2 ms·

Eh? This is my home network, not a production system at work. It's purely used for internet access and for testing ad-hoc installs...

Aaargh20318 10y ago
How is your home network not a production system ? If your router crashes, won't the other inhabitants of your home be annoyed they can't use the internet or watch TV ? To me a non-production system is one I can turn off for indeterminate periods of time without loss of any service I actually need to use in daily life.
- arpa 10y ago
  By that definition, there are almost no production systems in real life. Because what you really, really need is air, warmth and water. Anything else is disposable, a convenience. So what if the internet access breaks - just plug in an old router that's been gathering dust as a temporary measure while you fix the "project" one.
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    > By that definition, there are almost no production systems in real life. No, pretty much everything is. > Anything else is disposable, a convenience. Fine, we'll your definition: If it causes an inconvenience if it goes down it is a production machine.
    - arpa 10y ago
      Well that's one way of making your own life difficult. To each his own I suppose. I have no qualms about running multiple services on the same machine as long as it's firewalled sufficiently. That's why we have multi-process and multi-user operating systems after all.
      - sofaofthedamned 10y ago
        Exactly. The OS on my gateway only goes down on kernel updates, and I can crontab them (unlike with the ISP supplied box). My son and his mates can put any old malware infested phone on his SSID, but they can't get to my LAN. I can run my gitlab etc without affecting him, apart from QoS - any the latter is something the ISP gateway doesn't even offer. Anybody sufficiently experienced can segregate services on a single box without any worry.
- sofaofthedamned 10y ago
  Seriously?! The wifi my partner and childs kit is connected to = VLANd off, goes straight out through a DMZ via its own interface. The stuff i'm testing doesn't touch this and I can do what I like through those interfaces without affecting their stuff. Unlike the ISP supplied router if something crashes, I can restart the service rather than pull the power. It doesn't crash anyway, unlike the ISP kit which is temperamental at best. ISP routers already have wifi. Shouldn't the wifi be separate, as rebooting the router will bring it down otherwise? Where do you draw the line?
  - Aaargh20318 10y ago
    > The stuff i'm testing doesn't touch this and I can do what I like through those interfaces without affecting their stuff. Can you pull the power on your testing machine without affecting the wifi ? The point is not that you can usually do it without affecting any other services, the point is that even if you fuck up in the most spectacular way possible and literally fry all the hardware in that box it should not affect any other service than the one you were tinkering with. (Note that in a corporate setting that would not be acceptable either and you'd want failover and no single points of failure). > unlike the ISP supplied router if something crashes, I can restart the service rather than pull the power. It doesn't crash anyway, unlike the ISP kit which is temperamental at best. I'm not saying you should use the ISP-provided router, on the contrary, you should definitely build your own. But build a second machine for your experiments, and third for your fileserver, and a fourth for your torrents, and a fifth for.. etc. etc. > ISP routers already have wifi. Shouldn't the wifi be separate, as rebooting the router will bring it down otherwise? Yes it should certainly be separate. And it is, at least in my house. Router is a simple server-grade machine (IPMI, ECC, etc.) that ONLY does network routing. I use Ubiquiti access points for the WiFi. > Where do you draw the line? Functionally separate services on separate boxes.

Aaargh20318 10y ago

How is your home network not a production system ? If your router crashes, won't the other inhabitants of your home be annoyed they can't use the internet or watch TV ? To me a non-production system is one I can turn off for indeterminate periods of time without loss of any service I actually need to use in daily life.

arpa 10y ago
By that definition, there are almost no production systems in real life. Because what you really, really need is air, warmth and water. Anything else is disposable, a convenience. So what if the internet access breaks - just plug in an old router that's been gathering dust as a temporary measure while you fix the "project" one.
- Aaargh20318 10y ago
  > By that definition, there are almost no production systems in real life. No, pretty much everything is. > Anything else is disposable, a convenience. Fine, we'll your definition: If it causes an inconvenience if it goes down it is a production machine.
  - arpa 10y ago
    Well that's one way of making your own life difficult. To each his own I suppose. I have no qualms about running multiple services on the same machine as long as it's firewalled sufficiently. That's why we have multi-process and multi-user operating systems after all.
    - sofaofthedamned 10y ago
      Exactly. The OS on my gateway only goes down on kernel updates, and I can crontab them (unlike with the ISP supplied box). My son and his mates can put any old malware infested phone on his SSID, but they can't get to my LAN. I can run my gitlab etc without affecting him, apart from QoS - any the latter is something the ISP gateway doesn't even offer. Anybody sufficiently experienced can segregate services on a single box without any worry.
sofaofthedamned 10y ago
Seriously?! The wifi my partner and childs kit is connected to = VLANd off, goes straight out through a DMZ via its own interface. The stuff i'm testing doesn't touch this and I can do what I like through those interfaces without affecting their stuff. Unlike the ISP supplied router if something crashes, I can restart the service rather than pull the power. It doesn't crash anyway, unlike the ISP kit which is temperamental at best. ISP routers already have wifi. Shouldn't the wifi be separate, as rebooting the router will bring it down otherwise? Where do you draw the line?
- Aaargh20318 10y ago
  > The stuff i'm testing doesn't touch this and I can do what I like through those interfaces without affecting their stuff. Can you pull the power on your testing machine without affecting the wifi ? The point is not that you can usually do it without affecting any other services, the point is that even if you fuck up in the most spectacular way possible and literally fry all the hardware in that box it should not affect any other service than the one you were tinkering with. (Note that in a corporate setting that would not be acceptable either and you'd want failover and no single points of failure). > unlike the ISP supplied router if something crashes, I can restart the service rather than pull the power. It doesn't crash anyway, unlike the ISP kit which is temperamental at best. I'm not saying you should use the ISP-provided router, on the contrary, you should definitely build your own. But build a second machine for your experiments, and third for your fileserver, and a fourth for your torrents, and a fifth for.. etc. etc. > ISP routers already have wifi. Shouldn't the wifi be separate, as rebooting the router will bring it down otherwise? Yes it should certainly be separate. And it is, at least in my house. Router is a simple server-grade machine (IPMI, ECC, etc.) that ONLY does network routing. I use Ubiquiti access points for the WiFi. > Where do you draw the line? Functionally separate services on separate boxes.