Re: [gentoo-user] Libreoffice PDF conversion problem : more
141229 Philip Webb wrote: I want to revise the 1st page of a PDF on my Internet site. The original was created by Libreoffice c 3 years ago cb found at http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~purslow/nt/mark-notes.pdf . The revision I created today has mangled some of the punctuation : http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~purslow/test/mark-notes.pdf . I used the same .odt file in both cases, with small revisions in the 2nd, but few, if any, of them affecting the punctuation which has been damaged. I've investigated further the problem remains. It occurred to me that it was perhaps being caused by importing a text file /or that the original import PDF had been done by OpenOffice 3 ya . However, apostrophes extended dashes are mangled as shown above even when I enter a completely new .odt file. I've tried changing the font using the PDF dialog under 'File', but the bad effect still happens. This has to be a bug in LO : whatever the characters in the .odt , LO sb able to reproduce them correctly in the exported PDF . It appears that I don't have a bug account with LO, so I've applied for one after checking whether anyone else has run into it, will report it. Any further suggestions by Gentoo users are very welcome. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] Libreoffice PDF conversion problem : more
Philip Webb wrote: 141229 Philip Webb wrote: I want to revise the 1st page of a PDF on my Internet site. The original was created by Libreoffice c 3 years ago cb found at http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~purslow/nt/mark-notes.pdf . The revision I created today has mangled some of the punctuation : http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~purslow/test/mark-notes.pdf . I used the same .odt file in both cases, with small revisions in the 2nd, but few, if any, of them affecting the punctuation which has been damaged. I've investigated further the problem remains. It occurred to me that it was perhaps being caused by importing a text file /or that the original import PDF had been done by OpenOffice 3 ya . However, apostrophes extended dashes are mangled as shown above even when I enter a completely new .odt file. I've tried changing the font using the PDF dialog under 'File', but the bad effect still happens. This has to be a bug in LO : whatever the characters in the .odt , LO sb able to reproduce them correctly in the exported PDF . It appears that I don't have a bug account with LO, so I've applied for one after checking whether anyone else has run into it, will report it. Any further suggestions by Gentoo users are very welcome. I'm clueless but could it be a missing font issue?? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] ceph on gentoo?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 06:43:26PM +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 08:11:15 AM Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote: Can you offer any technical suggestions as for what to check? Do you leave the messages on the mailserver? In that case, ensure your POP3-client keeps a list of message-ids (UIDL) and only downloads messages that haven't been downloaded before. I don't know if there is an equivalent for mutt as I don't use that. -- Joost Thanks for this reply. That one original message didn't get removed from the mailserver, and I hadn't scrolled down quite far enough to see it. Once it was removed, it seems to have stopped repeating; and a host of other messages to the list that hadn't arrived came through (especially all the replies in this thread which weren't previously seen in mutt). -- Bruce
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2014 07:32:18 Sid S wrote: I would suggest QEMU/KVM takes the place of VirtualBox. I've not actually found anything it doesn't support, though VirtualBox is far more polished. Starting a VM will be as easy as running a shell script (or you can use virt-manager). Thanks Sid, other than the GUI and potential ease of use, is there a difference in performance between Vbox and KVM? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Libreoffice PDF conversion problem : bug report
141231 Philip Webb wrote: 141229 Philip Webb wrote: I want to revise the 1st page of a PDF on my Internet site. The revision I created today has mangled some of the punctuation : I've investigated further the problem remains. It occurred to me that it was perhaps being caused by importing a text file /or that the original import PDF had been done by OpenOffice 3 ya . However, apostrophes extended dashes are mangled as shown above even when I enter a completely new .odt file. I've tried changing the font using the PDF dialog under 'File', but the bad effect still happens. This has to be a bug in LO : whatever the characters in the .odt , LO sb able to reproduce them correctly in the exported PDF . It appears that I don't have a bug account with LO, so I've applied for one after checking whether anyone else has run into it, will report it. I've submitted LibreOffice Bug 87903 . Can anyone else reproduce this ? -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
Yes, in favor of KVM. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=intel_haswell_virtualization http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_1404_kvmboxt On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 31 Dec 2014 07:32:18 Sid S wrote: I would suggest QEMU/KVM takes the place of VirtualBox. I've not actually found anything it doesn't support, though VirtualBox is far more polished. Starting a VM will be as easy as running a shell script (or you can use virt-manager). Thanks Sid, other than the GUI and potential ease of use, is there a difference in performance between Vbox and KVM? -- Regards, Mick
