|
KozmoNaut posted:Let's put it another way: Is there even a single compelling reason for not using ext4 on a Linux system? The largest block size ext4 supports is 4 kB. Since inodes are statically allocated, mkfs defaults to a conservative value of using a 4 kB bytes/inode ratio, meaning there's an inode for every free block in the file system, thus the file system will never run out of inodes before running out of block space even in the degenerate case of every file being 4 kB in size or less. The problem is that, on large volumes (1 TB+), the inode tables take up a lot of space, 10 GB+. It also makes some operations a lot slower, the initial mkfs, fsck, etc. An easy solution around that is to manually set the bytes/inode ratio a lot higher, say 1 MB or more. I do this for media storage since nearly all of my media files are at least 1 MB in size. Still, it's something one has to consider when running mkfs. All of those fancier file systems (jfs, xfs, btrfs, etc.) do dynamic allocation of inodes so it's a non-issue for them. ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Nov 25, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Misogynist posted:heavens to betsy a yum install 'yum whatprovides */mkfs.xfs' and 'yum install xfsprogs' both say there's no such software available. This syncs with Red Hat's support page on the matter. We're using RHEL 6, because when the project was started RHEL 7 had only been out for a few weeks and nobody was willing to sign off on "hey let's use this brand new OS where they changed the major versions of almost every other component in the project so it looks nothing like the environment it's replacing". I hadn't thought about looking for CentOS' XFS RPMs. (I kinda doubt management would go for it, but it's something to try.) Which brings up a couple Red-Hat-specific questions. If I install a CentOS system, and need some kind of support, will Red Hat take my money and help me (on some kind of per-incident basis), or will the whole thing be shut down because I'm not using the right *-release RPM? Or, in this scenario, if I used CentOS' XFS RPMs on an otherwise-supported RHEL system, and needed support, would Red Hat be willing to take the call and take our money if I had an XFS or Gluster issue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:'yum whatprovides */mkfs.xfs' and 'yum install xfsprogs' both say there's no such software available. This syncs with Red Hat's support page on the matter. We're using RHEL 6, because when the project was started RHEL 7 had only been out for a few weeks and nobody was willing to sign off on "hey let's use this brand new OS where they changed the major versions of almost every other component in the project so it looks nothing like the environment it's replacing". evol262 will probably correct me but the answer to both questions is no. In the second scenario if you paid $$$ and replaced the CentOS RPMs with the official Red Hat ones then I suppose you would be good to go. I deal with module (driver) issues on a regular basis and if we suspect the issue may be with a 3rd party module we simply ask the customer to reproduce the issue with the Red Hat module and proceed from there as needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:45
|
|
Associate Christ
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:'yum whatprovides */mkfs.xfs' and 'yum install xfsprogs' both say there's no such software available. This syncs with Red Hat's support page on the matter. We're using RHEL 6, because when the project was started RHEL 7 had only been out for a few weeks and nobody was willing to sign off on "hey let's use this brand new OS where they changed the major versions of almost every other component in the project so it looks nothing like the environment it's replacing". No, this is explicitly against the terms of your support agreement (using RHEL support for non-rhel products). They'll notice it in the sosreport and ask you to reproduce on stock rhel. If you're unlucky, they'll make noise about you being in violation, but that's generally for egregious offenders. That said, most of engineering here wears two hats. Filing a bug against the community product (in the case of gluster) or component (xfsprogs) yourself. Nothing's stopping you from filing bugs, just from opening gss cases. Bugs get attention and love, too, just not with the same priority as those with customer cases attached. Also, the downstream maintainer or packager is very likely to be one of the developers. I'd guess that everyone working on Red Hat Storage also works on Gluster.org Tick tock, upstream release, downstream release. Same devs. Asking about the downstream product in #gluster will still get a response. You just don't get the fuzzy "someone is responsible for this" business feeling, even though we are. That may be important to your business unit, though. It is to a lot of them, which is why rhel is a product
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
I suspect any need for support for Gluster or XFS would be more like "oh dear replication is broken please help us find our lost data." In this case we may just have to pull backups. Believe me, I rather would just give Red Hat some money and let the pros handle any weird issues. But it's not my money...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Are there any stable distros that don't use GNU userland? busybox and musl would be sweet. (I spent two days trying to install sabotage so don't say that.)
