BitFolk Users November 2011

users@mailman.bitfolk.com

22 participants
12 discussions

IMPORTANT: You need to renumber the IP address(es) of your BitFolk VPS

by Andy Smith

Dear customer, [ Apologies if you've received duplicate copies of this email; we felt it was of sufficient importance to send direct to the contacts for each account. ] If you've been following our mailing lists you'll know that the time has come where we need you to change the IP address(es) associated with your VPS. Basically: - For each IP address on your VPS you need to enable a new address, which has already been routed to you. - You then need to reconfigure your services to use only the new IP addresses. - Finally you need to disable the old IP addresses. Full information on what you need to do can be found here: https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Renumbering_for_customers The next time you need to reboot your VPS you should take care to instead shut it down and boot it again from your Xen Shell, otherwise you will lose the routes to the new IP addresses that have been added. The old IP addresses will be disabled approximately *three months* from now, so if you don't make these changes before then YOU WILL EXPERIENCE A LOSS OF SERVICE. Therefore if you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask, preferably on our users list: https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users Cheers, Andy -- http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting _______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce

12 years, 10 months

Lenny-to-Squeeze Upgrade Plan - 2nd opinions sought!

by Mathew Newton

Hi everyone, I have decided to venture down what I hope is a well trodden path by now; upgrading my VPS from Debian Lenny to Squeeze. I have scoured the list archives and tried to make the most of http://www.debian.org/releases/squeeze/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h… however I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm no expert in this regard and very much still learning so would appreciate a critique of my plan of action: - Ask Support kindly to perform a temporary disk snapshot - Login via Xen console - Verify no pending actions required for currently installed packages: aptitude (Then hit 'g' once in 'visual mode') - Verify that all packages are in an upgradable state: dpkg --audit - Show currently installed kernel(s): dpkg -l | grep linux-image Mine currently shows: ii linux-image-2.6-xen-686 2.6.26+17+lenny1 Linux 2.6 image on i686, oldstyle Xen suppor ii linux-image-2.6.26-1-xen-686 2.6.26-13lenny2 Linux 2.6.26 image on i686, oldstyle Xen sup ii linux-image-2.6.26-2-xen-686 2.6.26-26lenny2 Linux 2.6.26 image on i686, oldstyle Xen sup - Confirm non-usage of grub2: dpkg -l | grep grub Mine currently shows: ii grub 0.97-47lenny2 GRand Unified Bootloader (Legacy version) ii grub-common 1.96+20080724-16 GRand Unified Bootloader, version 2 (common - Updates apt sources lists from lenny to squeeze: sed -i s/lenny/squeeze/g /etc/apt/sources.list - Manually edit /etc/apt/source.list to confirm success of the above step and comment out any other repositories (non-Debian, backports etc) ? - Upgrade the kernel: (*** Am I aiming for the right one here? ***) aptitude install linux-image-2.6-686-bigmem - Update grub configuration: update-grub - Remove clocksource=jiffies from kopt directive in /boot/grub/menu.lst and confirm correct kernel will be loaded (i.e. default # matches new kernel position) - Upgrade udev (to minimise the risk of running the old udev with the new kernel): apt-get install udev - Reboot - Record a transcript of the upgrade session: script -t 2>~/upgrade-squeeze.time -a ~/upgrade-squeeze.script (This can be reviewed at a later date with scriptreplay ~/upgrade-squeeze.time ~/upgrade-squeeze.script) - Update the package list: apt-get update - Perform a minimal upgrade (i.e. upgrade those packages that don't require installation/removal of any other package(s)): apt-get upgrade - Complete the rest of the upgrade: apt-get dist-upgrade - Remove old/obsolete packages no longer required: apt-get autoremove - (Hopefully:) After the dust settles, advise Support that the snapshot of the old system can be removed Hope does that all look? Please don't hold back... Regards, Mathew

12 years, 11 months

Minecraft Server

by Daniel Case

Hey guys, Does anyone have a Minecraft server running on there VPS? I am thinking about running one on a Bitfolk VPS but I am not sure how successful it will be, also let me know how much memory you have if you can :) Thank you, Daniel

13 years

Ubuntu vs. Debian (was Re: Ubuntu release party tonight - London)

by Graham Bleach

On 13 October 2011 15:12, Dom Latter <bitfolk-users(a)latter.org> wrote: > I trust I can ask this sort of question here without sparking a > religious war - but what advantages are there in using Ubuntu on > a server? I've been an Ubuntu desktop user for some years [1], > but for servers I generally stick with Debian. Based on about 8 years of running 1-3 low-usage personal servers on Debian and 6 months running ~150 Ubuntu server hosts professionally: Ubuntu Pros: - Hardware certification. I can buy hardware with a reasonable expectation that it'll work with a specific release without spending hours attempting to find out how well individual hardware components work. It's not a perfect scheme, but it's a start. - Vendor support. Dell, VMware and others package various useful bits of software and put them in their own repos. They don't all do a brilliant job at it (e.g. VMware's kernel modules are often several ABI versions behind the latest kernel security release) but they do it. [1] Ubuntu Cons: - Security releases. The Debian security team seem to ship patches first and the Ubuntu ones lag a bit. I don't think there's a hugely compelling reason to migrate between them. G [1] Whether or not you trust an organisation enough to add their repos to your apt sources is another matter. I tend to download the debs and stick them in a local apt repo, but this is significantly less work than packaging the software myself.