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wednesday 31 Dec 2014 12:47:55 Sid S wrote: Yes, in favor of KVM. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=intel_haswell_virtualiza tion http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_1404_kvmboxt Vbox seems to be coming last by quite some margin in the intel tests! I also read this article and it looks that vbox is thankfully doing better on AMD; but there are differences in the versions and kernels used between the two articles: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_1204_virtnum=1 -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] media-video/gpac-0.5.0-r1 fails to compile
On 12/31/2014 01:46 AM, Dale wrote: I've tried with both libav and ffmpeg, not at the same time of course. I get the same failure. This is the emerge info for USE flags and such. [ebuild U ~] media-video/gpac-0.5.1_pre5456 [0.5.0-r1] USE=a52 aac alsa ffmpeg ipv6 jpeg jpeg2k mad opengl png sdl ssl truetype vorbis xml xvid -debug -dvb -jack -oss -pulseaudio -static-libs -theora It's been doing this for a while. I just been upgrading around it. I'm clueless. I'm getting to old to figure this crap out. lol Dale :-) :-) I installed both 0.5.0 and 0.5.1_pre5456 without a problem using the USE given above. One last question that I have: what version of ffmpeg/libav are you using? The function that couldn't be found - av_close_input_file() - is just barely not deprecated on my system, so if you're running newer than ffmpeg-1.2.6 that function might not exist. I would upgrade my ffmpeg and test, but it'd take quite a while on my laptop and I don't have my desktop handy. This is the last thing that I can think of. Of course, you could always install gpac without having it use ffmpeg. Alec
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On 31/12/14 21:26, Mick wrote: On Wednesday 31 Dec 2014 12:47:55 Sid S wrote: Yes, in favor of KVM. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=intel_haswell_virtualiza tion http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_1404_kvmboxt Vbox seems to be coming last by quite some margin in the intel tests! I also read this article and it looks that vbox is thankfully doing better on AMD; but there are differences in the versions and kernels used between the two articles: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_1204_virtnum=1 According to Google, VB includes a lot of qemu code ... I was told way back that it was (once) based on qemu. BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 31 Dec 2014 12:47:55 Sid S wrote: Vbox seems to be coming last by quite some margin in the intel tests! I also read this article and it looks that vbox is thankfully doing better on AMD; but there are differences in the versions and kernels used between the two articles: I think you need to think about your use case. The requirements were for a workstation testing environment. I think performance (as long as somewhat reasonable) isn't going to be a big concern there vs ease of setup, ability to snapshot, convenience features like being able to group guests, being able to get the right environment easily, etc. You probably also want reasonable graphics performance if you're testing clients inside VMs. If performance makes the difference between being able to run the cluster you need to test on your workstation or not, then that becomes a factor. Otherwise it is a nice-to-have. If you're talking about running servers then performance becomes much more important. However, if you're running linux guests you should seriously consider containers, and if containers aren't the right solution you should also be looking at stuff like VMWare (I don't know how well the FOSS solutions do as far as enterprise-y features go). In any case, while not quite as simple as Virtualbox I've found that virt-manager is very easy to use once you've gotten networking set up (which isn't too hard to do under either openrc or networkd). I tend to use the GUI for setting things up and for graphical guests, and I used to create init.d scripts / units for the stuff that I subsequently moved to containers. You can go back-and-forth between the two (and to be fair you can do the same with virtualbox). One of the advantages of KVM is that it doesn't require tainting your kernel, and you don't have to remember to rebuild the module anytime you update your kernel. I've finally gotten to the point where I don't have any external modules on one of my boxes and I'm very happy with that (alas, my mythtv frontend needs nvidia-drivers - I don't think the hardware acceleration is as good with the kernel drivers though to be fair it has been a year or two since I last tried). -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 09:42:11 AM Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 31 Dec 2014 12:47:55 Sid S wrote: Vbox seems to be coming last by quite some margin in the intel tests! I also read this article and it looks that vbox is thankfully doing better on AMD; but there are differences in the versions and kernels used between the two articles: I think you need to think about your use case. The requirements were for a workstation testing environment. I think performance (as long as somewhat reasonable) isn't going to be a big concern there vs ease of setup, ability to snapshot, The thing lacking from KVM (and I believe also Containers) is that the memory contents are not included in snapshots. Making the snapshots basically result in an unclean-shutdown scenario. Which is ok-ish as a backup, but not when testing different steps where a quick and easy roll-back is often required. convenience features like being able to group guests, being able to get the right environment easily, etc. You probably also want reasonable graphics performance if you're testing clients inside VMs. If performance makes the difference between being able to run the cluster you need to test on your workstation or not, then that becomes a factor. Otherwise it is a nice-to-have. If you're talking about running servers then performance becomes much more important. However, if you're running linux guests you should seriously consider containers, and if containers aren't the right solution you should also be looking at stuff like VMWare (I don't know how well the FOSS solutions do as far as enterprise-y features go). I compared the ease-of-use and performance between XenServer, VMWare and VirtualBox. VMWare generally is the slower of the