00:12:23 <ketas> lw: or hw, that is?
00:12:35 <ketas> the door blew off
00:13:44 <ketas> i bet lot of sw isn't built with "nails as fuses" approach
00:13:52 <ketas> and are checked
00:14:30 <ketas> how do you even imagine it being certified further
00:16:05 <ketas> what about drivers license for computers?
00:16:12 <ketas> lot of users seem to need that
00:16:30 <ketas> but how do you enforce that?
00:19:34 <ketas> also why isn't it engineering
00:22:26 <ketas> yet it runs all?
00:23:30 <ketas> i have no idea how to fix proposed issues
00:23:37 <ketas> in that field
00:24:39 <ketas> grand programmers guild?
00:28:46 <ketas> wouldn't it be nice if i walk info software house and it won't collapse
00:28:53 <ketas> but
04:59:37 <ketas> the xz problem was only noticed after a stray lag appeared to a random guy, while in that severely regulated world, citicorp was asked by random student that looks like your building will fall over if wind blows from the corner
04:59:44 <ketas> who knows really
07:15:05 <johnjaye> on the engineering thing, it is strange how much of a separation there is between software and non-software.
07:15:18 <johnjaye> even in situations where software is directly controlling expensive hardware
07:17:19 <johnjaye> E.g. in the case of the Ariane 5 crash which cost almost $400 million dollars in damages... who was held "accountable" for that? Who lost their job or license? nobody.
07:30:16 <dch> woop woop bsd.network is coming back up again… like email I guess it will take a while to backfill those spicey hot takes
07:31:01 <kevans> dch: o rly?
07:31:20 <kevans> oooo yeah, there it is
08:43:00 <dch> https://status.bsd.network/ new status page and a funny update hopefully the recovery wasn’t too difficult
08:43:01 <VimDiesel> Title: Terrible Status Page
08:55:22 <ketas> johnjaye: yeah, i read that "The system is designed to have a backup, standby system, which unfortunately, runs the exact same code." major fail indeed, double (precision :p) fail... but accountability is other topic, sometimes people get fired, sometimes not, depending, maybe you can't even build teams if you need to fire people all the time... also i didn't fully look into a5, but if somebody said that
08:55:28 <ketas> it's cheaper to use same code for ...
08:55:30 <ketas> ... both, it's no longer sw issue
11:12:11 <dch> I'm using a neovim plugin that takes pretty snapshots https://github.com/mistricky/codesnap.nvim
11:12:12 <VimDiesel> Title: GitHub - mistricky/codesnap.nvim: 📸 Snapshot plugin with rich features that can make pretty code snapshots for Neovim
11:12:49 <dch> it has configurable font names, but I can't figure out how to format the name of the custom font I choose
11:13:46 <dch> is there some sort of tool or standard for how fonts are used?
11:14:15 <dch> fc-list is the best I've found so far for listing but I'm missing some subtlety in how fonts should be named
11:39:51 <dch> I think it's choosing the font but always ends up as italic
11:47:47 <nimaje> dch: fc-match ?
13:58:47 <alepzi> i got a web server that runs nginx and my node app. can i put both of those in a jail or can a jail only have 1 running daemon?
14:10:16 <jastrom> alepzi yes you can run them both in the same jail
14:10:17 <alepzi> i got a web server that runs nginx and my node app. can i put both of those in a jail or can a jail only have 1 running daemon?
14:12:00 <alepzi> just set up the normal rc.conf stuff and a jail can run any number of daemons just like a normal install?
14:14:56 <voy4g3r2> pretty much
14:18:51 <alepzi-> just set up the normal rc.conf stuff and a jail can run any number of daemons just like a normal install?
14:21:25 <alepzi--> just set up the normal rc.conf stuff and a jail can run any number of daemons just like a normal install?
14:21:36 <alepzi--> sorry dunno what's up with my internet
14:22:05 <[0x1eef]> The question came through fine, all three times :P
14:23:19 <alepzi--> sorry bout that
14:24:23 <voy4g3r2> alepzi--: yes, you can setup a nginx and node app on the same jail
14:24:55 <voy4g3r2> alepzi--: navigate to the jail and perform the actions you would perform outside of jail. thinkgs like pkg -j <jailname> install <node and other stff>
14:25:16 <alepzi--> and the jail's /etc/rc.conf to enable services?
