sailingbythelee @ sailingbythelee @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

684

Joined

2 yr. ago

Thanks, you are incredibly helpful. The four HDDs in the R420 are SCSI drives, while the ones in the SC220 are SAS drives, and it is indeed the 10 SAS drives in the SC220 that have two device letters each. Wow, how about that. If this is the explanation for why there are two devices per drive, I see on the SAS wiki that it has something to do with: "SAS devices feature dual ports, allowing for redundant backplanes or multipath I/O; this feature is usually referred to as the dual-domain SAS."

That gives me plenty to go on for further online research. I was just getting crap search results before, but now I have a better idea what to search for. Thanks a lot!!

Yes, thanks. After some experimenting, I did find the raidz1 setting and plan to use it for sure!

Very interesting and thanks for helping me with this. I do have both SAS cables plugged in. I double-checked the back of the SC220 and I'm definitely only using the "A" ports. The lsblk command you suggested is interesting. Here is the output for the drives with two device letters.

first set of device letters* sde 8:64 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sde1 8:65 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sde9 8:73 0 8M 0 part
sdf 8:80 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdf1 8:81 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sdf9 8:89 0 8M 0 part
sdg 8:96 0 838.4G 0 disk AL13SEB900 ├─sdg1 8:97 0 838.4G 0 part
└─sdg9 8:105 0 8M 0 part
sdh 8:112 0 838.4G 0 disk AL13SEB900 ├─sdh1 8:113 0 838.4G 0 part
└─sdh9 8:121 0 8M 0 part
sdi 8:128 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdi1 8:129 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sdi9 8:137 0 8M 0 part
sdj 8:144 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdj1 8:145 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sdj9 8:153 0 8M 0 part
sdk 8:160 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdk1 8:161 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sdk9 8:169 0 8M 0 part
sdl 8:176 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdl1 8:177 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sdl9 8:185 0 8M 0 part
sdm 8:192 0 838.4G 0 disk AL13SEB900 ├─sdm1 8:193 0 838.4G 0 part
└─sdm9 8:201 0 8M 0 part
sdn 8:208 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdn1 8:209 0 931.5G 0 part
└─sdn9 8:217 0 8M 0 part

***** second set of device letters***** sdo 8:224 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdo1 8:225 0 2G 0 part
└─sdo2 8:226 0 929.5G 0 part
sdp 8:240 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdp1 8:241 0 2G 0 part
└─sdp2 8:242 0 929.5G 0 part
sdq 65:0 0 838.4G 0 disk AL13SEB900 ├─sdq1 65:1 0 2G 0 part
└─sdq2 65:2 0 836.4G 0 part
sdr 65:16 0 838.4G 0 disk AL13SEB900 ├─sdr1 65:17 0 2G 0 part
└─sdr2 65:18 0 836.4G 0 part
sds 65:32 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sds1 65:33 0 2G 0 part
└─sds2 65:34 0 929.5G 0 part
sdt 65:48 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdt1 65:49 0 2G 0 part
└─sdt2 65:50 0 929.5G 0 part
sdu 65:64 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdu1 65:65 0 2G 0 part
└─sdu2 65:66 0 929.5G 0 part
sdv 65:80 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdv1 65:81 0 2G 0 part
└─sdv2 65:82 0 929.5G 0 part
sdw 65:96 0 838.4G 0 disk AL13SEB900 ├─sdw1 65:97 0 2G 0 part
└─sdw2 65:98 0 836.4G 0 part
sdx 65:112 0 931.5G 0 disk ST91000642SS ├─sdx1 65:113 0 2G 0 part
└─sdx2 65:114 0 929.5G 0 part

The first set and the second set do show that they are assigned to the same device model, which makes sense since I can also see in the Gnome "Disks" app that each of these disks has two device letters (e.g. sde and sdo). However, the interesting thing I noticed in the output above is that the first set of device letters show the smaller partition as 8M in size and the second set of device letters show the smaller partition as 2G in size. I recall that when I first looked at the disks, before I started using zpool to experiment with creating pools, all of the drives in the SC220 had a 2G partition labeled "swap" (in the Gnome Disks app). After I created a zpool using devices sde-sdn, the devices in the zpool have a partition that is 8M in size. Now only the second set of devices (sdo-sdx) still have the 2G partition, which seems weird. Are there two partition tables?

That's good to know. I've been experimenting with zpool with some success this afternoon. The one weird thing is that the disks in the SC220 have two device letters each, while the ones in the R420 have a single device letter in /dev/. Like so:

R240 Disk 1: sda Disk 2: sdb Disk 3: sdc Disk 4: sdd

SC220 Disk 5: sde and sdo Disk 6: sdf and sdp ... Disk 14: sdn and sdx

Any idea why a single disk is assigned two device letters, and whether it matters once I create the pool?

Okay, I think that's basically what I'm trying to do, though I don't know if I already have a JBOD. My drives certainly do show up on my desktop as just a bunch of individuals drives, haha. How do I access the hardware controller to see how it is currently set up?

As others have said, I think this is an Ubuntu problem, not a Linux problem. I've used Linux Mint Cinnamon and Manjaro KDE on the desktop with literally zero problems. However, I installed Ubuntu on a server because I figured that Ubuntu's (former) popularity would mean there would be a much larger online knowledge pool to help with problems. Also, an IT friend recommended it. Unfortunately, I'm regretting installing Ubunbtu. Canonical's use of snaps at a deep level has caused me a bunch of random problems. Sure, problems can be fixed or worked around, but it is definitely the least friendly distro I've used. I should have heeded the warnings and stayed away from Ubuntu.

Is it necessary (or especially advantageous) to use a hardware RAID controller to create the RAID? I'm completely ignorant of those hardware aspects of servers, so was hoping to create a software RAID using ZFS.

