Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
On 2020-10-02 17:16, Linux-Fan wrote: David Christensen writes: The Fujitsu might do PCIe/NVMe 4X M.2 or U.2 SSD's with the right adapter card. Been there, failed at that: https://www.reichelt.de/pcie-x8-karte-zu-2x-nvme-m-2-key-m-lp-delock-90305-p256917.html?=pos_3=1 I added two SSDs, a Crucial P5 SSD 2TB, M.2 NVMe and a Seagate FireCuda 510 SSD 2TB M.2 PCIe (all ordered together) and started the server. Nothing was recognized at the OS level but opening up the 1U case showed a fault indicator LED at the PCIe slot where I had added the new card. Perhaps a different brand adapter card would give better results. Rather than a new VM server and a new workstation, perhaps a new workstation with enough memory and fast local working storage would be adequate for both purposes. Maybe; I will get some prices for comparision... In terms of the base model price I do not expect there to be much difference between the server and the workstation with the same computation power, but if the workstation allows custom HDDs while staying under warranty it might be much cheaper. Buying a new major brand server/ workstation with all the parts installed at the factory is going to be expensive. As other readers have mentioned, a small business that builds to order should have better prices and may offer "quiet" systems. In addition to U.2 drives, Intel makes server systems: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/servers/server-chassis-systems.html And, Intel seems to be related to the Clear Linux distribution: https://clearlinux.org/ I would expect an Intel server with Intel drives and Clear Linux should be a good combination. Perhaps you should research Clear Linux and/or ask the community. David
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
David Christensen writes: On 2020-10-02 04:18, Linux-Fan wrote: David Christensen writes: On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote: >2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS) I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc., each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers. Division across multiple machines... I am already doing this for data that exceeds my current 4T storage (2x2T HDD, 2x2T "slow" SSD local and 4x1T outsourced to the other machine). Are the SSD's 2 TB or 4 TB? I currently have: * 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 2TB * 1x Crucial_CT2050MX300SSD1 together in an mdadm RAID 1. For the new server, I will need more storage, so I envied getting two NVME U.2 SSDs for 2x4T -- mainly motivated by the fact that I would take the opportunity to upgrade performance and that they are not actually that expensive anymore: https://www.conrad.de/de/p/intel-dc-p4510-4-tb-interne-u-2-pcie-nvme-ssd-6-35-cm-2-5-zoll-u-2-nvme-pcie-3-1-x4-ssdpe2kx040t801-1834315.html Of course, given the fact that server manufacturers have entirely different views on prices (factor 7 in the Dell Webshop for instance :) ), I might need to change plans a little... I currently do this for data I need rather rarely such that I can run the common tasks on a single machine. Doing this for all (or large amounts of data) will require running at least two machines at the same time which may increase the idle power draw and possibilities for failure? More devices are going to use more power and have a higher probability of failure than a single device of the same size and type, but it's hard to predict for devices of different sizes and/or types. I use HDD's for file server data and backups, and I use SSD's for system disks, caches, and/or fast local working storage. I expect drives will break, so I have invested in redundancy and disaster planning/ preparedness. Yes. It is close to the same here with the additional SSD usage for VMs and containers. Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have similar prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential tasks twice as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast. Is this still true today? AFAIK all modern CPUs "boost" their frequency if they are lightly loaded. Also, the larger CPUs tend to come with more cache which may speed up single-core applications, too. Yes, frequency scaling blurs the line. But, the principle remains. I am not familiar with AMD products, but Intel does offer Xeon processors with fewer cores and higher frequencies specifically for workstations: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/xeon/ultimate- workstation-performance.html AMD does it too, but their variants are more targeted at saving license costs by reducing the number of cores. As I am mostly using free software, I can stick to the regular CPUs. If I go for a workstation, I will end up with Intel anyways, because Dell, HP and Fujitsu seem to agree that Intels are the only true workstation CPUs. I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into a file server. Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's can work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should be impressive. If you choose ZFS, it will need memory. The rule of thumb is 5 GB of memory per 1 TB of storage. So, pick a machine that has at least 20 GB of memory. 4x4T is surely nice and future-proof but currently above budget :) Yes, $2,000+ for 4 @ 4 TB SATA III SSD's is a lot of money. But, U.2 PCIe/NVMe 4X drives are even more money. Noted. Actually, 4x4T SATA is affordable, as is 2x4T U.2 if not bought from the server vendor [prices from HPE are still pending, but I am scared by browsing for them on the Internet already...] :) [...] down to their speed -- the current "fastest" system here has a Xeon E3-1231 v3 and while it has 3.4GHz it is surely slower (even singlethreaded) than current 16-core server CPUs... That would make a good file server; even better with 10 Gbps networking. 10GE is in place already, but there are other hardware limitations (see next). Thinking of it, a possible distribution accross multiple machines may be * (Existent) Storage server (1U, existent Fujitsu RX 1330 M1) [It does not do NVMe SSDs, though -- alternatively put the disks in the VM server?] * (New) VM server (2U, lots of RAM) * (New) Workstation (4U, GPU) For interactive use and experimentation with VMs I would need to power-on all three systems. For non-VM use, it would have to be two... it is an interesting solution that stays within what the systems were designed to do but I think it is currently too much for my uses. The Fujitsu might do PCIe/NVMe 4X M.2 or U.2 SSD's with the right adapter card. Been there, failed at that: The backplane is a SAS/SATA
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
On 2020-10-02 04:18, Linux-Fan wrote: David Christensen writes: On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote: >2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS) I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc., each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers. Division across multiple machines... I am already doing this for data that exceeds my current 4T storage (2x2T HDD, 2x2T "slow" SSD local and 4x1T outsourced to the other machine). Are the SSD's 2 TB or 4 TB? I currently do this for data I need rather rarely such that I can run the common tasks on a single machine. Doing this for all (or large amounts of data) will require running at least two machines at the same time which may increase the idle power draw and possibilities for failure? More devices are going to use more power and have a higher probability of failure than a single device of the same size and type, but it's hard to predict for devices of different sizes and/or types. I use HDD's for file server data and backups, and I use SSD's for system disks, caches, and/or fast local working storage. I expect drives will break, so I have invested in redundancy and disaster planning/ preparedness. Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have similar prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential tasks twice as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast. Is this still true today? AFAIK all modern CPUs "boost" their frequency if they are lightly loaded. Also, the larger CPUs tend to come with more cache which may speed up single-core applications, too. Yes, frequency scaling blurs the line. But, the principle remains. I am not familiar with AMD products, but Intel does offer Xeon processors with fewer cores and higher frequencies specifically for workstations: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/xeon/ultimate-workstation-performance.html I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into a file server. Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's can work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should be impressive. If you choose ZFS, it will need memory. The rule of thumb is 5 GB of memory per 1 TB of storage. So, pick a machine that has at least 20 GB of memory. 4x4T is surely nice and future-proof but currently above budget :) Yes, $2,000+ for 4 @ 4 TB SATA III SSD's is a lot of money. But, U.2 PCIe/NVMe 4X drives are even more money. That's why I use obsolete, but new, Seagate Constellation ES.2 SATA III 3 TB HDD's -- ~$50 each on eBay. Buy four drives for $200, buy small SATA III SSD cache and log devices for $100, and you will have 75% the capacity and excellent performance for typical file server workloads for $300. I saw that the Supermicro AS-2113S-WTRT can do 6xU.2 drives. In case I chose Supermicro this would allow upgrading to such a 4x4T configuration. As for the workstation, it is difficult to find a vendor that supports Debian. But, there are vendors that support Ubuntu; which is based upon Debian. So, you can run Ubuntu and you might be able to run Debian: https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=ubuntu%20workstation My experience with HP and Fujitsu Workstations is that they run well with Debian. I am still thinking that buying two systems will be more expensive and more power draw. Using one of the existent systems will slow some