2009-01-26 GnuCash IRC logs

01:43:37 *** warlord is now known as warlord-afk
02:36:10 *** bentob0x has joined #gnucash
03:02:27 *** ErKa has joined #gnucash
03:22:37 *** MechtiIde has joined #gnucash
05:36:55 *** IanL has joined #gnucash
06:13:42 *** micha has joined #gnucash
06:13:53 <micha> Hi
06:14:08 <micha> is Gnucash 2.2.8 ready for guile-1.8 yet?
06:19:10 <joslwah> fbond, You around?
06:19:46 <joslwah> micha, Well, I'm using guile-1.8.4
06:19:51 <joslwah> On Gentoo that is.
06:20:09 <micha> thanks
06:20:17 <micha> will try on Debian now :)
06:21:39 <joslwah> NP
06:24:59 <fbond> joslwah: Hi.
06:26:40 <fbond> joslwah: Let me guess, you'd like budget-barchart.scm to be fixed along with the other two.
06:27:21 <fbond> I didn't realize that budget-barchart.scm was failing; my original patch only introduced two new reports. It just happened to move three or four others into the new Budget sub-menu.
06:27:37 <fbond> But I can include a fix for budget-barchart.scm, too.
06:28:22 <fbond> Since this is getting bigger, I might as well use a better error message. If a valid budget is not selected, no budgets exist, so simply changing the report options is bad advice, to say the least.
07:07:00 <joslwah> fbond, Sorry, was out for a run.
07:07:22 <joslwah> fbond, Yes please, since you've got the know-how about these budget reports.
07:07:50 <joslwah> fbond, I agree about the error message. I got rather confused by it.
07:08:18 <joslwah> Also, if you have some time then could you enlighten me how you set up a budget. I've had a brief look round, but couldn't see it.
07:09:37 <joslwah> fbond, Oh, and if it is easiest to stack patches, rather than having one big on then feel free. I can test as you go along, and then produce one big patch at the end for ease of application.
07:13:12 <fbond> joslwah: Okay, sounds good to me.
07:25:39 <joslwah> fbond, Great. Thanks.
07:26:53 *** bentob0x has quit IRC
07:50:40 *** spabhat has joined #gnucash
07:51:15 <spabhat> hi all
07:51:33 <spabhat> I am running gnucash 2.2.8, on windows xp.
07:52:00 <spabhat> when I try to sve an invoice, gnucash crashes! what could be the reason?
07:53:58 *** Jimraehl has left #gnucash
07:54:46 <joslwah> spabhat, I'm not familiar with either invoices or gnucash on xp, but I seem to remember that there is a bug in 2.2.8 to do with closing invoice tabs or something. Have a look through the channel logging.
07:55:31 <spabhat> yes, it seems to save invoice. but when I close the invoice, it suddenly crashes
07:57:10 <Aganippe{B}> well then, that'd be the bug :P
07:58:04 <joslwah> Yep. That does sound like it. I don't use invoices so don't know that much about the issues.
08:01:40 *** JimRaehl2 has joined #gnucash
08:11:45 *** JimRaehl2 has left #gnucash
08:12:13 *** JimRaehl2 has joined #gnucash
08:12:42 <spabhat> so what would be the fix for this big bug :)
08:41:38 <joslwah> spabhat, Use SVN, or wait for next stable to come out. I have an inclination that it might have only been in 2.2.8,but I'm not sure.
08:44:38 <spabhat> joslwah: thank you I will check it out.
08:49:44 *** micha has quit IRC
08:50:56 <joslwah> spabhat, No problem. I'm afraid I can't help with windows stuff, but I track svn.
08:57:08 *** JimRaehl2 has left #gnucash
08:57:31 *** Jimraehl has joined #gnucash
09:29:39 *** BenB has joined #gnucash
09:30:41 <BenB> hi. is there a way to assign a a statement *two* or more accounts (on the same side)? I need it, because I have orthogonal categories:
09:30:54 <BenB> there is one hierarchy for the *
09:31:20 <BenB> kind of expense, e.g. telephone, gasoline, computer hardware etc..
