Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #227530 > unrolled thread

General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2020-10-01 23:40 +0200
    Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-10-02 00:50 +0200
      Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2020-10-02 01:30 +0200
        Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-10-02 12:40 +0200
    Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-10-02 01:00 +0200
    Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-10-02 08:30 +0200
    Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-10-02 09:20 +0200
      Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2020-10-02 13:20 +0200
        Re: Signing emails, was Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-10-02 17:30 +0200
        Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-10-03 00:40 +0200
          Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2020-10-03 02:20 +0200
            Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2020-10-03 03:40 +0200
    Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-10-02 15:50 +0200
      Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-10-02 16:50 +0200
    Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2020-10-02 21:20 +0200

#227530 — General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello fellow list users,

I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such
that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The
reasoning is that my experience with "real" servers is that they are most
reliable, very helpful in indicating errors (dedicated LEDs next to the PCIe
slots for instance) and modern servers' noise seems to be acceptable for my
working envirnoment (?)

I currently use a Fujitsu RX 1330 M1 (1U server, very silent) and it clearly
is not "enough" in terms of RAM and HDD capacity. A little more graphics
processing power than a low-profile GPU would be nice, too :)

Rack-Mountability is a must, although I am open to putting another tower in
there, sideways, should that be advantageous.

In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following:

 * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302)

 * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB)

   I plan to extend this to 128 GiB as soon as the need arises.
   As I am exceeding the 4T mark, I am increasingly considering the
   use of ZFS.

   Currently, I have the maximum of 32 GiB installed in the
   RX 1330 M1 and while it is often enough, there are times where I
   am using 40 GiB SSD swap to overcome the limits.

 * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data),
   2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS)
   I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided).
   I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe
   U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that
   may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof.

 * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share
   virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...)

 * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too).

Typical workloads:
data compression (Debian live build, xz),
virtual machines (software installation, updates)

Rarely:
GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too)
single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc)

Some time ago, there was this thread
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg01117.html
It already gave me some ideas...

I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I think
AMDs provide good performance for my types of use).

 * HPE DL385 G10 Plus
 * Dell PowerEdge R7515

I have an old HP DL380 G4 in the rack and while it is incredibly loud, it is
also very reliable. Of course, it is rarely online for its excessive
loudness and power draw, but I derive that HPE is going be reliable? Before
the Fujitsu, I used a HP Z400 workstation and before that a HP Compaq d530
CMT and all of these still "function", despite being too slow for today's
loads.

I am also taking into consideration these, although they are Intel-based and
I find it a lot harder to obtain information on prices, compatibility etc.
for these manufacturers:

 * Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX2540 M5
 * Oracle X8-2L
   (seems to be too loud for my taste. especially compared to the others?)

I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the
use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my
drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive).
Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility,
thus my questions are as follows:

 * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers?
   Does it work well?

 * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e.
   disks not bought from the server manufacturer?

   I would think that during the warranty period (3y) I best stay with
   the manufacturer-provided HDDs but after that, it would be nice to be
   able to add some more "cheap" storage...

 * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them, too.

   I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is
   probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and failed
   at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and
   creating a complete system composed of individual parts?

Thanks in advance
Linux-Fan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#227531

Linux-Fan wrote: 
> In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following:
> 
> * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302)
> * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB)
> * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data),
>   2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS)
>   I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided).
>   I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe
>   U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that
>   may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof.
> 
> * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share
>   virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...)
> * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too).
> 
> I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I think
> AMDs provide good performance for my types of use).
> 
> * HPE DL385 G10 Plus
> * Dell PowerEdge R7515

You should also look at machines made by SuperMicro and resold
via a number of VARs. My company is currently using Silicon
Mechanics and is reasonably happy with them. We have a few HPs
as well.

> I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the
> use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my
> drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive).

It's ridiculously expensive. Also, note that HPE won't ship
empty drive sleds for free. You can buy them aftermarket for
about $15-30 each, depending.

> Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility,
> thus my questions are as follows:
> 
> * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers?
>   Does it work well?

Yes, and yes. Avoid buying HP's RAID cards.

> * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e.
>   disks not bought from the server manufacturer?

They all work.

They tend to be more finicky about RAM.

Buy SuperMicro, from a VAR not too far away from you who can
supply a next-day parts warranty for cheap.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227534

Dan Ritter writes:

> Linux-Fan wrote:

[...]

