1 |
On Sat, 2011-03-26 at 08:40 +0000, Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> By contrast, Linux is still my hobby, tho really, a full time one in that |
3 |
> I spend hours a day at it, pretty much 7 days a week. I'm thinking I |
4 |
> might switch to Linux as a job at some point, perhaps soon, but it's not a |
5 |
> switch I'll make lightly, and it's not something I'll even consider |
6 |
> "selling my soul for" to take -- it'll be on my terms or I might as well |
7 |
> stay with Linux as a hobby -- an arrangement that works and that suits me |
8 |
> fine. |
9 |
|
10 |
What professional work I've gotten with Linux has been a real lesson in |
11 |
synergy. It seems as if every time I've gone out and experimented with |
12 |
some facet of Linux technology - setting up iptables, learning routing |
13 |
fundamentals, setting up and using OpenVPN, etc., I've been called upon |
14 |
to use it, and get paid for using it, for a client. My main client, in |
15 |
return, has increased my understanding of higher level programming stuff |
16 |
tremendously! |
17 |
|
18 |
> Slowly, one at a time, I've tackled Bind DNS, NTPD, md/RAID, direct |
19 |
> netfilter/iptables (which interestingly enough were *SIGNIFICANTLY* easier |
20 |
> for me to wrap my mind around than the various so-called "easier" firewall |
21 |
> tools that ultimately use netfilter/iptables at the back end anyway, |
22 |
> perhaps because I already understood network basics and all the "simple" |
23 |
> ones simply obscured the situation for me) and other generally considered |
24 |
> "enterprise" tools. |
25 |
|
26 |
Yep, I know where you're coming from there. Iptables isn't all that |
27 |
hard to understand, and I've become pretty conversant with it in the |
28 |
process of using for my own and others' systems. I'd always rather deal |
29 |
with the "under the hood" CLI tools than with some GUI tool that does |
30 |
little more than obfuscate the real issue. That way lies Windows! |
31 |
|
32 |
> Bottom line, yeah I believe ext4 is safe, but ext3 or ext4, unless you |
33 |
> really do /not/ care about your data integrity or are going to the extreme |
34 |
> and already have data=journal, DEFINITELY specify data=ordered, both in |
35 |
> your mount options, and by setting the defaults via tune2fs. |
36 |
|
37 |
So does this turn off journaling? What's a good reference on the |
38 |
advantages of ext4 over ext3, or can you just summarize them for me? |
39 |
|
40 |
> But if you're basing the initr* on glibc, which would certainly be easier |
41 |
> and is, now that I think of it, probably the way gentoo handles it, yeah, |
42 |
> I could see the glibc getting stale in the initrd. |
43 |
|
44 |
The problem with Gentoo was that because EVMS was an orphaned project, I |
45 |
believe the ebuild wasn't updated. The initrd file was specific for |
46 |
EVMS. |
47 |
|
48 |
> If there's one bit of advice in all these posts that I'd have you take |
49 |
> away, it's that. It's NOT worth the integrity of your data! Use |
50 |
> data=ordered unless you really do NOT care, to the same degree that you |
51 |
> don't put data you care about on RAID-0, without at least ensuring that |
52 |
> it's backed up elsewhere. |
53 |
|
54 |
I've never used, or had much use for RAID-0. LVM provides the same |
55 |
capabilities. For me, RAID is a way of insuring data integrity, and |
56 |
large drives are getting cheaper and cheaper. I've only used RAID-1 and |
57 |
RAID-5. |
58 |
|
59 |
I'm not a speed-freak on disk I/O, and am generally quite willing to |
60 |
sacrifice a bit of speed for reliability. data=writeback has been a |
61 |
tweak, and I believe I've read up on it previously and decided against |
62 |
it for probably the same reasons you cite. data=ordered has been the |
63 |
default, but apparently upgrading to 2.6.36 I'm going to have to spec |
64 |
this explicitly in /etc/fstab unless I upgrade to 2.6.38. |
65 |
|
66 |
> FWIW, my RAID is 4x SATA 300 gig Seagates, 5 year warranty I expect now |
67 |
> either expired or soon to. Most of the system is RAID-1 across all four, |
68 |
> however, and I'm backed up to external as well altho I'll admit that |
69 |
> backup's a dated, now. I bought them after having a string of bad luck |
70 |
> with ~1 year failures on both Maxtor (which had previously been quite |
71 |
> dependable for me) |
72 |
|
73 |
I had a Maxtor drive actually *smoke* on me once, years ago. There was |
74 |
a "pop", and smoke, and a big burned spot on the circuit board on the |
75 |
drive! I never bought another Maxtor! It's the smoke inside the little |
76 |
colored thingies on printed circuit boards that make them work! When |
77 |