three. Also, the weird errors occuring when VMs are migrated between nodes in a VMWare cluster makes me worry every time I hear it's being used for critical systems. In any case, while not quite as simple as Virtualbox I've found that virt-manager is very easy to use once you've gotten networking set up (which isn't too hard to do under either openrc or networkd). I tend to use the GUI for setting things up and for graphical guests, and I used to create init.d scripts / units for the stuff that I subsequently moved to containers. You can go back-and-forth between the two (and to be fair you can do the same with virtualbox). One of the advantages of KVM is that it doesn't require tainting your kernel, That is an advantage of KVM and Xen over Virtualbox and VMWare. and you don't have to remember to rebuild the module anytime you update your kernel. I've finally gotten to the point where I don't have any external modules on one of my boxes and I'm very happy with that (alas, my mythtv frontend needs nvidia-drivers - I don't think the hardware acceleration is as good with the kernel drivers though to be fair it has been a year or two since I last tried). I tend to use the nvidia-drivers where I need graphics. But those machines are not VMs. If graphical performance is a requirement, NVidia cards (apart from the expensive professional ones) are best avoided. They are actively crippled in a VM environment. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:00 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: The thing lacking from KVM (and I believe also Containers) is that the memory contents are not included in snapshots. Making the snapshots basically result in an unclean-shutdown scenario. Which is ok-ish as a backup, but not when testing different steps where a quick and easy roll-back is often required. That is a very good point, and as far as I'm aware container memory can't be snapshotted (unless you count suspend-to-disk of the entire host). Processes in containers are really just processes on the host, and I don't think there is much support in linux for snapshotting a process. The best I could find was BLCR, but that didn't really seem too mainstream (maybe it is). Snapshotting of the disk is whatever you can do at the filesystem level - a container typically just looks like a chroot as far as the host is concerned - typically you stick it on lvm or btrfs for snapshotting. Now, a big advantage of containers is that startup/shutdown is REALLY fast. It isn't uncommon for me to run something like systemctl stop container ; btrfs su snap container container-back ; systemctl start container or something to that effect - often it takes less than a second to run. Containers are just processes in a separate namespace, so starting/stopping them is as fast as starting/stopping a service for the most part. Obviously if your process takes a while to shutdown and you stop it in a graceful manner then you'll be waiting - if your process takes a very long time to shutdown/startup then maybe VM-level snapshotting makes more sense. Depending on what your VM is doing snapshotting and restoring at the memory level may not be entirely graceful either - obviously any external connections are not going to be in the same state when it resumes. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:35:04 AM Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:00 AM, J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: The thing lacking from KVM (and I believe also Containers) is that the memory contents are not included in snapshots. Making the snapshots basically result in an unclean-shutdown scenario. Which is ok-ish as a backup, but not when testing different steps where a quick and easy roll-back is often required. That is a very good point, and as far as I'm aware container memory can't be snapshotted (unless you count suspend-to-disk of the entire host). Which is what I was afraid of and is what is keeping me from using it. Processes in containers are really just processes on the host, and I don't think there is much support in linux for snapshotting a process. The best I could find was BLCR, but that didn't really seem too mainstream (maybe it is). Snapshotting of the disk is whatever you can do at the filesystem level - a container typically just looks like a chroot as far as the host is concerned - typically you stick it on lvm or btrfs for snapshotting. As a chroot-on-steroids inside a VM, it sounds usable, but not as a replacement for VMs. Now, a big advantage of containers is that startup/shutdown is REALLY fast. It isn't uncommon for me to run something like systemctl stop container ; btrfs su snap container container-back ; systemctl start container or something to that effect - often it takes less than a second to run. Containers are just processes in a separate namespace, so starting/stopping them is as fast as starting/stopping a service for the most part. Obviously if your process takes a while to shutdown and you stop it in a graceful manner then you'll be waiting - if your process takes a very long time to shutdown/startup then maybe VM-level snapshotting makes more sense. Some of the software we deal with can take up to 30 minutes to fully shutdown and re-initialize. (Gotta love those huge enterprise-level BI applications) Depending on what your VM is doing snapshotting and restoring at the memory level may not be entirely graceful either - obviously any external connections are not going to be in the same state when it resumes. Most of the snapshots I take are during the installation and configuration steps. Not many external connections exist during those stages. And the few that do exist generally re-establish themselves when the snapshot is restored. (All nodes of a single instance will be snapshotted near- simultaneously.) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On 31/12/2014 18:18, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Some of the software we deal with can take up to 30 minutes to fully shutdown
and re-initialize. (Gotta love those huge enterprise-level BI applications)
Very OT: Mrs Alan wants to know:
BusinessObjects XI r3?
