[06:55] howdy all [07:20] morning boys and girls. [08:05] Morning all [08:05] morning davmor2 :) ow am ya! [08:05] MooDoo: Bostin' you? [08:09] Got this stuck in my head again this morning after hearing on an advert last night https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYPWxymohWs [08:12] davmor2: cool, ready for me jollies [08:13] I got the 4 days after the bank holiday booked off nice long retreat === layke is now known as Guest95860 [08:35] davmor2: I'm off next week, so don't go back till the tues after the BH [09:22] Good morning all! Happy Wednesday, and happy Black Cat Appreciation Day! 😁 🐈 [09:29] JamesTait: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH-rPt1ftSo easy [09:42] JamesTait: It's also MooDoo is being thick day :( [09:43] We all have them, MooDoo. 😉 [09:46] MooDoo: how is that different to any other day ;) [10:05] davmor2: shush [11:15] Just heard Whole lotta love and it instantly took me back to Cheggers Play Pop === Guest95860 is now known as Layke [14:13] apt-get upgrade is normally sufficient to get you up to the latest point release if you're on an LTS, right? [14:14] like someone running 14.04 need not do anything special to be on 14.04.04 [14:16] nucc1: depends if you want the new kernel stack or not [14:16] yea, don't care about newer kernel [14:17] nucc1: apt update && apt full-upgrade will update as normal [14:17] as long as the other packages are up to date, especially on security patches [14:18] never knew about apt full-upgrade before [14:18] nucc1: new to 14.04 it is the new apt package [14:19] curiously, it's trying to install kernel 3.13 for me, when I'm already running 3.18.2 [14:19] errr [14:19] nucc1: apt update, apt upgrade, apt full-upgrade, apt search, apt policy, apt show [14:20] and in 16.04 you get apt autoremove and apt autoclean too [14:20] davmor2: 16.04 will be when we're migrated to PHP7 [14:23] Candidate: 1:7.0+35ubuntu6 [14:25] huh? [14:25] i'm assuming that 14.04 doesn't dump php7 on me :) [14:26] nucc1: what's wrong with 7 [14:29] nothing wrong with 7, but i can't guarantee the appss we're using will work without issue. [14:29] so need to wait until developers give the green light. [14:59] davmor2: so it would seem that do-release-upgrade is a bit misleading. [14:59] the upgrade notification tells me to go to 14.04.1 by using do-release-upgrade, but when i run the command, it wants to take me to 16.04 because that is the current LTS release. [15:00] nucc1: why it does an upgrade to a newer distro [15:00] upgrade preferences are set to prefer LTS [15:00] but that's not what the upgrade notification tells you [15:00] i should probably file a bug about this. [15:00] assuming i'm not horribly confused [15:01] i ahve a snapshot, so i'm going to go ahead with the upgrade to confirm this. [15:01] nucc1: it possibly was correct at the time of release if you are still on 14.04 rather than 14.04.x [15:01] can you screenshot the image? [15:02] popey: i can screenshot the image when it suggests that i should use do-release-upgrade to install14.04.1 [15:02] yeah, that would be interesting [15:02] and also how it appears that the command is actually proposing to take me to 16.04 [15:02] also, what does "lsb_release -a" say you're on now? [15:04] nucc1: also can you do sudo apt update && apt list --upgradable | grep do-release-upgrade [15:09] oddly, after i ran lsb_release -a [15:09] it now shows 16.04.1 as available [15:09] let me revert to previous snapshot. [15:10] btw, lsb_release -a says i'm on 14.04.5 [15:15] sorry davmor2, popey it seems i was reading it wrongly. it actually says 16.04.01 [15:15] somehow i read it as 14.04.01 [15:15] Huzzah [15:15] that's what led me to ask if apt-get update was sufficient to get me on 14.04.5 [15:16] because i thought it was telling me i'm still on something before 14.04.1 even after apt-get update && apt-get upgrade [16:03] http://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/08/09/howdy-windows-a-six-part-series-about-ubuntu-on-windows-for-linux-com/ [16:27] seems the latest build of windows doesn't like itunes maybe? [16:28] since uninstalling itunes it is stable where previously I was having bsods [16:28] have to try reinstalling to see if the symptoms reappear [16:33] ho ho [16:33] sorry [16:47] popey: liar [17:06] true dat [17:08] popey: see I knew you weren't sorry about some guy having issue on windows with itune and venting about it in an Ubuntu irc channel ;) Not picking on you or anything diddledan Honest Gov'nor [17:09] :-p [17:14] now... about my os/2 installation... ;-) [17:18] * popey hugs his Palm T|X [18:21] diddledan: perhaps it's the services doing something it doesn't like [18:23] daftykins: don't try and help him with sensible suggestions, stick with it is the bitter rivalry between apple and microsoft deliberately breaking each others software so you use their services ;) [18:23] oh the only sensible suggestion is removing it and purging all Apple devices from ownership, sir ;) [18:23] did you know that iTunes overtook even java to be the most exploited unpatched program on Windows in North America? [18:26] it's the wrong trousers, Gromit! https://i.imgur.com/sKiw8uV.mp4 [18:33] daftykins: I'm concerned that it appears to be.. Erm.. Excited [18:33] The animal, I mean [18:34] from the rear o0 [18:34] I can't really discern the direction. I'm currently on my phone [18:36] o0 [18:40] hei so something really weird is going on [18:41] filezilla returns econnrefused from server. yet i can safely connect with putty's psftp [18:41] put and get objects easily. any ideas as to why? [18:41] describe this setup in a bit more detail [18:41] filezilla used to work just fine yesterday and there have been no changes on either the server or the client either [18:41] what OS on host A and B? [18:42] server is running ubuntu server and client is windows 10 [18:42] grab WinSCP and try it [18:43] well really i was hoping that someone hhas encountered the same issue with filezilla [18:43] since i can just keep to psftp if i want to be using another program [18:44] but yeah, good idea. thanks. i might just do that sincee winscp is GUI and psftp is just cmd linee [18:44] yeah i imagined that's what you were after [18:44] if you're really married to continuing with filezilla, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, you'll need to provide some connection logs from both ends [18:45] filezilla defaults to port 21 [18:45] very likely there is no FTP server running [18:45] make sure you're connecting to port 22 if you're doing SFTP [18:47] econrefused is the common string used to indicate that "server is not listening on this port" algern-n [18:48] oh thanks for the suggestion nucc1 [18:48] i'll see to a ftp server being configured on server [18:48] avoid configuring an FTP server [18:48] oh? would you advocate using sftp over ftp? [18:48] the protocol sucks (but you probably don't care aboutthis) -- it's also insecure. [18:48] nucc1: that wouldn't explain it suddenly stopping working [18:49] algern-n: always, FTP is 90s trash [18:49] aw [18:49] sftp is a much better and easier to use protocol [18:49] ok winscp is working just fine on 22. thakns daftykins nucc1 :) [18:49] daftykins: if he closed filezilla and relaunched it, no surprise if he forgot to select the port while attempting to connect [18:50] doesn't it work on saved profiles? or make you pick SFTP? i don't use it [18:50] filezilla is designed for the FTP world, with SFTP bolted on [18:50] well you say you probably don't care about this and you would probably be right since i've no idea as to how exactly ftp protocol differs from sftp protocol or what ftp protocol *really* is [18:50] well, use SFTP 100% of the time if you can help it. [18:51] it's unfortunate that they happen to have similar names. [18:51] doesn't sftp stand for secure File transfer protocol? [18:51] :/ [18:51] if these hosts are both on your private home LAN, then there's not really too much to be worried about [18:51] just to confuse you, there's ftps and sftp :D [18:51] i'd wager it's SSH file transfer protocol. [18:52] the former being standard FTP with SSL (still old and not great) [18:52] FTPS is the secure version of FTP, but it's not in widespread use... [18:52] yeah it's a mess to set up really, i used to run it for many years [18:52] contrasted with SFTP which is basically just install openssh-server [18:53] right right [18:53] so is filezilla working when you specify port 22? [18:54] nucc1 it