|
I moved from FreeBSD 8.x to Ubuntu for my file server like 5 years ago when ZFS on Linux became basically stable and never looked back. ZFS works perfectly fine, and running Ubuntu makes doing everything else way easier.
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Ubuntu isn't really any easier than FreeBSD is. They're both easy if you're not allergic to documentation.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
They're both fine. It's just that it's more likely that someone is going to know Ubuntu and those skills are possibly more transferable. It's been years since I worked with FreeBSD but it seems likely you'll have more resources for help with Ubuntu as well.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Ubuntu isn't really any easier than FreeBSD is. They're both easy if you're not allergic to documentation. It absolutely is. Even putting aside ease of finding answers online (where, as noted above, there are vastly more resources for Ubuntu), just doing basic software management illustrates a vast difference. Even some of the most basic software requires mucking around with Ports, and I distinctly remember just getting Samba up and running to be a pain on FreeBSD 8, compared to the nearly fool-proof simplicity on Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's better now, but to say that APT isn't a vastly easier package management option is silly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:It absolutely is. Even putting aside ease of finding answers online (where, as noted above, there are vastly more resources for Ubuntu), just doing basic software management illustrates a vast difference. Even some of the most basic software requires mucking around with Ports, and I distinctly remember just getting Samba up and running to be a pain on FreeBSD 8, compared to the nearly fool-proof simplicity on Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's better now, but to say that APT isn't a vastly easier package management option is silly. Not to mention the fact that a perceived 90% of all programs that can be compiled for Linux offer a prepackaged binary for Ubuntu by default. If you need anything for FreeBSD that's "off the beaten path", have fun spending a good amount of time compiling/maintaining/updating it in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
eames posted:Not to mention the fact that a perceived 90% of all programs that can be compiled for Linux offer a prepackaged binary for Ubuntu by default. If you need anything for FreeBSD that's "off the beaten path", have fun spending a good amount of time compiling/maintaining/updating it in the future. This is why I'm looking seriously at segmenting my server needs. The NAS runs FreeBSD and is just a NAS, plus a separate beefier server on Ubuntu Server using a Ryzen or something. I get the friendly environment for most of my needs, but the serious-business OS backing it up. Or you could run a hypervisor and have both in the same machine, if directed IO/raw passthrough works properly. So, um... how in the world is package management/versioning not a solved problem coming from the people who brought you jails? Why not build/run literally all applications with a minimal set of dependencies symlinked into a chroot/jail? At that point package management should basically look a lot like a bundler file for Ruby. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
FreeBSD 10 introduced pkgng which is an apt/yum like tool for package management, and there is an official binary package repo, built quarterly, of the entire ports tree. The only time you need to build something from ports is if you want custom compile-time options (e.g. use LibreSSL instead of OpenSSL) or want a version of a port that was updated between quarterly package builds. Even then, the poudriere tool makes bulk building your own repo from ports with custom options easy and trivial to automate.
SamDabbers fucked around with this message at 00:27 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Poudriere is not only useful for building custom ports, because combined with nginx or another httpd, it can serve as a repository for a machine to function as build and host machine for a number of FreeBSD installations - that's what I do at home with my server that maintains packages for my workstation, my RPIs and my MIPS home-automation devices. It's also what FreeBSD uses to build packages, and it's not just used for a quarterly build - FreeBSD serves all ~30k ports as packages using poudriere, which in turn are built on their cluster - around once every 24 hours (because it takes approximately 24 hours for all packages to build on their cluster).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This is why I'm looking seriously at segmenting my server needs. The NAS runs FreeBSD and is just a NAS, plus a separate beefier server on Ubuntu Server using a Ryzen or something. I get the friendly environment for most of my needs, but the serious-business OS backing it up. Or you could run a hypervisor and have both in the same machine, if directed IO/raw passthrough works properly. Seriously, do this. I just migrated all my jail stuff from FreeNAS (by which I mean, started over) to a new power sipping Xeon D 1541 box with a single NVMe drive running ESXi using the SSD for the VMs who each use FreeNAS for bulk storage if they need it. Holy poo poo, it is night and day how much better life is. Stability, updating, configuration, management, performance ... all through the roof compared to jails. I used to be all about the jails. Now I say gently caress jails. My storage server is now a single purpose appliance, just serve storage.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