09:32:01 <BenB> and another heirarchy for the *reason* of the expense, e.g. private, business, a specific customer, a specific child, hobby etc.
09:33:26 <BenB> so, I want to say: these 50 Eur went from my bank account to *both* infrastructure -> Phone and private -> hobby -> development -> project XYZ
09:34:06 <spabhat> joslwah, I am just trying to make a move to Linux. any distro suggestion by anyone?
09:34:08 <BenB> or travel -> plane (reimbursable) and business -> MyCorp A -> customers -> MyCustomer, Inc.
09:34:39 <BenB> spabhat: highly opinionated topic. Ubuntu is very popular recently, and fairly easy.
09:35:54 <BenB> I need this detailed split-off, for taxes and my own information on how much I spent on what and for what reason.
09:36:58 *** warlord-afk is now known as warlord
09:37:00 <BenB> e.g. I want to see how much I spent on telephone, or how much I spent for a certain hobby/customer, or how much I spent for travel for a certain customer.
09:38:52 <warlord> spabhat: known bug. grab andi5's 2.2.8 update.. See the -user archives.
09:39:56 <warlord> BenB: no, gnucash doesn't support txn tags
09:40:30 <BenB> warlord: note that I am not talking about tags. I mean a full hierarchy.
09:41:42 <BenB> keyword multi-parented tree node.
09:41:51 <BenB> d/keyword/
09:43:18 <warlord> BenB: then absolutely not, and probably never will.
09:43:27 <BenB> is there some workaround?
09:43:32 <warlord> "tags"
09:43:37 <warlord> (which we don't support, either.
09:43:38 <warlord> )
09:43:51 <BenB> heh, I mean a workaround which I can use and does what I mean.
09:43:59 <BenB> what I need
09:44:30 <warlord> I still dont know what you need..
09:44:42 <warlord> You asked for the solution, but didn't say what problem you're trying to solve.
09:44:49 <BenB> I want to see how much I spent on telephone, or how much I spent for a certain hobby/customer, or how much I spent for travel for a certain customer.
09:44:49 <warlord> So... what exactly are you trying to do?
09:45:03 <warlord> Use the Business features.
09:45:07 <BenB> phone and customer are orthogonal
09:45:15 <BenB> warlord: which specific ones?
09:45:31 <warlord> Bills/Invoices
09:45:51 <warlord> That will help you keep track of which customer you spend stuff on.
09:46:03 <BenB> and the phone company is a supplier?
09:47:06 <BenB> can I organize customers and suppliers hierarchically? as I said, the expense kinds are a hierarchy - I have 4 phone companies, plus more for Internet etc., and I want a balance for all of them together.
09:47:43 <warlord> The Phone Company would be a supplier.. And then you can charge it back to a different Customer to say to which Customer the phone bill applies.
09:48:22 <warlord> BUt if you're just trying to keep track of the 4 phone companies you can do THAT via the Txn Desc. E.g., Desc == PhoneCo1, PhoneCo2, PhoneCo3, ...
09:48:30 <warlord> But all into Expenses:Utilities:Phone
09:49:57 <BenB> ok... and the other hierarchy? can I have a hierarchy of customers etc., too?
09:50:33 <BenB> some phone expenses are private, some for a specific hobby, some for business in general, some for a specific customer, and I want to be able to sum up on all levels.
09:52:22 <joslwah> spabhat, As BenB says, it is a highly opinionated topic. And there isn't really "one" answer. It all depends on what you want to do, and how experienced or lazy you are....
09:53:27 <joslwah> warlord, Any chance of having a quick look at bug 568473.
09:55:32 *** tigon5 has joined #gnucash
10:01:18 <warlord> BenB: you don't need a hierarchy of customers. It's a list, and you access it "separately". The customer info is "meta" to the txn.
10:02:36 <BenB> warlord: I do need a hierarchy. As I said, I have both customers, hobbies, maybe children. I may have several companies. It doesn't make sense to have both customers and children in the same flat list.
10:03:28 <warlord> You're right, but unless this is a DBA you probably also have separate bank accounts for your personal vs. business work.
