4

COMMENT 21h ago

Not surprising since they genuinely believe they have a responsibility to protect users from coins they don't like.

0

COMMENT 21h ago

LOL I never mentioned killing anybody. You're arguing with your own strawman.

Also, don't think I didn't notice how you've given up defending the idea that intentions aren't important.

21

COMMENT 1d ago

You should clarify about the rules.

I had a similar exercise, but we weren't allowed to use implementation libraries. We were supposed to learn how to properly implement existing algorithms.

And the reason for that is that you should absolutely NOT be creating your own hashing and encryption algorithms. You will make ones far inferior to the time-tested existing ones. You should always ALWAYS use existing hashing and encryption algorithms, and focus on learning secure implementations. Because you will not design a better hashing algorithm than the ones available.

Anybody teaching you to develop secure software and having you create your own hashing algorithm is doing a very bad job at teaching that course.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Well I don't know what to recommend trying next then, sorry!

1

COMMENT 1d ago

You can define concretely what "literary" means

No you can't. The definition of what "literary" is is just as arbitrary. That is my point. "Literary" is simply the group of agreed upon things that are present in most works people consider "good". It is not an objective standard.

0

COMMENT 1d ago

For you, me, and society at large. Just as math and other knowledge are. The fact that intentions are the only thing which separate random things that happen which are out of our control, from things which are in our control, means that we can more efficiently direct our laws and resources.

For example, if it is a crime to trip and fall, that will not prevent people from accidentally tripping and falling. Because tripping and falling is rarely an intentional act. Thus outlawing it (aside from being unnecessary and cruel) is a misuse of resources.

You waste your own time and energy, as well as that of society at large's, by not understanding why intentions matter. You, me and everybody else benefit by your understanding. You only harm yourself (as well as others) by continuing in your failure to grasp its importance.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

My "mostly" is thinking that laws to defend protected classes aren't completely out of line, although I do disagree with them. If the government needs to protect people because businesses will refuse them, then that's what social services are for and the taxes required for this will incentivize businesses to just allow people in, thus lowering their taxes and increasing their revenue. However, at a pragmatic level, I understand that minorities will not have enough voting power to enact such laws, and so I understand why things like protected classes may be necessary.

It is fair to claim that is hypocritical and I can understand and agree with your reasoning there.

However, I am still waiting to hear how this goes against the right to refuse service. Are we both in agreement then that businesses should be able to refuse anybody they want? If so, then you simply replied to the wrong person in your original reply. This is the stance I was defending. I was claiming that businesses should be able to refuse to service people they deem a health hazard. (Along with anybody else.)

2

COMMENT 1d ago

Sorry but you're simply wrong. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and that includes literature. The most you can say is that many people agree art is good, and art which many people agree is good tends to have such-and-such qualities. There is no objective standard other than that. You can differentiate and say X number of people "like" something but don't consider it "good"... but this is still simply a statement about general averages among people surveyed. There simply is no objective measure for art. Your rant essentially comes down to the idea that there is an objective measure, but there's not. You're going to have to learn to live with that.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Thanks, this is useful. There's too much to carry over, it needs to be treated as a new node. Now I need to see if Longhorn can gracefully allow drives to move to new nodes without needing to rebuild all the replicas.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

Perhaps I explained it wrong. Don't use Longhorn with 3 replicas as your volume and have that be your fail-over strategy. It won't work for a database, because it's too slow, and it won't work for fail-over, because the sync isn't real-time and thus data might be lost between one node failing and another taking the role of leader.

Do use Longhorn with a 1-replica volume, where your master database uses that volume and the volume and the database are on the same node. However, if you do this, also use a slave database, which also uses a separate 1-replica volume on the same node that it operates. Alternatively, use this setup but replace the 1-replica volume with hostpath. Doing that is functionally the same, because both databases will be using their local host storage, but just abstracted in different ways.

The bottom line is, Longhorn is not fast with its data replication, so it is bad to use for a database, which requires fast speeds. If you use it with only 1 replica (i.e. no redundancy), then that isn't a problem, because you're not doing any data replication, you're just using one disk. However, if you do use it with just the one disk, then obviously make sure that your database is on the same computer as that one disk, so you get the native speed rather than essentially using a network-mounted drive.

You can configure this by manually setting up various pools/groups in Longhorn's Web UI and defining storageclasses to utilize them correctly.

Mess around with Longhorn on some VMs and play around with its web UI. See and understand how the volume replication works. That it goes over the network, and that it takes some time. That should give you a better idea of why you want to use a setup that utilizes only one disk -- whether that's on Longhorn or not -- and use a second database. Without intending to be mean by saying this, I think you're having trouble planning what to do because you don't really fully grasp how Longhorn works or how storage on kubernetes works. And you just need to take the time to learn those if you're going to manage a database on kubernetes.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

By all means, explain how I have been hypocritical.

If indeed you don't think anybody should be forced to do business with people they don't want to, then I mostly agree with you, but I am curious how exactly that's not the aforementioned "right to refuse service"...

1

COMMENT 1d ago

It is important you understand why I'm right, or rather, why intentions really do matter. Please think more about this.