I haven't built my FreeNAS server yet but I have a plan in my head. How bad are the jails these days? The only one I know I need is Emby, and it seems like it would be a waste to build an extra system just to run Emby.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So, um... how in the world is package management/versioning not a solved problem coming from the people who brought you jails? Why not build/run literally all applications with a minimal set of dependencies symlinked into a chroot/jail? At that point package management should basically look a lot like a bundler file for Ruby. How ae security updates to the libraries handled with jails? If I understood your symlink remark correctly, then the jailed application will still use the OS libraries, so that will take care of security updates. But if all the libraries come from the OS then what's the point of jailing. And if the jail has it's own copy of the libraries, then does that mean that whenever there is a security update to any of the included libraries it's necessary to release a security update to your application. I have the same concern with Ubuntu Snap and I wasn't able to figure out how they are addressing it with a cursory look. Docker can be included in this too. If I was a developer considering Docker I would have to think hard if I want to shoulder that much responsibility. I work as a sysop and if it comes from the repositories it's our responsibility, the developer doesn't need to care. If there's an update to kernel, OpenSSL, Java, Python or Apache, Red Hat will send us an email and we'll do what's necessary. The developer will only have to worry about the piece of php, ruby or java they have written.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
I'm still unclear why someone would use FreeBSD instead of Linux if they're not using freenas or something. Could someone explain it to me?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'm still unclear why someone would use FreeBSD instead of Linux if they're not using freenas or something. Could someone explain it to me? I was wondering the same thing, atleast for recreational/non-commercial purposes. I assume some people are just used to it.  FreeBSD lol bhyve on bare metal seems like a waste of resources to me when I could run Linux + KVM + LXC + Docker (and even FreeBSD inside a VM with a HBA passed through).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:How ae security updates to the libraries handled with jails? If I understood your symlink remark correctly, then the jailed application will still use the OS libraries, so that will take care of security updates. But if all the libraries come from the OS then what's the point of jailing. And if the jail has it's own copy of the libraries, then does that mean that whenever there is a security update to any of the included libraries it's necessary to release a security update to your application. I have the same concern with Ubuntu Snap and I wasn't able to figure out how they are addressing it with a cursory look. Docker can be included in this too. There's not much difference with docker. You start your dockerfile with FROM ubuntu:latest And the do a docker pull before building your container. Ban, latest security fixes applied.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Does this punch down look ok to you folks?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
 Did an electrician do it?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:
A goddamn networking / IT guy. After I took over I couldn't for the life of me figure out why poo poo kept dropping off the network, cameras stopped working, etc. Finally pulled the patch panel after a year to fix something separate and gently caress.. Always check the patch panel first.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
insularis posted:Seriously, do this. I just migrated all my jail stuff from FreeNAS (by which I mean, started over) to a new power sipping Xeon D 1541 box with a single NVMe drive running ESXi using the SSD for the VMs who each use FreeNAS for bulk storage if they need it. Holy poo poo, it is night and day how much better life is. Stability, updating, configuration, management, performance ... all through the roof compared to jails. How much did that run you? I'm considering a second box for a Docker host. I want to run Docker on bare metal with the maximum RAM and don't see a good way to do that with my existing FreeNAS setup.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:How much did that run you? I'm considering a second box for a Docker host. I want to run Docker on bare metal with the maximum RAM and don't see a good way to do that with my existing FreeNAS setup. More than I would have liked, but I'm also on 14c/kwh power and I have a heat limitation in my home server area under the stairs ... it has an A/V cabinet dual fan wired in to exhaust, but no active cooling. About 1200 for the Supermicro 1541 barebones server (mini tower, PSU, mobo, embedded chip 8 core/16 thread, dual 10GBe, IPMI), 300 for a 500GB NVMe Samsung 960 Pro, and $200 for 64GB of eBay ECC DDR4. It will take 128GB of ECC RDIMMS Yeah, it's a hit, but man, I'm running a Docker VM, and 9 standalone VMs off one stupid flash drive, and it is the most responsive server I've ever owned. ESXi boots fully in about