|
I'm trying to help someone install "SHAPEIT" on a machine that only has glibc v2.11 available. I see static and dynamically linked binaries available, but no mention of what libraries are required other than what glibc version they were built against. I'm assuming that the static binary must only be statically linking everything except glibc, because it's refusing to run on that machine with glibc v2.11. Is there any sane way to run this without upgrading glibc? I thought that a fully statically linked executable would be ready to run and not need the system's glibc, am I misunderstanding something?
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
Neslepaks posted:Any hardware suggestions for a small home Linux server? What about the atom NUCs, $130 for dual core and $170 for quad core? Something like this
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Can confirm that the N3700 NUC is a powerhouse relative to the 6W TDP You have one? It does plex transcoding? drat, I should have gotten one. I found it way more interesting an idea to have 4 very slow cores, but I picked up a refurb Haswell i5-4250u for $150 on ebay 6 months ago instead. The Haswell NUCs aren't as nice as the Broadwell / Braswell ones though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Verge posted:So I need to replace my PC (possibly the only half-respectable components are the GPU and RAM chips) and it will be pretty much a gaming PC. That means a "steam machine" (side question: is that just a glorified PC with Steam's logo? Because it sounds like a glorified PC with Steam's logo marketed at consoleers) if you will. I'd rather not have much to do with Windows. Before I get into the hardware side (I'm a fan of AMD, if this matters) I wanna know...is there a linux build that's easy to use and will run games as easily (after setting the OS up) as Windows in the install and play manner I've become accustomed to? I understand I'll have to Wine somethings (right?) and I have no issue if that's a relatively straight forward process. I tossed SteamOS on one of my partitions to test drive it, and ran into a couple issues, some expected, some not. Machine is a 2500K @ 4.5GHz, and an R9-290.
You're probably better off running Linux Mint or Ubuntu or something and installing steam on that rather than running SteamOS. I wouldn't consider a Linux-only system as a gaming platform unless all of the games you play have a Linux version. You'll save yourself a lot of pain if you get an nVidia GPU for gaming on linux: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-r9-fury&num=1 I'm really optimistic about Linux gaming, but it's definitely in cowboy territory right now unless you only want to play Dota 2 and/or CS: GO, both of which work flawlessly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Verge posted:Looks like Linux isn't for me then. Well, drat. Thanks for being honest and not fanboys, guys. That's...nonexistant anywhere else, haha. It's probably getting better in a year or two, especially if Linux releases of AAA games keeps gaining momentum.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
What's a lightweight monitoring tool that could be used to see CPU and memory usage across 5-10 linux machines? I've seen Nagios, Shinken and Sensu but they all look like massive overkill. I don't even need historical graphs, just current memory consumption. This is for monitoring a couple of servers running batch jobs doing computational genetics work. Just need to see at a glance which are close to full and which have room for another 60GB of RAM and 20 threads of work. Minimal setup and configuration would be a huge plus, and having a local agent on each monitored machine would be fine.
Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
evol262 posted:First off, your batch scheduler should be able to manage that. Seriously consider Mesos if you're not using it. This is for a university research lab with moderately technical users who just want to be able to run their python scripts and specific applications without too much fuss. I was picturing just a simple web UI dashboard that showed all the machines and their current status. There's no batch scheduler right now, people are just manually kicking off things that run for days. I'm checking out Mesos now. Out of the box the applications aren't super friendly to distributed computing, its stuff like Impute2 that scales well across a single multi-socket machine but would take some additional setup to span across multiple machines, and a lot of python scripts holding calls to such programs together and translating data formats. I'm trying to justify buying a couple of <=256GB RAM machines rather than another huge one, because right now the research lab is using a single 80 logical core, 384GB RAM server for all its computing needs, but the RAM is starting to be a major bottleneck. Budget is tight and it would be nice to save money by buying multiple cheaper machines instead of a single 1.5TB or 768GB machine, especially because no one job needs more than 100GB of RAM ever. Thanks for the input!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:two questions about Fedora 23 This should help with #1: https://bluehatrecord.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/installing-the-proprietary-amd-crimson-driver-on-fedora-23-with-linux-kernel-4-4-6-300/ It's really messy getting modern Radeon DRM drivers into Fedora 23. You're doing the recommended way by downgrading X.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:Those are the directions I followed and they did not work. I'm just going to install Ubuntu. For what it's worth, I had a similar experience and then went to CentOS.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:So my mom's PC 'upgraded' itself to Win10 while she was out of town and now she's pissed because everything's moved around and some of her old programs don't work anymore. Faced with either learning how to hack around with Win10 myself or figuring out how to roll back to Win7 and stay there, I'm considering giving a 'Nix a try. This sounds like a really bad idea, if I were in your shoes I'd pick between getting her set up on 7 permanently or getting office / her CD burner set up on 10. If she has programs that don't work on Windows 10, they're very unlikely to work well on modern Ubuntu.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:CentOS/RHEL. Seconded. You want 10 year support cycles and attention to security? You got it.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
fuf posted:yup hacked as gently caress mates. Thanks. I'm gonna further agree with evol262 that you don't want to try and manage a bunch of Docker containers without using something for container orchestration. We use Kubernetes here, but that's quickly getting to a whole other level of complexity. Best of luck. Be really careful about what plugins you use, disable all features you don't need, and get SELinux set up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Dancer posted:So I'm a molecular biology student, about to do some bioinformatics courses, and I need to be running Linux for them. During a bioinfo project I did a while back, the university computers I used were running Red Hat, but I just looked and you need to pay to use that long term. On their website I also found this thing called Fedora that's free. Should I assume that that's similar to "proper" Red Hat? Alternatively, any other distro you guys would recommend for scientific purposes (for example, I do intend to work with some rather large datasets so it would be nice if the OS itself wasn't bloated)? Fedora has more experimental features and will make more radical changes. You probably don't want to run Fedora unless you want to upgrade your OS every 6 months. I'd suggest CentOS, which is just like Red Hat but free and you do your own support. My anecdotal evidence is that my wife's bioinformatics lab all runs some flavor of SUSE Linux Enterprise and I have no idea why. Really, if you want the OS to get out of the way and be long-term stable with good package updates, pick between CentOS and Debian. edit: to agree with what evol said, the kind of in-memory dataset analysis bioinformatics work I've seen done wants 256GB RAM at an absolute minimum with a comfortable number more like 768GB or 1TB. OS overhead isn't something worth worrying about. VVVVV Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
If somebody here is looking for a somewhat fiddly project that actually has benefits, running ZFS on an Ubuntu root both gets you some real benefit and has that old-timey Linux feel, getting your hands dirty in disk sectors and partition layouts. https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu-16.04-Root-on-ZFS
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