{apparently she's had bad experiences in the past, and won't talk about
them :-) )
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Vbox seems to be coming last by quite some margin in the intel tests! I also read this article and it looks that vbox is thankfully doing better on AMD; but there are differences in the versions and kernels used between the two articles: Yes, but it didn't seem relevant to your usecase, so I didn't lead with it. I was just hoping you might consider it at some point as an alternative to VirtualBox, as it is fairly complete at this point (though sans memory snapshotting, which is a useful feature I had not considered - I had been doing pretty well with disk snapshots). I originally researched virtualization with an eye to making it usable on a laptop/notebook. In this regard VT-x/VT-d with KVM give you usable battery lifespan and let you use less powerful hardware. Implication: You might not need the workstation to do your testing, depending on what testing you do. Something to consider for the future. I was elated to find I did not need to tie myself to a beefy machine to do what little Windows/.NET development I indulge in. Containers and such definitely sound interesting; I had been avoiding Linux VMs for the longest time due to the overhead. The alternatives sound rather light so I might reconsider.
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On 31 December 2014 18:33:25 CET, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/12/2014 18:18, J. Roeleveld wrote:
Some of the software we deal with can take up to 30 minutes to fully
shutdown
and re-initialize. (Gotta love those huge enterprise-level BI
applications)
Very OT: Mrs Alan wants to know:
BusinessObjects XI r3?
{apparently she's had bad experiences in the past, and won't talk about
them :-) )
For Mrs. Alan,
No. BO is actually simple compared to Oracle EPM together with their SOA
infrastructure.
--
Joost
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] VMs - what technology would you advise?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Sid S r03...@gmail.com wrote: Containers and such definitely sound interesting; I had been avoiding Linux VMs for the longest time due to the overhead. The alternatives sound rather light so I might reconsider. There are a couple of ways to go with them. The heavy approach is something like Docker which basically wraps it all up in config management and such. The lighter way is to just create chroots and the launch them with something like nspawn (I'm sure there are non-systemd equivalents). Then you have two options inside the container. One is to just directly spawn the process of interest (ie have a init script that launches apache inside a container - not unlike running a chrooted daemon) - this is VERY lightweight though you do have the extra shared objects in memory since you're not using system libs. The other is to run a service manager inside the container (systemd definitely supports this, and I hear that openrc works now as well though you'd have to check the details on that and what versions work) - this is obviously going to be a bit heavier, but it lets you do things like run sshd inside the container, multiple daemons, cron, etc. If you're running under systemd you can also do tricks like having systemd manage the network sockets and launch non-priv'd daemons on demand (a la inetd) which get passed sockets but don't have access to any network interfaces otherwise (so, no outgoing connections). Either way your container can be anything compatible with your kernel. You could run a Gentoo host with a Debian container, and so on. The idea would be to pick the distro most suited to your problem. Maybe for one of your daemons you want to have a lot of control over dependencies so you run Gentoo. Maybe for another the vendor officially supports Debian and it gets rapid updates there, so you run Debian. The main thing you lose is some of the security of VMs, though if you just run your daemon in a container and you run it non-root then you're pretty darn secure (you'd need a very bad local priv escalation to get out). It certainly is more secure than just running your daemon on the host directly. -- Rich