> > * HPE DL385 G10 Plus
> > * Dell PowerEdge R7515
>
> You should also look at machines made by SuperMicro and resold
> via a number of VARs. My company is currently using Silicon
> Mechanics and is reasonably happy with them. We have a few HPs
> as well.
>
> > I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the
> > use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my
> > drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive).
>
> It's ridiculously expensive. Also, note that HPE won't ship
> empty drive sleds for free. You can buy them aftermarket for
> about $15-30 each, depending.
>
> > Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility,
> > thus my questions are as follows:
> >
> > * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers?
> >   Does it work well?
>
> Yes, and yes. Avoid buying HP's RAID cards.
>
> > * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e.
> >   disks not bought from the server manufacturer?
>
> They all work.
>
> They tend to be more finicky about RAM.
>
> Buy SuperMicro, from a VAR not too far away from you who can
> supply a next-day parts warranty for cheap.

Thank you very much for these hints. I will surely add Supermicro to the
consideration. The hints wrt. RAM and RAID cards are appreciated!

OT: Message signature is still invalid, but I could track it down to some
weird changes in space characters between what I send to and what I receive
from the list. I have now idea how to solve it, though...

Linux-Fan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227539

Linux-Fan wrote: 
> Dan Ritter writes:
> 
> > You should also look at machines made by SuperMicro and resold
> > via a number of VARs. My company is currently using Silicon
> > Mechanics and is reasonably happy with them. We have a few HPs
> > as well.


I forgot to mention: though I wouldn't characterize their
support as extensive, Silicon Mechanics will happily install
several distributions, including Debian Stable. Their online
build-and-price system is quite well done.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227532

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256




‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:37 PM, Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> wrote:

> -   Dell PowerEdge R7515

I've had very good luck with Dell for a very long time.  I've needed nothing close to what you're looking for, but the boxes have been flawless (Intel Xeon, though, not AMD).

And they do sell servers with no Winders tax...

--
Glenn English


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: ProtonMail

wsBzBAEBCAAGBQJfdl7DACEJEJ/XhjGCrIwyFiEELKJzD0JScCVjQA2Xn9eG
MYKsjDKSkwgAunI5BIIu1SryhcOFLoWOD8Lb03Oh4+R9WcfHyHH4WbehtyBs
Ynuxnc1SYxYT/xZthbUyVs33DdvOO/sZQirOHr63VrOr2/nWEbCs1xD64REh
CzisXdO+oXAxjFg/uirCq+1s/IdF0eHaf30AkrZNgedI5EEezPz22ITsx4C+
Dg2l/GAtBceag/ua44Rn6hg7pjdfRrnXzlEJRfVNk9xLX5FokQhIRUXl7srJ
NLP1OIKug1pV1almD7RV8vvOUUEHwybD8KUgSY52zH+ksBbgx1HElh+gTKPz
0OpdVnHjCn5ElBRRwKHldYJPsceRB9N62rqgjTl25YVuipeGfdSgdg==
=V8tu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227536

Linux-Fan wrote:

> I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such
> that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The
> reasoning is that my experience with "real" servers is that they are most
> reliable, very helpful in indicating errors (dedicated LEDs next to the
> PCIe slots for instance) and modern servers' noise seems to be acceptable
> for my working envirnoment (?)
> 

they are loud - for me it is unacceptable to have it in some living space

> I currently use a Fujitsu RX 1330 M1 (1U server, very silent) and it
> clearly is not "enough" in terms of RAM and HDD capacity. A little more
> graphics processing power than a low-profile GPU would be nice, too :)
> 

Servers usually do not have a good GPUs - they are mostly not used.

Why don't you split your setup into powerful workstation and your current
server?

> Rack-Mountability is a must, although I am open to putting another tower
> in there, sideways, should that be advantageous.
> 
> In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following:
> 
> * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302)
> 
> * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB)
> 
> I plan to extend this to 128 GiB as soon as the need arises.
> As I am exceeding the 4T mark, I am increasingly considering the
> use of ZFS.
> 
> Currently, I have the maximum of 32 GiB installed in the
> RX 1330 M1 and while it is often enough, there are times where I
> am using 40 GiB SSD swap to overcome the limits.
> 
> * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data),
> 2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS)
> I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided).
> I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe
> U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that
> may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof.
> 
> * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share
> virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...)
> 
> * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too).
> 
> Typical workloads:
> data compression (Debian live build, xz),
> virtual machines (software installation, updates)
>

you could off load your virtual machines to dedicated hardware. Depends on
the number and configuration you indeed may need  a server for that -
better look at the requirements of the VM software manufacturer (VMWare or
Oracle or whatever else)
 
