BitFolk Users May 2019

users@mailman.bitfolk.com

8 participants
6 discussions

Filesystems/volume management for home servers

by Gavin Westwood

With the discussion about RAID 10, that got me back to thinking about better/alternative system to my current RAID1+LVM+EXT4 setup on our Linux home server and I'm looking for advice from other members. Currently we have 13.6 TB of storage (a lot of which are photos by my semi-professional girlfriend, and videos from our wildlife cam which produces about 15 - 20GB of videos a day [email me off-list if you want to want the URLs of my fledgling Youtube hedgehog and bird channels]). There is some amount of file duplication, for instance where I have stuck old backups (copied files and folders, not tar/compressed archives) on there or photos/videos have been copied to different folders (e.g. to categorise), so filesystems with built-in deduplication (like I believe BTRFS has) would be nice. However my main priorities are: maintaining data integrity, ease of administration, and really a sub-category of that: ease to expand or shrink and reallocate storage as required (if necessary - quotas are not required, but crashing due to a full disk is to be avoided). For years I have been looking at BTRFS, but it's never sounded 100% production ready to me (although I remember that at least one distro made it their default fs). Andy's mention of ceph and stratis were something new to me, but I'm not sure if they are a bit much for a single server, and I've no experience with ZFS, but I think I read about some disadvantages that put me off a few years back, but I forget what they were now. Anyway, what do/would you use for this sort of scenario/requirement or what are your experiences with suitable filesystems for my requirements? Just to be clear - I want to ensure that a single disk failure is very unlikely to result in data loss. Also, all disks are currently the spinning disk type, so any features that takes advantage of SSDs would be wasted. Thanks Gavin

5 years, 4 months

Something to laugh at

by Keith Williams

The something today is me My SSH is set up to use a different port and login by key only no passwords. I then added to my firewall a rule that any attempt to connect on ports 22 or 23 would add the IP to a blacklist with a timeout of one day. Any further attempt by that IP to connect on any port would reset the timeout back to 24 hours. It's all logged and I have spent many happy hours running through the log seeing what other ports these miscreants attempt. All well and good until today. I have just returned after a year in the far east, and today still feeling jetlagged, I fired up my desktop computer, not used in just over a year and clicked on the SSH client icon to connect so that I could do my regular log checking but it would not connect, I did not look at the port, but remembered I had changed the keypair a few months ago. So transferred the key across from my laptop, still no joy. Ran windows diagnostics, no response from remote host, pings, nothing. Email, nothing, website nothing. Panic started to set in, could not even get in through XEN, though that should have worked. I used my laptop tethered still to my phone and was in straight away. Different IP. Yes I had locked myself out for 24 hours. In the meantime I had sent a panic email to support. Sorry Andy. It was a matter of minutes once the penny had dropped to get on the laptop and delete my home IP from the blacklist Such a silly elementary mistake So idiot of the day is... Keith

5 years, 4 months

Interesting (?) Linux RAID-10 performance caveat

by Andy Smith

Hello, A new BitFolk server that I will put into service soon has 1x SSD and 1x NVMe instead of 2x SSD. I tried this because the NVMe, despite being vastly more performant than the SATA SSD, is actually a fair bit cheaper. On the downside it only has a 3 year warranty (vs 5) and 26% of the write endurance (5466TBW vs 21024TBW)¹. So anyway, a pair of very imbalanced devices. I decided to take some time to play around with RAID configurations to see how Linux MD handled that. The results surprised me, and I still have many open questions. As a background, for a long time it's generally been advised that Linux RAID-10 gives the highest random IO performance. This is because it can stripe read IO across multiple devices, whereas with RAID-1, a single process will do IO to a single device. Linux's non-standard implementation of the RAID-10 algorithm can also generalise to any amount of devices: conventional RAID-10 requires an even number of devices with a minimum of 4, but Linux RAID-10 can work with 2 or even an odd number. More info about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_RAID_levels#Linux_MD_RAID_10 As a result I have rarely felt the need to use RAID-1 for 10+ years. But, I ran these benchmarks and what I found is that RAID-1 is THREE TIMES FASTER than RAID-10 on a random read workload with these imbalanced devices. Here is a full write up: http://strugglers.net/~andy/blog/2019/05/29/linux-raid-10-may-not-always-be… I can see and replicate the results, and I can tell that it's because RAID-1 is able to direct the vast majority of reads to the NVMe, but I don't know why that is or if it is by design. I also have some other open questions, for example one of my tests against HDD is clearly wrong as it achieves 256 IOPS, which is impossible for a 5,400RPM rotational drive. So if you have any comments, explanations, ideas how my testing methodology might be wrong, I would be interested in hearing. Cheers, Andy ¹ I do however monitor the write capacity of BitFolk's SSDs and they all show 100+ years of expected life, so I am not really bothered if that drops to 25 years. -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

5 years, 4 months

apt-clone problem

by Ian Hobson

Hi All, I am trying to clone my bitfolk Ubuntu 18.04 VPS, using apt-clone. The issue is that the restore overrides /etc/apt/sources.list - so it fails, because it could not connect to apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com:80. Any ideas how to restore the packages? Regards Ian -- Ian Hobson Tel (+351) 910 418 473

5 years, 5 months

[OT] Newbie IPSec problem

by Chris Smith

Hi all, I’m trying to use a Docker/Alpine/Strongswan container on my VPS to connect to another site via IPSec (not my site, not my VPN choice). I’m a newbie to IPSec and would appreciate some help with what I think is probably a pretty basic issue. The IPSec config I have been given (below) is for a site-to-site connection. There is a machine on 10.99.102.92 at the remote site sending packets to 172.30.11.2 on my end and I need the container to be both the VPN endpoint and the destination machine (172.30.11.2). The IPSec connection is established just fine, but I can’t figure out how to properly associate the IP address with the tunnel. I thought this was a simple matter of configuring the IP address on the tunnel device (tunl0) but this fails in a pretty bizarre manner: if I configure the tunnel using ‘ip addr add 172.30.11.2/30 dev tunl0’ then I receive no packets at all. However, if I configure it for any other address in the range, I get the packets for 172.30.11.2. Can someone tell me how I’m supposed to do this? ipsec.conf: conn %default ikelifetime=60m keylife=60m rekeymargin=3m keyingtries=1 authby=secret dpdaction=restart dpddelay=30s dpdtimeout=120 conn net-net authby=psk lifetime=60m type=tunnel right=xx.xx.xx.xx rightsubnet=10.99.102.80/28 rightid=office rightfirewall=yes ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024! esp=aes256-sha1-modp1024! leftid=remote leftsubnet=172.30.11.0/30 auto=start Regards, Chris — Chris Smith <space.dandy(a)icloud.com>

5 years, 5 months

Security incident: Customer's Zimbra install compromised, VPS used for cryptocurrency mining

by Andy Smith

Hi, Today a customer informed us that their install of Zimbra fell victim to CVE-2019-9670, a remote code execution vulnerability disclosed in March of this year: https://blog.tint0.com/2019/03/a-saga-of-code-executions-on-zimbra.html https://lorenzo.mile.si/zimbra-cve-2019-9670-being-actively-exploited-how-t… Since some time in April the attacker had used their VPS as a cryptocurrency miner, using two cores of the BitFolk host's Xeon E5-1680v4 at 100% each. If you run Zimbra and haven't patched this vulnerability you should check that you haven't been compromised, as automated scanning and compromise has been taking place for over a month now. If you discover compromise you will probably need to reinstall. About this email: https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Security_incident_postings Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

5 years, 5 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

BitFolk Users May 2019