Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 6 7 8 9 [10]
[#] Tue Dec 28 2021 12:57:32 EST from LoanShark

Subject: Re: Citadel 942 released -- big changes to encryption

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And yes, filesystems with built-in snapshotting are an insanely great

blessing.

To be clear, I am talking about block-layers with built-in snapshotting. btrfs, on the other hand, is no bueno from what I am hearing.

[#] Tue Dec 28 2021 15:16:11 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

Subject: Re: Citadel 942 released -- big changes to encryption

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hmm. I've been using it for years to create, rotate, duplicate, and restore snapshots. Never had a problem. YMMV. btrfs certainly has its detractors, mainly people who are enamored with ZFS as far as I can tell. I dunno, it works for me.

In the future I'd like to have Citadel create its own backups by creating database replicas, and standing up multiple servers in a master/slave configuration.
That's a somewhat distant future plan, though.

[#] Wed Dec 29 2021 10:43:35 EST from LoanShark

Subject: Re: Citadel 942 released -- big changes to encryption

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Article: Examining btrfs, Linuxbs perpetually half-finished filesystem

This btrfs filesystem overview highlights some longstanding shortcomings

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/

[#] Wed Dec 29 2021 13:10:16 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

Subject: Re: Citadel 942 released -- big changes to encryption

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Fair enough. I don't make much use of btrfs raid5/raid6, which is where they say the biggest problem is. The vast majority of my btrfs deployments are on virtual machines where RAID is being handled at some other layer of the hosting stack. On my home machine I have a pair of enterprise-grade 800 GB SSD in a btrfs raid1 pool, which works well. I'd be willing to expand that pool and I'm well aware of the risk of losing two disks with raid1, but if I really lost two disks at the same time ... that's what backups are for :)

They're obviously trying to make it equivalent to WAFL. NetApp has a few decades head start on them.

Since this room is really the Citadel announcements mailing list, I'll bring it full circle. The absolute best way to do a backup of a Citadel database is to snapshot it and then make a copy of the snapshot. Berkeley DB tends to be friendly to online backups as long as you copy the cdb.* files first and the log.* files second, but for *any* database there is never anything better than a point-in-time snapshot.

Speaking of mailing lists, we're still being blocked by gmail, so many of you are not reading this. If you happen to see this message and you are a gmail user, please do me a favor and find *any* mail from citadel.org in your spam folder, and mark it as "not spam". This will help teach Google that we are not spammers.

[#] Wed Dec 29 2021 18:44:39 EST from Nurb432

Subject: Re: Citadel 942 released -- big changes to encryption

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Got mine upgraded but the versions dont match for core and webcit? Server says 942 but webcit still says 941  ( easy install ).  Will have to tackle Lets Encrypt bot this weekend. 

 

And sort of related to the last 2 posts: i wonder what the max load we could take with a decent sized box. ( concurrent.. not just mailboxes registered )



[#] Wed Jan 26 2022 14:59:50 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

Subject: Re: Citadel 942 released -- big changes to encryption

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, don't worry about the components being off by a small number, they don't always get updated in unison. It'll tell you pretty clearly if you've got the wrong one :)

Go to page: First ... 6 7 8 9 [10]