Well, the Maintenance did not go by plan, waiting for an IPMI.
Stuff will remain online until the IPMI appears, but I have no ETA when exactly I hope in the next hours.
just to continue a conversation from the other thread in a more appropriate place, what sort of specs do you want/need to get a location exclusive to LES users started?
@AnthonySmith said:
just to continue a conversation from the other thread in a more appropriate place, what sort of specs do you want/need to get a location exclusive to LES users started?
Depends, how many users do you expect to use it?
How many resources should each user be able to use?
If you want everyone got get a 1GB or even 2GB VM, the node needs to be equal big, of course you can oversell a bit.
@AnthonySmith said:
just to continue a conversation from the other thread in a more appropriate place, what sort of specs do you want/need to get a location exclusive to LES users started?
Depends, how many users do you expect to use it?
How many resources should each user be able to use?
If you want everyone got get a 1GB or even 2GB VM, the node needs to be equal big, of course you can oversell a bit.
Well I was looking at the plans you offer on microlxc.net, seem quite odd unless you intended to type MB instead of GB on the disk space?
Not sure what the ratio is you find useable on LXC, on VZ6 for LES in the early days 8:1 on ram and 4:1 on disk worked fine without issues.
@AnthonySmith said:
just to continue a conversation from the other thread in a more appropriate place, what sort of specs do you want/need to get a location exclusive to LES users started?
Depends, how many users do you expect to use it?
How many resources should each user be able to use?
If you want everyone got get a 1GB or even 2GB VM, the node needs to be equal big, of course you can oversell a bit.
Well I was looking at the plans you offer on microlxc.net, seem quite odd unless you intended to type MB instead of GB on the disk space?
The dot is invisible.
Not sure what the ratio is you find useable on LXC, on VZ6 for LES in the early days 8:1 on ram and 4:1 on disk worked fine without issues.
However, I expected at least half a gig and a bit of NVMe storage, no idea make it at least a 8GB KVM, with 70GB NVMe+ should be fine. So we could offer 512MB, 7GB NVMe, oversell it a bit, should fit 20 users easily.
@AnthonySmith said:
just to continue a conversation from the other thread in a more appropriate place, what sort of specs do you want/need to get a location exclusive to LES users started?
Depends, how many users do you expect to use it?
How many resources should each user be able to use?
If you want everyone got get a 1GB or even 2GB VM, the node needs to be equal big, of course you can oversell a bit.
Well I was looking at the plans you offer on microlxc.net, seem quite odd unless you intended to type MB instead of GB on the disk space?
Not sure what the ratio is you find useable on LXC, on VZ6 for LES in the early days 8:1 on ram and 4:1 on disk worked fine without issues.
Now I see the almost invisible dots! I missed the dots completely the first time around! ?
But I don't yet understand the ratios: 8 something to 1 ram and 4 something to 1 disk. Would you please tell us what is the "something?" Thanks!
I signed up to see what LXC is all about, and plan to deploy a replica of pushupsstatibus.
I decided to start a new series of hostnames box0-box9, in addition to the existing series vps0-vps9, to alleviate my "running out of hostnames" issue.
From now on, any free or NAT server will be called boxN, while paid and non-NAT (dedicate IPv4 or only IPv6) will be called vpsN.
This container would be box0.
Gmail is putting "microLXC Code" to the spam folder.
You need MXroute, or at least DKIM signature.
Hey, if you're planning to run a VPN on this plan, use @Nyr's installer script. Works great!
?
Haha, I just wanted to make sure it worked here
Does it?
I don't expect it to work on unprivileged lxc containers, they would need to be privileged.
However, wireguard native should work fine, since the kernel module is enabled.
Maybe you can fallback to wireguard at some point.
Hey, if you're planning to run a VPN on this plan, use @Nyr's installer script. Works great!
?
Haha, I just wanted to make sure it worked here
Does it?
I don't expect it to work on unprivileged lxc containers, they would need to be privileged.
However, wireguard native should work fine, since the kernel module is enabled.
Maybe you can fallback to wireguard at some point.
Hey, if you're planning to run a VPN on this plan, use @Nyr's installer script. Works great!
?
Haha, I just wanted to make sure it worked here
Does it?
I don't expect it to work on unprivileged lxc containers, they would need to be privileged.
However, wireguard native should work fine, since the kernel module is enabled.
Maybe you can fallback to wireguard at some point.
The NL node which the microLXC NL KVM was on, had a hardware failure today.
Since the VM cluster is HA, we only had a downtime of 7 minutes in total, premium.
I don't expect it to work on unprivileged lxc containers, they would need to be privileged.
However, wireguard native should work fine, since the kernel module is enabled.
Maybe you can fallback to wireguard at some point.