a minute, all VMs pulled up in 3 minutes, and average processor usage (including a Plex VM used by family and some friends, a security DVR, and a Sonarr/Radarr/NZBget server) sits at about 30% average load across a typical day. I wish I'd done it last year. That chassis is ready for two 2.5 SSDs and 4 hotswap 3.5 drives, so next year, I'm going to fill the drives, add an passthrough HBA to a FreeNAS VM and zfs send all the actually important pools over to it as a hot backup server. Room to grow at a great monthly cost, is my point. I had an r/homelab style Dell R710 at one point, but that thing will eat you alive on power, noise, and cooling. Can't even hear the 1541 from 5 feet away. Edit: KillAWatt device reads it at 59 watts at the wall in the current setup at 35% CPU load. It's a single incandescent light bulb with 16 cores and 64 GB. What a time to be alive. insularis fucked around with this message at 05:30 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
I bought once an IBM rack server from Ebay for $50. It arrived, it worked, it was awesome (levels of magnitude faster then my old P4 used till then). But it was a loving helicopter too. During the day, you couldn't really hear it, but during the night, i could hear it from my bedroom (bedroom on second floor, server in the basement). gently caress that poo poo. Those little fans have to spin so fast to cool anything worth a drat that they can indeed mask a helicopter.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Volguus posted:I bought once an IBM rack server from Ebay for $50. It arrived, it worked, it was awesome (levels of magnitude faster then my old P4 used till then). But it was a loving helicopter too. During the day, you couldn't really hear it, but during the night, i could hear it from my bedroom (bedroom on second floor, server in the basement). Back in 2000, I had a dual P3 homebuilt Tyan Tiger mobo in a super tower EATX kinda case (Coppermine generation, if I remember correctly). Some days it spent 24 hours transcoding DVDs to DiVX, and while I did not need a space heater, I needed hearing protection. Ah, college.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'm still unclear why someone would use FreeBSD instead of Linux if they're not using freenas or something. Could someone explain it to me? I suggest that you select the white color scheme, as the default is a bit hard on the eyes. If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them - but your question is a very general one, and much of what I would say is covered in that document. So once you've read it, if you still have questions, feel free to ask. I've been using FreeBSD since 2001 as my primary OS (with a secondary partition for Windows, which I use for gaming), so ask away. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 10:58 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
I need to extend my storage and am thinking Windows Storage Spaces. No strong need to share the storage between multiple machines but if I do, just file shares should be good enough. Is there any meaningful downside to Storage Spaces? One thing on my mind is how it handles "hot" data - there might be some files that are regularly written/read and might benefit from higher IOPS than can be well served by spinning metal. Is Storage Spaces smart enough to keep hot data on SSDs if I chuck a few SSDs into the mix?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
EssOEss posted:I need to extend my storage and am thinking Windows Storage Spaces. No strong need to share the storage between multiple machines but if I do, just file shares should be good enough. Is there any meaningful downside to Storage Spaces? Just don't use Storage Spaces. It is too limited, too hard to fix problems. If you want a Windows based file server I suggest Stablebit Drive Pool: https://stablebit.com/DrivePool It does have SSD landing drive support and other important things like being able to add or remove drives of any size.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Does this punch down look ok to you folks? Can someone explain what is wrong here?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Can someone explain what is wrong here? http://www.siemon.co.uk/us/white_papers/99-07-05-twistpairprep.asp
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Can someone explain what is wrong here? They've untwisted the cable pairs for a significant length (looks like 2-3" or so). Normally you want pairs untwisted for the absolute minimum length, usually around 1/2".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Ah, one of these questions - they crop up every once in a while, and always tend to bring about some good discussion. Fortunately, someone has gone to the trouble of making a comprehensive document covering the reasons for using FreeBSD - even if that was written a long time ago, it's still spot-on. That doesn't really seem address my question in the context of the recent discussion and this thread in general. People seem to be talking about using FreeBSD instead of Linux for their NAS, and some even talking about using it instead of Linux for their NAS when they're already familiar with Linux. This is besides the point that if you're not familiar with either there's going to be more resources available to help you with, say, Ubuntu, than there will be with FreeBSD. I'm really just trying to highlight the fact that FreeBSD just doesn't seem to be a magically better thing to put on your NAS.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'm really just trying to highlight the fact that FreeBSD just doesn't seem to be a magically better thing to put on your NAS. A lot of the draw vs Linux is the very mature ZFS stack on FreeBSD derivatives. You can also run an OpenSolaris fork like Illumos, or even just straight-up Solaris (it's basically free for personal use), but those are more niche. Versus an appliance, it's the greater overall flexibility of a full-fat OS versus a trimmed-down and packaged one.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