13 years

Re: [bitfolk] IMPORTANT: You need to renumber the IP address(es) of your BitFolk VPS

by Andy Smith

Hi Michael, On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:36:24PM +0000, Michael Stevens wrote: > I've been busily migrating. As far as I can tell I've now got everything > updated. Is there any easy monitoring I can do to check for traffic to > the old IP? You could use tcpdump. Something like this: # tcpdump -vpni eth0 'host 212.13.19x.y' (This is what we will be using to tell who is still using these addresses, later on) Cheers, Andy -- http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

13 years

Redundancy options

by Nigel Rantor

Hi all, Just wondering if anyone using bitfolk has any form of redundancy in place and what their setup is like. By redundancy here I am thinking load-balancing web/db such that a single server experiencing problems doesn't render the site unreachable. I assume that VIPs aren't something that people can set up without network support. Cheers, n

13 years

Re: [bitfolk] Small issue related to renumbering

by Deanna Earley

Can they be updated semi automagically at the same time backups/nagios change over, I.e. when they start being used... If it makes maintenance easier, you can remove the jane.vps. (sorry about the full quoted reply, this client doesn't do selective quoting :( ) -- Deanna Earley ----- Reply message ----- From: "Andy Smith" <andy(a)bitfolk.com> Date: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 15:32 Subject: [bitfolk] Small issue related to renumbering To: <users(a)lists.bitfolk.com> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:17:54PM +0000, Paul Stimpson wrote: > Do you think you may automate the process of the DNS switch? Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, I take this to mean the addresses that <account>.vps.bitfolk.com points to.. > If so would you rather we waited until that is in place to save > you the support tickets or did it now to get it out the way? As I say I have to admit I didn't consider these host names before we started, but now that the renumbering is underway it seems to me that changing what they point to en masse at any particular time is going to cause some problems for some people who are making use of them. The mapping would change before some people are ready. Meanwhile it seems likely that if the <account>.vps.bitfolk.com hosts continue to point at the old IP addresses until we are asked to change them, then this will cause least disruption. The mapping won't change but would still be pointing at an IP address that most likely works. So, at the moment it seems like the best thing to do is wait for support tickets asking for this mapping to be changed. Cheers, Andy -- http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users

13 years, 1 month

Small issue related to renumbering

by Keith Williams

Not a problem but may be when I remove the 212.13 address from my VPS When I first took on this VPS, I was unable immediately to switch my domain name across, so it was called wnrspca.vps.bitfolk.com This weekend, I did the renumbering on it and it went so smoothly, I thought I must have done something wrong. I changed the DNS A record etc for the domain hosted on it - westnorfolkrspca.org.uk. Everything is working and as I had prepared for the change by setting TTL on the nameserver to 15 minutes, by the end of the day, the old address was history and all was working well. This evening, I was thinking about the log in for the console and realised I use wnrspca.vps.bitfolk.com as the access address, so I did a dig of that name and it came up with the old 212.13 address. Perhaps I ought to put off removing the old address for a while Andy, is that something on your todo list or do you want me to raise a support ticket? Keith -- Keith Williams If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. - Abraham Maslow ทำดีได้ดี ทำชั่วไดชั่ว

13 years, 1 month

T-DOSE

by Andy Bennett

Hi, Is anyone planning to go to T-DOSE next weekend (5/6 November)? Regards, @ndy -- andyjpb(a)ashurst.eu.org http://www.ashurst.eu.org/ 0x7EBA75FF

13 years, 1 month

Odd issue when re-numbering - new IP only routable from some IPs.

by Ewan Leith

Hi all, I've come across a strange issue partway through renumbering, where a new IP is only responding from some hosts on the Internet, and seems only able to route to some IPs itself. The current config (mid-way through the change) is: ip -4 addr show dev eth0 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 inet 212.13.194.116/23 brd 212.13.195.255 scope global eth0 inet 85.119.82.116/21 scope global eth0 ip -4 route show 212.13.194.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 212.13.194.116 85.119.80.0/21 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 85.119.82.116 default via 85.119.80.1 dev eth0 metric 100 My new IP 85.119.82.116 is pingable from some devices, but not others (the old IP is responding from all). And outgoing traffic is also affected, for example I can't connect to Google's Public DNS server 8.8.8.8: traceroute -n 8.8.8.8 traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 85.119.80.17 0.180 ms 0.213 ms 0.193 ms 2 212.13.194.4 0.466 ms 0.593 ms 0.613 ms 3 194.153.169.233 2.631 ms 2.545 ms 2.526 ms 4 134.222.231.29 15.405 ms 15.388 ms 15.366 ms 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * There's lots of other IPs I can and can't connect to (for example 158.43.240.4 works fine), I've not spotted a pattern yet. Incoming traceroute's look odd too: traceroute -n 85.119.82.116 traceroute to 85.119.82.116 (85.119.82.116), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 212.64.153.2 0.581 ms 0.595 ms 0.622 ms 2 92.52.77.60 136.363 ms 136.371 ms 136.409 ms 3 92.52.76.198 0.178 ms 0.196 ms 0.193 ms 4 77.67.75.181 0.271 ms 0.289 ms 0.264 ms 5 89.149.185.165 1.324 ms 89.149.183.178 1.317 ms 89.149.185.230 1.295 ms 6 195.66.224.138 2.021 ms 1.965 ms 2.032 ms 7 129.250.5.25 2.226 ms 2.227 ms 1.944 ms 8 194.153.169.242 2.068 ms 194.153.169.241 2.133 ms 194.153.169.242 2.097 ms 9 85.119.80.16 1.988 ms 1.996 ms 85.119.80.17 2.117 ms If you look at step 9, that's 2 different hosts responding to the same traceroute. Is it possible someone else has setup a host using my new IP at some point, and messed up the routing, then switched their hosts IP? I've obviously done something silly, but I must be going blind. Any ideas? Ewan

13 years, 1 month

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

BitFolk Users November 2011