[09:51] <stripe> Hi Everyone, setting up a home 3 disk array (running / on the array), for partitioning would a seperate /boot partition (raid 1), the / partition (raid 5) and the swap partition (raid 0) be an acceptible scheme? (and not cause problems resilvering a disk after faliure) thanks :)
[09:53] <TJ-> stripe: why the different RAID levels per FS, if there's the same 3 disks underlying it all?
[09:55] <stripe> TJ the /boot is raid 1 to allow booting from any drive after faliure, the swap (0) is to minimise the amount of writes. or am I over thinking it (as usual lol)
[09:57] <TJ-> stripe: I wouldn't like to be using RAID-5; it is very risky especially with 3 disks
[09:58] <stripe> thanks TJ what would you use?
[09:58] <TJ-> once you lose a disk you've no resiliance until you've replaced it with a hot spare, and most admins will tell you with RAID-5 *don't touch the array, don't shutdown" until you've got the replacement drive in place (oh, and do a full backup BEFORE adding the replacement disk) !
[10:03] <stripe> TJ would you add another spare disk to the array or run a 4 disk (raid 5) array? I will have all my data snapshot'd and backed up.
[10:09] <TJ-> I wouldn't use RAID-5 at all; RAID-6 or RAID-10 (mirror + stripe)
[10:10] <TJ-> stripe: are these real spining disks or actually SSD ?
[10:12] <TJ-> stripe: short informative read here: https://storageswiss.com/2015/01/13/which-raid-level-use-for-ssd-tier/
[10:21] <stripe> thank you TJ will look at 6 and 10, all spinning drives, and thanks for the link. all the best :)
[10:23] <TJ-> stripe: I'd always prefer RAID-10 even if it does give less capacity than 5/6 because it so much easier to rationalise about and work with when a disk (or two) fail
[10:33] <stripe> TJ the loss of capacity is not an issue, (will mainly be running LXD{lxc} containers) so will do some further reading, thanks again for the help. have a great day :)
[10:34] <blackflow> GB are cheap. What RAID10 loses in $$ for storage space, it gains with simplicity and robustness.
[10:35] <stripe> thanks blackflow, my two favourite words simplicity and robustness it looks like I will be using raid 10 :)
[10:35] <blackflow> also btw I wouldn't recommend RAID0 for swap. In case of disk failure it's crashy-crashy time, and the whole point of RAID is to keep the server running while you resilver the faulty disk
[10:36] <blackflow> (and if at all possible, use ZFS)
[10:38] <stripe> blackflow, have used zfs on freebsd, never even thought about using it on linux (facepalm) excelent reminder :)
[10:39] <blackflow> d'oh!
[10:39] <blackflow> :)
[10:41] <blackflow> stripe: the only "problem" (for now) is that you'll have to install Ubuntu from debootstrap, until the installer grows the ZFS capabilities, which is in progress. But hey, I prefer deboostrapping anyway, I end up with most minimalist possible installation, no cloud-init, snapd and similar bloatware.
[10:45] <stripe> debootstrap is not a problem, thats how I originally built my containers/chroot's (back in the day)
[10:46] <blackflow> ZFS it is, then :)
[10:50] <stripe> yep :)
[11:10] <RoyK> blackflow: the only issue with zfs is the lack of flexibility
[11:11] <RoyK> blackflow: you can't just toss in a new drive in a VDEV or remove one - it's rather static on the VDEV level - there are talks of this changing, but I haven't seen the code yet
[11:14] <blackflow> precisely why a 2-disk mirror vdev is best. you just keep expanding by adding 2 disks at a time (or replacing them with bigger ones)
[11:15] <blackflow> 2-disk mirror vdev, and then many vdevs are "stripes", so it's effectively a RAID10 as ZFS doesn't explicitly have a "RAID10" option
[11:28] <RoyK> blackflow: for striped mirrors, yes, but I was thinking of raidz things
[11:32] <blackflow> yeah.
