71–80 of 94 posts
At home I have a small server farm of cheap Ryzen PCs. Mostly continuous integration and testing for open source projects, but also some LLM. If I have some idea, I just throw it into farm and see results a few days later. It is slower than renting in cloud, bit about 4x cheaper. It also heats my house a bit in winter...
You must have cheap electricity where you live...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mmm. So is MicroCloud essentially a glue between LXD + Ceph? It's not really clear what the problem MicroCloud is trying to solve, though. Considering that LXD already supports multi-node clustering, why does anyone want another cluster manager on top of LXD?
Paraphrased, they are saying LXD is more suited to running VMs or containers and not specifically microservices. It's missing sophisticated cross-container networking, centralized storage management, etc. So they are pitching a "simpler than K8S, more complicated than LXD" layer on top of LXD for that purpose. I suppose it also would compete with Proxmox, which is a somewhat different space than K8S. But other things…
Now I know Ubuntu just launched the product but damn they suck at selling it. The landing page doesn't even give you examples of applications you can run on it.
Also I'm sorry but you need to have the word "docker" a few times on that page if you want to catch any flies. Your CTO/CIO will also want to see some kind of fake enterprise app store to consider it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be a bad thing if people learned from the previous iteration. But they don't. In fact, what they generally do is layer an implementation of the stuff they forgot last time on top of the preceding iteration which lacked it. So now, we have clusters of Linux boxes, built with a ton of new tooling on top of Linux because Linux is a UNIX and traditional UNIX doesn't have networking or clustering in the design…
> Tell me how you mount the filesystem of box2 in a folder on box1 It's not that hard. Just install Ubuntu, then VMware, then Windows, then WSL, then Docker, then a microcloud inside a container, then you can easily run a headless Dropbox client to sync that folder.
Also, sshfs will do the job at least up to a point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tell me how you mount the filesystem of box2 in a folder on box1 It's not that hard. Just install Ubuntu, then VMware, then Windows, then WSL, then Docker, then a microcloud inside a container, then you can easily run a headless Dropbox client to sync that folder.
I get the sarcasm, but seriously -- did we just forget about NFS? Also, sshfs will do the job at least up to a point.
This was my take, FWIW. https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/16/canonical_microcloud/
So basically it's VMware but with more nodes required
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This demo is very hard to follow indeed. They are just jumping around, demoing features, but not talking about how it all fits together.
I agree, but as I said in the article, the first stage of the demo failed, and after some frantic attempts to tear down and rebuild the cluster, they gave up, moved on to later stage of the demo, and then came back to it. Which is why it's incoherent and doesn't fit together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Linux's /proc is [...] still objectively better than sysctl Is it though? AFAIK there is no way to get an atomic snapshot of the contents of /proc so any attempt to traverse the tree will be met with "No such file or directory" errors as processes end. You can reproduce this with a simple: doas find /proc -name pid -exec cat {} \; Whereas sysctl returns a consistent snapshot of the data requested.
My point is about the elegance of using open/read/write/close (the mantra of Plan 9) versus going through a complex interface full of constants defined in a C header file. A bunch of shell commands stitched together is the wrong level of abstraction for taking atomic snapshots of anything. Even "ls | xargs cat" suffers from the same problem: ls might output the name of a file that gets deleted or renamed before cat c…
I certainly agree with you that they are more pleasant to use, and I think procfs could one day solve the atomic snapshot issue. For example, there could be a /proc/snapshot directory. Running mkdir inside there could take a snapshot that the calling process would then be free to traverse at its leisure. It could be tied to the process group that called mkdir to make sure the snapshot gets automatically cleaned up when the calling process terminates. I think this would work a lot better with Plan 9's per-process namespaces but it could be hacked onto Linux.
At that point, the only argument I would have against procfs would be that we'd be paying for hundreds to thousands of syscalls compared to sysctl costing us only one syscall (or rather, two syscalls if I'm reading the FreeBSD source for kinfo_getallproc correctly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been a few years since I've looked at bhyve. Is it maturing well? Are there any tools that make managing it easier now?
Very stable. Libvirt is supported. So you can now use a GUI [0] [1] There's a few web control panels too if that's your thing. I can't fault it. A bit rough round the edges and manual in some places but as expected. Has tackled everything I've thrown at it from Windows Servers to Linux, VPNs to Routers all very well. You won't get the bells and whistles of an enterprise hypervisor, however for a Tier-2 hypervisor, it…
It might be fun running my homelab on FreeBSD 14...