things down to their speed -- the current "fastest" system here has a Xeon E3-1231 v3 and while it has 3.4GHz it is surely slower (even singlethreaded) than current 16-core server CPUs... That would make a good file server; even better with 10 Gbps networking. Thinking of it, a possible distribution accross multiple machines may be * (Existent) Storage server (1U, existent Fujitsu RX 1330 M1) [It does not do NVMe SSDs, though -- alternatively put the disks in the VM server?] * (New) VM server (2U, lots of RAM) * (New) Workstation (4U, GPU) For interactive use and experimentation with VMs I would need to power-on all three systems. For non-VM use, it would have to be two... it is an interesting solution that stays within what the systems were designed to do but I think it is currently too much for my uses. The Fujitsu might do PCIe/NVMe 4X M.2 or U.2 SSD's with the right adapter card. Depending upon what your VM's are doing, a SATA III SSD might be enough or you might want something faster. Similar comment for the workstation. Rather than a new VM server and a new workstation, perhaps a new workstation with enough memory and fast local working storage would be adequate for both purposes. Still, thanks for the suggestion. YW. :-) David
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
Linux-Fan writes: Hello fellow list users, I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The [...] * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them, too. I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and failed at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and creating a complete system composed of individual parts? Hello everyone, I just wanted to thank everyone for the great replies they sent! I now know some additional things to consider and even got some progress on the unrelated e-mail signatures problem. Still unsure where I will end up with this, but if interested, I could post the actual results from my journey once I got the hardware. It will take some time, for sure, but probably happen before next year :) Thanks again Linux-Fan -- ── ö§ö ── 8 bit for signature ── ö§ö ── pgpCLjfKBBeGi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Signing emails, was Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
On Fri 02 Oct 2020 at 13:18:29 (+0200), Linux-Fan wrote:– > > OT: The hints about the details of e-mail encoding and signing are > appreciated. Some other notes are here: > https://sourceforge.net/p/courier/mailman/courier-cone/?viewmonth=202010 I took a look at that thread. > From: Linux-Fan - 2020-10-02 11:30:16 > > I discovered that the workaround is exactly to use some 8-bit > > characters which will avoid the re- encoding throughout transmission. Exactly what I would suggest, and the opposite of my advice in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00598.html where the problem was reversed. So you could hit all your replies by modifying your attribution (as I have, above), but better would be the hyphen in your sign–off (← as here) particularly if it's automated, like mine. (I don't make my sign-off into a syntactical signature.) I don't know how entirely 7bit attachments would be treated. > From: Sam Varshavchik - 2020-10-02 11:21:44 > > Cone already uses quoted-printable when the message contains 8-bit > > characters. I'd use base64, myself, with a signed message. > > There is no valid reason whatsoever to reencode 7-bit only mail > > content. I cannot find any documentation that specifies any > > restrictions on signed mail, other than to avoid 8-bit content. Note that you have been using Content-Type: … charset="UTF-8" RFC 3156 says "many existing mail gateways will detect if the next hop does not support MIME or 8-bit data and perform conversion to either Quoted-Printable or Base64". > > Trying to work around someone else's bugs is a major waste of > > time. The correct solution is for someone else to fix the bug. … which, of course, is nonsense. Since mid-August, I have been using a different email smarthost for posts to just this list because two MTAs are currently unable to cooperate successfully. Should I stay silent until that bug is fixed? (Don't answer that!) They obviously haven't read the RFC: "Implementor's note: It cannot be stressed enough that applications using this standard follow MIME's suggestion that you "be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept." In this particular case it means it would be wise for an implementation to accept messages with any content-transfer- encoding, but restrict generation to the 7-bit format required by this memo. This will allow future compatibility in the event the Internet SMTP framework becomes 8-bit friendly." So my guess is that your mailer is sending *potentially* 8bit content without encoding it, and an MTA is encoding it because it's not expected to check for solely 7bit content just because Content-Transfer-Encoding is set to 7bit. Sorry that I can't check whether your signing is successful as I don't maintain any personal keyring. Cheers, David.