xtal fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
xtal posted:Are there any stable distros that don't use GNU userland? busybox and musl would be sweet. (I spent two days trying to install sabotage so don't say that.) Have you considered just using BSD? From all your posts in this thread, it sounds like Linux may just not be for you. Would you like to elaborate on what you think the perceived security problems with GNU software are? Especially ones that don't or haven't existed in analogous systems with similar utilities but different heritages (BSD, Solaris, Busybox, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Have you considered just using BSD? From all your posts in this thread, it sounds like Linux may just not be for you. I haven't used a BSD yet because of poor hardware support, but I agree that Linux isn't my favourite thing right now. bash is way huge and there are probably another dozen shellshocks in there. Even strings is unsafe. But my main concern is ideological just because I use the suckless toolchain (dwm/surf/st/dmenu) and now coreutils is the biggest thing on my system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Following the instructions here to get GLC:code:code:
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Liam Emsa posted:Following the instructions here to get GLC: Run aptitude search glc
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
xtal posted:I haven't used a BSD yet because of poor hardware support, but I agree that Linux isn't my favourite thing right now. Check the OpenBSD supported hardware list and build that. It sounds like a perfect fit for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
xtal posted:I haven't used a BSD yet because of poor hardware support, but I agree that Linux isn't my favourite thing right now. I agree the GNU toolchain is bad and sucks, but BSD isn't going to be any better. The philosophies they stem from come from an era before personal computing and computer security.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:Run aptitude search glc quote:Sorting... Done So... I guess it doesn't exist anymore or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Liam Emsa posted:So... I guess it doesn't exist anymore or something? What Ubuntu you running? It might not be available for you. I'm betting that's it. 
jaegerx fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
thebigcow posted:Check the OpenBSD supported hardware list and build that. It sounds like a perfect fit for you. Thanks, I'll check that out. Sabotage and static linux are 100% exactly what I want but neither is ready for daily use yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:What Ubuntu you running? It might not be available for you. 14.04 LTS
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
This is probably stupid, but is there a way to paste files that I copied from Nautilus to my current directory in a terminal? Sometimes I use Nautilus to pick out a subset of different files and folders as its easier when I'm not sure exactly what it is I'm wanting, but then I just want to paste them into my current directory.. Using Ubuntu 14.04...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
I don't know, but you could run "gnome-open ." to open Nautilus in your current directory (assuming Nautilis is your file explorer, but since you're using it I'm assuming it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:This is probably stupid, but is there a way to paste files that I copied from Nautilus to my current directory in a terminal? gvfs-copy [[CTRL+SHIFT+V]] .
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Thanks both of you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Since switching to Fedora I've been unable to get munin notifications to work because ssmtp can't connect to gmail. I'm seeing this in the logsquote:Nov 27 22:00:01 gaia.haiti sSMTP[9823]: Creating SSL connection to host I've uncommented UseTLS and TLS_CA_File so I have no idea why it's failing to connect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Ashex posted:Since switching to Fedora I've been unable to get munin notifications to work because ssmtp can't connect to gmail. I'm seeing this in the logs On port 587, you'll also want UseSTARTTLS=YES. Alternatively, try port 465 with your current settings. In port 465, the server is going to expect SSL/TLS negotiation as soon as the connection is established: it's the "SSL/TLS or bust" port. On the other hand, port 587 could (theoretically) allow both encrypted and plaintext connections, so it expects the clients to send a "StartTLS" command in plaintext before SSL/TLS negotiation is started. In practice, any publicly-accessible mail server should not accept your authentication unless encryption is started first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think Google accepts unencrypted clients anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
telcoM posted:On port 587, you'll also want UseSTARTTLS=YES. Eureka! That was it, added UseSTARTTLS allowed it to connect, verified with a test message. Guess I'll get spammed by munin in a couple minutes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
On a scale from 1 to 10, how concerned should I be about systemd as a desktop user (running MATE with Linux Mint) who has no intention of messing about with the init system? Normally I would assume the answer was somewhere in the negatives, but PulseAudio caused me a lot of issues when that was first pushed to desktop, so when I see the same guy making controversial changes to a more fundamental part of the operating system I get worried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
As a desktop user, you should probably only have to interact with systemd once - when you do your initial install and then go through and turn off any unneeded services that are turned on by default.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
I don't know anything about the other Linux versions, and I don't want to start a huge debate: But I'm wondering what else is out there besides Ubuntu. I know there's Fedora, Linux Mint, and Arch Linux. I'm kinda drawn towards Arch Linux because of the minimalistic nature of it, but I'm worried about driver support and touch support, and how it also seems geared towards power users (which I am not when it comes to Linux).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