they break, and the smoke gets away, the thingies are useless. |
78 |
|
79 |
I generally go with Seagates these days too, although the quality of |
80 |
drives, and which brand is best, seems to change over time. I used to |
81 |
swear by IBM drives until they had a bad run of them with a high failure |
82 |
rate, and before this got sorted out they sold their drive biz to |
83 |
Fujitsu. |
84 |
|
85 |
> and Western Digital (which I had read bad things about |
86 |
> but thought I'd try after Maxtor, only to have the same ~1 year issues). |
87 |
> Obviously, they've long outlasted those, so I've been satisfied. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> As I said, I'll keep the 3ware RAID cards in mind. |
90 |
|
91 |
After having had all kinds of trouble trying to get hardware RAID |
92 |
working on one of my servers, I discovered the 3ware cards after asking |
93 |
the advice of the hardware fellow here who works with one of my favorite |
94 |
tech outfits in Austin, Outernet Connection Strategies. He builds a lot |
95 |
of servers and doesn't even _try_ to get the native RAID chipsets to |
96 |
work. He just slaps a 3ware card in them and moves on. It's _real_ |
97 |
RAID, all the useful levels, not "fakeraid". |
98 |
|
99 |
> Mainboard: If a server board fits your budget, I'd highly recommend |
100 |
> getting a Tyan board that's Linux certified. The one I'm running in my |
101 |
> main machine is now 8 years old, /long/ out of warranty and beyond further |
102 |
> BIOS updates, but still running solid. |
103 |
|
104 |
Hmmm. I'll look into Tyan. I hadn't heard of them, but it sounds as if |
105 |
they bend over backwards to work with Linux. That's always a plus. |
106 |
|
107 |
> It's likely to be a decade old by the time I actually upgrade it. Yes, |
108 |
> it's definitely a server-class board and the $400 I paid reflected that, |
109 |
> but 8 years and shooting for 10! And with the official Linux support |
110 |
> including a custom sensors.conf. I'm satisfied that I got my money's |
111 |
> worth. |
112 |
> |
113 |
> But I don't believe all Tyan's boards are as completely Linux supported as |
114 |
> that one was, so do your research. |
115 |
|
116 |
Of course. I like technology that _lasts_! We have a clock in our |
117 |
house that's about 190 years old, and came to me through my family. The |
118 |
works are made of wood, and it keeps impeccable time - loses or gains |
119 |
maybe 30 seconds a week if I wind it every day, which I need to. Some |
120 |
years ago one of the wooden gears gave out from over a century of |
121 |
stress. There's a label in the clock that says "warrented if well |
122 |
used", and since I'd used it very well, I called up the Seth Thomas |
123 |
company and told them that I had one of their clocks and it was broken, |
124 |
and since I'd used it very well, I figured that it was still under |
125 |
warranty. The gal with whom I talked was amused and intrigued, and |
126 |
turned me on to the Connecticut Clock and Watch museum, run by one |
127 |
George Bruno. It seems that Mr. Bruno also makes working replicas of |
128 |
exactly the model of clock I have and was able to send me an exact |
129 |
replacement part! Try _THAT_ with your 1990's era computer ;-) Every |
130 |
time this nice old clock strikes the hour it reminds me that although I |
131 |
work with computers where hardware is out of date in 5 years or so, |
132 |
there are some things that were built to last! |
133 |
|
134 |
But this is OT for this forum. Sorry, folks. I couldn't resist telling |
135 |
a good story. |
136 |
|
137 |
> Well, save btrfs for a project a couple years down the line, then. But |
138 |
> certainly, investigate md/raid vs lvm2 and make your choice, keeping in |
139 |
> mind that while nowdays they overlap features, md/raid doesn't require an |
140 |
> initr* to run / on it, while lvm2 will likely be pulled in as a dependency |
141 |
> for your X desktop, at least kde/gnome/xfce, by later this year, whether |
142 |
> you actually use its lvm features or not. |
143 |
|
144 |
Thanks, Duncan. Good advice, that. |
145 |
|
146 |
> And do consider ext4, but regardless of ext3/4, be /sure/ you either |
147 |
> choose data=ordered or can give a good reason why you didn't. (Low- |
148 |
> latency writing just might be a reasonable excuse for data=writeback, but |
149 |
> be sure you keep backed up if you do!) Because /that/ one may well save |
150 |
> your data, someday! |
151 |
|
152 |
I'm going to read up on btrfs and ext4, whether or not I use them. |
153 |
|
154 |
-- |
155 |
Lindsay Haisley |"Windows ..... |
156 |
FMP Computer Services | life's too short!" |
157 |
512-259-1190 | |
158 |
http://www.fmp.com | - Brad Johnston |