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
> If it's quiet you want, try https://silentpc.com/. They are not cheap, > but their products are solid and reliable, and quiet. The two I have > are so quiet that I can hear the heads move on the 3.5" disk drives in > them. Sadly, they get noisier when you use SSDs instead: you can't hear the heads move any more ;-( Stefan
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
On Thu, 01 Oct 2020 23:37:16 +0200 Linux-Fan wrote: > Hello fellow list users, > > I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage > such that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next > "workstation". If it's quiet you want, try https://silentpc.com/. They are not cheap, but their products are solid and reliable, and quiet. The two I have are so quiet that I can hear the heads move on the 3.5" disk drives in them. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/ pgpluWmVb3oV0.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
David Christensen writes: On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote: [...] Typical workloads: data compression (Debian live build, xz), virtual machines (software installation, updates) Rarely: GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too) single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc) [...] I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc., each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers. Division across multiple machines... I am already doing this for data that exceeds my current 4T storage (2x2T HDD, 2x2T "slow" SSD local and 4x1T outsourced to the other machine). I currently do this for data I need rather rarely such that I can run the common tasks on a single machine. Doing this for all (or large amounts of data) will require running at least two machines at the same time which may increase the idle power draw and possibilities for failure? Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have similar prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential tasks twice as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast. Is this still true today? AFAIK all modern CPUs "boost" their frequency if they are lightly loaded. Also, the larger CPUs tend to come with more cache which may speed up single-core applications, too. I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into a file server. Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's can work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should be impressive. If you choose ZFS, it will need memory. The rule of thumb is 5 GB of memory per 1 TB of storage. So, pick a machine that has at least 20 GB of memory. 4x4T is surely nice and future-proof but currently above budget :) I saw that the Supermicro AS-2113S-WTRT can do 6xU.2 drives. In case I chose Supermicro this would allow upgrading to such a 4x4T configuration. As for the workstation, it is difficult to find a vendor that supports Debian. But, there are vendors that support Ubuntu; which is based upon Debian. So, you can run Ubuntu and you might be able to run Debian: https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=ubuntu%20workstation My experience with HP and Fujitsu Workstations is that they run well with Debian. I am still thinking that buying two systems will be more expensive and more power draw. Using one of the existent systems will slow some things down to their speed -- the current "fastest" system here has a Xeon E3-1231 v3 and while it has 3.4GHz it is surely slower (even singlethreaded) than current 16-core server CPUs... Thinking of it, a possible distribution accross multiple machines may be * (Existent) Storage server (1U, existent Fujitsu RX 1330 M1) [It does not do NVMe SSDs, though -- alternatively put the disks in the VM server?] * (New) VM server (2U, lots of RAM) * (New) Workstation (4U, GPU) For interactive use and experimentation with VMs I would need to power-on all three systems. For non-VM use, it would have to be two... it is an interesting solution that stays within what the systems were designed to do but I think it is currently too much for my uses. Still, thanks for the suggestion. OT: The hints about the details of e-mail encoding and signing are appreciated. Some other notes are here: https://sourceforge.net/p/courier/mailman/courier-cone/?viewmonth=202010 Linux-Fan Non-ASCII chars follow...: ö § ö ─ *E-Mail signed for experimentation* pgp_NWXyAEf2T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
Linux-Fan wrote: > Dan Ritter writes: > > > You should also look at machines made by SuperMicro and resold > > via a number of VARs. My company is currently using Silicon > > Mechanics and is reasonably happy with them. We have a few HPs > > as well. I forgot to mention: though I wouldn't characterize their support as extensive, Silicon Mechanics will happily install several distributions, including Debian Stable. Their online build-and-price system is quite well done. -dsr-
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote: Hello fellow list users, I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The reasoning is that my experience with "real" servers is that they are most reliable, very helpful in indicating errors (dedicated LEDs next to the PCIe slots for instance) and modern servers' noise seems to be acceptable for my working envirnoment (?) I currently use a Fujitsu RX 1330 M1 (1U server, very silent) and it clearly is not "enough" in terms of RAM and HDD capacity. A little more graphics processing power than a low-profile GPU would be nice, too :) Rack-Mountability is a must, although I am open to putting another tower in there, sideways, should that be advantageous. In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following: * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302) * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB) I plan to extend this to 128 GiB as soon as the need arises. As I am exceeding the 4T mark, I am increasingly considering the use of ZFS. Currently, I have the maximum of 32 GiB installed in the RX 1330 M1 and while it is often enough, there are times where I am using 40 GiB SSD swap to overcome the limits. * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data), 2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS) I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided). I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof. * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...) * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too). Typical