That's a pretty drat big downside, especially because I've seen a server with 300MB free in a 27 Terabyte hardware RAID recently, and ext4 managed to recover well from that. Edit: It looks like you can use quotas to protect users from themselves, but that's yet another thing to worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Odette posted:I don't understand why laptop manufacturers *still* sell laptops with that screen resolution. Surely 1080p panels are cheaper than 1366x768 panels by now? God no, and a growing segment of the laptop market is 11"-13" Chromebooks for $200 or less. When push comes to shove, I'd put having 4GB of RAM over having a 1080p display, or even having an x86 CPU. The $150 chromebooks with an ARM chip, 1366x768 display, and 4GB of RAM are pretty usable machines!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:Pretty sure it can still run a 64bit OS, but I could be wrong. I had a first gen eeePC, before they were available with Windows. Dothan based 700mhz pentium m, hoo boy that thing was slow.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Horse Clocks posted:I'm looking at building a new machine, and want to get on the GPU passthrough bandwagon for gaming. You probably want an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU for the easiest GPU passthrough experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
I got roped into troubleshooting a machine that has 12x10TB drives in a hardware RAID-6. They've got a single ext4 filesystem set up on it, and it's 99% full right now. There's still 1.5TB of free space in absolute terms, but are complaining about writes failing. I'm assuming that they've fragmented the filesystem all to hell by running it so full, but I also am not very familiar with volumes this large. Is percentage free or absolute amount free the right thing to be worrying about? Is this filesystem likely to need some manual help to recover to a good state other than freeing up some space?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Ah, backups. That would be nice. Haha this is literally the same thing that I asked a question about, as a 12x10TB hardware RAID6 array in a single box. They've got 4 more 12x12TB boxes coming and are intending to set up GlusterFS shortly, though. Edit: They have no backups, not even tape. A bunch of the important stuff is also on the PI's old USB Drobo stuffed full of 8TB drives, though Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
What's the least bad solution for huge file transfers over high bandwidth high latency WAN connections? Must be encrypted of course. Ssh and anything tunneled through ssh is still dog slow if latency is high. Webdav? Implicit ftps? Usage case is gigabit+ connections on each end but >100ms latency.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
Gajarga posted:How huge, how many files, how often? 10s to 100s of GB, could obviously be chunked if necessary, and I'm looking to automate some batch processing jobs with compute far away from the storage. Don't want to deal with keeping storage in two places in sync. Usage case is a proof of concept that an academic lab could use cheap cloud or VPS compute without using expensive cloud storage and egress. High level idea is spin up instance, upload huge input files, do work, download small results. Upload is free with most compute vendors and we've got multi gigabit upload speed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
nem posted:Since we’re on filesystems what’s your take on Ceph/GlusterFS/OCFS/GFS in 2020? I've been scrutinizing the Red Hat docs, and I'm going to guess that part of the reason they bought Ceph was that Gluster doesn't sufficiently take care of storage for openstack, but Red Hat also still tells you to prefer Gluster whenever you need a filesystem. CephFS still seems immature and not performant. Ceph object seems pretty great. I also remember reading that Digital Ocean is using Ceph for I believe pretty much everything, so I guess both block and object.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
On the national lab topic, it looks like CERN is running Ceph on their compute nodes: https://www.msi.umn.edu/sites/default/files/Pablo_CERN.pdf University of Minnesota seems to host supercomputing focused events: https://www.msi.umn.edu/ceph-hpc-environments-sc19
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
I know that this is a complicated question with lots of moving parts, but I'm in way over my head and could use some pros / cons of running with no swap on systems with a LOT of RAM. In a university research lab, we've got researchers running tasks without any job queue right now. We're working to set something up, but the status quo is users directly running tasks that might consume enormous resources. The nodes have more RAM than disk in them, typically 1TB of RAM and either 256GB of 512GB boot disk, with capacity storage accessible only over the network. Is there ever a situation here where we would want to allow swap? How would you even size a swapfile or partition for a machine with 1TB of RAM? They were running with the default Ubuntu 2GB swap, and after seeing them swap under load and grind to a halt before things get OOMKilled, I got rid of any swap in the hope that misbehaving tasks will get OOMKilled faster. I know there's better solutions here, like containers, cgroups in general, or a job queue like Slurm, but I'm just looking for a quick swap yes/no at the moment while we work towards setting up Slurm. For what it's worth, the OOMkiller has done a really great job so far of managing to kill the runaway process and not important system processes!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick responses guys, I really appreciate it. While I'm here, the lab has been sychronizing UID & GID across the servers and allowing local login with the same credentials by copying the same /etc/passwd across all machines, is there any reason that's a bad idea?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
