Re: [gentoo-user] installing Gentoo in a xen VM
On Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:43:38 PM lee wrote: J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org writes: On Thursday, December 04, 2014 07:11:12 PM lee wrote: Why is the networking complicated? Do you use bridging? Yes --- and it was terrible to begin with and still is very complicated. One of the VMs has a network card passed through to do pppoe for the internet connection, and it also does routing and firewalling. The Gentoo VM is supposed to have another network card passed through because I want a separate network for miscellaneous devices like IP phones and printers. Asterisk is going to run on the Gentoo VM. This sounds convoluted. Why add to the complexity by adding multiple network cards into the machine and pass the physical cards? How else do you do pppoe and keep the different networks physically seperated? Networks that need to be physically seperated, require either of: 1) seperate NICs 2) VLANs My comment about the complexity, however, was related to passing physical cards to the VMs instead of adding the cards to seperate bridges inside the host and using virtual NICs. Besides devices, there's the usual net, dmz and loc zones. To top it off, sooner or later I want to pass another network card to the firewall/router because I have an internet connection which is currently not in use and should be employed as an automatic fallback. How many cards are you planning on having in the machine? Are all these connected to the same switch? It has currently four network ports. Only one of them is connected to the switch. Another one is connected to the pppoe line, and the other two (on a dual card) aren't connected yet. I plan to use one for the devices network and the other one for the second internet connection. None of them needs to/should be connected to the switch. The VM running asterisk will need a second interface that connects to a bridge so it can reach the router/firewall. The interface for the second internet connection needs to be passed to the router/firewall. Can you think of an easier setup? create 1 bridge per physical network port add the physical ports to the respective bridges pass virtual NICs to the VMs which are part of the bridges. But it's your server, you decide on the complexity. I stopped passing physical NICs when I was encountering issues with newer cards. They are now resolved, but passing virtual interfaces is simpler and more reliable. -- Joost -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] installing Gentoo in a xen VM
On 08/12/14 11:26, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:43:38 PM lee wrote: J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org writes: On Thursday, December 04, 2014 07:11:12 PM lee wrote: Why is the networking complicated? Do you use bridging? Yes --- and it was terrible to begin with and still is very complicated. One of the VMs has a network card passed through to do pppoe for the internet connection, and it also does routing and firewalling. The Gentoo VM is supposed to have another network card passed through because I want a separate network for miscellaneous devices like IP phones and printers. Asterisk is going to run on the Gentoo VM. This sounds convoluted. Why add to the complexity by adding multiple network cards into the machine and pass the physical cards? How else do you do pppoe and keep the different networks physically seperated? Networks that need to be physically seperated, require either of: 1) seperate NICs 2) VLANs My comment about the complexity, however, was related to passing physical cards to the VMs instead of adding the cards to seperate bridges inside the host and using virtual NICs. Besides devices, there's the usual net, dmz and loc zones. To top it off, sooner or later I want to pass another network card to the firewall/router because I have an internet connection which is currently not in use and should be employed as an automatic fallback. How many cards are you planning on having in the machine? Are all these connected to the same switch? It has currently four network ports. Only one of them is connected to the switch. Another one is connected to the pppoe line, and the other two (on a dual card) aren't connected yet. I plan to use one for the devices network and the other one for the second internet connection. None of them needs to/should be connected to the switch. The VM running asterisk will need a second interface that connects to a bridge so it can reach the router/firewall. The interface for the second internet connection needs to be passed to the router/firewall. Can you think of an easier setup? create 1 bridge per physical network port add the physical ports to the respective bridges pass virtual NICs to the VMs which are part of the bridges. But it's your server, you decide on the complexity. I stopped passing physical NICs when I was encountering issues with newer cards. They are now resolved, but passing virtual interfaces is simpler and more reliable. +1 for this i'm sure that one of the reasons that software defined networking is suddenly the next big buzzword is because a) the commodity hardware is now good enough to be comparable to custom asic switches and b) the amazing flexibility you have. ignoring the security issues of vlans, for a pure partitioning of the network it's very hard to beat linux+vlan switch, as you can have a virtual host have just a single network card which itself has ten vlans connected. with a vlan capable switch you can have those vlans not just be lan/dmz/wan but can section off departments too. you can then incredibly easily stand up a new server for just that department. without having to be too concerned about downing the whole server to fit a new NIC into it -- Joost -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] [half OT] WLAN totally beginners question
