bingo-bongo
An RFC exists that discourages the “x-“ naming, but it’s still very much in use in the wild.
3x$5VPS: Garage S3 cluster for static sites and project builds, behind haproxy. Also runs Postgres w/ patroni and a small game server for a game I’m working on and some nameservers. My website is on all 3 VMs and has a little gimmick, where state is tracked between them.
3xOld MiniPC: Proxmox cluster for running Gitlab+Runners, monitoring vm, Valheim server, Syncthing, plus a couple of other odd projects. The oldest hw is probably close to 10 years old (NUC7) and the other two is refurbished Lenovo M710q I think, so nothing fancy.
Everything is connected- and communicate over Tailscale.
But it had nothing to do with the iPod/iPhone release in his story.
(story starts ~1:15, but I highly recommend the entire talk)
They do: https://serverpartdeals.com/
Haven’t used them myself, but afair Wendel (Level1Techs) mentioned them at some point.
I’m sure they are trying and it has gotten slightly better lately - but it’s still not great imho. If they really want to do it better than Apple etc., they seriously need to up their game - and I really wish they would, but I don’t see that happening, the cost is too high.
(Use EnvironmentFile= instead)
That’s the behavioral problem.
When AI is assisting a professional, the outcome is vastly different.
One of the new risks is if anything critical happens with the hardware, network, switch etc. then everything is down, until someone at Hetzner go fixes it.
With a virtual server it’ll just get started on a different server straight away. Usually hypervisors also has 2 or more network connections etc.
And hopefully they also got some backup setup.
It’s still a huge amount of of savings and I’d probably do the same of I were in their shoes, but there is tradeoffs when going from virtual- to dedicated hardware.
Some of our users experienced fairly limited throughput from time to time. Under certain circumstances (eg. always ipv4 NAT/double-NAT, never for ipv6) their Tailscale client couldn't establish a direct connection to the Tailscale node in the datacenter, so data was relayed through Tailscales public relay nodes. Which at times was rate limited/bottleneck - in all fairness, that is to be expected according to their docs.
The first mitigation was to "ban" the specific public relay they were using in the policy. Which helped, but still not a great solution and we might just end up in a weird whack-a-mole-ish ban game with the public peer relays in the long run.
So we setup a peer relay, which networking-wise is in a DMZ sort of network (more open), but location wise still in the datacenter and allowed it to easily reach the internal (more restricted networking) Tailscale nodes. Which solved all throughput problems, since we no longer have users connecting through the public relays.
Also, the peer relays feels a little bit magic, once you allow the use of them in the Tailscale policy, it just works(tm) - there is basically zero fiddling with them.
EDIT: I'll happily provide more details if interested - we did a fair amount of testing and debugging along the way :)
CLI only though, but really nice.
Followed by something about 1800+ companies they want to sent my data to .. :|
- have data to train on
- update the data more or less continuously
- answer queries from users on the fly
With a lot of AI companies, that generates a lot of scraping. Also, some of them behave terribly when scraping or is just bad at it.
I’d love a Linux firewall configured with a sane config file and I think BSD really nailed it. It’s easy to configure and still human readable, even for more advanced firewall gateway setups with many interfaces/zones.
A have no doubt that Linux can do all the same stuff feature-wise, but oh god the UX :/
But what might happen when they fail - thermal runaway is no joke with lithium-ion, ask any firefighter.
Probably not his daily drivers.. :)
And latest 8.0 and 8.4 is supported at least a year from now.
Because at the end of the day, Github is responsible for _their_ runners.
If you want full control, install and use your own runners, which flips the responsibility to you.
Like letters/words painted on the road for drivers to read them.
I would think trying to restart engines one at a time would be preferred, over both of them at the same time - or maybe thats not how it works..?
It’s a hard problem to fix, when we can’t trust any publishers in the future :(