Hi,
As requested this check is now enabled for all customer DNS zones in
the secondary DNS service. The alert will look like this:
https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Secondary_DNS_service#Zone_serials_match
If you receive it then the first thing to do is to check your
nameserver's logs as it will normally be due to an issue that (only)
you can fix yourself.
Cheers,
Andy
----- Forwarded message from Mike Zanker via users <users(a)lists.bitfolk.com> -----
[…]
>> Maybe we should add some serial number monitoring, so if your zone
>> serial number changes but ours doesn't (because AXFR failed) then
>> that difference would be an alert.
I do like the sound of that, Andy (Smith).
----- End forwarded message -----
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce(a)lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce
Howdy!
I have two VPS on bitfolk. The first one I didn't know I needed a
dedicated IP address, so had to order it and patched it in by editing
/etc/netplan/*.yaml as shown on
https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Ubuntu#The_switch_to_netplan_for_configuring…
I added the - "x.x.x.x/32" (dedicated ip) underneath the - "x.x.x.x./21"
(VPS default IP) and did not use the "tab" ley because yaml didn't like
that.
I did a xen console shutdown and boot. The IP address shows up when
logging in the MOTD and in "ip a" successfully.
However, the dedicated IP address will not ping from outside, but the
default will. I have disabled ufw and still no network access.
On the second VPS, it was setup with dedicated IP address initially. So
both IPs are usable, ping from internet traffic and can be used. The
/etc/netplan/*.yaml on both installs is setup absolutely similar, showing
that my "patching" was correct usage.
Any help would be appreciated! I have never added an interface to a live
setup.
Timmy
Hi,
Ubuntu 22.04 (Jammy Jellyfish) is now available for new installs and
self-installs using our Xen Shell:
https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Using_the_self-serve_net_installer
In a change to previous releases, Ubuntu has switched away from the
Debian installer and recommends that the official Ubuntu Cloud Image
is used for installs on public clouds.
So, when you kick off an install of Ubuntu 22.04 it will:
- ask you for your chosen hostname and password
- overwrite your disk with the image for Ubuntu 22.04
- boot it and customise it automatically using the hostname and
password you provided and information held in your BitFolk
account.
For more information please see the article about Ubuntu at BitFolk:
https://tools.bitfolk.com/wiki/Ubuntu#22.04_.28Jammy_Jellyfish.29_and_beyond
Upgrades from 20.04 to 22.04 can be done as usual using
"do-release-upgrade", although do note that it's normal Ubuntu
policy to not offer an upgrade until the first point release of the
LTS, so at the moment you would need to force that with
"do-release-upgrade -d".
We are not aware of any particular issues with upgrading to or
installing Ubuntu 22.04 at BitFolk. As always you should read
Ubuntu's own release notes for general things to be aware of.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce(a)lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce
Hello,
As you may have seen in the other thread, it's become evident that
we need to embrace cloud-init for installs of Ubuntu 22.04 and
beyond.
I've got that working now, in that I can boot an unmodified Ubuntu
22.04 VM image with an attached disk of custom data, and it
automatically configures itself from that. What remains is to make
our Xen Shell do that bit.
My proposal for how that will work is here:
https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/207
Please give feedback, preferably in redmine (your usual bitfolk
credentials) about that, otherwise that is how it's going to be
done.
I would hope that a later development would be to allow customers to
supply their own cloud-init user-data.
Also feasible later would be to support more distributions that have
gone with cloud-init¹ as, though I do not like working with it, it
is at least a standard and probably supported in more things than
debian-installer and Red Hat Kickstart.
Some people have expressed dislike for using the Debian/Ubuntu text
mode installer in the past, saying that they would prefer something
closer to a "one-click" fully-automated install even if it wasn't as
flexible as something produced by the Debian installer. They will
now have their wish for Ubuntu, and maybe others, though I do not
plan to move away from preseed/kickstart as an option.
Cheers,
Andy
¹ They do still have to have left Xen enabled in their kernel,
unlike RHEL/CentOS, Rocky etc.
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
I had emails returned due to no reverse address. My email server is running
on one of my VPS and I have had all my VPS DNS delegated to me as well. I
have been using the email server since the dawn of time, this hasn't
happened before.