14:25:30 <voy4g3r2> correct
14:25:36 <alepzi--> ok tyvm
14:25:42 <voy4g3r2> you are welcome
14:26:22 <alepzi--> there any limitations on a jail vs a full install?
14:38:24 <voy4g3r2> alepzi--: a jail can not be a highver version than the baseline operating system
14:38:37 <alepzi--> anything else?
14:38:42 <voy4g3r2> alepzi--: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/jails/
14:38:43 <VimDiesel> Title: Chapter 17. Jails and Containers | FreeBSD Documentation Portal
14:38:49 <alepzi--> yep, read it
14:38:50 <voy4g3r2> there are a few areas.. thick jail vs thin jail vs vnet
14:41:25 <voy4g3r2> so i am not sure what you mean by limitations
14:41:51 <voy4g3r2> it comes to personal preference at this point, i am NOT a fan of thin jails
14:42:06 <alepzi--> ya seems most ppl advocate thick jails
14:42:09 <voy4g3r2> but reason is subjective and not based on the handbook.. i just read what the differences are and picked thick jails as it is more isoaltion and hard drive space is cheap
14:42:44 <voy4g3r2> then some will say they prefer vnet setup so they can build out a network.. which is fine too
14:43:12 <alepzi--> ya i hear that too, to use vnet with jails
14:43:26 <alepzi--> so that's my plan, vnet thick jails
14:44:00 <alepzi--> then maybe thin jails within thick jails if i ever want to nest
14:44:27 <voy4g3r2> uhh, i would not recommend that
14:44:32 <voy4g3r2> have distinct jails
14:44:44 <alepzi--> don't recommend what exactly, nested jails?
14:44:47 <voy4g3r2> yes
14:44:51 <alepzi--> why not? jc
14:44:55 <voy4g3r2> just make stand alone jails
14:45:04 <voy4g3r2> that makes it more difficult to manage.. how many levels deep are you going?
14:45:14 <voy4g3r2> host -> jail -> jail -> jail
14:45:17 <voy4g3r2> host -> jail
14:45:35 <voy4g3r2> have multiple top of hte level jail and then figure out how to get jail #1 to talk to jail #2
14:46:09 <voy4g3r2> it is not to say you could not nest jails inside of jails, i just think it would add complexity to the situation that is not needed
14:51:05 <alepzi--> ok ty
17:55:03 <voy4g3r2> would anyone have tips/tricks on why a bhyve client could not communicate with a host (through a simple ping) but can download pkgs and browse web? the host can ping the bhyve... the bhyve can ping everything EXCEPT the host
18:00:26 <hernan> voy4g3r2: host is blocking ping ?
18:01:11 <hernan> voy4g3r2: try to listen on a random port in the host ie. nc -l 9999  and then try to connect from vm into host ie. telnet $host 9999
18:01:23 <hernan> lower your firewall
18:03:09 <voy4g3r2> the host can ping the client
18:03:17 <voy4g3r2> the client can ping the host and ANY other machine
18:03:32 <voy4g3r2> i can even ssh into the bhyve machine no problem
18:30:49 <alepzi> are zfs features useful to thick jails or only to thin jails?
19:23:19 <alepzi> oh i guess zfs clone can't be used with thick jails
19:32:23 <rwp> alepzi, What's your definition of thick jail that it can't work with zfs clone?
19:32:39 <alepzi> i guess thick jail means it has its own base
19:33:45 <rwp> A zfs clone is a live file system like any other.  But it is sharing disk space underneath with another branch of the file system.  The usual purpose of a clone is to share that space.  If one removes and replaces all files then the disk space is no longer shared.  But that is not the same as not working with it.  Right?
19:36:19 <rwp> zfs clones are good for when someone has a template that is all set up.  Maybe change a couple of things in /etc for it.  Then clone out a hundred or thousand of them and they all share the disk space and can be forked off almost instantaneously.  All of the disk space is shared.
19:36:47 <rwp> But it works best when those images are temporary, created on demand for a short run time, and then discarded afterward freeing up the space.
19:37:26 <alepzi> so clone is best for ephemeral jails, not long running ones?
19:37:40 <rwp> Right!
19:38:07 <rwp> If one is going to create a long running image where everything over time is going to change then a clone does not save any space.  Yet zfs still needs to keep track of all of the reference pointers.  Better there just to start off with a fresh empty dataset for it then.
