|
otoh that web design is more readable than 95% of tumblrs
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
lol they have special snowflake hardware machines for every task and they stand the whole shitshow up by hand Veteran UNIX Administrators ladies and gnetlemen
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Gentoo as shipped by the project is not server hardened c/d ? Also do they provide a mortal alternative to stage 3 install and build from source or do you literally have to do that Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Perverse job security is real (in case u doubted)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
gently caress SystemD We've been saying for years that it is an intentional obfuscation of security holes. Wikileaks confirmed this recently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:gently caress SystemD source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:yeah i've been looking at rpm tooling and it's complete poo poo. the tools for generating .rpm files are inextricably linked to red hat's internal processes and the existence of a fire wall between the software developer and the maintaner
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
but gentoo with systemd is awesome! it's a shame that gentoo gets stamped as an anti-systemd distro everywhere ~it's all about choice~
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
freebsd has to be getting to be rare enough that no hackers would target it anymore at least
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:freebsd has to be getting to be rare enough that no hackers would target it anymore at least
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:freebsd has to be getting to be rare enough that no hackers would target it anymore at least it's on every ps4
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:freebsd has to be getting to be rare enough that no hackers would target it anymore at least FreeNAS uses it carry on then posted:it's on every ps4 I wonder if its biggest recent gains are from using it as more of the back-end of a complex product rather than interfacing with it directly. I've had to use freebsd on the command line when helping out a friend and it's very similar to a frustrating dialect.... I had to look up how to do a lot of system administration tasks and the concepts are the same, but the implementation is slightly off. And then there's zfs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
el dorito posted:I've had to use freebsd on the command line when helping out a friend and it's very similar to a frustrating dialect.... I had to look up how to do a lot of system administration tasks and the concepts are the same, but the implementation is slightly off. And then there's zfs. As opposed to what, Linux? It's just more unix-y because well, it's an actual Unix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
i use zfs on linux
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:As opposed to what, Linux? It's just more unix-y because well, it's an actual Unix. I'm not arguing any of your points, but I was talking as a linux sysadmin getting used to freebsd
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
hifi posted:i use zfs on linux very nice I'll stick to xfs for now though maybe using zfs on linux would have ameliorated a lot of the frustrations I had with using zfs
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
serious question why use xfs instead of ext4
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:serious question why use xfs instead of ext4 it's the default on any of the rhel-likes
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
okay, and...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:okay, and...? ext4 is fine but why not use xfs? especially if it's being pushed as the default filesystem developers and distributors will eventually be testing and optimizing for xfs given time, I think
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
personally, I haven't had to do learn anything terribly new or change my sysadmin worldview since adopting xfs for most things this is in stark contrast to systemd I am not going to argue for or against systemd, but it's clearly different than sysV or upstart or etc
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:okay, and...? that should be the only reason you need
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
xfs supports larger files and filesystems. something like 8 exbibytes max file size and 16 exbibytes for the filesystem vs 16tb / 1 exbitbyte for ext4. xfs allegedly scales better performance-wise than ext4 too. i remember hearing a long time ago that xfs had problems with leaving huge zero-filled files after power-loss, but i guess that was fixed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
el dorito posted:I've had to use freebsd on the command line when helping out a friend and it's very similar to a frustrating dialect.... I had to look up how to do a lot of system administration tasks and the concepts are the same, but the implementation is slightly off. And then there's zfs. pro tip: it's not FreeBSD's implementation that's "slightly off"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
XFS was also designed by people who knew what they were doing when it came to filesystems and operating systems at Silicon Graphics, just as ZFS was designed by such people at Sun ext?fs is designed by Linux people for Linux
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
I do have a Linux box, and I may switch it over to Fedora when I next upgrade it I expect that'll be a good time to switch filesystems and stuff too
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
eschaton posted:pro tip: it's not FreeBSD's implementation that's "slightly off" like I said above, "slightly off" just meant "different", not "wrong"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:xfs supports larger files and filesystems. something like 8 exbibytes max file size and 16 exbibytes for the filesystem vs 16tb / 1 exbitbyte for ext4. xfs allegedly scales better performance-wise than ext4 too. I hear that it's a problem as well, but I bet it's "working as intended" rather than "broken" in order to preserve data integrity or something of that nature the internet says that crash-prone systems should probably stick to ext4 than switch to xfs there are other benchmarks that put ext4 above xfs for some scenarios but, as you say, xfs is definitely more futureproof
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
just lmao if you're not usign APFS with your linux
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:serious question why use xfs instead of ext4 i think the big thing on that is that xfs effortlessly scales to a bunch of parallel io (because it rather crudely just slice the disk up in pieces which get threads associated with them, very direct parallel operations follow at the cost of some up front fragmentation that more clever systems avoid). the rest is just the same advantages as ext4 really, old and well understood so seems pretty clear-cut for rhel which is conservative but happy to run on fairly big machines
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
*walks in, wearing official btrfs jorts* so,
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:*walks in, wearing official btrfs jorts* so, The worst mistake I've ever made was putting btrfs on an embedded device. Got frustrated about "no free space" errors that were not fixed by deleting massive amounts of data. Out of desperation, I added another block device and expanded the filesystem to it, which is actually a pretty neat feature. Later, I read the FAQ and it turns out that you need to add a special flag when making the filesystem if the device is smaller than 16GB. In an unrelated story, I was surprised when I couldn't guess the filesystem of a drive that was in cold storage for half a decade. It wasn't encrypted... wasn't lvm2... wasn't ext2 or ext3... it turns out that it was  I think it was actually a pretty good filesystem when I used it... too bad that it was named after the author who was a crazed murdering sperglord
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
i suspect it is old age and some engineering experience which has taken all will to experiment on anything but the safest options on this kind of stuff out of me certainly filesystems don't get that exciting even when they are new (and supposedly exciting)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
"new" btrfs making GBS threads up everything for 5 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Wizardnetic Vermin posted:i suspect it is old age and some engineering experience which has taken all will to experiment on anything but the safest options on this kind of stuff out of me zfs was incredibly exciting (by filesystem standards) (in a good way) when it was new
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
murderfs was excitement city because you never knew if you'd get your files backcode:quote:<ScheisseGern> the hans reiser i knnow is not a murderer
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
zfs is still exciting in the sense that people probably dont realize that ext has snapshots
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
hifi posted:zfs is still exciting in the sense that people probably dont realize that ext has snapshots does it? i thought not and all i see from a bunch of googling is a set of a patches that a storage vendor submitted upstream in 2011, but apparently werent accepted and lvm "snapshots" dont count, those are nowhere near the functionality of what is offered by zfs or btrfs
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
does xfs support shrinking yet? and yeah z and btrfs features are great, too bad btrfs is trash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
I've never seen anything or anyone use ext snapshots ever. I don't even know if the functionality exists in major distros
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 14:08
|
|