So for the sake of knowledge and even though I have used Vultr from before and liked it and it completely covered my needs. I said I want to learn more about Digital Ocean (DO) ofcourse it will be better cause it is more known and stuff, here is what I found out:

1. It is limited alot in VMs and wants you to gain reputation to create more VMs
   your limited to 10 droplets from the start.

2. I have compared the instance i have in Vultr hosted in Frankfurt with another "Droplet" hosted in Frankfurt

3. both are secure with 2FA setup easily

4. DO does not have the smart My IP Vultr thing when you want to add your IP to SSH, however you can do it manually.

5. The firewall setting for DO has Inboud + Outbound Rules while Vultr has only Inboud Rules. I eventually let the Outbound to allow all, it is good to have I guess but feels redundant and in the British sense.

6. So performance wise now, I did the ping test and DO seems to give better lower ping responses, great right ? not really I deployed software packages and connected using ssh and the interface kept disconnecting after while, not like security feature more of hang reminds me of when you use VPN everything felt slower.

7. DNS setup was the last straw I DID the exact same steps I did with vutlr to make my site have cool name, and with vultr it was go to the Name hosting that you purchased change the the name servers to vultr servers and go back to vultr admin and create DNS entry and link it with instance, Did exactly like that with DO but what I got is when I go to my site www.example.com --> it went to the IP address of the site and users would get http://IP

After I saw this much hassle and slow speed in ssh and installing packages compares to the stability of Vultr and at least my SSH session does not freeze and it feels like real SSD powering the whole thing, I deleted all the DO stuff and went back to lovely Vultr.

@emad-r

NVM the same thing still works, but cause the files changed I thought I need to put something else.

Hi,

So previous php versions I was able to do this:

nano /etc/httpd/conf.d/php.conf

	<FilesMatch \.php$>
	#    SetHandler application/x-httpd-php
		SetHandler "proxy:fcgi://127.0.0.1:9000" 
	</FilesMatch>

Now the configs or 7.2 are different, looks more like this:

# Cause the PHP interpreter to handle files with a .php extension.
#
AddHandler php7-script .php
AddType text/html .php

How do I go and set to use php-fpm globally in php7.2

@stacksofplates said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

Uh there’s no difference. If you freeze the system it can’t be used. This is to run on live systems so they remain running the whole time.

What no coffee break for servers !!!

@stacksofplates said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

@emad-r said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

@jaredbusch said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

@emad-r said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

@jaredbusch

Hi,

What is the reasoning for doing external snapshots and going against the default (where everything is saved in one file), I use virt but I love virt-manager and with that it always does the snap internally.

Any benefits of external aside being the ESXi way?

Cause it seems here that what is causing the issue, and I recall somewhere I read the qcow2 expects everything to be in 1 file.

I just read @stacksofplates basically what he says.

because you cannot copy the file off to backup when you use the internal snapshot

Interesting I dont take VM backup frequently, when I do I rsync the whole VM file.

rsync --progress --inplace -h -W /var/lib/libvirt/images/VM/centos7.0-clone.qcow2 [email protected]:/var/lib/libvirt/images/VM/centos7.0-clone.qcow2

This after the initial copy, if you are extra paranoid you can take the file everytime if you dont trust rsync algorithms.

But it is interesting this external snapshot approach, how much are the sizes of external snapshots roughly ? I know it depends but what are we dealing with here. 100 MB ?

You have to shut the VM off to just rsync the drive. This way you can leave the VM on.

You don’t copy the external snapshot. You take a snapshot and copy the backing store. Then blockcommit (merge) the snapshot back into the original image.

No need if you freeze the filesystem first then rsync. but for this I recommend taking each time the whole file with rsync

@jaredbusch said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

@emad-r said in Unable to delete KVM snapshot:

@jaredbusch

Hi,

What is the reasoning for doing external snapshots and going against the default (where everything is saved in one file), I use virt but I love virt-manager and with that it always does the snap internally.

Any benefits of external aside being the ESXi way?

Cause it seems here that what is causing the issue, and I recall somewhere I read the qcow2 expects everything to be in 1 file.

I just read @stacksofplates basically what he says.

because you cannot copy the file off to backup when you use the internal snapshot

Interesting I dont take VM backup frequently, when I do I rsync the whole VM file.

rsync --progress --inplace -h -W /var/lib/libvirt/images/VM/centos7.0-clone.qcow2 [email protected]:/var/lib/libvirt/images/VM/centos7.0-clone.qcow2

This after the initial copy, if you are extra paranoid you can take the file everytime if you dont trust rsync algorithms.

But it is interesting this external snapshot approach, how much are the sizes of external snapshots roughly ? I know it depends but what are we dealing with here. 100 MB ?

@jaredbusch

Hi,

What is the reasoning for doing external snapshots and going against the default (where everything is saved in one file), I use virt but I love virt-manager and with that it always does the snap internally.

Any benefits of external aside being the ESXi way?

Cause it seems here that what is causing the issue, and I recall somewhere I read the qcow2 expects everything to be in 1 file.

I just read @stacksofplates basically what he says.

@matteo-nunziati said in Is Docker a joke or do I just not see the point?:

@DustinB3403 : Docker is a specific type of container. It is stateless (can't store data) and as any containers is omogeneous - unless you run it in a VM an entire host must run the same os.
In an SMB usually we have "thick" VM with all layers in (data, business logic, front end maybe) also we have either linux or win on the host.
From a tipical SMB IT Docker is of minimal use.
In bigger envs where your services are split in components and you have a lot of instances running on top of a backing store that make more sense.

So Thin VM would be VM that mounts data from network location ?

@dafyre

Sure but drawing with mouse will make it look like child idea, if its small team it makes sense to have cheap Drawing Tablet for each.

https://www.amazon.com/Huion-Graphics-Drawing-Tablet-Board/dp/B00TB0TTAC/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1523967440&sr=1-3&keywords=Drawing+Tablet