Sorry for the late response, I did not take a look until today.
Yes, both openvpn-install and wireguard-install work without modification. When running inside containers, the Wireguard installer relies on user space BoringTon so it does not require the kernel module.
PS: very cool service, I will keep my container in Johannesburg!
I jumped on one of these MicroLXC containers a few days ago after I read in the Cest Pit @Neoon's post that it was MicroLXC's third birthday. 🎂🎂🎂 Thanks to @Neoon for all the work put into the project!
I am on the LA node from @seriesn. Thanks to @seriesn and the other sponsors!
Everything I've tried so far seems to work really great! I think, as somebody who also is selling LXC containers, I am a little bit enabled to appreciate how much work is involved. I have to say, I'd be really glad if people felt that my containers work as well as Neoon's. Plus, @Neoon's gone way further than me with the very cool microlxc.net website.
There are differences in container management between Proxmox, which I am using, and LXD, which @Neoon is using. One difference that I, as a user, noticed is that the initially installed container images are different. At least for Debian, Proxmox's images are older, so they need updating, and quite a bit more software seems to be included in the default install.
Among other uses, I have the idea that my MicroLXC container could function as a backup email receiver (MTA). My primary email receivers are configured to reject emails from servers which fail certain basic tests, such as having reverse DNS set. However, I also like to have backup receivers with a more liberal policy. Everybody makes mistakes, and very occasionally I do see an email I want to receive despite its having been sent from a less than happily configured server. Also, sometimes it can be amusing to read the logs and the headers of spam plus also the ridiculous offers.
I have Apache2 installed in my container, and it seems to work fine. I also have a self-compiled Caddy binary which I want to work on a bit more.
I've never used a NAT VPS before. So here are a couple of questions in case anybody has time to give me a hint or two:
Receiving email works great on IPv6, but not on IPv4. I am guessing this is because the port 25 connections are not being forwarded. Is there a way to enable inbound port 25 on IPv4?
Apache2 seems to log IPv6 requests correctly, but seems to be logging all IPv4 requests as originating from the container's gateway. How does one solve this logging problem in the context of MicroLXC? In the following snippet from /etc/apache2/apache2.conf, why is X-Forwarded-For not recommended? Is mod_remoteip appropriate with microlxc's setup?
# Note that the use of %{X-Forwarded-For}i instead of %h is not recommended.
# Use mod_remoteip instead.
Thanks again to @Neoon and @seriesn! Lots of fun! Great project! Great website! High performance! 👍
I jumped on one of these MicroLXC containers a few days ago after I read in the Cest Pit @Neoon's post that it was MicroLXC's third birthday. 🎂🎂🎂 Thanks to @Neoon for all the work put into the project!
NanoKVM turned 3, microLXC is about to turn 1 year.
I am on the LA node from @seriesn. Thanks to @seriesn and the other sponsors!
Everything I've tried so far seems to work really great! I think, as somebody who also is selling LXC containers, I am a little bit enabled to appreciate how much work is involved. I have to say, I'd be really glad if people felt that my containers work as well as Neoon's. Plus, @Neoon's gone way further than me with the very cool microlxc.net website.
There are differences in container management between Proxmox, which I am using, and LXD, which @Neoon is using. One difference that I, as a user, noticed is that the initially installed container images are different. At least for Debian, Proxmox's images are older, so they need updating, and quite a bit more software seems to be included in the default install.
Among other uses, I have the idea that my MicroLXC container could function as a backup email receiver (MTA). My primary email receivers are configured to reject emails from servers which fail certain basic tests, such as having reverse DNS set. However, I also like to have backup receivers with a more liberal policy. Everybody makes mistakes, and very occasionally I do see an email I want to receive despite its having been sent from a less than happily configured server. Also, sometimes it can be amusing to read the logs and the headers of spam plus also the ridiculous offers.
I have Apache2 installed in my container, and it seems to work fine. I also have a self-compiled Caddy binary which I want to work on a bit more.
I've never used a NAT VPS before. So here are a couple of questions in case anybody has time to give me a hint or two:
Receiving email works great on IPv6, but not on IPv4. I am guessing this is because the port 25 connections are not being forwarded. Is there a way to enable inbound port 25 on IPv4?
its NAT, so 25 is not forwarded but v6 should work fine
Apache2 seems to log IPv6 requests correctly, but seems to be logging all IPv4 requests as originating from the container's gateway. How does one solve this logging problem in the context of MicroLXC? In the following snippet from /etc/apache2/apache2.conf, why is X-Forwarded-For not recommended? Is mod_remoteip appropriate with microlxc's setup?
Because your container does terminate the TLS connections, not the HAProxy, means we actually provide end to end encryption. Downside is, that HAProxy does not act as transparent proxy, means origin IP is replaced by the node IP as you see it.