> Rarely:
> GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too)
> single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc)
> 
> Some time ago, there was this thread
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg01117.html
> It already gave me some ideas...
> 
> I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I
> think AMDs provide good performance for my types of use).
> 
> * HPE DL385 G10 Plus
> * Dell PowerEdge R7515
> 
> I have an old HP DL380 G4 in the rack and while it is incredibly loud, it
> is also very reliable. Of course, it is rarely online for its excessive
> loudness and power draw, but I derive that HPE is going be reliable?
> Before the Fujitsu, I used a HP Z400 workstation and before that a HP
> Compaq d530 CMT and all of these still "function", despite being too slow
> for today's loads.
> 

Servers are loud - same for DL380 G10, same for the PowerEdge

> I am also taking into consideration these, although they are Intel-based
> and I find it a lot harder to obtain information on prices, compatibility
> etc. for these manufacturers:
> 
> * Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX2540 M5
> * Oracle X8-2L
> (seems to be too loud for my taste. especially compared to the others?)
> 
> I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the
> use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my
> drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive).
> Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility,
> thus my questions are as follows:
> 
> * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers?
> Does it work well?
> 
> * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e.
> disks not bought from the server manufacturer?
> 

HPE does not support means not that you can not do it - rather you will not
have warranty/support in case of troubles. If you can live with it?

> I would think that during the warranty period (3y) I best stay with
> the manufacturer-provided HDDs but after that, it would be nice to be
> able to add some more "cheap" storage...
> 

They use Seagate or Samsung disks - I am not sure ATM. Disks are disks you
can put whatever you want there. The disks they sell seem to be
manufactured specifically for HPE and likely are tested/certified by HPE,
although here one disk failed after 1,5y of operations in a conditioned
server room where the machine did not have much disk load. I mena it is
good to stay for the 3y with their hardware.

> * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them,
> too.
> 
> I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is
> probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and failed
> at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and
> creating a complete system composed of individual parts?

Not at all - you can buy case and all the parts you need to put inside. A
friend did it for me 8y ago - really excellent machine. 12 HDD bays 800Watt
PU. The only problem was the hight 2RU and the hight of the CPU cooler fan
(flat one). I simply cut the cover and build a normal hight CPU fan after
the first one died.

If you have the rack in or near a room you live, I would split the setup in
several servers - perhaps also buy 2 switches and fiber at least to the
storage.
But remember that noise gets multiplied (not added), so it could be that few
machines are as load as one server. It might be better to find an isolated
place for the rack.
These are just my thoughts

Unbelievable what people do at home :)

good luck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227537

On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote:
> Hello fellow list users,
> 
> I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such
> that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The
> reasoning is that my experience with "real" servers is that they are most
> reliable, very helpful in indicating errors (dedicated LEDs next to the 
> PCIe
> slots for instance) and modern servers' noise seems to be acceptable for my
> working envirnoment (?)
> 
> I currently use a Fujitsu RX 1330 M1 (1U server, very silent) and it 
> clearly
> is not "enough" in terms of RAM and HDD capacity. A little more graphics
> processing power than a low-profile GPU would be nice, too :)
> 
> Rack-Mountability is a must, although I am open to putting another tower in
> there, sideways, should that be advantageous.
> 
> In terms of "performance" specifications, I am thinking of the following:
> 
> * 1x16-core CPU (e.g. AMD EPYC 7302)
> 
> * 64 GiB RAM (e.g. 2x32 GiB or 4x16 GiB)
> 
>    I plan to extend this to 128 GiB as soon as the need arises.
>    As I am exceeding the 4T mark, I am increasingly considering the
>    use of ZFS.
> 
>    Currently, I have the maximum of 32 GiB installed in the
>    RX 1330 M1 and while it is often enough, there are times where I
>    am using 40 GiB SSD swap to overcome the limits.
> 
> * 2x2T HDD for slow storage (local Debian Mirror, working data),
>    2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS)
>    I will do software-RAID1 (ZFS or mdadm is still undecided).
>    I possible, I would like to use the power of the modern NVMe PCIe
>    U.2 (U.3?) SSDs, because they really seem to be much faster and that
>    may speed-up the parallel use of VMs and be more future-proof.
> 
> * 1-2x 10G N-BaseT Ethernet for connecting to other machines to share
>    virtual machine storage (I am doing this already and it works...)
> 
> * a 150W GPU if possible (75W full-sized card would be OK, too).
> 
> Typical workloads:
> data compression (Debian live build, xz),
> virtual machines (software installation, updates)
> 
> Rarely:
> GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too)
> single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc)
> 
> Some time ago, there was this thread
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg01117.html
> It already gave me some ideas...
> 
> I am considering one the following models which are AMD EPYC based (I think
> AMDs provide good performance for my types of use).
> 
> * HPE DL385 G10 Plus
> * Dell PowerEdge R7515
> 
> I have an old HP DL380 G4 in the rack and while it is incredibly loud, 
> it is
> also very reliable. Of course, it is rarely online for its excessive
> loudness and power draw, but I derive that HPE is going be reliable? Before
> the Fujitsu, I used a HP Z400 workstation and before that a HP Compaq d530
> CMT and all of these still "function", despite being too slow for today's
> loads.
> 
> I am also taking into consideration these, although they are Intel-based 
> and
> I find it a lot harder to obtain information on prices, compatibility etc.
> for these manufacturers:
> 
> * Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX2540 M5
> * Oracle X8-2L
>    (seems to be too loud for my taste. especially compared to the others?)
> 
> I have already learned from my local vendor that HPE does not support the
> use of non-HPE HDDs in the server which means I would need to buy all my
> drives directly from HPE (of course this will be very expensive).
> Additionally, none of the server manufacturers list Debian compatibility,
> thus my questions are as follows:
> 
> * Does anybody run Debian stable (10) on any of these servers?
>    Does it work well?
> 
> * Is there any experience with "unsupported" HDD configurations i.e.
>    disks not bought from the server manufacturer?
> 
>    I would think that during the warranty period (3y) I best stay with
>    the manufacturer-provided HDDs but after that, it would be nice to be
>    able to add some more "cheap" storage...
> 
> * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them, too.
> 
>    I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is
>    probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and 
> failed
>    at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and
>    creating a complete system composed of individual parts?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> Linux-Fan