xzzy posted:As long as you can live with any local additions will getting overwritten it's fine. It's an old school approach but it works. Configuration management tools such as puppet or ansible are the more modern ways to do that sort of enforcement and make exceptions more manageable.. but getting a the infrastructure set up is a Big Job. I'm using Ansible for everything that I've changed since I got here, and hope to get everything in Ansible eventually, but I haven't though about how to manage local accounts with it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:NIS (formerly YP, short for YellowPages) is a directory service that was created for exactly this purpose. Since then, Kerberos and LDAP have mostly replaced it, and I'd really recommend using that over relying on ansible for it. Are you suggesting NIS or Kerberos/LDAP? I do think we're going to want a real solution for this, but lightweight is the name of the game. We have more nodes than users, about 10 users and 20 huge nodes, and my primary job focus is actually software development for this group, I'm just wearing another at as a sysadmin because they have none. Before I joined last month it was exclusively admin-ed by postdocs who did their best despite little experience in the area.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:Lightweight Directory Access Protocol it is, then! They are / were in extreme danger of catastrophic failure. On my first day at this job, I found that:
I knew it was like this came into it eyes fully open and aware of problems of this level. I've already made significant progress towards a more stable computing environment, and hope to spend most of my time productionizing software rather than janitoring Linux soon. Edit: I've dealt with slapd before, but not super recently so I'll have to re-learn a bit. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:Well, I'm someone who does a lot of storage, so I can confidently say AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH I'm planning to use ZFS on a single large box for disaster recovery continuity in an offsite datacenter. How big a box have you dealt with on a single node? My current plan for that single offsite DR node is a 36 bay box full of 16TB drives, targeting somewhere around 400TB usable space. Napkin math with 4vdevs of 9-drive wide z2s says 448TB, but I don't know how acceptable that's going to be for big continuous writes. For primary storage I'm currently setting up Ceph, with a replicated pool on SSDs for home directories and CephFS filesystem metadata, and erasure coding on HDD for bulk storage. The name of the game is low IOPS capacity storage, it's a human genetics research lab.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:The real fun starts when you've got over one exabyte on a single system in one rack. My gut says that something like that would be wildly impractical and awful to actually try and use, just because it'd be very difficult to load data onto / off of all of those at any point, and I bet you'd run into weird bottlenecks. I'm working to keep single node size reasonable and avoid a setup like that, am I crazy? Especially because we have a ton of 10GbaseT networking available but very little higher speed, the whole thing is being designed around each node only having 2x10G connections aggregated. I'm not following your math, ~1000 14TB disks in one drive would be ~14PB in a rack, right? And an exabyte is 1000PB? Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Sep 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:That's almost textbook tbh. What does a ZFS HA solution look like? Two servers attached to the same set of disks with dual SAS expanders, one as a standby? When evaluating filesystem level compression, it looked like for our usage it didn't make sense specifically because these datasets (human genetics sequencing, genotyping, and variant call data) is all so compressible that it's only handled in compressed formats anyway, and handling them uncompressed with filesystem-level compression would just result in bottlenecking on network more than disk because of what high compression ratios are achievable.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:That post 100% reminds me of some of the war stories I've heard over drinks, it's all kinds of yikes in some places. I didn't include this originally because it's the dumbest thing I've seen in quite some time, but I noticed while patching these poor things for the first time in forever that one node was taking an eternity to patch a relatively minimal Ubuntu 18.04 install, so I check out what was going on. High iowait, its boot disk seems pretty unhappy. Let's check what's in there: code:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
I'm back with more questions since you're all so helpful. I've got a prebuilt binary that depends on the GNU Scientific Library, which is distributed in Ubuntu 18.04 and 20.04 as libgsl23. However, I noticed that the libgsl23 doesn't exist in 20.20 and 21.04 because it has a newer version of the library package, libgsl25, so I'm assuming that when 22.04 rolls around it'll have libgsl25 and not libgsl23. What happens to versioned library packages like this on moving to a newer distro? Will having libgsl23 installed automatically become libgsl25? Is there some virtual or metapackage that can install libgsl without needing to specify a version in the package name? I'm not planning to run any of the non-LTS Ubuntus so I don't have to do anything right now, but this is a pattern that I'd like to better understand and solve.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:Hi again, it’s me the baby with the textbook from 2008. I’m having trouble understanding permissions so I’ll ask here. So, "others" is any user on the machine, regardless if group membership. Groups are kind a broad simple access control solution, and modern real world systems will probably be using ACLs abd SELinux or some other more complicated access control tool. For your problem, you could have an accounting group, a group to manage Jeremy, and Bob could either be a member of all groups or be a sudoer, which would let him become other users or just be the root user that can do anything. If you want some more info about how this works in a more real world example, here's a bit about ACLs: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/linux-access-control-lists
