Re: Ideas for a Virtualization sticker
2008/8/28 Kat Kinnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi all, > > Hope you are well. > > At the moment we are planning for VMWorld which we will be attending > 15th - 18th Sep. > > We are thinking of producing a virtualization sticker to hand out at the > event from our booth and wondered whether you guys had any ideas for a > cool slogan or sticker design? > > Ideally it just needs to link Ubuntu and Virtualization in a > fun/cool/interesting way and ideally incorporate the Ubuntu logo, > leaving it untouched/adhering to the logo guidelines. > > If we're going to produce this in time, we need to turn the design and > printing around quite quickly. Therefore could you let me know if you > have any ideas by the end of the day on Monday 1st September. > > There will be Ubuntu goodies up for grabs for the best idea. > > Thanks, > > Kat > Hey, Virtualisation could be seen as placing all of your eggs in one basket[0], so perhaps a (Hardy) Heron sitting on a basket (or nest) full of eggs with a tagline along the lines of: 'Ubuntu: Support your Virtual Assets'... or similar[1]. Cheers, Owen. Footnotes -- [0] Yes there are backups and redundancy etc, but the allusion, I believe, is apt. [1] I'm sure someone can come up with a better tagline... but I like the image. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Recommended SATA card?
On 17/06/2008, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on Mon Jun 16 2008, David Abrahams wrote: > > >> To get around the pci bandwidth limit the options are limited to > >> PCI-E and PCI-X which should both give ample headroom. > > > > My x16 PCI-E slots should give 4GB/s and my fastest PCI-X slot is 133Mhz > > are about 1GB per second. Okay, I guess PCI-X is fast enough for now; > > the cards are a lot cheaper than PCI-E cards. > > > Hmm, so http://www.addonics.com/products/host_controller/adsa3gx4r.asp > is looking pretty good to me. I like that Ubuntu appears in their list > of compatible linuxes (No Gutsy or Hardy, though; I assume it's just > outdated). > > Anyone want to advise me against that one? > > Thanks again, > > > -- > Dave Abrahams Hey, Ubuntu can quite happily sit in their support list as the Silicon Image chip has support in the kernel[1]. I haven't had any experience the Addonics specifically, but card looks to be very similar to the others using the same chipset and the price is also similar. Looking to ebay there is something similar for US$30 cheaper and the only difference looks to be the colour, though sometimes having a known entity to deal with warranty issues/DOA/etc is worth the premium. Cheers, Owen. Footnotes: -- [1] From: http://www.sci-worx.com/support/supportsearchresults.aspx?pid=27&cid=3&ctid=2&osid=1&; "Pre-compiled Linux kernels with driver support for the SiI SATA controller chips can be found on the Linux ATA development site: http://kernel.org/. You must use a kernel version of 2.4.18-14 or later to have SATA support for the SiI3x12. More recent kernel support SiI3114, SiI3124, and SiI3132. If your distribution already uses a current kernel , please use the SiI driver included with the dsitribution. " -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Recommended SATA card?
On 17/06/2008, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on Mon Jun 16 2008, "Owen Townend" wrote: > > > Hey, > > James is right, the controller is the important part to consider > > here for compatability. > > > Duh, for some reason I didn't catch his drift before. Now I think he > was suggesting that I use a card with the same controller chip as my > onboard SATA because I know it works. (Sorry, James!) > > > > If you are only after sata ports and not hardware raid > > > That's me. > > > > then I'd suggest the Silicon Image SiL3114/3124 chipset cards (SATA > > I/II, four ports). They're supported natively by the kernel, so no > > third party drivers needed and I've seen them around for ~US$30/$60 on > > ebay. > > > That's a lot cheaper than some of the 3ware cards I've seen. > > > > The main drawback of pci sata is IIRC the maximum bandwidth of > > the pci bus is roughly 80 MiB/s. > > > Oof. I suppose there's no getting around a limitation like that > one... hmm, is there an SATA controller I can drive with firewire? What > people who care about performance do when their onboard SATA fills up? > Buy an external SATA drive cage that runs over firewire (or some such > thing?) > > > > If you're after hardware raid but haven't yet done your research I'd > > suggest reading the through adaptec's storage advisor[2] pages, they > > focus on the tech rather than adaptec specifics which is handy. > > > Well, I've done quite a bit already, but one can always do more > research. When is enough enough? I dunno, but I'm thinking maybe I > should stop here for now and invest the US ~$30/$60 to see how an > SiL3124 card works out. > > Hey, Note, the 80 megabyte per second limit is a realistic limit given on the aforementioned adaptec pages IIRC. This actually quite close to the Firewire 800 limit ( 800 megabits per second = 800*10^6/(8*2^20) ~= 95MiB/s theoretical max). To get around the pci bandwidth limit the options are limited to PCI-E and PCI-X which should both give ample headroom. I've seen the SiL3124 chipset in both of these varieties, though they're a little more expensive. For me I've gone the PCI route as I was low on storage, not performance. HTH, cheers, Owen. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Recommended SATA card?