19:39:09 <rwp> All of those things will "work" though.  You won't notice any failures or it not working.  It's just a matter of disk space usage.  The organization chosen will have an effect on disk space use.
19:44:19 <alepzi> i better learn more on zfs fundamentals like clone vs copy vs template...
19:44:23 <alepzi> ty
19:46:10 <ketas> clones suck
19:46:18 <ketas> how do i upgrade it?
19:46:18 <alepzi> why
19:46:19 * rwp laughs
19:46:53 <rwp> ketas is illustrating exactly the problem with clones and *long running jails that need upgrades*.
19:47:09 <ketas> if i disconnect it
19:47:11 <ketas> it's fucked
19:47:18 <ketas> no "dedup"
19:47:28 <ketas> i use nullfs mounts
19:47:51 <ketas> i actually have own etc's under /root
19:48:06 <ketas> bonus: no space usage
19:48:40 <ketas> i have jail dist over which i tar | tar some changes
19:49:03 <ketas> it's a zfs dataset
19:49:20 <ketas> so i can just destroy it on upgrade
19:49:23 <ketas> after jails stop
19:50:20 <ketas> but sometimes you need writable etcs
19:50:50 <ketas> oh, /usr/local comes from on of the jails
19:50:54 <ketas> one
19:51:00 <ketas> others have it ro
20:04:07 <n30> is there any way to get freebsd faster in read and write on disks ? i have ssd disks in my box and its extremely slow ... i have an identical box but with debian and that is 10 times faster. 1048576000 bytes transferred in 79.344914 secs (13215415 bytes/sec) <-- -this dd test is from freebsd box ... 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 14.2255 s, 73.7 MB/s <-- this one is my debian box. 2 identical
20:04:13 <n30> servers
20:06:49 <V_PauAmma_V> What bs= value do you use in dd? (default or explicit)
20:07:25 <n30> dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/file.txt count=1024 bs=1024000
20:07:33 <n30> did i write
20:09:58 <V_PauAmma_V> "1024000" is a weird blocksize, in that it's not a power of 2. For dd, FreeBSD performs best with "bs=128K", IIRC.
20:10:24 <ketas> use status=progress too
20:10:26 <n30> but the box is extremely slow no matter what i do
20:11:06 <hernan> n30: ssd can become fragmented over time. maybe thats the case ?
20:11:31 <hernan> also, what FS is it?
20:11:40 <ketas> and which ssd
20:13:02 <n30> samsung evo 850
20:13:11 <n30> and its ufs filesystem
20:13:24 <ketas> 13m/a, 73m/s only?
20:13:26 <n30> err 870
20:13:54 <ketas> i hope the reads are better
20:14:20 <n30> not on the freebsd server, its really crappy here
20:14:34 <hernan> i have had that same question years ago. UFS write speed sloooow vs linux, but on sata hdds. I dont think i found the answer. but no problem with ZFS
20:14:55 <ketas> i had slow zfs years ago
20:15:03 <hernan> =p
20:15:14 <ketas> it was fucking slow and i attributed it to zfs
20:15:38 <rwp> Verify that the SATA interface is running at 6 Gbit/s, I use "smartctl -i /dev/ada0 | grep current:" to report it.
20:15:40 <n30> it was fast as crazy before but not anymore
20:16:39 <ketas> zfs is still kinky
20:16:58 <ketas> but how can ssd to be that slow...
20:16:59 <n30> rwp: i dont have any current there .
20:17:35 <n30> rwp: https://pastebin.com/Gquu6QiY
20:17:36 <VimDiesel> Title: [root@mail ~]# smartctl -i /dev/da0smartctl 7.4 2023-08-01 r5530 [FreeBSD 13.2 - Pastebin.com
20:18:03 <rwp> n30, https://termbin.com/napb
20:18:38 <n30> rwp: i have raid on my box . 2 disks in raid 1
20:18:53 <n30> but it have been way much faster
20:19:50 <ketas> lacks smart
20:19:53 <ketas> how?
20:20:10 <rwp> I always raid everything too.  That example is just one disk in the pair.  But I am using zfs pretty much everywhere.
20:20:29 <ketas> it's connected to usb or what?
20:20:34 <rwp> pkg install smartmontools
20:21:03 <n30> The most recent versions of packages are already installed
20:21:09 <ketas> oh right
20:21:13 <rwp> Just for background information "geom disk list" will list the devices, and the sector and stripe sizes.  Is it possible that it is a 4K AF disk but used as a 512 byte sector one?