Now after a lot of digging, these servers that rejected said no rDNS on the
IPv4 address (There were infact 2 of them UKmail and BTInternet.) I think
it is because they are querying the Bitfolk servers, because, of course, I
only have the one IPv4 address delegated to me and they are looking for the
IPv4 reverse address of Keynesmail.com at theBitfolk server. It doesn't
know about that domain name - no reason it should really.
So should I ask Andy for secondary DNS for that domain name, would that
solve the problem? Or is there another way out of this. I have a number of
very low traffic domains on that VPS, but this one domain, that of the
email server is causing this heartache.
I guess those 2 are the only ones we have come across using IPv4, all other
addresses sent to just work fine, including Gmail and Yahoo mail. The email
address having problems with the sending is one used by a small local
cancer support group and both the user of it and the intended recipients
are total technophobes as well as being, like me, rather advanced in years.
Keith
Hi,
TL;DR version:
The next Ubuntu LTS release, 22.04, is scheduled for 21 April.
They've made some changes which mean that we likely won't have it
ready in time for new installs and self-installs from the Xen Shell.
It will probably be fine for an upgrade using do-release-upgrade,
but you should wait a while for us to test it.
Full version:
In their wisdom Ubuntu have decided that Debian Installer and
preseeding are no longer for them, and have gone with something else
of their own devising¹ for 22.04. As a result our Xen Shell will
need quite a bit of work to support that (if it is possible), and I
don't expect that to get done in time for the release of 22.04.
I do expect that a do-release-up[grade from 20.04 will work, but I
haven't tried it yet. Unless you are prepared for potential
disaster I suggest you do not be a pioneer for that.
We will soon have a go with that and let you know about any issues,
so I advise waiting.
Cheers,
Andy
¹ https://ubuntu.com/server/docs/install/netboot-amd64
This appears to involve extracting a vmlinuz+initrd from the iso
file, booting those and pointing them to the iso which they
download, mount and use as a live media for install.
By contrast debian-installer is just in the netinstall initrd that
you download, you point it at a Debian mirror and off it goes.
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Hello,
The version of udev that will come with the next Debian stable and
Ubuntu LTS releases has learned about Xen network interfaces and as
a result they will be subjected to "predictable network interface
naming":
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfa…
That is, you won't have an eth0 any more, it will be en123abc or
whatever, based on MAC address.
For new installs, either when ordered or when the customer does an
install via Xen Shell, we could force this to not happen by using
net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line. The single network
interface will then always be eth0.
Arguments in favour of doing this:
- It makes life simpler for BitFolk's post-installation scripts
because they won't have to work out what the network interface
will be called.
- "predictable network interface names" are arguably pointless in
the scenario of a BitFolk VM because the only way to get extra
network interfaces is by explicit configuration either within the
VM by its admin or outside the VM by BitFolk, which would include
what its name is.
Arguments against:
- It's not the default behaviour of the Linux distribution any more.
- If you upgraded a previous release with dist-upgrade /
do-release-upgrade it would get these "predictable names", which
is maybe just an extension of the above point.
Would you have any concerns if you made a new order or did a new
install and it came with net.ifnames=0?
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Hi,
BitFolk's IRC channel has now been relocated to #BitFolk at
irc.libera.chat.
Those of you who were playing a game of Perpetually Against
Humanity¹ in there (has been running for just over 7 years!) can
continue doing so but if your nickname is different on Libera then
please ask me (grifferz) to change it for you in the game's
database. The scores and history have been retained. If you start
playing again under a new nickname it will make fixing that
difficult, so please don't!
The other regular IRC bots are still there too. The channel stats
web page has been broken for a while, but I hope to fix it at some
point.
If you are new to Libera Chat (or IRC in general), you can get
started here:
https://libera.chat/guides/
Cheers,
Andy
¹ https://github.com/grifferz/pah-irc
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
I've just had a brief interchange with a small charity that uses
DigitalOcean for some of their systems. A password-change mail from
their website was binned by my exim instance, for a score of 8.8 given
to it by the Bitfolk SpamAssassin (5.0 of that for coming from Digital
Ocean).
Can anyone suggest how, if at all, I can whitelist mail from that
particular domain in my (Debian) exim4 config, given that I'm using
the Bitfolk SpamAssassin and therefore have no control over it?
Thanks,
Hugo.
--
Hugo Mills | No names... I want to remain anomalous.
hugo@... carfax.org.uk |
http://carfax.org.uk/ |
PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
