Results 2,476 to 2,500 of 2642
-
06-12-2009, 10:22 AM #2476New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 0
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:22 AM #2477Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 6,616
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:22 AM #2478Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 9
@Rus
Hello.
My VPS is have error: Cannot allocate memory!
But free-m is used 100Mb!!!
Ticket ID: DRO-662116 (FSCKVPS)
And I have 2 VPSes, but now one is recreated and one isn't! Why? Ticket ID: YPA-880673Last edited by netvnasia; 06-12-2009 at 10:29 AM.
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:23 AM #2479Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,253
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:25 AM #2480New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 1
Login
I can't login to the system ticket secure.fsckvps.com
Nvm it just workedLast edited by ethic; 06-12-2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason: it worked
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:25 AM #2481New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 0
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:28 AM #2482Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 321
Try using http://EveryDNS.net - I find the interface to be nicer, and it was made by the same guy that made OpenDNS.
Simply add your domain name, add your VPS IP address as a "A" record, then point your domain to ns1.everydns.net to ns4.everydns.net at your domain registrar. If you need more detailed instructions, just ask0
-
06-12-2009, 10:30 AM #2483Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 2,042
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:34 AM #2484New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2
Does anybody have a list of OSes we can currently request on FsckVPS?
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:38 AM #2485Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 321
What's with all the "Cannot allocate memory" errors?? Everyone seems to be getting "fork: Cannot allocate memory" at some point. Are they overloading the host machines with too many VPSes, or is this some sort of odd misconfiguration? My VPS has heaps of free RAM (as reported by free -m), and I still get this error every so often.
Benchmark results seem to have improved, however I had to run it twice to get a useful result (first time gave a "/home/daniel/unixbench-4.1.0-wht-2/pgms/cleanup.sh: fork: Cannot allocate memory" error >_<
PHP Code:==============================================================
BYTE UNIX Benchmarks (Version 4.1-wht.2)
System -- Linux lewis.youareaninja.com 2.6.18-128.1.1.el5.028stab062.3 #1 SMP Sun May 10 18:54:51 MSD 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
/dev/simfs 31457280 1378584 30078696 5% /
Start Benchmark Run: Sat Jun 13 00:30:43 EST 2009
00:30:43 up 23:31, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 1.15, 0.95
End Benchmark Run: Sat Jun 13 00:40:19 EST 2009
00:40:19 up 23:41, 1 user, load average: 5.72, 3.58, 2.20
INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 25417353.8 674.6
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 1428.1 171.9
Execl Throughput 188.3 10387.3 551.6
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 213597.0 799.4
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 84575.0 785.3
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1626965.0 1057.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 906120.7 586.5
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 3150832.5 281.8
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 1491.8 333.0
System Call Overhead 114433.5 2474147.1 216.2
=========
FINAL SCORE 468.1
Does anybody have a list of OSes we can currently request on FsckVPS?Last edited by Daniel15; 06-12-2009 at 10:41 AM.
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:43 AM #2486Resident Liverpool FC Fan
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Liverpool, England, UK.
- Posts
- 2,571
This is a sneaky suspicion I myself have, ive only had it when updating apache, but ive never had it before. Vladimir assures me that they are not overloading machines, and I trust his word on that, but one has to wonder if they are suddenly moving across 1000+ VPS's onto new nodes, how much hardware that will require, and whether they are being forced into placing more per node than they would usually be comfortable with due to a shortage of hardware?
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:45 AM #2487Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT
- Posts
- 850
sk069 has made some very good points, and they shouldn't be neglected. I know Rus said he'd come back to it, but I also think that many others should consider a few things sk069 has said. There's no doubt that getting 4000 VPS back online in this time frame is an overwhelming task, but I question whether there was a meeting of some sort to determine an action plan to take after the hack?
My observations lead me to believe you guys have tried "the shotgun effects" here in that you may have provisioned thousands of new VPS in a short piriod of time, but many were wrong and would have to be redone anyways, costing far more time than needed. I'm not one to say "you should have", and you certainly know this business far better than I, but regardless of the scale here I believe that the best corse of action would have been to go through each VPS one by one, make the needed changes and inform each customer on a case by case as needed.
Yes, that approch would have certainly meant that it would take longer to please a large majority of your customers, but at least no one would have felt neglected.
I'm also wondering why nodes were first said to be restored and a day or so later they were a total loss? Many have posted here saying their VPS were running just fine even up until Wednesday when they suddenly went down and were labled as a total loss?
What's that all about?? If you guys really do have drives on the old nodes potentially with data why not say "we simply don't have the man power to recover all data at this time, so we can provision new VPS and get back with you once each drive can be inspected"??0
-
06-12-2009, 10:46 AM #2488Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 321
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:48 AM #2489Newbie
- Join Date
- May 2000
- Posts
- 28
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:50 AM #2490Resident Liverpool FC Fan
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Liverpool, England, UK.
- Posts
- 2,571
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:51 AM #2491Temporarily Suspended
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 9
Now my VPS is:
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory
-bash-3.2# free -m
-bash: fork: Cannot allocate memory0
-
06-12-2009, 10:52 AM #2492Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 31
Come on, you simply didn't understand these results properly, that's not anyone else's fault. That benchmark is very dependent on CPU power, and in most cases you can just check the CPU of the box to estimate the score. 600+ is the normal score for a core 2 quad, when you have exclusive access to it. Your getting such a high score in your test only showed that when you did it other VPSes on the same server didn't swallow too much CPU, but of course there is no guarantee that this is always the case. This is not a dedicated server anyway, remember? On the fsckvps site it was clearly stated that for a 512MB VPS only 600MHz of CPU is guaranteed, and if a core 2 quad (>10GHz total) gets 600, do your math and you know where the line is.
Last edited by xniteman; 06-12-2009 at 10:56 AM.
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:53 AM #2493Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,253
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:55 AM #2494New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 0
Has there been any word on when a control panel such as hypervm will be activated for fsckvps?
Also is there a way to backup and download our vps without hypervm. If that is possible can you reload a downloaded vps without having to ask fsckvps to do it?0
-
06-12-2009, 10:57 AM #2495Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT
- Posts
- 850
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:57 AM #2496Resident Liverpool FC Fan
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Liverpool, England, UK.
- Posts
- 2,571
0
-
06-12-2009, 10:58 AM #2497Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,253
0
-
06-12-2009, 11:01 AM #2498Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 2,042
is there any update on iptables setup?
0
-
06-12-2009, 11:04 AM #2499Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 6,616
0
-
06-12-2009, 11:05 AM #2500Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 6,616
0