ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Topics
    2. biggen
    3. Posts
    B
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 13
    • Posts 156
    • Groups 0

    Posts

    Recent Best Controversial
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @Pete-S Ok, I went ahead and let the installer partition it using the defaults for LVM. Everything is working!

      The installer creates a small primary partition and installs /boot to it. It then creates an extended partition with the remainder of the drive and slices up logicals out of that for the LVM. It puts “/“ in vg1 as “lv root” and puts /swap in vg1 as well as lv swap”.

      I was not creating a /boot. Never have. I was just creating a primary for the “/“ and then saving some of it for an extended /swap. I’ve done this forever. It even works in a VM. I have no idea why I couldn’t get it to work on the physical machine.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @Pete-S I’m not there now but shows disklabel as “dos” if I remember correctly. So partition type should be plain ole MBR I believe.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @Pete-S Yeah I have the Bios set to Legacy Boot which I assume means that UEFI is turned off,

      When I say “disk label” I mean partition type. So DOS = MBR. That is how the disk is partitioned now.

      I appreciate you testing in a VM. I’ll try it again later with the default installer partitioning. If it fails to work then I don’t know...

      I’ve tried to zero the md superblock, after that fact, I’m not sure it works anymore. If I boot into Debian (after waiting for the failed job start) on that disk and run that command, I get “couldn’t open for write. Not zeroing” for that drive /dev/sda”.

      I swear I’ve never had issues with Debian. Very odd indeed.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @Pete-S I’ll try later with the default install that the partitioner wants to do and see if that changes things. Man, this is a real head scratcher.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @Pete-S Yeah I tested it with a VM yesterday on my desktop in Virtual Box after I had my problems on the physical machine. Worked fine. I even did my md -> lvm > XFS setup using two VHDs. Installed and fired right up with a nice RAID 1 array.

      I can’t figure it out. It’s like there is something up with both disks. I’ve blown them out with Gparted and DD. I guess I can change the disk label to GPT and see if that makes a difference. I’m at a total loss...

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      I initially tried to use this disk and another identical disk for my standard md -> LVM -> XFS install. But the installer would always fail to install grub near the end. Would say something like “failed to install grub to /dev/mapper”. So when that didn’t work I decided to just cut my losses and install to one drive. Now this issue cropped up.

      I’ve been working on this for days. I’m thinking there is something up with these two drives.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @scottalanmiller Not sure what MPT is. I’m reusing this disk from an earlier Debian 9 install a year or so go. I set it up as MBR/Dos label back then so I just didn’t change the disk label for this install.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      @black3dynamite Me neither. I normally never use /boot. Just / and swap. Been doing it for years.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      I’ve not tried that. I tried to do my normal LVM install and it complained that way as well about failed start job. It’s almost as if there is some old partition info hanging around causing problems.

      I’ve used Gparted and DD to wipe the drive.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • Any idea why Debian complains about a start job failure on boot after a new install?

      So installing Debian 10 bare metal today I ran into a problem where upon reboot after a successful install, it complains immediately about a start job it’s waiting for. Looking up the UUID, it’s waiting for my swap partition which I have.

      I thought I screwed up the partitioning segment so I went through it again and tried a re-install: Create a primary partition using 95% or so of the drive and assign it as “/“. Then create an extended partition and assign it as “swap”.

      Drive is set to DOS label (256GB SSD). Installer runs fine and upon reboot I’m waiting for a start job again. WTH? Why can’t Debian find the swap partition? What am I missing here on a brand new install?

      posted in IT Discussion linux debian
      B
      biggen
    • RE: Why Do Vendors Use MAP Pricing?

      Disclaimer: I own a retail gift shop in a major tourist destination in Florida. Our local economy is 100% tourism based. I’m brick and mortar only. No online sales.

      I carry a few lines of brand name apparel that have MAP policies. I also can’t sell these items online via eBay, Amazon, Aliexpress, etc... Essentially no online marketplace is allowed for these brands. I can sell them at my own business website if I choose.

      I’m actually ok with their MAP policy. It levels the playing field with other retailers around me that may also carry the same brand. Everyone has to abide by the policy for external advertising. Some retailers who have larger purchasing power than me might get those goods at discounted prices from what I can buy them for (i.e. they are buying 2x or more than what im buying in a given year). It’s nice that they can’t advertise a retail price less than the MAP even since their wholesale costs are lower.

      It also prevents “loss leader” sale that is very common with larger box store retailers. I don’t have to worry about a store down the street advertising the same brand for $15 less than wholesale on an item just to get people in the door.

      The third reason I like it is the psychological effect of “perceived value”. I’ve done non-scientific tests in my store where I’ll price two very similar items at two very different prices. People seem to be drawn first to the higher priced items most of the time. It’s quite the thing to witness to be honest. Keeping the MAP price higher keeps its perceived value higher.