I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, 
etc., each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers.


Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have 
similar prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential 
tasks twice as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast.


I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into 
a file server.  Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's 
can work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should 
be impressive.  If you choose ZFS, it will need memory.  The rule of 
thumb is 5 GB of memory per 1 TB of storage.  So, pick a machine that 
has at least 20 GB of memory.


As for the workstation, it is difficult to find a vendor that supports 
Debian.  But, there are vendors that support Ubuntu; which is based upon 
Debian.  So, you can run Ubuntu and you might be able to run Debian:

https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=ubuntu%20workstation


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227540

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

David Christensen writes:

> On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote:

[...]

>> Typical workloads:
>> data compression (Debian live build, xz),
>> virtual machines (software installation, updates)
>>
>> Rarely:
>> GPGPU (e.g. nVidia CUDA, but some experimentation with OpenCL, too)
>> single-core load coupled with very high RAM use (cbmc)

[...]

> I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc.,  
> each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers.

Division across multiple machines... I am already doing this for data that  
exceeds my current 4T storage (2x2T HDD, 2x2T "slow" SSD local and 4x1T  
outsourced to the other machine). I currently do this for data I need rather  
rarely such that I can run the common tasks on a single machine. Doing this  
for all (or large amounts of data) will require running at least two  
machines at the same time which may increase the idle power draw and  
possibilities for failure?

> Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have similar  
> prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential tasks twice  
> as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast.

Is this still true today? AFAIK all modern CPUs "boost" their frequency if  
they are lightly loaded. Also, the larger CPUs tend to come with more cache  
which may speed up single-core applications, too.

> I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into a  
> file server.  Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's can  
> work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should be  
> impressive.  If you choose ZFS, it will need memory.  The rule of thumb is 5  
> GB of memory per 1 TB of storage.  So, pick a machine that has at least 20  
> GB of memory.

4x4T is surely nice and future-proof but currently above budget :) I saw  
that the Supermicro AS-2113S-WTRT can do 6xU.2 drives. In case I chose  
Supermicro this would allow upgrading to such a 4x4T configuration.

> As for the workstation, it is difficult to find a vendor that supports  
> Debian.  But, there are vendors that support Ubuntu; which is based upon  
> Debian.  So, you can run Ubuntu and you might be able to run Debian:
>
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=ubuntu%20workstation

My experience with HP and Fujitsu Workstations is that they run well with  
Debian. I am still thinking that buying two systems will be more expensive  
and more power draw. Using one of the existent systems will slow some things  
down to their speed -- the current "fastest" system here has a Xeon E3-1231  
v3 and while it has 3.4GHz it is surely slower (even singlethreaded) than  
current 16-core server CPUs...

Thinking of it, a possible distribution accross multiple machines may be

 * (Existent) Storage server (1U, existent Fujitsu RX 1330 M1)
   [It does not do NVMe SSDs, though -- alternatively put the disks
    in the VM server?]
 * (New) VM server (2U, lots of RAM)
 * (New) Workstation (4U, GPU)

For interactive use and experimentation with VMs I would need to power-on  
all three systems. For non-VM use, it would have to be two... it is an  
interesting solution that stays within what the systems were designed to do  
but I think it is currently too much for my uses.