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Is there a reason why the /dev/shm mount isn't in fstab on default Ubuntu and Debian configs? Is it always set to half of RAM, and is there any good reason for that? I stumbled on this when like a moron I accidentally did a umount -a when I meant to mount -a, and then /dev/shm was not remounted when I did mount -a. I'd appreciate a quick blurb about the history of /dev/shm and why we don't have tmpfs configuration info in /etc/fstab.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:These days it's automounted by systemd. I assume you can put an entry in /etc/fstab for /dev/shm and control options for it--if you really want--but systemd mounts it even without an /etc/fstab entry since some (essential?) userspace programs are dependent on /dev/shm existing and it would be bad to break those because the configuration doesn't exist. Thanks so much for this. I'm assuming that I could have asked systemd to remount it after my mistaken umount -a , rather than trying to remount it via mount -a? I noticed that Python multiprocessing couldn't work without /dev/shm, all sorts of userspace applications put flags there to communicate. Are tmpfs filesystems formatted with ext4 / xfs / distro appropriate default filesystems, or are they using something that's better suited for in-memory filesystems somehow?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
I'm setting up SLURM, which requires users and groups to be synchronized across the cluster, which I've found by testing means entirely synchronized, no machine can have users that the other machine does not even if all of the users that Slurm is using are present on all machines. I discovered this when my test cluster had postfix on one instance and otherwise identical /etc/passwd files, and SLURM couldn't connect internally until the postfix user existed on all machines. What's a good way to have some nodes be login nodes that actual end users are able to login to, but still have identical users / groups across the whole cluster? Just have some users use /sbin/nologin on some nodes? I guess i'll just maintain two /etc/passwd files via ansible, and distribute them based on role. Edit: I think that I solved the problem below, but I need to know why and how to fix it: Upgrading from Ubuntu 18.04 to 20.04 renamed the logical name of the onboard Intel X722 NIC from enp96s0f0 to eno0 and disabled it. It looks like I can hack around this by having netplan rename the interface at startup, but that feels wrong. Also, on an entirely different subject, I've got troubles with the integrated Intel X722 + X557 on my Supermicro boards. Upon upgrading from Ubuntu 18.04 to 20.04, one of the adapters has disappeared on two of my servers. I'm holding off any more updates until I figure out what is going on, because this seems bad. Everything is still working fine because I had 802.3ad link bonding set up and the remaining adapter is taking all the traffic, but it still feels bad and I want to figure this out. They show up in lspci still, but do not appear at all in ip address or ifconfig, they just do not exist. I did ask the networking guys about it, who told me that this specific connection had been bouncing occasionally for about 2 years, and we'd just never noticed because of the NIC teaming. My checklist for tomorrow based on some light googling today is to update BMC firmware, and then to try installing drivers straight from Intel here, which I'm not really looking forward to because they will not be automatically updated and I've never had to use non-free drivers before for NICs. Has anybody had a bad time with Intel 10GBaseT NICs? Is having to grab drivers straight from Intel normal? Here's the situation I'm dealing with. I've got two machines now in this state, and others still on 18.04 that are working fine and have enp96s0f0 up and taking traffic in the bond0: code:Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
I found my smoking gun on the network interfaces changing names after upgrading from Ubuntu 18.04 to 20.04! Next question is why.pre:dmesg output on 18.04: 1672:[ 3.504445] i40e 0000:60:00.0 enp96s0f0: renamed from eth0 dmesg output on 20.04: 1688:[ 10.598038] i40e 0000:60:00.0 eno0: renamed from eth0 pre:$ ethtool -i enp96s0f0 driver: i40e version: 2.1.14-k firmware-version: 3.33 0x80000e48 1.1876.0 $ ethtool -i eno0 driver: i40e version: 2.8.20-k firmware-version: 3.33 0x80000e48 1.1876.0
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:27 |
|
|
ExcessBLarg! posted:"eno#" are the names of the on-board (as in, soldered to your motherboard) network adapters, while "enp#s#f#" refers to devices on the PCI bus. Of course, on-board devices are also on the PCI bus, leaving it up to the device driver to determine whether it's "on-board" or not. Presumably the i40e driver updated some device list and now acknowledges that it's an on-board adapter. Those bastards, both ports are onboard, it's 2 ports on the same device. What a weird state to decide that one of the X722 ports is onboard and the other one is on the PCI bus when one is at 60:00.0 and one at 60:00.1.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 19:13
|
|