You needn't worry about driver support, Arch Linux supports the same hardware as any other distro. But yeah, you'll have to know your way around config files to use it, Arch prides itself on offering every package completely stock and with no custom config tools, you get exactly what the developer released. I like that, but I can see how it could feel a bit disjointed. Plus once in a while an update happens that requires some manual steps to be taken, so it's a really drat good idea to follow archlinux.org for news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:On a scale from 1 to 10, how concerned should I be about systemd as a desktop user (running MATE with Linux Mint) who has no intention of messing about with the init system? Normally I would assume the answer was somewhere in the negatives, but PulseAudio caused me a lot of issues when that was first pushed to desktop, so when I see the same guy making controversial changes to a more fundamental part of the operating system I get worried. Your concern scale should be a zero, since, as mentioned, any interaction with systemd will be through systemctl, which basically only replaces update-rc.d or other analogues for enabling/disabling services. If you do end up doing anything with unit files, you'll thank any gods you believe in that you're not touching sysvinit. Pulse caused a lot of issues for the same reason selinux did/does. It's potentially intrusive (selinux because it touches everything, pulseaudio because sound is important), and the first response was "disable pulseaudio!", not "file a bug". But Pulse is unequivocally better its predecessors. Liam Emsa posted:I don't know anything about the other Linux versions, and I don't want to start a huge debate: But I'm wondering what else is out there besides Ubuntu. Arch is focused towards people who have more time than sense, and who feel like dealing with an unstable distro that has almost no QE which they constantly need to tinker with to keep it working makes them "power users". That aside, driver support 100% kernel (or binary blobs to which kernel version matters, not distro). Touch support is all Wayland/X.org/etc. Arch has nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Arch is focused towards people who have more time than sense, and who feel like dealing with an unstable distro that has almost no QE which they constantly need to tinker with to keep it working makes them "power users". Sounds like you've have a bad experience. I'm happy with Arch, and I certainly don't have to tinker with anything other than what I choose to do for fun. The only exceptions are major updates like the migration to systemd, which did require a handful of manual commands. E: I used Gentoo before, and that sounds a lot more like your description. If I had to ditch Arch today, I would probably go for PC-BSD or maybe Elementary OS. Perhaps that's why I bought a Chromebook the other day. I don't really feel a desire to tinker that much with my OS anymore, but I can live with the limited tinkering that Arch sometimes requires. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
If you leave Arch alone for a couple of weeks and then try to update it's highly likely something will break or the update won't work due to some catch 22 bullshit involving pacman and glibc or smth
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Never had that happen, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
I run Arch on like 400 servers for 3 years and have never encountered that
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Okay, so I know very little about Linux. So should I stick with Ubuntu?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Sounds like you've have a bad experience. I'm happy with Arch, and I certainly don't have to tinker with anything other than what I choose to do for fun. The only exceptions are major updates like the migration to systemd, which did require a handful of manual commands. Arch has this reputation deservedly. I've had a fine experience with Arch, other than nuking some systems because I didn't read the update news around the time they moved from libreadline4->libreadline5 a few years ago. It just isn't any better than Gentoo or Slack in that regard, and it's mostly that I vehemently disagree with the notion that a distro that requires or encourages tinkering with basic services just to get a usable desktop teaches anything meaningful about Linux for end users or administrators. The services you need to mess with (samba, nginx, apache, redis, rabbitmq, whatever) have enough of a learning curve on their own, and the majority of things you need to do for Arch are totally useless for using Linux in a professional environment. Use Linux to do useful things. If you wanna use Arch to do useful things, awesome, but Arch isn't any better than Gentoo when it comes to "I learned so much from building a system up from scratch" (which it isn't). Nothing against Arch as a distro, just the Arch community. Liam Emsa posted:Okay, so I know very little about Linux. So should I stick with Ubuntu? You should stick with whatever looks interesting, because actually using (and continuing to use) Linux is how you'll learn it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Liam Emsa posted:Okay, so I know very little about Linux. So should I stick with Ubuntu? In my experience, yes. There's a lot of good support forums for Ubuntu and it mostly just works if you have reasonably modern hardware.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
evol262 posted:
I see this a lot and was expecting it when I first tried arch out of curiosity. After using it as my main distro now for 3 years I kinda feel it's reputation for being unstable and difficult/time consuming to maintain a load of poo poo. Only it's initial install lives up to anything like it's reputation and even that can be automated with a script or just by installing one of the many arch distros like arch bang on Antergos. (I certainly will agree with the sentiment about many arch users though, it's almost a hipster mentality with a lot of them) Liam Emsa posted:Okay, so I know very little about Linux. So should I stick with Ubuntu? If you like Ubuntu and it does everything you want it to then just stay with it. Arch is more light weight sure but on modern systems that really doesnt matter and it can be kind of nice just having everything you want already preinstalled. There really is no 'best distro' just different strokes for different folks. Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:On a scale from 1 to 10, how concerned should I be about systemd as a desktop user (running MATE with Linux Mint) who has no intention of messing about with the init system? Normally I would assume the answer was somewhere in the negatives, but PulseAudio caused me a lot of issues when that was first pushed to desktop, so when I see the same guy making controversial changes to a more fundamental part of the operating system I get worried. The only problem I've had with systemd was mounting nfs using fstab. At boot the drives mount before the network connection was established so it would fail. It was a pretty simple fix however. I've been quite happy with systemd outside of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:I see this a lot and was expecting it when I first tried arch out of curiosity. After using it as my main distro now for 3 years I kinda feel it's reputation for being unstable and difficult/time consuming to maintain a load of poo poo. Arch falls down and breaks when you're not paying attention to what's happening upstream, and you get hit with the /bin->/usr/bin migration, or libreadline changes, or systemd, or whatever. If you're able to follow upstream and don't mind sometimes having to hit the forums because your update failed/broke and you need to see what other people have done to resolve it, Arch is fine. But it's also true that watching things break which would never break on a sane distro and following someone's copy+pasted instructions from a forum isn't really a "learning Linux" experience. Bug their QE is awful/nonexistent. I've seen more than one broken package or circular depsolve make it out of testing into stable repos. I'm not trying to discourage people from using Arch, but it certainly has its issues, and pretending it doesn't isn't doing anyone any favors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
xtal posted:I run Arch on like 400 servers for 3 years and have never encountered that Why on earth would you do that to yourself? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 09:30
|
|