Still, thanks for the suggestion.

OT: The hints about the details of e-mail encoding and signing are  
appreciated. Some other notes are here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/courier/mailman/courier-cone/?viewmonth=20201
0

Linux-Fan

Non-ASCII chars follow...: ──── ö § ö ─────
*E-Mail signed for experimentation*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227543 — Re: Signing emails, was Re: General-Purpose Server for Debian Stable

On Fri 02 Oct 2020 at 13:18:29 (+0200), Linux-Fan wrote:–
> 
> OT: The hints about the details of e-mail encoding and signing are
> appreciated. Some other notes are here:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/courier/mailman/courier-cone/?viewmonth=202010

I took a look at that thread.
> From: Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@we...> - 2020-10-02 11:30:16
> > I discovered that the workaround is exactly to use some 8-bit
> > characters which will avoid the re- encoding throughout transmission.

Exactly what I would suggest, and the opposite of my advice in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/06/msg00598.html
where the problem was reversed. So you could hit all your replies by
modifying your attribution (as I have, above), but better would be
the hyphen in your sign–off (← as here) particularly if it's automated,
like mine. (I don't make my sign-off into a syntactical signature.)
I don't know how entirely 7bit attachments would be treated.

> From: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@co...> - 2020-10-02 11:21:44
> > Cone already uses quoted-printable when the message contains 8-bit characters.

I'd use base64, myself, with a signed message.

> > There is no valid reason whatsoever to reencode 7-bit only mail
> > content. I cannot find any documentation that specifies any
> > restrictions on signed mail, other than to avoid 8-bit content.

Note that you have been using Content-Type: … charset="UTF-8"
RFC 3156 says "many existing mail gateways will detect if the next hop
does not support MIME or 8-bit data and perform conversion to either
Quoted-Printable or Base64".

> > Trying to work around someone else's bugs is a major waste of
> > time. The correct solution is for someone else to fix the bug.

… which, of course, is nonsense. Since mid-August, I have been using a
different email smarthost for posts to just this list because two MTAs
are currently unable to cooperate successfully. Should I stay silent
until that bug is fixed? (Don't answer that!)

They obviously haven't read the RFC:

   "Implementor's note: It cannot be stressed enough that applications
    using this standard follow MIME's suggestion that you "be
    conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you
    accept."  In this particular case it means it would be wise for an
    implementation to accept messages with any content-transfer-
    encoding, but restrict generation to the 7-bit format required by
    this memo.  This will allow future compatibility in the event the
    Internet SMTP framework becomes 8-bit friendly."

So my guess is that your mailer is sending *potentially*
8bit content without encoding it, and an MTA is encoding it
because it's not expected to check for solely 7bit content
just because Content-Transfer-Encoding is set to 7bit.

Sorry that I can't check whether your signing is successful
as I don't maintain any personal keyring.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227556

On 2020-10-02 04:18, Linux-Fan wrote:
> David Christensen writes:
> 
>> On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote:

 >    2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS)

>> I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, 
>> etc., each requires, and then dividing them across your several 
>> computers.
> 
> Division across multiple machines... I am already doing this for data 
> that exceeds my current 4T storage (2x2T HDD, 2x2T "slow" SSD local and 
> 4x1T outsourced to the other machine). 

Are the SSD's 2 TB or 4 TB?


> I currently do this for data I 
> need rather rarely such that I can run the common tasks on a single 
> machine. Doing this for all (or large amounts of data) will require 
> running at least two machines at the same time which may increase the 
> idle power draw and possibilities for failure?

More devices are going to use more power and have a higher probability 
of failure than a single device of the same size and type, but it's hard 
to predict for devices of different sizes and/or types.  I use HDD's for 
file server data and backups, and I use SSD's for system disks, caches, 
and/or fast local working storage.  I expect drives will break, so I 
have invested in redundancy and disaster planning/ preparedness.


>> Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have 
>> similar prices and power consumption, but the former will run 
>> sequential tasks twice as fast and the latter will run concurrent 
>> tasks twice as fast.
> 
> Is this still true today? AFAIK all modern CPUs "boost" their frequency 
> if they are lightly loaded. Also, the larger CPUs tend to come with more 
> cache which may speed up single-core applications, too.

Yes, frequency scaling blurs the line.  But, the principle remains.


I am not familiar with AMD products, but Intel does offer Xeon 
processors with fewer cores and higher frequencies specifically for 
workstations:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/xeon/ultimate-workstation-performance.html


>> I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines 
>> into a file server.  Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB 
>> SSD's can work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection 
>> should be impressive.  If you choose ZFS, it will need memory.  The 
>> rule of thumb is 5 GB of memory per 1 TB of storage.  So, pick a 
>> machine that has at least 20 GB of memory.
> 
> 4x4T is surely nice and future-proof but currently above budget :) 

Yes, $2,000+ for 4 @ 4 TB SATA III SSD's is a lot of money.  But, U.2 
PCIe/NVMe 4X drives are even more money.


