Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is gnome becoming obligatory?
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, at 13:22, mad.scientist.at.la...@tutanota.com wrote:> interestingly, RH (and Centos) have both dumped systemd and gone to > another system (I don't remember which one). In fact they've done so > retroactively on earlier versions. Of course the continuing take over > of linux by commercial interest is distorting development goals (time > spent trying to destandardize/create new standards, make it harder to > install and maintain, and new tools they don't have to give away). Have you got a source on that? I haven't read any news about RH switching to yet another init system. I think they're fairly well wedded to Systemd, for better or for worse. -- Richard
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:35:16PM +, Wols Lists wrote: On 07/12/17 09:52, Richard Bradfield wrote: I did also investigate USB3 external enclosures, they're pretty fast these days. AARRGGH !!! If you're using mdadm, DO NOT TOUCH USB WITH A BARGE POLE !!! I don't know the details, but I gather the problems are very similar to the timeout problem, but much worse. I know the wiki says you can "get away" with USB, but only for a broken drive, and only when recovering *from* it. Cheers, Wol I'm using ZFS on Linux, does that make you any less terrified? :) I never ended up pursuing the USB enclosure, because disks got bigger faster than I needed more storage, but I'd be interested in hearing if there are real issues with trying to mount drive arrays over XHCI, given the failure of eSATA to achieve wide adoption it looked like a good route for future expansion. -- Richard
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, at 09:28, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > I incorporated ZFS' expansion inflexibility into my planned > > maintenance/servicing budget. > > What was the conclusion? That having no more free slots meant that you > can just as well use the inflexible Raidz, otherwise would have gone with > Mirror? Correct, I had gone back and forth between RaidZ2 and a pair of Mirrors. I needed the space to be extendable, but I calculated my usage growth to be below the rate at which drive prices were falling, so I could budget to replace the current set of drives in 3 years, and that would buy me a set of bigger ones when the time came. I did also investigate USB3 external enclosures, they're pretty fast these days. -- I apologize if my web client has mangled my message. Richard
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: btrfs raid 5/6
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:35:10PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: I don’t really care about performance. It’s a simple media archive powered by the cheapest Haswell Celeron I could get (with 16 Gigs of ECC RAM though ^^). Sorry if I more or less stole the thread, but this is almost the same topic. I could use a nudge in either direction. My workplace’s storage comprises many 2× mirrors, but I am not a company and I am capped at four bays. So, Do you have any input for me before I fetch the dice? IMO the cost savings for parity RAID trumps everything unless money just isn't a factor. Now, with ZFS it is frustrating because arrays are relatively inflexible when it comes to expansion, though that applies to all types of arrays. That is one major advantage of btrfs (and mdadm) over zfs. I hear they're working on that, but in general there are a lot of things in zfs that are more static compared to btrfs. -- Rich When planning for ZFS pools, at least for home use, it's worth thinking about your usage pattern, and if you'll need to expand the pool before the lifetime of the drives rolls around. I incorporated ZFS' expansion inflexibility into my planned maintenance/servicing budget. I started out with 4x 2TB disks, limited to those 4 bays as you are, but planned to replace those drives after a period of 3-4 years. By the time the first of my drives began to show SMART errors, the price of a 3TB drive had dropped to what I had paid for the 2TB models, so I bought another set and did a rolling upgrade, bringing the pool up to 6TB. I expect I'll do the same thing late next year, I wonder if 4TB will be the sweet spot, or if I might be able to get something larger. -- Richard
Re: [gentoo-user] Problems copmiling firefox 57.0 (linking phase)
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 08:15:18AM +0100, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: It doesn't fail at the last stage - that's just when the error is repeated after other parallel tasks in the pipeline are completed. The actual error you got starts around line 5520 and is: --- stderr thread '' panicked at 'Unable to find libclang: "the `libclang` shared library could not be opened: /usr/lib64/llvm/5/lib64/libclang.so.5.0"', src/libcore/result.rs:860 stack backtrace: Short of the file missing, no idea what could be the root cause. Considering that's the Rust component of Firefox that's failing to build, you should also try setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 to get a more verbose crash from rustc.