[15:47] <rbasak> bryce: bug 1773324 came up in triage. Are you OK to re-review/sponsor please?
[15:49] <rbasak> bryce: and nice job helping the volunteer to get the patch into shape :)
[16:28] <bryce> rbasak, sure will take a look at it now
[23:11] <supercool> Hello!
[23:11] <supercool> Could someone tell me if Ubuntu Server comes with an active firewall nowadays?
[23:13] <supercool> Please?
[23:14] <sarnold> supercool: ufw is available to install if you want a friendly front end to iptables
[23:15] <supercool> sarnold: actually I am just trying to figure why am an unable to access a server from a client server
[23:17] <supercool> I think iptables are not initialized here
[23:18] <supercool> So, no firewall?
[23:18] <sarnold> how about nftables or ebtables?
[23:18] <ploxiln> I don't think there is a firewall config blocking SSH or HTTP etc by default. probably no significant firewall by default
[23:19] <supercool> I am trying to use 8000 and 8080 port and none of them worked
[23:19] <supercool> I mean couldn't get anything from host side
[23:19] <ploxiln> are you on the same lan, the same subnet?
[23:20] <ploxiln> how do you know some application is listening on those ports?
[23:20] <supercool> ploxiln: I am running a Django server on those ports
[23:21] <supercool> I can acess from 127.0.0.1:8000 or 127.0.0.1:8080 using curl
[23:21] <ploxiln> is it listening on 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1?
[23:21] <supercool> But the host doesn't receive anything
[23:22] <supercool> I bridged the guest, So I think it is listening on 0.0.0.0 from outside
[23:22] <ploxiln> so this is running in a VM on your laptop/desktop
[23:22] <ploxiln> and you are trying to access from the browser on your laptop/desktop?
[23:23] <supercool> My network IP would be 192.168.15.45:8000 for example
[23:23] <supercool> Yes, exactly
[23:23] <tds> can you reach it on the non-loopback IP if you curl on the same box?
[23:24] <supercool> tds: yes
[23:24] <ploxiln> hmm, well, that might not do it, the VM might not have the same ip as your laptop. depends on VM setup. how do you ssh to the VM?
[23:24] <ploxiln> the laptop/desktop may have a firewall enabled by default
[23:24] <supercool> ssh user@192.168.15.45
[23:25] <ploxiln> hmm. ok, I would expect that accessing http://192.168.14.45:8000 from the same context as you ssh would work
[23:26] <ploxiln> from the laptop/desktop, outside the VM
[23:26] <supercool> ploxiln: yes, but it is not
[23:26] <ploxiln> if run "ip addr" inside the vm, do you see the same or similar address in the output
[23:27] <supercool>  inet 192.168.15.45/24 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global dynamic
[23:29] <tds> what's the full output of `iptables-save`?
[23:30] <supercool> tds: nothing shows
[23:30] <supercool> or shows nothing*
[23:30] <tds> ok, doesn't sound like firewall then
[23:30] <tds> unless there's ebtables of nft rules as sarnold suggested, seems unlikely though
[23:31] <ploxiln> looks like django listens on 127.0.0.1 by default, you need to specify 0.0.0.0:8000
[23:31] <ploxiln> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27537
[23:33] <supercool> ploxiln: you are right! o/
[23:33] <tds> sounds like it's already bound to the right ip if you can reach it from 192.168.15.45 on the same host though?
[23:33] <tds> oh, weird
[23:33] <supercool> I had to runserver as 0:8000
[23:34] <supercool> 0 is a shortcut for 0.0.0.0. Full docs for the development server can be found in the runserver reference.
[23:34] <ploxiln> good to hear :)
[23:35] <supercool> Thank you a lot! What is your account number for the deposit?
[23:36] <supercool> Thank you guys!!!
[23:36] <ploxiln> haha. uh, 42
[23:38] <supercool> ploxiln: \o/