That's why I use obsolete, but new, Seagate Constellation ES.2 SATA III 
3 TB HDD's -- ~$50 each on eBay.  Buy four drives for $200, buy small 
SATA III SSD cache and log devices for $100, and you will have 75% the 
capacity and excellent performance for typical file server workloads for 
$300.


> I saw 
> that the Supermicro AS-2113S-WTRT can do 6xU.2 drives. In case I chose 
> Supermicro this would allow upgrading to such a 4x4T configuration.
> 
>> As for the workstation, it is difficult to find a vendor that supports 
>> Debian.  But, there are vendors that support Ubuntu; which is based 
>> upon Debian.  So, you can run Ubuntu and you might be able to run Debian:
>>
>> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=ubuntu%20workstation
> 
> My experience with HP and Fujitsu Workstations is that they run well 
> with Debian. I am still thinking that buying two systems will be more 
> expensive and more power draw. Using one of the existent systems will 
> slow some things down to their speed -- the current "fastest" system 
> here has a Xeon E3-1231 v3 and while it has 3.4GHz it is surely slower 
> (even singlethreaded) than current 16-core server CPUs...

That would make a good file server; even better with 10 Gbps networking.


> Thinking of it, a possible distribution accross multiple machines may be
> 
> * (Existent) Storage server (1U, existent Fujitsu RX 1330 M1)
>    [It does not do NVMe SSDs, though -- alternatively put the disks
>     in the VM server?]
> * (New) VM server (2U, lots of RAM)
> * (New) Workstation (4U, GPU)
>
> For interactive use and experimentation with VMs I would need to 
> power-on all three systems. For non-VM use, it would have to be two... 
> it is an interesting solution that stays within what the systems were 
> designed to do but I think it is currently too much for my uses.

The Fujitsu might do PCIe/NVMe 4X M.2 or U.2 SSD's with the right 
adapter card.


Depending upon what your VM's are doing, a SATA III SSD might be enough 
or you might want something faster.  Similar comment for the workstation.


Rather than a new VM server and a new workstation, perhaps a new 
workstation with enough memory and fast local working storage would be 
adequate for both purposes.


> Still, thanks for the suggestion.

YW.  :-)


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227557

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

David Christensen writes:

> On 2020-10-02 04:18, Linux-Fan wrote:
>> David Christensen writes:
>>
>>> On 2020-10-01 14:37, Linux-Fan wrote:
>
> >    2x4T SSD for fast storage (VMs, OS)
>
>>> I suggest identifying your workloads, how much CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc.,  
>>> each requires, and then dividing them across your several computers.
>>
>> Division across multiple machines... I am already doing this for data that  
>> exceeds my current 4T storage (2x2T HDD, 2x2T "slow" SSD local and 4x1T  
>> outsourced to the other machine).
>
> Are the SSD's 2 TB or 4 TB?

I currently have:

 * 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 2TB
 * 1x Crucial_CT2050MX300SSD1

together in an mdadm RAID 1.

For the new server, I will need more storage, so I envied getting two
NVME U.2 SSDs for 2x4T -- mainly motivated by the fact that I would take  
the opportunity to upgrade performance and that they are not actually that  
expensive anymore:
https://www.conrad.de/de/p/intel-dc-p4510-4-tb-interne-u-2-pcie-nvme-ssd-6-35-cm-2-5-zoll-u-2-nvme-pcie-3-1-x4-ssdpe2kx040t801-1834315.html

Of course, given the fact that server manufacturers have entirely different  
views on prices (factor 7 in the Dell Webshop for instance :) ), I might  
need to change plans a little...

>> I currently do this for data I need rather rarely such that I can run the  
>> common tasks on a single machine. Doing this for all (or large amounts of  
>> data) will require running at least two machines at the same time which may  
>> increase the idle power draw and possibilities for failure?
>
> More devices are going to use more power and have a higher probability of  
> failure than a single device of the same size and type, but it's hard to  
> predict for devices of different sizes and/or types.  I use HDD's for file  
> server data and backups, and I use SSD's for system disks, caches, and/or  
> fast local working storage.  I expect drives will break, so I have invested  
> in redundancy and disaster planning/ preparedness.

Yes. It is close to the same here with the additional SSD usage for VMs  
and containers.