20:23:18 <ketas> are we dd'ing hdd or ssd here now
20:28:09 <rwp> There is also "diskinfo -cit /dev/adaX" there too.  Here is an example from here: https://termbin.com/7jn0
20:35:26 <n30> rwp: ill test
20:35:55 <n30> https://pastebin.com/GJw18ahU
20:35:56 <VimDiesel> Title: [root@mail ~]# diskinfo -cit /dev/da0/dev/da0 512 # secto - Pastebin.com
20:37:11 <hernan> da0 ? is that usb ?
20:38:52 <rwp> USB storage is always terrible performance.  And often glitchy.
20:42:07 <ketas> i wish usb is better
20:42:31 <ketas> iirc usb3+ actually had some better standards?
20:42:33 <n30> hernan: nah not usb
20:42:37 <n30> its hp raid array
20:42:54 <ketas> but where's the ssd you tested
20:43:13 <n30> da0 is the raid 1 with 2 pieces of ssd
20:43:22 <ketas> oh
20:43:23 <n30> i have an identical box with debian on that works ten times faster
20:43:41 <n30> this freebsd box was fast as crazy before with both reads and writes
20:43:55 <ketas> hence the wrong data
20:44:19 <ketas> but why is it ffs 13mbytes/s
20:44:24 <n30> i have for some weeks ago removed drives from server and checked with smart tool in windows to see if disks are broken but they have 92% health left
20:44:39 <n30> so there is no issues with disks hw or the raid
20:45:03 <n30> yeah i wonder that too
20:45:09 <ketas> might as well raid 1 two 2.0 usb flashes then
20:45:14 <n30> before it took a few minutes to compile kernel ... now it take hours
20:45:16 <ketas> same speed
20:45:54 <ketas> before?
20:46:12 <ketas> what was there before?
20:46:12 <n30> yeah a few months ago
20:46:21 <ketas> hdd's?
20:46:25 <n30> ketas: the ssd drives were faster then
20:46:31 <ketas> but how
20:46:54 <n30> ì dont know? that is why i ask here
20:46:55 <ketas> there was older fbsd there?
20:46:56 <n30> im all out of ideas
20:47:01 <n30> nah
20:47:03 <n30> same as now
20:47:15 <ketas> so now it's slow?
20:47:24 <n30> Yes
20:47:27 <ketas> maybe ssd actually crapped out
20:47:32 <ketas> or raid card
20:47:49 <ketas> sadly you can't test now
20:48:00 <n30> crapped out?
20:48:09 <ketas> well if it worked before
20:48:13 <hernan> do you have spare ssd to replace and see if it writes faster ?
20:48:16 <ketas> same hw same fbsd
20:48:29 <n30> hernan: nah i dont not yet
20:48:52 <ketas> i'd suggest, on upgrade, do mirror in zfs
20:49:02 <ketas> could at least debug more
20:49:03 <n30> but i checked the drives with crystaldiskinfo and i have 92% health left?
20:49:13 <hernan> or switch with the windows raid and disks and see if there is any difference
20:50:14 <ketas> clue is probably, it was fast before
20:50:23 <hernan> give that windows raid equipment is similar, maybe you could take out the windows disks, replace with the freebsd disks and plug on the freebsd and see if that changes anything
20:50:54 <hernan> that will tell you if the raid equiment has degraded (it shouldnt but..)
20:52:05 <n30> hernan: did not test speeds in windows with them... i only verified the drive health to be sure its not "broken"
20:52:21 <ketas> get spare ssd
20:52:29 <ketas> take old one out and r/w test it
20:52:38 <hernan> yeah
20:53:15 <hernan> and keep it as backup with health left goes down to 5%
20:53:24 <hernan> better be prepared
20:54:01 <ketas> what was read speed?
20:54:10 <ketas> but write... hell knows
20:54:20 <ketas> does it get hot?
20:54:29 <ketas> they do throttle
20:54:39 <ketas> some
20:54:59 <ketas> how much writes it got?
20:58:11 <ketas> i hope that raid allows smart passthru
20:59:16 <ketas> i wonder if raid does trim...
21:01:35 <ketas> so much fun with hw raid
21:02:25 <ketas> yes they have benefits