The encrypted packages are routed based on the SNI header.
Thanks again to @Neoon and @seriesn! Lots of fun! Great project! Great website! High performance! 👍
I jumped on one of these MicroLXC containers a few days ago after I read in the Cest Pit @Neoon's post that it was MicroLXC's third birthday. 🎂🎂🎂 Thanks to @Neoon for all the work put into the project!
I am on the LA node from @seriesn. Thanks to @seriesn and the other sponsors!
Everything I've tried so far seems to work really great! I think, as somebody who also is selling LXC containers, I am a little bit enabled to appreciate how much work is involved. I have to say, I'd be really glad if people felt that my containers work as well as Neoon's. Plus, @Neoon's gone way further than me with the very cool microlxc.net website.
There are differences in container management between Proxmox, which I am using, and LXD, which @Neoon is using. One difference that I, as a user, noticed is that the initially installed container images are different. At least for Debian, Proxmox's images are older, so they need updating, and quite a bit more software seems to be included in the default install.
Among other uses, I have the idea that my MicroLXC container could function as a backup email receiver (MTA). My primary email receivers are configured to reject emails from servers which fail certain basic tests, such as having reverse DNS set. However, I also like to have backup receivers with a more liberal policy. Everybody makes mistakes, and very occasionally I do see an email I want to receive despite its having been sent from a less than happily configured server. Also, sometimes it can be amusing to read the logs and the headers of spam plus also the ridiculous offers.
I have Apache2 installed in my container, and it seems to work fine. I also have a self-compiled Caddy binary which I want to work on a bit more.
I've never used a NAT VPS before. So here are a couple of questions in case anybody has time to give me a hint or two:
Receiving email works great on IPv6, but not on IPv4. I am guessing this is because the port 25 connections are not being forwarded. Is there a way to enable inbound port 25 on IPv4?
Apache2 seems to log IPv6 requests correctly, but seems to be logging all IPv4 requests as originating from the container's gateway. How does one solve this logging problem in the context of MicroLXC? In the following snippet from /etc/apache2/apache2.conf, why is X-Forwarded-For not recommended? Is mod_remoteip appropriate with microlxc's setup?
# Note that the use of %{X-Forwarded-For}i instead of %h is not recommended.
# Use mod_remoteip instead.
Thanks again to @Neoon and @seriesn! Lots of fun! Great project! Great website! High performance! 👍
Comments
Well, the Maintenance did not go by plan, waiting for an IPMI.
Stuff will remain online until the IPMI appears, but I have no ETA when exactly I hope in the next hours.
edit: Maintenance will be done on Monday morning.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
NO Maintenance done, it took a bit longer since I needed to request a IPMI.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
just to continue a conversation from the other thread in a more appropriate place, what sort of specs do you want/need to get a location exclusive to LES users started?
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
Depends, how many users do you expect to use it?
How many resources should each user be able to use?
If you want everyone got get a 1GB or even 2GB VM, the node needs to be equal big, of course you can oversell a bit.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
Well I was looking at the plans you offer on microlxc.net, seem quite odd unless you intended to type MB instead of GB on the disk space?
Not sure what the ratio is you find useable on LXC, on VZ6 for LES in the early days 8:1 on ram and 4:1 on disk worked fine without issues.
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
The dot is invisible.
However, I expected at least half a gig and a bit of NVMe storage, no idea make it at least a 8GB KVM, with 70GB NVMe+ should be fine. So we could offer 512MB, 7GB NVMe, oversell it a bit, should fit 20 users easily.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
oh lol
https://inceptionhosting.com
Please do not use the PM system here for Inception Hosting support issues.
NOVOS (Antwerpen) just announced a maintenance for tonight, network will be unreachable for a few seconds up to a few minutes.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
Now I see the almost invisible dots! I missed the dots completely the first time around! ?
But I don't yet understand the ratios: 8 something to 1 ram and 4 something to 1 disk. Would you please tell us what is the "something?" Thanks!
I hope everyone gets the servers they want!
This Morning, NL had a emergency maintenance, issues with some switches, this has been solved.
If still face any issues, lemme know.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
0916-d775-1952-03d2
I signed up to see what LXC is all about, and plan to deploy a replica of pushups statibus.
I decided to start a new series of hostnames box0-box9, in addition to the existing series vps0-vps9, to alleviate my "running out of hostnames" issue.
From now on, any free or NAT server will be called boxN, while paid and non-NAT (dedicate IPv4 or only IPv6) will be called vpsN.
This container would be
box0.Gmail is putting "microLXC Code" to the spam folder.
You need MXroute, or at least DKIM signature.