workloads: data compression (Debian live build, xz), virtual machines (software installation, updates) Rarely: GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too) single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc) Some time ago, there was this thread https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg01117.html It already gave me some ideas... I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I think AMDs provide good performance for my types of use). * HPE DL385 G10 Plus * Dell PowerEdge R7515 I have an old HP DL380 G4 in the rack and while it is incredibly loud, it is also very reliable. Of course, it is rarely online for its excessive loudness and power draw, but I derive that HPE is going be reliable? Before the Fujitsu, I used a HP Z400 workstation and before that a HP Compaq d530 CMT and all of these still "function", despite being too slow for today's loads. I am also taking into consideration these, although they are Intel-based and I find it a lot harder to obtain information on prices, compatibility etc. for these manufacturers: * Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX2540 M5 * Oracle X8-2L (seems to be too loud for my taste. especially compared to the others?) I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive). Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility, thus my questions are as follows: * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers? Does it work well? * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e. disks not bought from the server manufacturer? I would think that during the warranty period (3y) I best stay with the manufacturer-provided HDDs but after that, it would be nice to be able to add some more "cheap" storage... * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them, too. I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and failed at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and creating a complete system composed of individual parts? Thanks in advance Linux-Fan I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc., each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers. Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have similar prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential tasks twice as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast. I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into a file server. Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's can work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should be impressive. If you choose ZFS, it will need memory. The rule of thumb is 5 GB of memory per 1 TB of storage. So, pick a machine that has at least 20 GB of memory. As for the workstation, it
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
Linux-Fan wrote: > I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such > that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The > reasoning is that my experience with "real" servers is that they are most > reliable, very helpful in indicating errors (dedicated LEDs next to the > PCIe slots for instance) and modern servers' noise seems to be acceptable > for my working envirnoment (?) > they are loud - for me it is unacceptable to have it in some living space > I currently use a Fujitsu RX 1330 M1 (1U server, very silent) and it > clearly is not "enough" in terms of RAM and HDD capacity. A little more > graphics processing power than a low-profile GPU would be nice, too :) > Servers usually do not have a good GPUs - they are mostly not used. Why don't you split your setup into powerful workstation and your current server? > Rack-Mountability is a must, although I am open to putting another tower > in there, sideways, should that be advantageous. > > In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following: > > * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302) > > * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB) > > I plan to extend this to 128 GiB as soon as the need arises. > As I am exceeding the 4T mark, I am increasingly considering the > use of ZFS. > > Currently, I have the maximum of 32 GiB installed in the > RX 1330 M1 and while it is often enough, there are times where I > am using 40 GiB SSD swap to overcome the limits. > > * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data), > 2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS) > I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided). > I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe > U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that > may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof. > > * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share > virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...) > > * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too). > > Typical workloads: > data compression (Debian live build, xz), > virtual machines (software installation, updates) > you could off load your virtual machines to dedicated hardware. Depends on the number and configuration you indeed may need a server for that - better look at the requirements of the VM software manufacturer (VMWare or Oracle or whatever else) > Rarely: > GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too) > single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc) > > Some time ago, there was this thread > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg01117.html > It already gave me some ideas... > > I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I > think AMDs provide good performance for my types of use). > > * HPE DL385 G10 Plus > * Dell PowerEdge R7515 > > I have an old HP DL380 G4 in the rack and while it is incredibly loud, it > is also very reliable. Of course, it is rarely online for its excessive > loudness and power draw, but I derive that HPE is going be reliable? > Before the Fujitsu, I used a HP Z400 workstation and before that a HP > Compaq d530 CMT and all of these still "function", despite being too slow > for today's loads. > Servers are loud - same for DL380 G10, same for the PowerEdge > I am also taking into consideration these, although they are Intel-based > and I find it a lot harder to obtain information on prices, compatibility > etc. for these manufacturers: > > * Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX2540 M5 > * Oracle X8-2L > (seems to be too loud for my taste. especially compared to the others?) > > I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the > use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my > drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive). > Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility, > thus my questions are as follows: > > * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers? > Does it work well? > > * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e. > disks not bought from the server manufacturer? > HPE does not support means not that you can not do it - rather you will not have warranty/support in case of troubles. If you can live with it? > I would think that during the warranty period (3y) I best stay with > the manufacturer-provided HDDs but after that, it would be nice to be > able to add some more "cheap" storage... > They use Seagate or Samsung disks - I am not sure ATM. Disks are disks you can put whatever you want there. The disks they sell seem to be manufactured specifically for HPE and likely are tested/certified by HPE, although here one disk failed after 1,5y of operations in a conditioned server room where the machine did not have much disk load. I mena it is good to stay for the 3y with their hardware. > * Of course, if there
Signing emails, was Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
On Fri 02 Oct 2020 at 01:15:36 (+0200), Linux-Fan wrote: > Dan Ritter writes: > > Linux-Fan wrote: > > [...] > > OT: Message signature is still invalid, but I could track it down to some > weird changes in space characters between what I send to and what I receive > from the list. I have now idea how to solve it, though... Looking back at this signed post, https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/08/msg00741.html I see the following lines: On Sat 22 Aug 2020 at 00:17:19 (+0200), Linux-Fan wrote: > Teemu Likonen writes: > > * 2020-08-21 20:24:29+02, Linux-Fan wrote: > > [...] > > The copy I receive from the list does not verify correctly here, either. > It seems somewhere along the path the e-mails content is actually mangled. > -- some additional newlines are introduced compared to my local copy from > the "Sent" folder which verifies correctly. > > Attached are `sent.txt` (and `sent.eml`) and `received.txt` -- the very same > e-mail as seen in my Sent folder and Inbox respectively... Interestingly, if > I split out the signatures and message contents, I get bad signature for > both variatns despite the fact that the e-mail client can somehow verify the > sent e-mail... > > ??? > Linux-Fan > --=_pte5-5038-1598034269-0003 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is the header for the "sent" file. You appear to be sending 8bit data without encoding it. AIUI that contravenes "all data signed according to this protocol MUST be constrained to 7 bits (8-bit data MUST be encoded using either Quoted-Printable or Base64)". It's possible that your mailer set Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit because this message happened not to contain any 8bit characters. In my mutt, a message like that would be sent with: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline whereas one containing 8bit chars would be sent with: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (Of course, I'm allowed to send 8bit because I'm not signing it.) Whatever—somewhere in the chain of transmission, the email gets encoded into Q-P: > --=_pte5-5038-1598034269-0003 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Unfortunately, the Content-Transfer-Encoding is AIUI part of the signed message, so the "received" file can never match the "sent". For whatever reason, by the time your email reaches my mailbox, the "sent" unencoded attachment has been encoded as Q-P, and the "received" Q-P attachment doesn't need it. As a result, the texts of the two attachments look very similar, with their complementary headers. Summarising, as displayed by mutt: [-- Attachment #2: sent.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: quoted-printable, Size: 1.8K --] Content-Disposition: attachment; FILENAME="sent.txt" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_pte5-5038-1598034269-0003 → Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8" → Content-Disposition: inline → Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit and: [-- Attachment #3: received.txt --] [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 1.8K --] Content-Disposition: attachment; FILENAME="received.txt" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --=_pte5-5038-1598034269-0003 → Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset="UTF-8" → Content-Disposition: inline → Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable These → lines are signed. This is just my interpretation of RFCs 3156 and 3676. A lot of these RFCs is about Flowed and Delsp. I've assumed that that's all being implemented correctly. (Mixing Q-P and Flowed is tricky at best, disallowed at worst.) BTW, I know nothing about .eml files. I'm just happy not to see tnef files anymore. Cheers, David.
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
Dan Ritter writes: Linux-Fan wrote: [...] > * HPE DL385 G10 Plus > * Dell PowerEdge R7515 You should also look at machines made by SuperMicro and resold via a number of VARs. My company is currently using Silicon Mechanics and is reasonably happy with them. We have a few HPs as well. > I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the > use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my > drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive). It's ridiculously expensive. Also, note that HPE won't ship empty drive sleds for free. You can buy them aftermarket for about $15-30 each, depending. > Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility, > thus my questions are as follows: > > * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers? > Does it work well? Yes, and yes. Avoid buying HP's RAID cards. > * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e. > disks not bought from the server manufacturer? They all work. They tend to be more finicky about RAM. Buy SuperMicro, from a VAR not too far away from you who can supply a next-day parts warranty for cheap. Thank you very much for these hints. I will surely add Supermicro to the consideration. The hints wrt. RAM and RAID cards are appreciated! OT: Message signature is still invalid, but I could track it down to some weird changes in space characters between what I send to and what I receive from the list. I have now idea how to solve it, though... Linux-Fan