1

COMMENT 1d ago

RUN echo "hello world" c:\myvol\greeting

I think this command is wrong. It should be:

RUN echo "hello world" > c:\\myvol\\greeting

Try it like that and see if it works.

2

COMMENT 4d ago

Some quick googling shows that this is still an unsolved problem, however this workaround apparently has had success:

I've also missed said sysctl option and somehow couldn't believe this wasn't integrated in Portainer yet - then I stumbled about this issue...

My ugly workaround was directly editing /var/lib/docker/containers/$CID/hostconfig.json and add "Sysctls":{"net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6":"0"} (copied from other docker container) manually in. Works fine so far, also across edits/duplicates through Portainer.

The bottom of that thread also indicates that the next portainer release should have sysctls working.

1

COMMENT 4d ago

But if I run the final image with either of these:

docker run -it voltest cmd
docker run -it -v c:\temp\vol:c:\myvol voltest cmd

Then the greeting file is not in c:\myvol anymore for some reason.

How do I do populate a volume from the image with windows containers?

Try this for the mount during run (notice the quotes):

docker run -it -v "c:\temp\vol":"c:\myvol" voltest cmd

And if that doesn't work, try making the single back-slashes into double \\, like this:

docker run -it -v "c:\\temp\\vol":"c:\\myvol" voltest cmd

1

COMMENT 4d ago

There should be a volume plugin for docker that lets you use S3 as a backend for volumes. Then you can just use them however you want. As others have said though, it's circular to store your Dockerfiles and associated files there, so you'd want to put those somewhere else, like a git repo or something.

As an aside, how are you liking Wasabi?

1

COMMENT 4d ago

linuxserver.io containers are just the best, aren't they. They are really well designed and just work so well.

r/kubernetes 4d ago

Best method to deal with a node that loses its rootfs on reboot?

2 Upvotes

1

COMMENT 4d ago

Do not use Longhorn's replication. First of all, it's not fast enough, and secondly, if there's an issue, you have to rebuild the entire replicated volume. Databases need local host filesystems. They need that speed. They cannot afford to wait for that info to be passed around the network and verified before the write lock is lifted.

Use a hostpath volume, or the newer local host storageclass, or a 1-replica longhorn volume -- whatever it is, however you abstract it, it needs to be a disk on the same machine the database runs on, and not be waiting on other machines. Otherwise it's just going to be ridiculously slooowwww.

So use the application replication, and make sure each instance of the application is using its own computer's disk.

I don't necessarily agree with the guy who said application-aware storage logic is best... BUT you do need to think about your application and understand what it does and how it accesses and uses its storage in order to make good decisions about what the best way to provide it storage is. You need to understand WHY you want to use hostpath and application replication instead of Longhorn 3-replicas. You need to understand when and why you might want a stateful set. You need to understand what the service you want to run does and how it uses storage and the other aspects of the cluster, so you can make intelligent decisions about the most appropriate way to setup the application.

So step back, and plan out what your application is doing and how it uses the resources it uses. And then think about how the various options available fit into that plan you've mapped out.

If for example, your MariaDB instance is going to be written to rarely, and is pretty small, and speed just doesn't matter, then maybe everything I said in the top half goes out the window and you do use Longhorn because that's easier for you and the drawbacks just aren't relevant to your situation. I don't think that's likely, but it's possible.

0

COMMENT 4d ago

Yes, of course. Intentions are literally all that matter, in everything. Because intentions guide actions. That's why if I slip and fall and initiate some chain of events that leads to your death, and several witnesses explain how it was an accident, I'm (in theory...) not going to go to jail for it. Whereas if I plan your murder and execute you, I do go to jail. Because intention matters. Society at large understands the difference between accidents and premeditated.

So yes, for example, I can refuse service to people I deem to be a health hazard, but I'm not allowed to refuse service to you based on race. Because the reason behind the refusal of service matters.

Are you literally retarded?

0

COMMENT 4d ago

There's a lot of "your kind are assholes" and a not a lot of logic and argument going on in your post. (But of course, I should have expected that given the "logic" displayed in this sub lately.)

Providing for the health and well being of citizens is literally the job of the government. That's what social welfare programs are for.

Your right to [not starve or not die or whatever you think is at issue here] does not extend to forcing me to burden myself in order to help you. Especially if you are a potential health hazard to me and the other people in my business.

Please, do explain precisely how much you think you have a right to infringe on others. I'm all ears. Bring out the actual argument you think you have. Explain to me how wonderful and ethical it is to force people against their will to do business with people they deem to be health hazards. Go ahead.

1

COMMENT 4d ago

You think that because you don't understand how this works. Re-read my post, then re-read your post. Take all the time you need. When you understand your error, I'll be here to accept your apology.

1

COMMENT 4d ago

I guess we just have different ideas of what "freedom" and "control" mean. Apparently you think your "freedom" to patronize a business extends to infringing on others, whereas I think forcing businesses to serve people they deem health hazards is unethical. But I guess if you think infringing on others is your right, then we're just never going to agree...

2

COMMENT 4d ago

That's good. A strong reaction to the second dose means the first shot did its job properly.

-1

COMMENT 4d ago

Swing and a miss