1520823821 M * Bertl_oO  off to bed now ... have a good one everyone!
1520823823 N * Bertl_oO Bertl_zZ
1520843321 J * nikolay ~nikolay@149.235.255.3
1520844473 J * Le_Coyote ~smokey@253.242.118.78.rev.sfr.net
1520844480 M * Le_Coyote 'Morning
1520852862 N * Bertl_zZ Bertl
1520852865 M * Bertl  morning folks!
1520852872 M * Le_Coyote Mo'in
1520852892 M * Bertl how's going?
1520852917 M * Le_Coyote Happily running 4.9.86 + vs :)
1520852929 M * Bertl glad to hear!
1520852962 M * Le_Coyote I must admin I was on the verge of starting the move to LXC
1520852964 M * Le_Coyote admit*
1520853011 M * Bertl well, LXC has become quite useful over the years
1520853098 M * Le_Coyote You are a (much-revered) one-man army :/ Meaning it's harder for you to maintain vserver patches than it is to get an up-to-date LXC. No fingerpointing here, just stating the obvious
1520853163 M * Bertl LXC is definitely the future ... the main problem there is that it is evolving quite slowly nowadays
1520853189 M * Le_Coyote I guess you've tried submitting vserver stuff there?
1520853261 M * Bertl there is no real point in doing so, back then we had a good chance to get Linux-VServer (the functionality) into mainline, but unfortunately there was the ugly OpenVZ implementation pushing towards mainline as well
1520853314 M * Bertl as so often, for political reasons, this resulted in mainline doing 'their own thing'
1520853319 M * Le_Coyote What I meant is, perhaps there are atomic changes that would port some of the vserver features onto LXC?
1520853350 M * Le_Coyote e.g. VIRT_MEM/CPU/LOAD ? (not sure if it's there already)
1520853357 M * Bertl what's mainly missing in LXC is virtualization
1520853373 M * Bertl and that's exactly what the maintainer(s) do not want to do in LXC
1520853417 M * Le_Coyote Why is that?
1520853444 M * Bertl IIRC the main argument is: "if you want that, go fo KVM"
1520853493 M * Bertl but if you feel like trying, the VIRTMEM stuff is fairly independant from Linux-VServer ...
1520853619 M * Le_Coyote I don't think I'm anywhere near capable of doing that
1520854080 M * Le_Coyote Bertl: apart from VIRT*, what's vserver doing that LXC isn't, in terms of virtualization?
1520854208 M * Bertl network isolation and disk limits
1520854209 M * AlexanderS The network stuff...
1520854246 M * Bertl as well as some other useful limits to prevent a guest from starving the host
1520854258 M * Bertl (not really virtualization though)
1520854274 J * FireEgl Fire_OFTC@2001:470:e56c:1:8cdb:ad46:a830:4815
1520854293 M * AlexanderS Securing the networking with lxc is a real pain.
1520854298 M * Le_Coyote Ha.
1520854299 M * Le_Coyote Shame.
1520854324 M * Le_Coyote So basically, if you want relatively easy isolation, there's VServer, and then there's KVM?
1520855381 M * Bertl kind of, yes ...
1520855733 M * Le_Coyote :/
1520855784 M * Ghislain or go freebsd jail ( #gotyou !)
1520855806 M * Le_Coyote That too.
1520855828 M * Le_Coyote I should be getting my hands on a couple of FreeBSD servers sometime this yeah if all goes well
1520855840 M * Le_Coyote It will be a good opportunity to experiment
1520855868 M * Le_Coyote OTOH, last time I checked, FBSD still didn't have mitigation against spectre/meltdown
1520855885 M * Ghislain ;), freebsd is a lot of changes so be prepared, i was trolling mostly. I loved freebsd but now i have too much invested in linux
1520855894 M * Ghislain it has now
1520855948 M * Le_Coyote It does?
1520855969 M * Ghislain even netbsd has it now
1520855993 M * Le_Coyote Sure, lots of changes. But this project is merely about moving a website (classic LAMP stack), so I don't expect much in terms of migration
1520856279 M * Bertl Ghislain: how good is the virtualization part on BSD jails nowadays?
1520856350 M * Ghislain tey catch up with some cgroup, you can limit ram and cpu but there is not a lot more. The great part is their integration with zfs where you can give right to a sub tree to a jail
1520856369 M * Ghislain but they can virtualize network like vserver, this is why i keep them on the radar
1520856383 M * Ghislain they do not have yet i think limits on disk bandwidth
1520856418 M * Bertl is memory properly shown in a 'guest'?
1520856433 M * Ghislain i think yes
1520856482 M * Bertl don't they have some level of Linux binary compatibility as well?
1520856496 M * Le_Coyote Ghislain: they *can* virtualize the network? Meaning a jail is isolated with its own IP address?