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:37 PM, Linux-Fan wrote: > - Dell PowerEdge R7515 I've had very good luck with Dell for a very long time. I've needed nothing close to what you're looking for, but the boxes have been flawless (Intel Xeon, though, not AMD). And they do sell servers with no Winders tax... -- Glenn English -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: ProtonMail wsBzBAEBCAAGBQJfdl7DACEJEJ/XhjGCrIwyFiEELKJzD0JScCVjQA2Xn9eG MYKsjDKSkwgAunI5BIIu1SryhcOFLoWOD8Lb03Oh4+R9WcfHyHH4WbehtyBs Ynuxnc1SYxYT/xZthbUyVs33DdvOO/sZQirOHr63VrOr2/nWEbCs1xD64REh CzisXdO+oXAxjFg/uirCq+1s/IdF0eHaf30AkrZNgedI5EEezPz22ITsx4C+ Dg2l/GAtBceag/ua44Rn6hg7pjdfRrnXzlEJRfVNk9xLX5FokQhIRUXl7srJ NLP1OIKug1pV1almD7RV8vvOUUEHwybD8KUgSY52zH+ksBbgx1HElh+gTKPz 0OpdVnHjCn5ElBRRwKHldYJPsceRB9N62rqgjTl25YVuipeGfdSgdg== =V8tu -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
Linux-Fan wrote: > In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following: > > * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302) > * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB) > * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data), > 2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS) > I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided). > I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe > U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that > may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof. > > * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share > virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...) > * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too). > > I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I think > AMDs provide good performance for my types of use). > > * HPE DL385 G10 Plus > * Dell PowerEdge R7515 You should also look at machines made by SuperMicro and resold via a number of VARs. My company is currently using Silicon Mechanics and is reasonably happy with them. We have a few HPs as well. > I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the > use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my > drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive). It's ridiculously expensive. Also, note that HPE won't ship empty drive sleds for free. You can buy them aftermarket for about $15-30 each, depending. > Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility, > thus my questions are as follows: > > * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers? > Does it work well? Yes, and yes. Avoid buying HP's RAID cards. > * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e. > disks not bought from the server manufacturer? They all work. They tend to be more finicky about RAM. Buy SuperMicro, from a VAR not too far away from you who can supply a next-day parts warranty for cheap. -dsr-
General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable
Hello fellow list users, I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The reasoning is that my experience with "real" servers is that they are most reliable, very helpful in indicating errors (dedicated LEDs next to the PCIe slots for instance) and modern servers' noise seems to be acceptable for my working envirnoment (?) I currently use a Fujitsu RX 1330 M1 (1U server, very silent) and it clearly is not "enough" in terms of RAM and HDD capacity. A little more graphics processing power than a low-profile GPU would be nice, too :) Rack-Mountability is a must, although I am open to putting another tower in there, sideways, should that be advantageous. In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following: * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302) * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB) I plan to extend this to 128 GiB as soon as the need arises. As I am exceeding the 4T mark, I am increasingly considering the use of ZFS. Currently, I have the maximum of 32 GiB installed in the RX 1330 M1 and while it is often enough, there are times where I am using 40 GiB SSD swap to overcome the limits. * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data), 2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS) I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided). I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof. * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...) * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too). Typical workloads: data compression (Debian live build, xz), virtual machines (software installation, updates) Rarely: GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too) single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc) Some time ago, there was this thread https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg01117.html It already gave me some ideas... I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I think AMDs provide good performance for my types of use). * HPE DL385 G10 Plus * Dell PowerEdge R7515 I have an old HP DL380 G4 in the rack and while it is incredibly loud, it is also very reliable. Of course, it is rarely online for its excessive loudness and power draw, but I derive that HPE is going be reliable? Before the Fujitsu, I used a HP Z400 workstation and before that a HP Compaq d530 CMT and all of these still "function", despite being too slow for today's loads. I am also taking into consideration these, although they are Intel-based and I find it a lot harder to obtain information on prices, compatibility etc. for these manufacturers: * Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX2540 M5 * Oracle X8-2L (seems to be too loud for my taste. especially compared to the others?) I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive). Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility, thus my questions are as follows: * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers? Does it work well? * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e. disks not bought from the server manufacturer? I would think that during the warranty period (3y) I best stay with the manufacturer-provided HDDs but after that, it would be nice to be able to add some more "cheap" storage... * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them, too. I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and failed at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and creating a complete system composed of individual parts? Thanks in advance Linux-Fan pgp1pA_ASNOFF.pgp Description: PGP signature
