@wirestyle22 said in Debian File Server File Recovery:

@travisdh1 said in Debian File Server File Recovery:

@wirestyle22 said in Debian File Server File Recovery:

@travisdh1 nope

Uck. Do you know the type of file system (xfs, ext3, ext4, zfs)?

ext4

I prefer xfs, that can be growth online. Always use LVM.

It's trivial to expand a volume with LVM: just add another virtual disk to the machine, pvadd, lvexend, xfs_growfs and you're done.

@matteo-nunziati said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@scottalanmiller so basically, if I want to move stuff from a NAS appliance (which does'nt support the thing), I need a VM in the middle to manage the copy/move/remove operations. right? (ok, then stopping hijacking the thread)

Any linux VM can do it easily.
Qnap support it, also.
You can install the AWS/B2 cli in any linux-based NAS, in truth.

@matteo-nunziati said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@Francesco-Provino never used those (b2, glacier) how do you access them? REST API? client? anything special required?

I use both via the CLI, it's very easy to script the upload of the archives :).
This is the official guide for the AWS cli.

@scottalanmiller said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

Deduplication tends to be good for archival data or as an offline process that runs only during idle times directly on the storage. Inline dedupe is rarely worth it.

Deduplication makes the archives much more fragile. A bit flip in the right chunk can potentially blow the whole archive.

What percentage of gained space is worth the loss of recoverability?
With b2 at 0.005, glacier at 0.004, magnetic and tape storage still getting cheaper, why add complexity and risk for a little saving? The space gained is ~10% or less compared with LZMA compression for my dataset, that is a typical smb one.

I think deduplication is not worth the cpu/ram cost in most cases (thinking about ZFS E.G.).

@scottalanmiller said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

Wow, that is a lot of CPU!!

Yes, maybe because I also set the chunk compression to the maximum ratio.

@StrongBad said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@Francesco-Provino said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@scottalanmiller said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@Francesco-Provino said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@matteo-nunziati said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

+1 for tar.bz2, you can encrypt it if you want.

I agree, it's fairly common and almost every distrp ship it as default. I've read in many sites that xz and other lzma-based compress even more, but there are some doubts about the recoverability, the format is more complex and at least 10x slower…

BZ is so good. Probably not worth pushing it farther in most cases.

Now experimenting with ZPAQ...

How is it?

This one. It's included by default in most linux distro.
It does deduplication… but it really takes forever, 11 hours to compress 43 Gb to 21Gb using 100% CPU of a 4 core xeon e3.

I think I'll stick with bzip2 or lzma (xz) for now, I don't think higher compression ration are really worth the price.

@scottalanmiller said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@Francesco-Provino said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

@matteo-nunziati said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

+1 for tar.bz2, you can encrypt it if you want.

I agree, it's fairly common and almost every distrp ship it as default. I've read in many sites that xz and other lzma-based compress even more, but there are some doubts about the recoverability, the format is more complex and at least 10x slower…

BZ is so good. Probably not worth pushing it farther in most cases.

Now experimenting with ZPAQ...

@matteo-nunziati said in Data archive is not backup! What do you use?:

+1 for tar.bz2, you can encrypt it if you want.

I agree, it's fairly common and almost every distrp ship it as default. I've read in many sites that xz and other lzma-based compress even more, but there are some doubts about the recoverability, the format is more complex and at least 10x slower…

I'm set with Veeam (VM level) and rsnapshot/attic (file level) regarding the backups; but now I'm facing the problem of archiving very old, seldom readed data that we must preserve for at least 5 years…

I'm digging into zbackup, obnam, and also plain tar encryption… I absolutely want to use pure FLOSS software for this purpose.
After archiving I'll upload the data to something like glacier/B2, and local cold storage of course.

What do you think about that? What do you use for long-term archiving?

@guyinpv What is the filesystem in the root partition?

@JaredBusch said in Korora - what do you do with the desktop experience:

I just installed Korora 25 last night to a laptop to test things out.

I hate the default desktop experience. Any suggestions form those of you who have been using Korora?

