Just passin’ through
resolved sucks imo. i usually disable it and manually set the resolv.conf, or use something else. it has no way to force it to check name servers in a specific order and it has a memory so it’ll use the same name server for multiple checks even if it’s not the right name server. if these things were configurable, I’d agree that it’s good. but they’re not and it makes it very difficult to use in a lot situations.
i think I’ll give that a shot
did you pass through the disks or straight on zfs?
one of us one of us one of us
I really really like Fedora Server, but any RHEL derivative is my go to for servers. I use Rocky Linux when I need something closer to RHEL, and Fedora server for pretty much everything else. I highly recommend Cockpit as well (main reason I like Fedora server) as it has allowed me to so easily manage all of my servers from a single point.
here we go again
i am a fag and idc if im a beta
nixos looks fun but doesn’t really seem like the thing for me, at least jot yet anyways. im not totally into the whole atomic desktop thing atp so no thank you
oh believe me i am
this is the way
on my main system i have arch with a partitioning scheme that has worked well for me because i took time to research and identify what i needed from it. i even got full disk encryption working after the fact!
on fedora i click automatic partitioning, wipe the drives i want, and don’t do more than that because the partitioning screen feels extremely confusing.
This package is not the fault of the Arch team. However they did push a legitimately broken update that required some people to manually reinstall core components of their system to make it functional again. They sre not responsible for my issues but they did actually fuck up recently.
It was my weekly update, ngl I’m not entirely sure all of which packages broke. That one’s on me
It was a way to learn how to actually use SE Linux and its different components. I still have more that I wanna do with it, but it’s one of those projects that’s been on the back burner for a while
This specific version of the package isn’t the issue, it’s that main repo packages are built on the updated version and this hasn’t been updated yet. I’m unsure of the process that is used to choose and apply the patches for this project, and I’m unsure if the current version in the repos actually has the work done on it for this specific package.
I attempted to do so, but the package applies some patches to the source code and it’s version dependent. I don’t have the experience with this specific project to easily fix it, and I suspect by the time I figure it out the update will have already been pushed.
I prefer Fedora Server. It comes with a lot of nice integrations into more enterprise/centralized Linux administration and management tools. A lot of these are FOSS so if you like infrastructure, this is a really good way to take an easy step up.
Turns out they put the H730 in the server already so I never got an H330. I want to test the SMART data but it looks like the newer firmware should be fine.
Ok cool. I need to update everything anyways so once I get around to that I’ll test the H730 a bit but it seems that the newer firmware should be ok for ZFS
that’s generally what I’m hearing so I think I’ll give that a shot. I’ll keep the H730 on hand as I want to do some testing with it.
It seems that the issues may be quite a bit deeper than they seem. That the cache on the H730 can cause subtle issues. Are you able to get SMART information from the H730 for the disks?
It is not