does. however I had opensshserver installed on localhost so it seems peculiar that there'd be no listen on port 21 :/ [18:54] no, it's not peculiar [18:54] perhaps it hasnt been ocnfigured? [18:54] SFTP runs on port 22 [18:54] filezilla is just crappy, that it doesn't adjust the port for you when you choose SFTP [18:54] well yes, I meant why it wouldn't work with simple ftp protocol (port 21) rather than sftp [18:54] Winscp does this, and pretty much everything else, that's why they can connect just fine with no special effort [18:54] openssh doesn't talk FTP :) [18:55] aw [18:55] you'd need something like vsftpd for that. [18:55] he should've taken a languages module at uni then =O [18:55] which is not a recommendation to install it :) [18:55] he's actually just snobbish [18:55] only speaks the queen's english [18:56] patriarchal sexist society man. what is openssh is a woman eh? i mean it does say it's always "open" -_- [18:56] don't put FTP on a Linux host [18:56] anyone who does is announcing they have no idea what they're doing [18:56] not like the peasant ftp daemons out there that carry on like savages speaking broken english [18:56] aw. so I can carry on not knowing what I am doing without the whole network knowing it. neat [18:56] i mean, if the entire ubuntu is a woman, why can't tiny openssh be a man? [18:56] well no because you don't have FTP, you have SFTP [18:57] !sftp [18:57] SSH is the Secure SHell protocol, see: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SSH for client usage. PuTTY is an SSH client for Windows; see: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ for its homepage. See also !scp (Secure CoPy) and !sshd (Secure SHell Daemon) [18:57] the great ssh clit. tickle it just right and you're in the network 6_6 [18:58] that's wholly inappropriate talk for this channel, don't do it again [18:58] family friendly at all times [18:58] !time [18:58] Information about using and setting your computer's clock on Ubuntu can be found at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuTime - See https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/serverguide/NTP.html for information on usage of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) [18:58] ok :) [18:58] when you ever decide to run for political office, i will pull these chat logs [18:58] and run your campaign to the ground, algern-n [18:59] :p [18:59] so I'm wondering if having this client ~ server connection going through a router is detrimental to speed transfer and the speed of the whole network as a whole. [18:59] no, it's not detrimental to speed. [19:00] it all depends on the competence of the router at hand, and what kinds of links are both sides of the router. [19:00] nucc1 you'd be the wikileaks to the hilary democracy train. -_- [19:00] the mere fact of passing through a router is not a problem. [19:00] mhm. however consider this for a second [19:01] if I am to get a network hub to link all computers at hand through (well.. server and client are the ones im interested in atm) would that affect the network in any way? [19:01] hubs are pretty much extinct. [19:01] momentarily the top speed i can transfer things is about 1mb/s which seems utter nonsese [19:02] nonsense * [19:02] i get more than that downloading p2p [19:02] your p2p traffic is passing through routers too [19:02] p2p doesn't imply absence of routers, it implies the absence of intermediary servers. [19:03] sure I wasn't arguing that [19:03] many things affect your connection speed, such as QOS policies on devices in the network that mediate you rcommunication. [19:03] using SFTP will slow down throughput though since it's encrypted [19:03] well, the CPU can encrypt the payload much faster than you rnetwork can send it [19:03] I'm simply saying that I get faster speeds downloading p2p via internet than I get on my local network [19:03] if you just want to throw files about you'd be better off setting up one end with windows file sharing (aka samba on Linux) and using it that way. [19:04] nucc1: real world experience disagrees with that [19:04] daftykins: the thing that slows SFTP is not encryption, it's more protocol overhead. [19:04] well whatever you want to call it, it's not a good choice if throughput is