On Dec 7, 2014, at 21:10, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, I am just starting to do the first steps in configuring WLAN. The problem is: This topic seems to be rich of terms, which I dont know yet how to evaluate: AP, WAP, WEP, FSK...and dozens more. Since my use case is very limited I want to configure just that without being urged to achieve my master degree of WLANism after studying everything this topic consists of only to recognize that I only need to know about...say...2% of it. Background: I have two little Linux boards (Arietta G25) with a RT5370 Wireless Adapter each. I want to make both able to communicate with each other beside being able to use the ethernet-over-USB connection to enable the communication with/to my PC Usually it's better to answer to question and not challenge the original goals of the poster. Despite of that I want to ask why you need WiFi? Why not just route the traffic from one arietta to the other through the usb? Arietta A eth0 - usb - pc - usb - Arietta B eth0 A lot easier setup. Nothing extra needed. Just route command on PC!? -- -Matti
[gentoo-user] mount windows 7 share via samba
I'm trying to mount windows 7 share on Linux via Samba and I get Permission denied mount -t cifs -o username=fd,password= //10.10.0.9/opendental /home/thelma/mnt/wXPcomp/ mount error(13): Permission denied Windows 7 firewall is ON, should I turn it off? The above command worked OK on Windows XP -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] installing Gentoo in a xen VM
J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org writes: create 1 bridge per physical network port add the physical ports to the respective bridges That tends to make the ports disappear, i. e. become unusable, because the bridge swallows them. pass virtual NICs to the VMs which are part of the bridges. Doesn't that create more CPU load than passing the port? And at some point, you may saturate the bandwidth of the port. But it's your server, you decide on the complexity. I stopped passing physical NICs when I was encountering issues with newer cards. They are now resolved, but passing virtual interfaces is simpler and more reliable. The only issue I have with passing the port is that the kernel module must not be loaded from the initrd image. So I don't see how fighting with the bridges would make things easier. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Re: [gentoo-user] mount windows 7 share via samba
On Monday 08 Dec 2014 21:52:22 Joseph wrote: I'm trying to mount windows 7 share on Linux via Samba and I get Permission denied mount -t cifs -o username=fd,password= //10.10.0.9/opendental /home/thelma/mnt/wXPcomp/ mount error(13): Permission denied Windows 7 firewall is ON, should I turn it off? The above command worked OK on Windows XP Check ownership of whatever you're trying to mount. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: automated code validation
On 8 December 2014 at 08:54, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:42 PM, James wirel...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: Rich Freeman rich0 at gentoo.org writes: liveUSB, where folks can download Gentoo Fever onto a usb stick and stick into their current hardware and boot up a killer code development system. Building a liveUSB version of Gentoo is almost completely orthagonal to building an automatic ebuild testing system. Agreed from where you sit. Where I sit, when I explain to folks about this project, a liveUSB stick running the latest in what gentoo-fever is, speaks volumes to encourage non-gentoo folks to take it for a test drive. I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said that it had nothing to do with Continuous Integration (CI). If a billion people used Gentoo for 8 hours a day straight, that would also have nothing to do with CI. A Gentoo CI system doesn't even have to be hosted on Gentoo, or on Linux for that matter. Of course, if one were ever to become official it most likely would be hosted on Gentoo, but most likely not on a box booted from a USB. Um, I never saw CI defined, so please define specifically, then use the abbrev? Continuous Integration is probably being used a bit loosely here. The concept is testing every commit to ensure a level of quality. Commits wouldn't directly hit users - they would be tested first (perhaps in batches), and then would only hit users if they pass. Or something along those lines. Maybe it would just refer to frequently testing the tree with automated bug reporting. None of this has to do with having a USB live distro. Well the same kind of minimal core is useful/needed as the 'base' from which ebuild test runs can be done on top of. So its not a completely orthogonal problem. I'm not saying that a liveUSB version of Gentoo wouldn't be nice to have. It just has nothing to do with solving this particular problem. OK, see above; you are right technically. Do you want a few dozen participates or a few thousand? I want ZERO participants. That's the whole point. It is supposed to be automated. Sure, somebody has to write the code, but I doubt handing out liveUSB images is going to inspire that. Also, if your main goal was to have a quick easy-to-use Linux desktop, I'm not quite sure why you'd pick Gentoo in particular to base it on. The whole point of Gentoo is that you can change it, while a liveUSB tends to imply something static and standardized. Heck, they could use ChromeOS as it is a Gentoo derivative. However, if you want something in-between Sabayon is probably about right. :) Gentoo is actually capable of everything that draws people to Arch Linux. The only reason anyone ever gives me for using Arch Linux is the AUR which is pretty much 'portage plus layman for dummies'. So Gentoo does have the ability to give people what they want, we just have no way to support that kind of use case at present. I agree a live USB image wont really 'inspire' anything. But it does represent a useful goal. The same infrastructure that tests ebuilds would be able to generate boot-able images. You may not have been far off the mark with ChromeOS, I think it may be possible to use those tools to build an image without much fuss at all. I would need to remove a fair number of ChromeOS and CoreOS parts from the setup I currently have but it should in theory work fairly easily. But other than improving the process of building a base image, it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to the goal of automation and CI. Rich, you mentioned zero participants and your right on the money, which is why I'm still wondering where people want to collaborate on this effort. Working code and projects is nice but having things spread over several projects doesn't help keep things easy to manage or deal with discussions about how we integrate things together. For instance at some point this should integrate into the ebuild arch unstable masking for all of Gentoo and then things get 'political'.