Ubuntu is VERY heavily invested in snaps at a very basic level. I think the recommendation is to not mix snaps and Flatpaks as they may not interact well. As a new Ubuntu user, I'm slowly discovering some of the random problems with snaps.

For example, just the other day, I was trying to configure my fish shell using the html-based fish_configure utility, but it just wouldn't work. Of course, I assumed the problem was with my fish install. After a couple hours fiddling with it, I finally came across a stack exchange comment indicating that the snap version of Firefox simply can't access the /tmp/ directory, which is where fish_config creates its html configuration page. WTF? Also, you can't even install a non-snap version of Firefox via apt because the official apt repository just links back to the snap version! I finally installed an apt-based version of librewolf, but had to get it from a non-Ubuntu repository, and then magically I could access to fish_config html page. That's a pretty long workaround just to view a simple HTML page!

So, if snaps have problems like this just interacting with the base Linux file system, I wouldn't be surprised if random weird behavior cropped up when trying to use Flatpaks.

The subject of the arguments is certainly politics (and war and religion), but the source of the arguments is strongly differing world views.

Despite what we'd like to believe about ourselves, humans are not well-adapted to being exposed to a wide variety of differing viewpoints. We evolved in small, racially and socially homogenous groups, for the most part. Up until the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of humanity lived and died within 30 miles of where they were born, and only had daily interaction with what was essentially an extended family.

Travel, mass immigration, and the Internet changed all that. Being exposed to such a diversity of opinion on a daily basis quite simply breaks our brains. It causes a tremendous amount of internal conflict and stress, for some more than others. That constant strain becomes more intense when there is war, such as in Gaza and Ukraine, or particularly divisive politics. There are obviously some extremely contentious elections coming up, including the US election, which has tremendous global implications. There are, no doubt, people on Lemmy right now for whom the result of the US election is a matter of life and death, and yet they aren't US citizens and can't vote.

We should all take a chill pill and try to be less confrontational and use less emotionally-charged language when it comes to hot button issues. The politics and news subs are an avalanche of charged words and phrases like genocide, fascist, apartheid, Nazi, racist, transphobic, anti-gay, religious zealot, and many others. Those are fighting words. Deserved or not, words like that not only reflect, but also create, a lot of emotional dissonance and stress, which lead to emotionally charged arguments.

This is pretty interesting. I guess the Houthis figure they have little to lose at this point, and they assume that Western nations won't invade or carpet bomb them.

Maybe Western warships should leave the area and avoid being the focus. Let the regional powers deal with it.

No, no, Trump really is a family man...in exactly the same way as Tony Soprano. He is all about HIS family, but definitely not yours!

The US has spent decades developing and deploying smart munitions in an effort to be the good guys and minimize civilian casualties. It's all very laudable but, in return, terrorists like the Houthis and Hamas have learned to hide more effectively in the civilian population, effectively creating human shields, which is a war crime.

It is probably true that a few retaliatory strikes won't stop the Houthis from firing their Iranian missiles at civilian shipping. Something more drastic may be necessary. For example, I can't imagine that Egypt is particularly happy about the reduction in traffic through Suez, nor should any bordering country be happy with missiles flying around over a shipping lane. It's also an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

China is imitating the US Munro Doctrine, in which the US largely succeeded in excluding the European Great Powers from the Western Hemisphere by the end of the 1800s. China is trying to do the same in their neighbourhood. In this analogy, the South China Sea is China's Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.

However, it will be exponentially more difficult for China to achieve local hegemony given that they are surrounded by other industrialized nations on home soil who clearly see the threat and don't want to become subjects of an authoritarian state.

The lesson that the US learned from WW1 and WW2 is that authoritarian states are very dangerous and the US cannot isolate itself from world events.

The lesson the US is learning from "winning" the Cold War is that global hegemony is corrupting and dangerous in terms of domestic politics.

Matthew Waxman, an expert on the laws of war from Columbia Law School, said in an interview (link below) that Hamas clearly is using the population of Gaza as human shields, and that is a war crime. It is also a war crime to deliberately target civilians. But it is not a war crime to kill civilians who are co-located with military forces. That is the fault of the force who co-locates with civilians.

We can debate all day long about the long, complicated history and broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there is a lot of fault on both sides, but in this post-Oct 7 phase of the conflict, Hamas is mostly to blame for the civilian casualties.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4zO63JRg6VQ7LVnKrwI8cm?si=BoIW2OPdQrCIY_uhZ6P0lA

It would have been a game-changing political realignment if Bernie had won the primary instead of Hilary. He could have beat Trump in 2016, soaking up a lot of the populist and working class vote in the Rust Belt, and the trajectory of US politics would have been very different.

Alas, that didn't happen and a lot of left-leaning people stayed home rather than vote for Hilary. This is a longstanding problem in the Democratic party. Right-wingers always go out and vote Republican, no matter the candidate. Whereas, the left is fickle. Hilary may have been a typical corpo politician, but she was still better than Trump. Even if all she did was make some some incremental progress on public health care and appointed some reasonable SC judges, the US would be a better place right now. Instead, the whole world is facing the possibility of a Trump dictatorship.

Androminion is awesome!

Dilution

And if Trump gets elected because those youngsters don't vote... I guess they'll learn the hard way that elections have consequences. How insignificant the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will seem if Trump becomes the first dictator in US history.

I don't think international law has done much to protect Israel over the years. Israel has been attacked 4 times by neighboring countries since their inception. Maybe that's why they are the way they are when it comes to questions of security.

What? An actual thoughtful and nuanced response that addresses the issues? That's a rarity among these kinds of posts. Just let me upvote the first person to scream racist.