General Linux Chat and Small Questions v. Year of the Linux Desktop! - Hardware & Software

I can't really say much because it was a minimal install. Zypper seems pretty good, which was really the only openSUSE specific thing the server had

[QUOTE=TrafficMan;50172095]Could you set up what's on the bare metal headlessly, and then pass through your single GPU to a VM?[/QUOTE] I don't see why not, especially with a boot loader like grub you should theoretically be able to have an entry just for that, which would likely be the easiest way. [QUOTE=benbb;50173299]16.04 LTS release day is today lads.[/QUOTE] Man, and I probably can't just VM this because I wanna get the full mir experience. And to see how unity has changed. Last Ubuntu I used was 11.10 which was my first linux because my piece of shit vista laptop couldn't handle vista.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50174694]because I wanna get the full mir experience. And to see how unity has changed.[/QUOTE] the new unity is a pile of shit. i don't hate unity 7, it works well and it looks decent. unity 8 looks like a pile of shit phone gui, it's awful for keyboard and mouse.

[QUOTE=maaatts;50175202]the new unity is a pile of shit. i don't hate unity 7, it works well and it looks decent. unity 8 looks like a pile of shit phone gui, it's awful for keyboard and mouse.[/QUOTE] Meh, people say that about gnome3 but when I use a DE it is by FAR my favourite. So I might enjoy it.

[URL="http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop"]Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Download avaible[/URL]

I can't seem to upgrade from 15.10; I'm not getting a prompt to upgrade. I have a question: is it safer to download the ISO and manually install or upgrade from 15.10?

[QUOTE=Reflex F.N.;50175468]I can't seem to upgrade from 15.10; I'm not getting a prompt to upgrade. I have a question: is it safer to download the ISO and manually install or upgrade from 15.10?[/QUOTE] Perhaps wait a bit and see if it happens tomorrow, or the day after? Alternatively, the following should do it. Beware that it may also break certain things if you do not pay attention to any prompts. [code] sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade -y && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -y [/code] [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Oh, and you will also need to reboot after the upgrade. Not a recommendation. You [b]need[/b] to do this, if you don't want problems.

[QUOTE=kaukassus;50174134]I like Ubuntu Server. It's "boring", Stable, doesen't break things and it's packages are somewhat recent. I'd go for CentOS if it weren't for PHP, NodeJS and Ruby versions being ancient and every damn webapp or framework requiring the most bleeding-edge version of those to work.[/QUOTE] Don't have proof for this, but I think the cool kids in Silicon Valley startups usually don't rely on distro-provided packages much.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;50176390]Silicon Valley startups[/QUOTE] It all makes sense now...

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50175317]Meh, people say that about gnome3 but when I use a DE it is by FAR my favourite. So I might enjoy it.[/QUOTE] gnome 3 doesn't feel like its for phones, but unity 8 does.

[QUOTE=maaatts;50176447]gnome 3 doesn't feel like its for phones, but unity 8 does.[/QUOTE] Gnome 3 merely suffers from [I]"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"[/I] decisions, whereas Unity 8 is the "Metro" interface of the unix world

6600k in the system, iommu enabled successfully aaaand the iGPU isn't able to boot with iommu enabled. the second I launch Linux, the screen will just be covered in a static artifact and don't do anything. the kernel doesn't even start with iommu enabled. it works fine with my 780Ti but that's the GPU I want to passthrough :frown: I suppose I have to resort to using one of my old 6870's. unless there's a way to get this iGPU to work with iommu enabled? HD Graphics 530

[QUOTE=mastersrp;50176312]Perhaps wait a bit and see if it happens tomorrow, or the day after? Alternatively, the following should do it. Beware that it may also break certain things if you do not pay attention to any prompts. [code] sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade -y && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -y [/code] [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Oh, and you will also need to reboot after the upgrade. Not a recommendation. You [b]need[/b] to do this, if you don't want problems.[/QUOTE]All right, thank you very much for your help! :smile:

[QUOTE=PredGD;50176524]6600k in the system, iommu enabled successfully aaaand the iGPU isn't able to boot with iommu enabled. the second I launch Linux, the screen will just be covered in a static artifact and don't do anything. the kernel doesn't even start with iommu enabled. it works fine with my 780Ti but that's the GPU I want to passthrough :frown: I suppose I have to resort to using one of my old 6870's. unless there's a way to get this iGPU to work with iommu enabled? HD Graphics 530[/QUOTE] If you're using a type 1 hypervisor you could try just not bothering with the iGPU. Though if you're using virtualbox or vmware that would be quite a pain in the ass to throw away the effort already done. And on top of that it's probably much harder. so yeah, the 6870 might be much better Also downloading 16.04 now. People on /g/ raved that their servers were very fast but for me it's sort of slow, oh well. edit: man, unity 7 is kind of ugly at this point. Installing 8 though so hopefully it doesn't disappoint. edit 2: did disappoint, my GPU doesn't work with it. ohhh well. Back to a distro I'm more comfortable with, or I might actually try openSUSE as that's one of the few big ones I haven't touched.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50171139]Imo if one is planning to do this they should just tell nvidia to fuck off and get an AMD if possible rather than relying on this long-term. From what I know, nvidia workstation GPUs (tesla, and quatro) will work just fine when passing through. I am just making an assumption here, but nvidia is most likely trying to force people into their overpriced workstation GPUs. I think its the same reason I was unable to install nvidia drivers on windows server. Also regarding Ubuntu LTS, you can consider to it be a sort of enterprise-grade of Ubuntu. So when one is released, you can expect it to be very well tested and very stable.[/QUOTE] That's true, but if you want the option of using your GPU on Linux too, or want to get new features quicker (see Vulkan), Nvidia is better in that regard. I know they get a lot of bad press, but they do do some things right...

[QUOTE=ben1066;50177838]That's true, but if you want the option of using your GPU on Linux too, or want to get new features quicker (see Vulkan), Nvidia is better in that regard. I know they get a lot of bad press, but they do do some things right...[/QUOTE] I don't think the hate really comes from what they put out, but from their lack of cooperation/interaction with the community. They just sort of do their own thing. AMD at least is somewhat free software friendly, with some locked microcode unfortunately.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50177321]If you're using a type 1 hypervisor you could try just not bothering with the iGPU. Though if you're using virtualbox or vmware that would be quite a pain in the ass to throw away the effort already done. And on top of that it's probably much harder. so yeah, the 6870 might be much better Also downloading 16.04 now. People on /g/ raved that their servers were very fast but for me it's sort of slow, oh well. edit: man, unity 7 is kind of ugly at this point. Installing 8 though so hopefully it doesn't disappoint. edit 2: did disappoint, my GPU doesn't work with it. ohhh well. Back to a distro I'm more comfortable with, or I might actually try openSUSE as that's one of the few big ones I haven't touched.[/QUOTE] could you elaborate? does this type 1 hypervisor thing work using only a single GPU? I did give the 6870 a try, but then I realized if I did that I would have to use it as my primary GPU in Windows too (not the virtualized one). ideally I would have been able to select which GPU to use as my primary one in the BIOS but that's not possible :cry: that 6870 was also preeeetty noisy, god damn. sounded like a vacuum cleaner was turned on inside my case

[QUOTE=PredGD;50177931]could you elaborate? does this type 1 hypervisor thing work using only a single GPU? I did give the 6870 a try, but then I realized if I did that I would have to use it as my primary GPU in Windows too (not the virtualized one). ideally I would have been able to select which GPU to use as my primary one in the BIOS but that's not possible :cry: that 6870 was also preeeetty noisy, god damn. sounded like a vacuum cleaner was turned on inside my case[/QUOTE] Is it possible to blacklist/disable/ignore the GPU in windows? I assume you mean when dual booting into windows. I know some people mix and match AMD / NVIDIA GPUs when doing things like slaving an NVIDIA card for physx (back until they "fixed" it.) Otherwise, I haven't done that, so I wouldn't quite know how exactly to get it going. It's probably such a pain that it's better off just going with dual-booting, since it's essentially the same.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50178078]Is it possible to blacklist/disable/ignore the GPU in windows? I assume you mean when dual booting into windows. I know some people mix and match AMD / NVIDIA GPUs when doing things like slaving an NVIDIA card for physx (back until they "fixed" it.) Otherwise, I haven't done that, so I wouldn't quite know how exactly to get it going. It's probably such a pain that it's better off just going with dual-booting, since it's essentially the same.[/QUOTE] They fixed that? I was thinking of doing that for a CUDA slave. Hopefully DX12/Vulkan will fix it.

So with 16.04 released, and a few tests been done in my environment, I started migrating part of my Environment from 14.04 to 16.04. Application Data is now stored on a ZFS Pool, as opposed to ext4. Makes me sleep a lot better at night. Next up is going to be the Database setup on the data server, and then i'll migrate the WebApp Server over to 16.04 aswell. So far, not a single issue has shown up. Using 14.04 Packages for Chef and everything seems to work out fine. Fun times.