>>> Understand that a 4 core 5 GHz CPU and a 16 core 2.5 GHz CPU have similar  
>>> prices and power consumption, but the former will run sequential tasks twice  
>>> as fast and the latter will run concurrent tasks twice as fast.
>>
>> Is this still true today? AFAIK all modern CPUs "boost" their frequency if  
>> they are lightly loaded. Also, the larger CPUs tend to come with more cache  
>> which may speed up single-core applications, too.
>
> Yes, frequency scaling blurs the line.  But, the principle remains.
>
>
> I am not familiar with AMD products, but Intel does offer Xeon processors  
> with fewer cores and higher frequencies specifically for workstations:
>
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/xeon/ultimate- 
> workstation-performance.html

AMD does it too, but their variants are more targeted at saving license  
costs by reducing the number of cores. As I am mostly using free software, I  
can stick to the regular CPUs.

If I go for a workstation, I will end up with Intel anyways, because Dell,  
HP and Fujitsu seem to agree that Intels are the only true workstation CPUs.  

>>> I would think that you should convert one of your existing machines into a  
>>> file server.  Splitting 4 TB across 2 @ 2 TB HDD's and 2 @ 4 TB SSD's can  
>>> work, but 4 @ 4 TB SSD's with a 10 Gbps Ethernet connection should be  
>>> impressive.  If you choose ZFS, it will need memory.  The rule of thumb is 5  
>>> GB of memory per 1 TB of storage.  So, pick a machine that has at least 20  
>>> GB of memory.
>>
>> 4x4T is surely nice and future-proof but currently above budget :)
>
> Yes, $2,000+ for 4 @ 4 TB SATA III SSD's is a lot of money.  But, U.2  
> PCIe/NVMe 4X drives are even more money.

Noted. Actually, 4x4T SATA is affordable, as is 2x4T U.2 if not bought from  
the server vendor [prices from HPE are still pending, but I am scared  
by browsing for them on the Internet already...] :)

[...]

>> down to their speed -- the current "fastest" system here has a Xeon E3-1231  
>> v3 and while it has 3.4GHz it is surely slower (even singlethreaded) than  
>> current 16-core server CPUs...
>
> That would make a good file server; even better with 10 Gbps networking.

10GE is in place already, but there are other hardware limitations (see  
next).

>> Thinking of it, a possible distribution accross multiple machines may be
>>
>> * (Existent) Storage server (1U, existent Fujitsu RX 1330 M1)
>>    [It does not do NVMe SSDs, though -- alternatively put the disks
>>     in the VM server?]
>> * (New) VM server (2U, lots of RAM)
>> * (New) Workstation (4U, GPU)
>>
>> For interactive use and experimentation with VMs I would need to power-on  
>> all three systems. For non-VM use, it would have to be two... it is an  
>> interesting solution that stays within what the systems were designed to do  
>> but I think it is currently too much for my uses.
>
> The Fujitsu might do PCIe/NVMe 4X M.2 or U.2 SSD's with the right adapter  
> card.

Been there, failed at that:

The backplane is a SAS/SATA one which exposes the four drive slots as four  
SATA connectors. They are collected by some Fujitsu adapter cable and  
brought to a matching port on the motherboard. The datasheet does not  
indicate in any way that I could add U.2 drives there.

Actually, before considering to buy a new machine, I had thought about the
use of M.2 SSDs in the (only) remaining free PCIe slot inside the currently  
used Fujitsu RX 1330 M1. I could not find any indication on whether the  
motherboard would support PCIe bifurication (BIOS setup does not indicate  
any option to turn it on for instance...), thus I tried to get a PCIe switch  
chip card, this one:
https://www.reichelt.de/pcie-x8-karte-zu-2x-nvme-m-2-key-m-lp-delock-90305-p256917.html?&trstct=pos_3&nbc=1

I added two SSDs, a Crucial P5 SSD 2TB, M.2 NVMe and a Seagate FireCuda 510  
SSD 2TB M.2 PCIe (all ordered together) and started the server. Nothing was  
recognized at the OS level but opening up the 1U case showed a fault  
indicator LED at the PCIe slot where I had added the new card. I reaseated  
the card, tried swapping the SSDs but the fault would not resolve. Finally,  
I removed the card and put it away for later testing. Meanwhile, rebooting  
the server, the network interfaces were no longer recognized properly (!)  
They appeared as "unprogrammed" in `lspci` and did not have any MAC  
addresses set... For a certain time it looked as if I had bricked my  
motherboard's NICs. Fortunately an other task required attention such that  
I shutdown the server (useless w/o NICs anyways :) ) and after putting on  
power agian after a few hours, NICs were back to normal. To not put the  
server at further risk, I continued testing the PCIe switch card inside  
another computer only to find out that that computer would not boot (hang at  
a BIOS screen without error message...) while the card was in place and  
populated with both SSDs. Whenever I used only one of the M.2 SSDs for  
testing purposes, it worked fine (system booted, SSD recognized and  
accessible), but that was not helpful for building a RAID 1 out of the M.2  
SSDs.