On 17/06/2008, James Dinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM, David Abrahams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I need to expand the internal disk capacity on my server, and all my > mobo's 4 > > SATA ports are occupied. Can anyone recommend an SATA card that will work > well > > with Ubuntu? > > > > > The controller is going to be the issue here. Any brands of cards > that use the same controller are going to be equally supported. You > could check what controller is on your motherboard and try to get a > card with that same controller. However, the Promise SATA controller > is very popular and I *believe* is well supported in linux. > > > James Hey, James is right, the controller is the important part to consider here for compatability. If you are only after sata ports and not hardware raid then I'd suggest the Silicon Image SiL3114/3124 chipset cards (SATA I/II, four ports). They're supported natively by the kernel, so no third party drivers needed and I've seen them around for ~US$30/$60 on ebay. The main drawback of pci sata is IIRC the maximum bandwidth of the pci bus is roughly 80 MiB/s. If you're after hardware raid but haven't yet done your research I'd suggest reading the through adaptec's storage advisor[2] pages, they focus on the tech rather than adaptec specifics which is handy. cheers, Owen. Footnotes: -- [1] http://storageadvisors.adaptec.com -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: select mirror
On 09/05/2008, Serge van Ginderachter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just read this post: > > http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-select-fastest-mirror-in-ubuntu.html > > I was wondering what the way of work would be to do this by commandline? > For me, a test of 'fastest' mirror isn't even really necessary, I would be > satisfied to just have a list of local (National) mirrors to select from, > e.g. depending on which ISP I am. > > > > > Serge Hey, The app /usr/bin/software-properties-gtk seems to do a simple ping test of a list of mirrors. You can find a list of mirrors[1] and script a simple, similar test. cheers, Owen. [1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: XFS In Dapper [previously posted to ubuntu-users]
On 3/6/08, Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Oliver Brakmann wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-03-05 17:04, David Kempe wrote... > > > >>> Importantly, you can have data-loss on XFS if you lose power suddenly, > >>> perhaps more so than ext3. When files get corrupted on XFS, I have > >>> noticed they go to zero size > >> > >> I believe I read somewhere that that has been fixed some time ago. > > > > Oliver, could you perchance find a reference for that? Dapper really > > isn't that old. > > > The change was in 2.6.24, so will be in Hardy, but is not present in any > file system before that. > > There were some data corruption bugs around 2.6.17, none of which were > ever in an Ubuntu release that I am aware of, and which have since been > fixed; these are unlikely to be what the posters here are describing.[1] > > > > Not disagreeing. I'd *like* to use XFS, I just feel burned by it. An > > indicator that this issue has been solidly addressed would be great > > news. > > > It should be more or less as solid as writeback ext3 now, but less safe > than data journaled ext3. > > > > Some things to read: > > http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388#comment_40 > > (read all comments to the end) > > > This comment, and the few subsequent, are a misunderstanding of how > things work. The problem illustrated is not that "enterprise > applications do their own data recovery." > > The problem is that POSIX file semantics make some things safe and some > things dangerous regarding your files. The applications that see NULL > content would probably be corrupt on disk, since they have changed their > size and (potentially) appended random data to the end of their content. > > The sad part is that most application developers don't really understand > POSIX I/O semantics and, so, many popular applications are vulnerable to > this. > > (hint for those at home: write your content to a new file and rename it > over the existing one; this is atomic, assuring you that the new or the > old file is there, nothing in between. > > for bonus points include some recovery to determine if the new version > is complete and coherent, then offer to complete the task.) > > > > http://www.tummy.com/journals/entries/jafo_20041226_015752 > > > For a user who claims to care about data integrity this poster seems to > have little actual clue: JFS is an exciting choice, at best, and > reiserfs... > > Well, hey, the point someone starts talking about using reiserfs and > data integrity being important to them you can more or less know they > don't really understand how data integrity is achieved. > > reiserfs (3) has significant issues, many of which are performance or > data integrity related, and is close to impossible to recover if > /anything/ goes wrong.[2] > > Regards, > Daniel > > Footnotes: > [1] Their symptoms were completely different, much nastier, and fairly > identifiable. Zero length or null-filled files were not among them. > > [2] ...or you happen to store anything that looks like a reiserfs > filesystem inside them when you run the fsck tools.[3] > > [3] This is highly amusing to me as I recall the excitement when the > developers announced a library version of reiserfs intended as a > "compound document" format for applications to use, delivering the > same performance as the file system they were stored in... > > > > > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > Hey, Thought I'd share my experiences with reiserfs... I'm using reiserfs on my mythtv box with a 4x400GB software raid5 array (~1.2TB usable) and it has been ok, but also unstressed so I won't go as far as vouching for it in a production environment. It's strength seems to lie in large numbers of small files rather than the large audio/video you're using. On the recovery side though, I was fiddling with the underlying lvm & md and managed to bork the system. I rebuilt the whole thing with the exact same parameters as I used originally and ran the reiserfs recovery tool to find it pulling files out of my (reiserfs formatted) VM images as well as the files actually in the fs. I ended up getting back _most_ of my data and had backups of the vms, so it wasn't a complete loss. I think the tried and tested 'just works' of ext3 would probably be a better choice in a potential recovery situation. My new place has brown outs during almost every storm and I've yet to invest in a UPS, the system has so far come back up without issue. cheers, Owen. -- If it aint broke, fix it 'till it is. -- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