desired [19:05] i wish i had time to do some benchmarks [19:06] sure, it will affect speeds, maybe 10% or something. [19:06] rubbish [19:06] i do, i have a 12TB Linux file server right beside me - and i guarantee if i fire it up, SFTP will suck big time compared with just samba over gigabit LAN [19:06] appreciate if you can do that :) [19:06] i'm curious. [19:07] yep will do in a couple [19:07] samba you say? ok [19:08] let me see if i can run a test using an ubuntu iso [19:08] samba or http [19:08] either one will be fine. [19:08] iirc, samba has a bit of overhead too. [19:08] err http would not be a sane 2 way file sharing protocol for between a Windows and Linux host [19:08] forget about idealness for now [19:08] we just want to see how much sftp affects throughput [19:09] no it needs to be appropriate to the task regardless [19:09] if that is so, then i think you ought to be comparing ftp and sftp, no? [19:09] http compared with the others would be an apples to oranges comparison [19:09] not since we just got through bashing FTP into oblivion no, i won't entertain it at all [19:10] the protocol sucks (from a network admin and security POV), but it's a competent file transfer protocol [19:10] just no [19:10] well, lemme not keep you from running the tests [19:10] only just booting the machine :) [19:11] i'm downloading ubuntu iso into my VM [19:11] that's quite a rude move on your part though [19:11] to test HTTP and SCP. [19:11] rude move? [19:11] yeah akin to saying "get on with it" [19:11] ah, no [19:11] i just didn't want to keep you arguing and away from running the test [19:11] sorry about that [19:12] unless you can multitask lol [19:12] i don't have to, the computers can ;) [19:15] http://imgur.com/a/V5eY3 [19:15] windows -> samba file share vs. WinSCP to the same [19:16] almost a 4 fold improvement with samba [19:16] yea [19:16] as Kryten would say, *smug mode* [19:17] daftykins: errr no [19:17] don't run them simultaneously. [19:17] lol, you're hilarious - btw my birth date isn't yesterday [19:17] i simply combined both transfers into the same image. [19:17] he he [19:18] interesting. [19:18] it'd also be faster but that RAID volume is geared toward protection of written data right now, in the default config [19:18] anyway, i think it's just the protocol itself, and not the encryption. [19:19] lets see, i'll repeat and check top [19:19] can't remember the name of the project that was aiming to speed up ssh [19:19] https://mosh.org/ [19:19] i wonder how that one would fare... [19:20] 40% load from sshd during a single transfer [19:20] that's neat. [19:20] ^ imgur link. it's seeing a rabbit racing a turtle rly 6_6 [19:20] the race is not always to the swift :p [19:21] didn't realise sftp was this bad for perf though. [19:21] totally depends on the task at hand [19:21] well, i like to think i don't tell any lies when i make a statement... [19:22] from what i'm reading mosh can't be used in this way [19:22] it seems so [19:23] i need to make a note to play around with mosh one of these days. [19:23] you're having a laugh.... [19:24] having a laugh? [19:24] it was interesting info [19:24] who, and with regard to what? [19:24] I just bought a keyboard and I need to remap it as it doesn't have the "\" character [19:24] sorry, I was just surprised and I had this channel opened. [19:24] but it actually won't change my habits, because Samba is not an option for most of my needs [19:24] do you also have an enter key that only exists on one row? sounds like you bought a US layout one ;) [19:25] don't make the mistake of typing your password here though :) [19:25] nucc1: yeah, horses for courses, always [19:25] ******* :) [19:25] daftykins no and yes [19:25] it doesnt have the single row enter key but it is a usa layout :( [19:26] btw, daftykins could be that openssh is not leveraging CPU AES instructions... and is doing it all in software... [19:26] yet it's still better than the previous wired one. it resembled much a type writer in regards to the noise it was making. [19:27] sorry, i have the habit of going on in tangential thinking which seems a little disorganised. [19:27] while samba is feasible and preferable for speed of transfer on local network, it wouldn't be of much