In the meantime, I had to replace the server's CMOS battery and it again  
showed that scary issue wrt. the NICs not being recognized  
"temporarily" (i.e. until being shutdown for a few hours).

I conclude that while I can be glad everything works again, the space for  
expansion is really used up here and new hardware is needed.

> Depending upon what your VM's are doing, a SATA III SSD might be enough or  
> you might want something faster.  Similar comment for the workstation.
>
> Rather than a new VM server and a new workstation, perhaps a new workstation  
> with enough memory and fast local working storage would be adequate for both  
> purposes.

Maybe; I will get some prices for comparision... In terms of the base model  
price I do not expect there to be much difference between the server and the  
workstation with the same computation power, but if the workstation allows  
custom HDDs while staying under warranty it might be much cheaper.

SSD performance for the VMs is already acceptable with SATA (as it is now,  
with concurrent usage limited by the RAM). Faster is always welcome,  
though :)

Thanks again
Linux-Fan

[...]

--
── ö§ö ──

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227559

On 2020-10-02 17:16, Linux-Fan wrote:
> David Christensen writes:

>> The Fujitsu might do PCIe/NVMe 4X M.2 or U.2 SSD's with the right 
>> adapter card.
> 
> Been there, failed at that:

> https://www.reichelt.de/pcie-x8-karte-zu-2x-nvme-m-2-key-m-lp-delock-90305-p256917.html?&trstct=pos_3&nbc=1 
> 
> 
> I added two SSDs, a Crucial P5 SSD 2TB, M.2 NVMe and a Seagate FireCuda 
> 510 SSD 2TB M.2 PCIe (all ordered together) and started the server. 
> Nothing was recognized at the OS level but opening up the 1U case showed 
> a fault indicator LED at the PCIe slot where I had added the new card.

Perhaps a different brand adapter card would give better results.


>> Rather than a new VM server and a new workstation, perhaps a new 
>> workstation with enough memory and fast local working storage would be 
>> adequate for both purposes.
> 
> Maybe; I will get some prices for comparision... In terms of the base 
> model price I do not expect there to be much difference between the 
> server and the workstation with the same computation power, but if the 
> workstation allows custom HDDs while staying under warranty it might be 
> much cheaper.

Buying a new major brand server/ workstation with all the parts 
installed at the factory is going to be expensive.


As other readers have mentioned, a small business that builds to order 
should have better prices and may offer "quiet" systems.


In addition to U.2 drives, Intel makes server systems:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/servers/server-chassis-systems.html


And, Intel seems to be related to the Clear Linux distribution:

https://clearlinux.org/


I would expect an Intel server with Intel drives and Clear Linux should 
be a good combination.  Perhaps you should research Clear Linux and/or 
ask the community.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227541

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 01 Oct 2020 23:37:16 +0200
Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> wrote:

> Hello fellow list users,
> 
> I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage
> such that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next
> "workstation".

If it's quiet you want, try https://silentpc.com/. They are not cheap,
but their products are solid and reliable, and quiet. The two I have
are so quiet that I can hear the heads move on the 3.5" disk drives in
them.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227542

> If it's quiet you want, try https://silentpc.com/. They are not cheap,
> but their products are solid and reliable, and quiet. The two I have
> are so quiet that I can hear the heads move on the 3.5" disk drives in
> them.

Sadly, they get noisier when you use SSDs instead: you can't hear the
heads move any more ;-(


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227548

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Linux-Fan writes:

> Hello fellow list users,
>
> I am constantly needing more computation power, RAM and HDD storage such
> that I have finally decided to buy a server for my next "workstation". The

[...]

> * Of course, if there are any other comments, I am happy to hear them, too.
>
>   I am looking into all options although a fully self-built system is
>   probably too much. I once tried to (only) get a decent PC case and failed
>   at it... I can only imagine it being worse for rackmount PC cases and
>   creating a complete system composed of individual parts?

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to thank everyone for the great replies they sent!
I now know some additional things to consider and even got some progress on  
the unrelated e-mail signatures problem.

Still unsure where I will end up with this, but if interested, I could post  
the actual results from my journey once I got the hardware. It will take some  
time, for sure, but probably happen before next year :)

Thanks again
Linux-Fan

--
── ö§ö ── 8 bit for signature ── ö§ö ──

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web