It starts to become a moot point to talk about stability in a sense because if you were willing to run FreeNAS in 2012 with ZFS, you should be comfortable with ZFS on Ubuntu in 2017. The more legitimate concerns would make sense around how the OSes are different when it comes to memory pressure, VM design, and other details that would only matter in a professional situation (I still say that Linux now has better tooling thanks to improvements in perf, ftrace, etc). Well, I suppose there's some possible contention over the Linux SMB and CIFS implementation vs FreeBSD but again those are strictly only a concern in professional contexts. Me, I have issues with snowflake OSes unless we have super awesome monitoring and tooling already. I'd rather not have to deal with another OS operationally. Would rather run one instrumentation stack that's all the same kernel. Not sure how I'd do a rolling restart of NAS servers though admittedly, that kinda sucks with host-based NASes instead of SANs.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:It starts to become a moot point to talk about stability in a sense because if you were willing to run FreeNAS in 2012 with ZFS, you should be comfortable with ZFS on Ubuntu in 2017. The more legitimate concerns would make sense around how the OSes are different when it comes to memory pressure, VM design, and other details that would only matter in a professional situation (I still say that Linux now has better tooling thanks to improvements in perf, ftrace, etc). Well, I suppose there's some possible contention over the Linux SMB and CIFS implementation vs FreeBSD but again those are strictly only a concern in professional contexts. Thermopyle posted:That doesn't really seem address my question in the context of the recent discussion and this thread in general. Also, I don't think it's true that there's more documentation for any given Linux distribution, compared to what's available for FreeBSD - and a lot of what's not in the base system of FreeBSD doesn't need documentation specific for FreeBSD. necrobobsledder posted:It starts to become a moot point to talk about stability in a sense because if you were willing to run FreeNAS in 2012 with ZFS, you should be comfortable with ZFS on Ubuntu in 2017. The more legitimate concerns would make sense around how the OSes are different when it comes to memory pressure, VM design, and other details that would only matter in a professional situation (I still say that Linux now has better tooling thanks to improvements in perf, ftrace, etc). Well, I suppose there's some possible contention over the Linux SMB and CIFS implementation vs FreeBSD but again those are strictly only a concern in professional contexts. The only reason that Linux has a bigger install base than FreeBSD is because there are companies like Redhat which other companies can sue, in case anything breaks - talk with any worthwhile lawyer and accountant who has worked with an IT department during a switch-over. BlankSystemDaemon fucked around with this message at 08:31 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Linux people bitching about the purpose of FreeBSD is like Windows people bitching about the purpose of Linux. That should make you think.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Can someone explain what is wrong here? The twisted pairs are not twisted anymore, definitely not best practice and in real operation the network has slowdowns and dropouts.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Linux tracing has nothing on dtrace. In the wrong hands, it's literally a rootkit, able to tell you everything about a system. Brendan Gregg, basically the godfather of dtrace, is nowadays working on BPF for Linux, but it's still not there in terms of where it needs to be to go toe-to-toe with dtrace (although if anyone can do it, it's Brendan). D. Ebdrup posted:Let's not pretend for a second that there aren't good reasons to stop using Linux, what with systemds feature creep and a developer who insists on developing it for his laptop, regardless of what anyone else uses it for (along with his oft-demonstrated arrogance, along with the increasing dependency on systemd for packages in the repositories used by various distributions). Beyond that, the systemd bogeyman is tired -- systemd is solving real problems; don't like the implementation? Write something better. I find almost everyone railing against systemd has never really beaten their head against the alternatives D. Ebdrup posted:Similarly, it's not as if FreeBSD has nothing that Linux doesn't have; aside from ZFS which Linux has, there's boot enviroments, GEOM (for zpool encryption), jails (secure containers, which various linux container technologies aren't built for by default and requires extra stuff to accomplish) and VIMAGE. Aside from that, FreeBSDs netstack is much better than that of FreeBSD (not just in terms of pushing bits, but also when it comes to load average while pushing bits - ie. you can do