPS (+/- 2KBPS)
PRIMARYVPS
PHP Code:
1. Simple HTML static page - About 800pg/s2. Simple LAMP dynamic page - About 130pg/s3. Complex LAMP dynamic page - About 13pg/s4. Longest total time for #1 - About 10ms5. Longest total time for #3 - About 600ms6. Throughput from remote - About 56KBPS (+/- 2KBPS)
The most interesting thing from the Apache bench is that the worst case to process the web pages from VEGGIEHOST is highly fluctuating. This suspected to be due to the limitation of IO partitioning in VPS technology -- An issue affecting performance much in VPS while not yet fully solved.
When check closer for IO performance from unixbench, we have the following results:
PURE DISK ACCESS
PHP Code:
Sun V480/SE3320 RAID5# ./fsbuffer 10 ; ./fsdisk 10 ; ./fstime 1013850 Kbytes/sec write 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks48567 Kbytes/sec read 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks10327 Kbytes/sec copy 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks36000 Kbytes/sec write 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks419994 Kbytes/sec read 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks29000 Kbytes/sec write 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks138274 Kbytes/sec read 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks25303 Kbytes/sec copy 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocksSun V480/INTERNAL RAID5# ./fsbuffer 10 ; ./fsdisk 10 ; ./fstime 1054000 Kbytes/sec write 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks52872 Kbytes/sec read 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks24670 Kbytes/sec copy 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks411200 Kbytes/sec write 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks427934 Kbytes/sec read 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks175800 Kbytes/sec write 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks154007 Kbytes/sec read 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks77536 Kbytes/sec copy 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocksVeggie Host# ./fsbuffer 10 ; ./fsdisk 10 ; ./fstime 108850 Kbytes/sec write 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks15018 Kbytes/sec read 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks5387 Kbytes/sec copy 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks54400 Kbytes/sec write 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks88029 Kbytes/sec read 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks30400 Kbytes/sec write 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks49496 Kbytes/sec read 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks18038 Kbytes/sec copy 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocksPrimary Vps# ./fsbuffer 10 ; ./fsdisk 10 ; ./fstime 1078850 Kbytes/sec write 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks157190 Kbytes/sec read 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks51128 Kbytes/sec copy 256 bufsize 2000 max blocks444000 Kbytes/sec write 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks1115200 Kbytes/sec read 4096 bufsize 2000 max blocks215200 Kbytes/sec write 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks505957 Kbytes/sec read 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks167760 Kbytes/sec copy 1024 bufsize 2000 max blocks
Though RAID5 is slow, I did not realize before that a VPS can outperform a dedicated server!
Till now it seems all the facts from Primary VPS is excellent, while if you want to join, please consider if the following issues would be a limitation to you:
1. VEGGIEHOST is using a subscription based payment, which means you can terminate the plan once no longer needed. On the other hand, PrimaryVPS requires 30 days prior to termination.
2. VEGGIEHOST is far relax in VPS usage while PrimaryVPS restrict tighter. You can burst the CPU at VEGGIEHOST for 7x24 since it applied a hard limit (in this case hard limit is a good thing) while PrimaryVPS gives you a much higher burst CPU limit but the terms is that you cannot burst over 15% (?) CPU time for more than 5 minutes in any case. Also, VEGGIEHOST does not limit whatever purposes for your VPS while PrimaryVPS do not allow something like P2P in your VPS. This can ensure the system (particularly the IO) did not being pulled by some applications, which is good for those who do not run the P2P applications, while may not be suitable if you need to run it.
3. I have used VEGGIEHOST for 2 months and quite certain that the above results are reliable, while only used PrimaryVPS for 1 week, and since it is a new provider I could not tell if the box will be degraded when more participants to join later. I will post updated review few weeks later to see if this issue occurred.
Because of the security issues inherent in controlling DNS servers on other VPS/servers that run other processes, host websites and store mission-critical data and for other reasons related to control, we want to keep our DNS server separate from our other servers and our own desktops. Therefore, we're going to get a small VPS for this purpose.
We won't totally cheap out on this so we'll be getting a quality VPS from a good provider. But, we probably don't need more than 5 or 10G of HD space but we wonder how much RAM and bandwidth we need to run something like MyDNS with MyDNSConfig with a MySQL backend.
Also, what's the best Linux distro for this kind of thing? We use CentOS with facility but are not afraid to try a new one if it's a better choice for this purpose.
I have a hostee who as part of an out-of-court settlement, needs to change the primary domain they host on. The domain they're switching to is already a parked domain on their account. At first blush, it seems like it would be pretty easy, but now I'm concerned about their email. Both of the principals of the company use Horde extensively for webmail, and as such I have files on the server for their email accounts. What I was thinking about doing is this:
1. Stop parking the "new" domain on the account. 2. Change the account from using the "old" domain in WHM to the "new" domain by modifying the account in WHM. 3. Forwarding email sent to user@old.domain to user@new.domain, in CPanel. 4. Assorted changes on website to account for the new domain - published email addresses, new SSL cert, things like that.
My concern is in how to move the mail files, currently set up to be for user@old.domain, to be readable by Horde as user@new.domain, so it's seamless to the users. We will be keeping the old domain under our control, but not using it to point to the site any more; I just don't want to have to tell them "OK, to get your old email, you have to check this address, and to get new email, you have to check this one."
Would my plan above actually accomplish that? Is there a better way within a WHM/CPanel framework to accomplish what I need without losing email or access to it? What am I missing?
So the rule of thumb is if you have a 30A circuit to not exceed 80% or 24A.
If I buy a 30A circuit, I am assuming it is protected by a circuit breaker that is 30A, correct?
In *theory* we could run 29-30A all day and be fine.
So, I understand, the rule of 80% to be to the effect that "during startup, equipment uses more power ... or during runtime if it heats up, the fans go faster using more power" so it is safe to be at 24A in case you get spikes to 27-29A.
Is my reasoning correct?
Further, if you run primary/redundant circuits, is there really harm in running 13A on one circuit and 14A on the other.. and in the unlikely event of a failure, you are running 27A on one circuit (at 90% instead of 80%).
Any thoughts on this? Getting an extra 3A out of a 208V circuits is like putting in 3-4 more servers. If someone is doing this please let me know. I think it would work fine but i would like to know from the experts that do the colo stuff for a living what problems i could encounter, if any.
