Skip to main content

Taking the Linux plunge

So I've got a decade or so of Windows-based network administration experience. However, my formal computer science education was rooted in Unix back in the early 1990s. We used Sun workstations exclusively back then, and almost all programming was in C or Scheme. I even wrote a simple C compiler.

But my first job was at a Netware 3.X shop, which we transitioned to Windows NT 3.51, and I've been managing large, multi-site, but mostly-Windows networks ever since. (I've also done a lot of DBA and security work too). So I'm not a neophyte when it comes to IT, but I don't have much Linux experience, as none of the jobs or projects I've worked on used Linux.

I finally decided to install Linux and actually try to use the thing regularly. I've done "toy installs" of various Linux and BSD flavors over the years, mostly in in Virtual machines. But this was my first real go at using Linux regularly.

I picked Ubuntu 6.10 as my distribution, based mostly on reputation as the simplest Linux to get working.

But first, I had to partition my hard disk on my Dell 700m so I could dual-boot. No problem; I've used PartitionMagic before. But QTpartEd from the bootable Knoppix CD can also shrink and existing NTFS partition, so I used that, and it worked like a champ: 40 GB for my existing Windows XP Pro installation, and 20 GB of empty space for Linux.

Not exactly "my mom can do it" easy, but not the sort of thing that's necessary unless you want to dual-boot.

After downloading Ubuntu 6.10 installer and burning it to CD, I fired it up in my road-weary Dell. A nice GUI installer comes up, and asks a few sensible questions. Then it asks where I want to install. But the default option is to erase the entire disk and devote it to Ubuntu!

Now, not even Microsoft has the gall to default to "erase everything else" the Windows installer. But choosing the "use largest free space" option was easy enough. So I'll forgive this, and I'm sure there would have been lots of warnings to prevent me from killing my Windows partition if I had chosen the default option.

Now click through a few more sensible screens, wait 20 minutes or so for files to copy, and then a reboot. Ubuntu comes up in all its earthy (that is, very very brown) glory.

All in all, a simple install. Simpler than Windows XP, in fact, and about the same as Vista.

But now the real fun begins, as I try to use this thing regularly.


Popular posts from this blog

Fixing slow NFS performance between VMware and Windows 2008 R2

I've seen hundreds of reports of slow NFS performance between VMware ESX/ESXi and Windows Server 2008 (with or without R2) out there on the internet, mixed in with a few reports of it performing fabulously.
We use the storage on our big Windows file servers periodically for one-off dev/test VMware virutal machines, and have  been struggling with this quite a bit recently. It used to be fast. Now it was very slow, like less than 3 MB/s for a copy of a VMDK. It made no sense.
We chased a lot of ideas. Started with the Windows and WMware logs of course, but nothing significant showed up. The Windows Server performance counters showed low CPU utilization and queue depth, low disk queue depth, less than 1 ms average IO service time, and a paltry 30 Mbps network utilization on bonded GbE links.
So where was the bottleneck? I ran across this Microsoft article about slow NFS performance when user name mapping wasn't set up, but it only seemed to apply to Windows 2003. Surely the patch me…

Google's public NTP servers?

I was struggling with finding a good set of low-ping NTP servers for use as upstream sources in the office. Using is great and all, but the rotating DNS entries aren't fabulous for Windows NTP clients (or really any NTP software except the reference ntpd implementation).

ntpd resolves a server hostname to an IP once at startup, and then sticks with that IP forever. Most other NTP clients honor DNS TTLs, and will follow the rotation of addresses returned by This means Windows NTP client using the built-in Windows Time Service will actually be trying to sync to a moving set of target servers when pointed at a source. Fine for most client, but not great for servers trying to maintain stable timing for security and logging purposes.

I stumbled across this link referencing Google's ntp servers at hostname time[1-4] These servers support IPv4 and IPv6, and seem to be anycast just like Google's public DNS servers at time…

Presets versus quality in x264 encoding

I'm scoping a project that will require re-encoding a large training video library into HTML5 and Flash-compatible formats. As of today, this means using H.264-based video for best compatability and quality (although WebM might become an option in a year or two).
The open source x264 is widely considered the state of the art in H.264 encoders. Given the large amount of source video we need to convert as part of the project, finding the optimal trade-off between encoding speed and quality with x264-based encoders (x264 itself, FFmpeg, MEencoder, HandBrake, etc.) is important.
So I created a 720p video comprised of several popular video test sequences concatenated together. All of these sequences are from lossless original sources, so we are not re-compressing the artifacts of another video codec. The sequences are designed to torture video codecs: scenes include splashing water, flames, slow pans, detailed backgrounds and fast motion. I did several two-pass 2500 kbps encodings using …