other things on a machine that's pushing ~96Gbps with a 100Gbps Mellanox NIC). The netstack in freebsd is more efficient in some ways, but much less flexible, especially with tenant networking. The use case is different. D. Ebdrup posted:Also, I don't think it's true that there's more documentation for any given Linux distribution, compared to what's available for FreeBSD - and a lot of what's not in the base system of FreeBSD doesn't need documentation specific for FreeBSD. D. Ebdrup posted:FreeBSD isn't a niche OS any more than Linux is, compared to Windows. Both are nearly invisible compared to Windows, and if you're looking specifically for Linux you won't see FreeBSD. D. Ebdrup posted:The only reason that Linux has a bigger install base than FreeBSD is because there are companies like Redhat which other companies can sue, in case anything breaks - talk with any worthwhile lawyer and accountant who has worked with an IT department during a switch-over. Indemnification doesn't mean "you can sue Red Hat if this breaks". You can't. It means "if you get sued for using Linux with an active subscription, Red Hat will fight it for you". Linux has more usage for historical reasons, with BSD being trapped in limbo while UNIX was pulled from the ashes of AT&T. Linux got more popular then because it was a safe UNIX-like without a sword of damocles over it, and a lot of people got experience with it. Then a lot of people ported software. Commercial support definitely helps. I like BSD. I really do. I wish it were more popular. But if you want to know why it has a marginal marketshare other than vendor derivatives for switched/consoles and Netflix, the right question is "how easy is it to make freebsd a passable daily driver, so I can use the same environment on my servers and my workstation?" And freebsd sucks at that unless you have a thinkpad, honestly. But this isn't the BSD thread, and this whole line of conversation is way off topic.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
D. Ebdrup posted:Linux tracing has nothing on dtrace. In the wrong hands, it's literally a rootkit, able to tell you everything about a system. Brendan Gregg, basically the godfather of dtrace, is nowadays working on BPF for Linux, but it's still not there in terms of where it needs to be to go toe-to-toe with dtrace (although if anyone can do it, it's Brendan). This is all seems fairly irrelevant to the topic at hand and a lot if it questionably true or pure subjective opinion on top of that. I didn't realize I was going to delve into some partisan thing here.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I didn't realize I was going to delve into some partisan thing here. Dude, you are talking about operating systems........
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:Dude, you are talking about operating systems........ Yes, in retrospect I should have realized. I just posted without thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I use it because I like it. I prefer it to Linux for its cleanness when dealing with a server. In comparison, I roll Ubuntu on my media centre box because I want to more easily have Steam and Kodi work and don't care quite about managing data etc. on it. ZFS pre-ZoL was the original shove that made me investigate FBSD. Since then, I've come to prefer it so I've stayed on it. There's really no major reason to use one over the other unless you have a specific niche desire. Where FBSD has better man pages, Linux has more comprehensive community discussion. This is generally the case with most aspects of that comparison - there's just differing trade-offs. Use what you prefer.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Just don't use Storage Spaces. It is too limited, too hard to fix problems. If you want a Windows based file server I suggest Stablebit Drive Pool: https://stablebit.com/DrivePool Oh, thanks for the hint! That looks pretty neat! However, I notice it is described as a file-based solution, as opposed to a block-based one, so I am a bit concerned about how it might handle large files that are modified often (e.g. virtual machine disk images). I suppose I could go with a split solution - storage spaces for large data sets that need block-based behavior and Drive Pool to keep things simple for everything else. I like the fact that it still keeps the disks readable even without using DrivePool - that would definitely simplify recovery.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
EssOEss posted:Oh, thanks for the hint! That looks pretty neat! However, I notice it is described as a file-based solution, as opposed to a block-based one, so I am a bit concerned about how it might handle large files that are modified often (e.g. virtual machine disk images). Yeah I use it strictly for file storage. It is file based meaning you can yank a drive out of the pool and read everything on any computer. Also, NTFS recovery software works with no gotchas. When you use mirroring it uses 2 drives for reads so you get roughly double read performance. I feel like VM storage would work fine but I have no idea how it would handle duplication. You could specify a folder to be used without mirroring.. probably no point though. It's also really easy to yank drives out of a computer and stick them in another, load the Stablebit Drivepool software and you are back in business with the pool. I think the guys that developed Windows Home Server are deving Stablebit Drivepool.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:37
|
|