I haven't tried Korora, but I used Fedora a lot.
I usually replace the whole DE thing (Gnome, KDE, XFCE etc.) with a window manager like i3.
I really don't see the point in a bloated DE, any application can work with a simple WM without issues.
Just a waste of resources IMHO.

@travisdh1 said in Why are local drives better:

@scottalanmiller said in Why are local drives better:

@travisdh1 said in Why are local drives better:

@scottalanmiller said in Why are local drives better:

@travisdh1 said in Why are local drives better:

@Grey said in Why are local drives better:

@travisdh1 said in Why are local drives better:

@Grey said in Why are local drives better:

@Dashrender said in Why are local drives better:

@Grey said in Why are local drives better:

ay max at 3, 6 or 3.2 16 Gbit/s (1969 MB/s). Ergo, a 10GB FCoE SAN that's running OBR10 or Raid6 with a large SSD/RAM c

You can literally use local disk for any thing you can use remote disk. So I'm not really sure what you're digging for.

Transfer rates. A local bus will max at 6, while a SAN on a 10 GB link (or dual 10s, whatever) can go higher as the node can cache in RAM and then write back to the drives that are local to the SAN at the slower, local rate.

So, just like the cache on a local controller?

Does your local controller have a 256gb cache?

If I've got that much ram assigned to it, sure, why not?

I've worked on local storage systems that have that much cache just recently, in fact.

Nice. Was that a hardware controller or software based?

Software. Which is pretty much the only thing for enterprise systems.

I should've known. It's so easy to make and use a huge cache with md, more system memory = more cache.

Using "md"? What do you mean? Linux automatically cache I/O with available ram AFAIK.

My desk at home, z240 with some power ups (GTX 950, 32Gb of RAM, samsun 951).
The screen is a 43' 4k from Philips, the keyboard is a Unicomp.
Running OpenSuSe 42.2, of course with Kde 5…

The book is "Modern quantum mechanics" from Sakurai & Napolitano :).

@scottalanmiller said in Having Problems Installing openSuse Tumbleweed on VirtualBox:

@Francesco-Provino said in Having Problems Installing openSuse Tumbleweed on VirtualBox:

Why use it when the alternatives are free and perform better? There's also HyperV…

I run Linux on the bare metal, desktop in a VM is less than ideal. Not seen Linux on Hyper-V get GPU passthrough, does that work?

Of course graphical-intensive desktop in a VM is not optimal at all. VMware Workstation and Fusion are getting it right, but…

@scottalanmiller said in Having Problems Installing openSuse Tumbleweed on VirtualBox:

@Francesco-Provino said in Having Problems Installing openSuse Tumbleweed on VirtualBox:

Why use it when the alternatives are free and perform better? There's also HyperV…

I run Linux on the bare metal, desktop in a VM is less than ideal. Not seen Linux on Hyper-V get GPU passthrough, does that work?

I try to explain that clearly: standard Windows on bare-metal of course use the GPU directly. After the installation of HyperV, the GPU is passed to the Windows Dom0 by HyperV, in a sort of passthrough. It's documented that this reduce the gaming performance of the Dom0.

Haven't used Virtualbox for years. Only KVM/Xen/VMware here.
Why use it when the alternatives are free and perform better? There's also HyperV…

Maybe the only caveat is the reduced gaming performance on Windows after the HyperV installation, because the Windows Dom0 use the VGA passthrough, not directly.

Ubuntu or OpenSuSe (Unity or KDE).
I was in love with tiling environments like i3 or dwm, but they usually broke the compatibility with other pieces of software.
I usually don't care that much about the DE, all I need is a console and good hardware support.

@WLS-ITGuy said in vMotion causing glitches on moved machines:

3 hosts are all HP Proliant gen 9 servers. Storage is Netgear ReadyNAS 3312.

WAT

@scottalanmiller I'm sure I've seen "JBOD" option in some IBM raid controller.

Maybe it could be useful to idendtify disks as JBOD if they are used as part of an object based storage (like CEPH), to clarify that there is not any RAID in place.