      So anyway that’s my two cents working in retail for 25+ years now. I, as a retailer and business owner, don’t mind MAP at all. Take it with a grain of salt. I understand this all doesn’t translate to IT which is what Scott was referring to in the OP. But I wanted to give a side of MAP that perhaps wasn’t considered.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: How much trouble is Intel in with AMD’s Epyc Rome release?

      @scottalanmiller Ah crap. I missed those threads. I even searched!

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • How much trouble is Intel in with AMD’s Epyc Rome release?

      https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen

      What advantages does Intel have anymore? Reading this review reads like an obituary for Intel in the server market. Why spend double with Intel for half the cores vs Epyc?

      I’m just wondering what Intels next move is here.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @Dashrender JBOD for the raw camera storage. I don't need/want any redundancy here.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @scottalanmiller The only real "benefit" of physical that I can tell for my specific use case would be that I can take advantage of Quick Sync since there doesn't appear to be a way to pass that through the Xen hypervisor (at least not that I have found without putting on my hacking hat).

      But I really don't want to have to have a physical host just for that use. I still want to virtualize a few other things I host internally so I'd have to now have two hosts. One for the cams and one as a VM host. It's just more complication than I want to have to deal with to be honest.

      @olivier Made an interesting suggestion in that I could setup a NFS share on another host. But then I'm back to two hosts again (or a Synology NAS).

      I'm just trying to keep things a bit simple. I don't think I can get much simpler that using one host and simply passing through a couple gigantic HDDs for one specific VM. I think the VM could still be migrated so long as I detach the passthrough disks first, move those disks to a new host, migrate the VM to the new host, and then re-attach/passthrough the disks on the new host. At least, I don't see why I couldn't do this if I ever wanted to move to another host in the future. Going purely physical would make that more of a challenge I think.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @Dashrender said in No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?:

      @biggen said in No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?:

      @Dashrender said in No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?:

      @biggen said in No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?:

      @scottalanmiller Ok and that's fine. That's what I need to do then. For the camera server VM I'm working on i want it to record to a couple 12TB Exos X drives. So I have to figure out how to pass them through directly. I think Pete S. had a tutorial I need to hunt dkwn.

      Why stay with XCP-NG? why not move over to KVM?

      I've used KVM and really like it. Been running it on a Debian host for yeras. For the new host build, I wanted to try something different mainly. I was impressed with Xen and when I found out about xcp-ng I had to give it a spin.

      @olivier Great! I think I will just pass through the disks and be done with it. I could have gone the NAS route, but I have enough local storage to not have to use that option.

      Frankly, @Obsolesce might be the rightest here. Perhaps don't virtualize. Your storage requirement makes migrating to another platform more challenging - not saying not doable. and you plan to have a dedicated machine - with, now, likely directly provisioned storage due to the hypervisor of choice limitations.

      It's one thing to want to get more experience at something - but at the cost of an enterprise implementation seems foolish at best. Making the the most sound IT decision for the job at hand should be the goal - not furthering your education (that's what labs are really for).

      I have no desire to migrate this VM. It's just running a camera recording software suite for my business. Honestly, it's nice to have but not a necessity. I used to run it virtualized via KVM as well and also passed through the disks to make managing that much storage easier.

      At any rate, disk pass through was successful for xcp-ng. I appreciate everyone's input.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @Dashrender said in No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?:

      @biggen said in No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?:

      @scottalanmiller Ok and that's fine. That's what I need to do then. For the camera server VM I'm working on i want it to record to a couple 12TB Exos X drives. So I have to figure out how to pass them through directly. I think Pete S. had a tutorial I need to hunt dkwn.

      Why stay with XCP-NG? why not move over to KVM?

      I've used KVM and really like it. Been running it on a Debian host for yeras. For the new host build, I wanted to try something different mainly. I was impressed with Xen and when I found out about xcp-ng I had to give it a spin.

      @olivier Great! I think I will just pass through the disks and be done with it. I could have gone the NAS route, but I have enough local storage to not have to use that option.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @scottalanmiller Ok and that's fine. That's what I need to do then. For the camera server VM I'm working on i want it to record to a couple 12TB Exos X drives. So I have to figure out how to pass them through directly. I think Pete S. had a tutorial I need to hunt dkwn.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @olivier I was reading over the Citrix docs and it looks like you can only attach a maximum of 7 VHDs to a single VM. Simple math would tell us that the maximum VM size one could ever build with XEN (xcp-ng) could only be 14TB in size (7 VHD * 2TB each) since we are also limited to a 2TB max VHD size.

      Does this sound right? How are people creating larger VMs??? What am I missing?

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • RE: No way to create larger than 2TB virtual disk with Xen or XCP-NG?

      @olivier Wow thanks for that very detailed response. It’s a shame that Citrix isn’t playing nice with SMAPIv3. But it’s also great to hear you guys are working on it anyway!

      I’m really impressed with the entire xcp-ng project. Really amazing some of the changes you guys have brought. You seem to have an excellent team of devs.

      posted in IT Discussion
      B
      biggen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 6 / 8