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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