1520856499 M * Bertl probably not enough for a full Linux guest ...
1520856533 M * Ghislain no jails is paravirt you will not run linux inside a jail
1520856540 M * Ghislain you will run a freebsd guest
1520856563 M * Ghislain yes they have some but it is not really maintened as i recall
1520856610 M * Ghislain running a debian guest inside a jails should not work i think
1520856645 M * Bertl yeah, I thought so, but I remember that they 'claimed' at some point that Linux binaries can be executed
1520856661 M * Ghislain Le_Coyote:  they can share ip of the host like vserver or give a specific one
1520856709 M * Ghislain bertl: yes but the 64bit is recently added, i will not trust it, even more because the bsd people i listen to are quite smug toward linux things
1520856727 M * Bertl yeah, as usual :)
1520856736 M * Ghislain so i dont feel this is a "state of the art" compatibility thing
1520856763 M * Ghislain illumos stack is more robust for that because they have a loooot of customer on linux jails
1520856769 M * Le_Coyote Ghislain: Is a jail's root able to sniff the host's network for example?
1520856782 M * Ghislain i dont think but never tried
1520859393 Q * Aiken Remote host closed the connection
1520864538 J * obeardly ~obeardly@12.153.3.33
1520865721 Q * FireEgl Ping timeout: 480 seconds
1520866483 J * FireEgl Fire_OFTC@2001:470:e56c:1:8cdb:ad46:a830:4815
1520868571 M * obeardly Hey, I'm having issues keeping my ulimit set on my guest machines.  I need a ulimit of 8192 for apache, however, it keeps defaulting back to 1024.  Anyone have any suggestions? 
1520868916 M * Bertl first, there are a bunch of ulimits (rlimits) so you definitely need to specify which one
1520868922 M * obeardly apache
1520868934 M * Bertl assuming, that you are referring to the file handle limit
1520868966 M * Bertl it is very likely that your guest has a config file for that which lowers the number of file handles
1520868999 M * Bertl check /etc/limits.conf or /etc/security/limits.conf
1520869025 M * Bertl (inside the guest)
1520869113 M * obeardly I have them set to 8192 in /etc/security/limits.conf, but every time it reboots, it reverts to 1024
1520869169 M * Bertl what's the limit on the host?
1520869183 M * obeardly 16000
1520869195 M * Bertl and did you set a ulimit for the guest (in the guest config)
1520869249 M * Bertl i.e. in /etc/vservers/<guest>/ulimits ?
1520869277 M * obeardly yes, it's set to 8192
1520869301 M * Bertl then something in your guest decides to lower it
1520869316 M * Bertl maybe some startup scripts or so
1520869319 M * obeardly Okay, thank you.  I'll continue to try to hunt it down. 
1520869376 M * Bertl how do you test the limit for apache?
1520869478 M * obeardly I just check it at the command line.  ulimit -n
1520869551 M * Bertl you are aware that those limits are per user process
1520869586 M * obeardly Yes, but apache recommends 8192.  I don't know why. I've actually never looked into it. 
1520869596 M * Bertl so if you login via ssh or use enter/su or similar, the limits might be quite different to what the apache process sees
1520869755 M * Bertl  off for now ... bbl
1520869762 N * Bertl Bertl_oO
1520869844 M * obeardly Bertl_oO: As usual, you're right sir.  Thank you.  I check the /proc/{apache_process}/limits and it's showing the proper setting. 
1520869959 M * obeardly I should have known that.  It just slipped my mind.  Working in big data the last 3 years has made me lazy. 
1520870411 J * Ghislain1 ~ghislain@adsl1.aqueos.com
1520870420 Q * Ghislain Read error: Connection reset by peer
1520873498 Q * nikolay Quit: Leaving
1520879791 M * Bertl_oO obeardly: no problem, you're welcome! 
1520886945 J * Aiken ~Aiken@2001:44b8:2168:1000:b26e:bfff:fe2a:b951