HostBrr aff best VPS; VirmAche aff worst VPS.
Unable to push-up due to shoulder injury 😣
Patch Notes:
*New deployments
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
I recently moved microlxc.net to a new VM running on NVMe + EPYC, let me know if you run into any issues.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
e42b-5a1b-c0fb-0a61
OpenVPN installer | WireGuard installer
Hey, if you're planning to run a VPN on this plan, use @Nyr's installer script. Works great!
?
Haha, I just wanted to make sure it worked here
OpenVPN installer | WireGuard installer
Does it?
I don't expect it to work on unprivileged lxc containers, they would need to be privileged.
However, wireguard native should work fine, since the kernel module is enabled.
Maybe you can fallback to wireguard at some point.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
Thanks for your work, really
It works flawlessly.
Thanks for the free VM
Nice to hear, that the "VM" works fine.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
True, but sometimes it doesn't matter to the end user (or can't remember) which type of virtualization it is.
Indeed, most stuff works with LXC out of the box.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
The NL node which the microLXC NL KVM was on, had a hardware failure today.
Since the VM cluster is HA, we only had a downtime of 7 minutes in total, premium.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
Sorry for the late response, I did not take a look until today.
Yes, both openvpn-install and wireguard-install work without modification. When running inside containers, the Wireguard installer relies on user space BoringTon so it does not require the kernel module.
PS: very cool service, I will keep my container in Johannesburg!
OpenVPN installer | WireGuard installer
Maintenance Announcement from Nexusbytes on March 27, 2021
Expected maximum downtime per service: 30 minutes
Time: 6:00 P.M to 11:59 P.M (EST)
Affected Locations: Los Angeles and Singapore
All containers will be booted up automagically as usual.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
Hello!
eb5c-2dd0-f821-259d
Thank you!
I hope everyone gets the servers they want!
Guys!
I jumped on one of these MicroLXC containers a few days ago after I read in the Cest Pit @Neoon's post that it was MicroLXC's third birthday. 🎂🎂🎂 Thanks to @Neoon for all the work put into the project!
I am on the LA node from @seriesn. Thanks to @seriesn and the other sponsors!
Everything I've tried so far seems to work really great! I think, as somebody who also is selling LXC containers, I am a little bit enabled to appreciate how much work is involved. I have to say, I'd be really glad if people felt that my containers work as well as Neoon's. Plus, @Neoon's gone way further than me with the very cool microlxc.net website.
There are differences in container management between Proxmox, which I am using, and LXD, which @Neoon is using. One difference that I, as a user, noticed is that the initially installed container images are different. At least for Debian, Proxmox's images are older, so they need updating, and quite a bit more software seems to be included in the default install.
Among other uses, I have the idea that my MicroLXC container could function as a backup email receiver (MTA). My primary email receivers are configured to reject emails from servers which fail certain basic tests, such as having reverse DNS set. However, I also like to have backup receivers with a more liberal policy. Everybody makes mistakes, and very occasionally I do see an email I want to receive despite its having been sent from a less than happily configured server. Also, sometimes it can be amusing to read the logs and the headers of spam plus also the ridiculous offers.
I have Apache2 installed in my container, and it seems to work fine. I also have a self-compiled Caddy binary which I want to work on a bit more.
I've never used a NAT VPS before. So here are a couple of questions in case anybody has time to give me a hint or two:
Receiving email works great on IPv6, but not on IPv4. I am guessing this is because the port 25 connections are not being forwarded. Is there a way to enable inbound port 25 on IPv4?
Apache2 seems to log IPv6 requests correctly, but seems to be logging all IPv4 requests as originating from the container's gateway. How does one solve this logging problem in the context of MicroLXC? In the following snippet from /etc/apache2/apache2.conf, why is X-Forwarded-For not recommended? Is mod_remoteip appropriate with microlxc's setup?
Thanks again to @Neoon and @seriesn! Lots of fun!
Great project! Great website! High performance! 👍
I hope everyone gets the servers they want!
@Not_Oles
NanoKVM turned 3, microLXC is about to turn 1 year.
its NAT, so 25 is not forwarded but v6 should work fine
Because your container does terminate the TLS connections, not the HAProxy, means we actually provide end to end encryption. Downside is, that HAProxy does not act as transparent proxy, means origin IP is replaced by the node IP as you see it.
The encrypted packages are routed based on the SNI header.
Tanks
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
All praise to the cat lord @Neoon
Nexus Bytes Ryzen Powered NVMe VPS | NYC|Miami|LA|London|Netherlands| Singapore|Tokyo
Storage VPS | LiteSpeed Powered Web Hosting + SSH access | Switcher Special |
Patch Notes:
Package Updates:
The 512MB Package remains the same.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
where is locations Sir?