help if I were to start running on a hosted server [19:27] would it be fair to assume that? [19:28] why won't it be an option? [19:28] it's just that access control is a bit more involved === MooDoo is now known as Guest96592 [19:29] i thought the samba protocol is just over local networks. [19:30] I do admit i'm more than just a little in over my head. :) [19:30] nucc1: if it were you'd see at least one core maxxed out surely [19:31] algern-n: yes i wouldn't run samba over the internet, but i was under the impression you are using both at home [19:31] the ideal solution depends on the details of the task at hand, which we do not have [19:31] sure. it was hypothetical [19:32] have knowledge of, i mean [19:33] currently I'm only trying to get magento (ecommerce) installed on a dedicated server and it was taking quite a while to get all archives loaded to the server [19:33] daftykins: possibly, but if network latency ties into it too, then that might explain why it's only 40% [19:34] this means there's probably room for some serious optimization. [19:34] it's on my idle gigabit network... [19:34] i'm face palming at you big time [19:34] remember that saying. [19:34] to fetch data from main memory to a CPU is like fetching food from pluto [19:34] to fetch from the 1ms network is like going to Andromeda [19:35] sure, your gigabit network has low latency by human standards, but it's a galaxy away for the CPU. [19:35] the numbers have already proved my claims, i don't see what you're going to prove with any further finger service :) [19:35] i'm not doubting your claims, i'm just thinking of explanations [19:36] what can you think of that will cause the transfer speed to be low, while the CPU is not maxed out? [19:36] it's already been said [19:37] i think i'd rather talk to someone who internalises those ramblings :P [19:38] is your fileserver an x86 or an arm? [19:39] the former, a proper full PC with an 8 disk RAID6 [19:39] hardware controller, so it's not the RAID slowing anything down in the above [19:40] running linux? [19:40] i can't tell what cipher ssh used/uses, but you can use openssl to bench the crypto speed [19:40] yes, since that was the topic [19:40] openssl speed -elapsed -evp aes-128-gcm [19:41] well, that's not a particularly fast cipher. [19:42] is that the default? [19:42] i don't think so, but it would be an AES based cipher. [19:43] lemme see if i can gleam it from openssh config [19:43] # Ciphers aes128-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes256-ctr,arcfour256,arcfour128,aes128-cbc,3des-cbc [19:44] now need to translate that into openssl language [19:45] easy lol, just picked the first one: openssl speed -elapsed -evp aes-128-ctr [19:45] assuming that the first cipher is used, we could try that. [19:45] i feel it's already lost relevance for me now, this topic [19:46] on my core-i5 desktop, i get 3626303K per second.. which is huge [19:46] assuming i'm not cross-eyed. [19:47] for 8KB? [19:47] 8KB blocks, yes. [19:47] i think that is 3GB/sec is it not? [19:48] i only threw an old core 2 duo in this, i'm seeing 361125.21k [19:48] so that's 361MB/sec [19:48] which is far more than your gigabit network can handle [19:48] so i think we can agree that encryption is not the bottleneck [19:48] no [19:49] 'cause i'm still not aware for certain what's in use by default [19:49] you can see this in /etc/ssh/sshd_config [19:49] the list of supported ciphers. [19:49] if you want, we can bench them all [19:49] right but we don't know what got negotiated [19:49] there are ordered by strength. [19:49] ugh. 21k for 8kb. i should upgrade it. [19:49] wat [19:50] what is it? [19:50] i think the last one on the list is the fastest [19:50] grep Ciphers /etc/ssh/sshd_config [19:50] please stop the patronising level, nucc1 [19:50] oh nothing. i just ran nucc1 's openssl speed test and i got discouraged by the little numbers [19:50] pretty sure it's not #ubuntu-uk-school :P [19:50] come on man [19:50] algern-n: yes but what's the hardware it's on? [19:50] i just don't want to assume too much [19:51] oh i'm bluhsing merely thinking of it [19:51] intel atom, enough said [19:51] spit it out [19:51] it's not saying you don't know, it's just in case you don't know, there's the