:snip:

[QUOTE=kaukassus;50179880]So with 16.04 released, and a few tests been done in my environment, I started migrating part of my Environment from 14.04 to 16.04. Application Data is now stored on a ZFS Pool, as opposed to ext4. Makes me sleep a lot better at night. Next up is going to be the Database setup on the data server, and then i'll migrate the WebApp Server over to 16.04 aswell. So far, not a single issue has shown up. Using 14.04 Packages for Chef and everything seems to work out fine. Fun times.[/QUOTE] As someone who doesnt know too much about storage types, what differentiates zfs from ext4? I asministrate a center with a few ubuntu/debian based servers (and more as time goes on as i am on the warpath) and Im trying to figure out if its worth moving it all from ezt4 to zfs

[QUOTE=killerteacup;50180005]As someone who doesnt know too much about storage types, what differentiates zfs from ext4? I asministrate a center with a few ubuntu/debian based servers (and more as time goes on as i am on the warpath) and Im trying to figure out if its worth moving it all from ezt4 to zfs[/QUOTE] What you should probably worry about is performance. If you're doing VM servers, then ext4 is fine, because ZFS is [b]not[/b] faster overall. You probably want the disks that the VMs are on to perform better, rather than doing filesystem optimizations. Things like ZFS are more for VMs that need very large and redundant data pools.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;50180005]As someone who doesnt know too much about storage types, what differentiates zfs from ext4? I asministrate a center with a few ubuntu/debian based servers (and more as time goes on as i am on the warpath) and Im trying to figure out if its worth moving it all from ezt4 to zfs[/QUOTE] [url]https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS[/url] explains it pretty well I guess. Basically, I'm using ZFS for storing large amounts of data, and I'm pretty concerned about data reliability, and it also is very convenient to set up and use.

Thanks for the link, just had a read through - So ZFS is for when you want a huge increase in data reliability at the cost of either a decrease or no noticeable change in performance? Does this do away with RAID? We run a lot of storage - 3 large arrays over a disc network and then smaller arrays in many of our servers and all of it is configured with RAID but disc failures are still a huge pain. Nevertheless it sounds like something I should suggest

[QUOTE=killerteacup;50180065]Thanks for the link, just had a read through - So ZFS is for when you want a huge increase in data reliability at the cost of either a decrease or no noticeable change in performance? Does this do away with RAID? We run a lot of storage - 3 large arrays over a disc network and then smaller arrays in many of our servers and all of it is configured with RAID but disc failures are still a huge pain. Nevertheless it sounds like something I should suggest[/QUOTE] ZFS recommends 1gb of RAM per 1tb of raw data, so with large arrays that can really get up there. [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] Not a perfect improvement over a hardware solution.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;50180065]Thanks for the link, just had a read through - So ZFS is for when you want a huge increase in data reliability at the cost of either a decrease or no noticeable change in performance? Does this do away with RAID? We run a lot of storage - 3 large arrays over a disc network and then smaller arrays in many of our servers and all of it is configured with RAID but disc failures are still a huge pain. Nevertheless it sounds like something I should suggest[/QUOTE] It depends. Really, the way I see it you shouldn't worry too much about production disks dying. They can be replaced. What you should focus on is delivering good performance on production services while keeping a redundant plan in hand should the servers die. And obviously backups. A proper backup strategy should really be the biggest priority when it comes to data security.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;50180080]It depends. Really, the way I see it you shouldn't worry too much about production disks dying. They can be replaced. What you should focus on is delivering good performance on production services while keeping a redundant plan in hand should the servers die. And obviously backups. A proper backup strategy should really be the biggest priority when it comes to data security.[/QUOTE] Uptime is probably the biggest priority for a service provider realistically though.

[QUOTE=Levelog;50180082]Uptime is probably the biggest priority for a service provider realistically though.[/QUOTE] Yes and no. Perceived uptime is. Real uptime may not be important. The real important thing is keeping systems online, but it may not be the same systems. A proper infrastructure takes redundancy into account so that real uptime becomes irrelevant, and perceived uptime becomes the norm. [editline]22nd April 2016[/editline] I was talking more about the data than the systems though. A filesystem cannot keep your servers online.

[QUOTE=Levelog;50180082]Uptime is probably the biggest priority for a service provider realistically though.[/QUOTE] We're a performance testing center so if ZFS is going to adversely affect our performance we're probably likely to steer clear of it. If a disk goes down it can get pretty annoying if there was data on there but its only a couple of days at most before the problem is fixed. 1gb RAM per tb of data is pretty big though. Will probably steer clear - thanks for the info everyone