answer [19:51] which one? [19:51] grep -i model /proc/cpuinfo [19:51] nucc1: it's irritating. [19:51] ugh... i think it's a 1.66ghz [19:51] n model. hold.. [19:52] model is more relevant than clock speed [19:52] n455 [19:52] clocks are more a measure of opportunity [19:52] werid. i can access localhost [19:52] yet when i'm going for localhost/magento it returns error 500 [19:52] we have no idea what you're doing, can't read minds [19:52] sorry [19:53] something's wrong causing an error in the web app [19:53] tail the apache error log perhaps [19:53] I am trying to install Magento (eCommerce software) on localhost. [19:53] i've just finished setting permissions for /var/www/html and somehow it won't run it. [19:53] localhost just means the machine you're on, of which we already know you have a minimum of 2 [19:53] daftykins: interestingly, the second-to-last cipher in the list yields only 683MB/s on my machine. [19:54] so it's kinda daft to say localhost given we all have a localhost... :P [19:54] daftykins i mean localhost on server. I'm using putty to work on said n455 server [19:54] so i think the fastest ciphers are prefered by openssh [19:54] yeah so call it 'the atom server' perhaps ;) [19:55] KiTTY has some benefits over PuTTY by the way, like URL parsing if you turn it on [19:55] me, i just install cygwin [19:56] i think i'll redownload the software. perhaps there was an error there# [19:56] very 90s :) [19:56] tail /var/log/apache2/error.log [19:56] should tell you why you're getting a 500 [19:57] * nucc1 goes to water the garden === MooDoo_ is now known as MooDoo [21:46] evening all [21:46] \o [22:23] ello [22:36] humble programming book bungle: https://www.humblebundle.com/books/joy-of-coding-book-bundle [22:38] my interets so slow atm:(( [22:38] http://imgur.com/a/fFo0Y [22:38] Hitman looks so good [22:44] [Wed Aug 17 23:42:32.992526 2016] [:error] [pid 16813] [client 77.102.214.57:58945] PHP Fatal error: Call to undefined function simplexml_load_string() in /var/www/html/magento/$ [22:44] [Wed Aug 17 23:42:32.992635 2016] [:error] [pid 16813] [client 77.102.214.57:58945] PHP Stack trace: [22:44] that does look neat daftykins. is it run in wine? [22:51] daftykins: now that folk have wsl running some gui stuff, what about running msoffice in wine in wsl in windows? [22:53] or maybe run msoffice in wine in wsl in windows in qemu in wsl in windows in virtualbox in ? [22:54] mayeb pop an indirection between the windows in qemu to be windows in qemu in ubuntu in qemu [22:55] gotta love the speed of emulating an x86 inside an emulated x86 :-p [22:55] (none of this hardware-virtual nonsense. we want full emulation!) [22:55] maybe pop a bochs (ppc) emulator running osx tiger [22:56] an emulated x86 emulating ppc emulating x86 will be killerfast [22:57] today it's me playing the acronym game [22:57] i vote - World Surf League [22:57] women's sexy lingere? [22:58] just earlier i wondered why my (horrible) OS X vmware VM didn't run, i'd forgotten to patch its' binaries since the reinstall, since the winders 10 upgrade [22:58] weird you have to mod vmware really to make it run things it's capable of [22:59] yeah, it's an attempt by vmware to enforce something that apple mandate (seems silly that vmware want to do someone else's legal work for them) [23:00] Apple would probably block vmware fusion if they didn't comply :< [23:00] maybe [23:01] iamkey: no i run an OS my games work in [23:01] iamkey: he means OS/2 :-p [23:01] oh wait, that's zmoylan-pi [23:02] ;D [23:02] iamkey: you might want to stick to one nickname whilst you're here, so as to not confuse people [23:02] err. does that suggest I should know who it is? [23:03] nah [23:03] hmmm what to watch;D [23:03] new person / lurker [23:04] lurkio? [23:04] daftykins network disconnects yet nicks don't ping time out until a little later ;) === iamkey is now known as algern-n [23:05] then use an _ after your name to indicate a second iteration [23:05] no no, I do it for Aiur. [23:05] algern-n: which is why you kill your ghost and use appropriate alternative nicknames [23:05] but Casper is really cool, man. also can you kill ghosts? [23:05] aren't they like zombies? [23:05] /nickserv ghost [23:06] and that's you ignored [23:06]