10:04:19 <warlord> One way of doing it is to use separate asset accounts, you can use asset sub-accounts to keep track of how much you have assigned for each entity, and then you could use a cash-flow instead of P&L to see how much you spend from that particular asset.
10:05:57 <BenB> warlord: I so far didn't have several bank accounts. I now created them, but I still have costs which span several types - in fact most costs: e.g. the phone line, Internet server, computer hardware, and car are all shared for private and business. and it's all one pocket legally as well. therefore, I manage it all in the same gnucash file.
10:06:28 <warlord> Sorry, gnucash just doesn't do that well at all.
10:06:34 <BenB> nod...
10:06:38 <warlord> It's just not really something it was designed to do.
10:06:51 <BenB> I understand that. I'm filing an enhancement request.
10:06:55 <warlord> Your best bet would be to create separate expense account.
10:07:05 <warlord> An enhancement request w/o a patch is nearly useless.
10:07:20 <BenB> It's leaving classical financial booking, but I think it makes *sense*, and it might be a nice extension of classical booking.
10:07:34 <BenB> warlord: I see. :(
10:07:46 <BenB> I'll file it anyways - maybe somebody likes the idea.
10:07:50 <warlord> We have enhancement requests from, oh, 2002, still sitting there.
10:08:07 <BenB> warlord: tell me about it - Mozilla has RFEs from 1999, too.
10:08:14 <warlord> heh
10:08:14 <BenB> some of them assigned to me :(
10:08:17 <warlord> LOL.
10:08:19 <warlord> Yeah.
10:08:38 <joslwah> As far as I can see it there are two ways to look at this. Either you are looking at it from your Bank's perspective. They think you have one account. Or from your sharing out perspective. In which case you have many virtual ones. You can choose one easily. Having both is harder.
10:09:08 <BenB> joslwah: how do I "choose" the latter?
10:09:38 <joslwah> You set up huge numbers of nested accounts. So you have a personal hierachy, a business1 hierachy, etc.
10:10:03 <BenB> joslwah: yeah, that's what I currently do:
10:10:07 <joslwah> Then you may have some transactions which are split many ways.
10:10:56 <BenB> reason -> kind, e.g. hobby:project Y:infrastructure:Phone. this *obviously* breaks down and gets very impractical very quickly. n*n problem.
10:11:00 <BenB> n*m
10:11:10 <BenB> (instead of n+m)
10:11:49 <BenB> that's my workaround so far, but my unhappiness with it is reason for me asking.
10:12:26 <joslwah> I haven't used the business stuff, but I can imagine why it was suggested. Why not use those features?
10:12:47 <spabhat> warlord: will I be able to use this update with portable apps?
10:14:24 <BenB> joslwah: see above.
10:14:43 <BenB> joslwah, warlord: thanks. RFE filed. maybe somebody likes it and picks it up.
10:15:01 <BenB> for now, I'll see how far I get with the current workaround.
10:15:15 <warlord> spabhat: "portable apps"?
10:15:30 <spabhat> yes
10:15:38 <warlord> Sorry, what do you mean by "portable apps"?
10:15:46 <spabhat> http://portableapps.com/apps/office/gnucash_portable
10:16:17 <BenB> propably a particular collection/distribution of apps runnable directly from USB memory sticks.
10:16:25 <spabhat> yes, I like these apps... they are all so powerful
10:16:31 <BenB> Bug 569200
10:16:44 <BenB> spabhat: they are open source .)
10:16:54 <spabhat> yes they are all open source
10:17:32 <warlord> spabhat: Oh, I have no idea.. that "portable apps" version isn't controlled by us. you'll have to ask him/them.
10:17:47 <spabhat> sure...
10:18:11 <joslwah> BenB, I think the solution is to use business features, as warlord commented, and then do the summing using reports.
10:18:46 <joslwah> I.e. split the data up somehow identifiable and then collate in the ways you need using reports.
10:19:30 <BenB> joslwah, warlord: if you don't have tags yet, and you wanted to implement that some day,. maybe you can consider to implement it this way. it would allow tags to be hierarchical and avoid a new concept, i.e. be cleaner - and more powerful.
10:19:41 <warlord> The problem of course is that this wont help his use of an item towards multiple contexts, e.g. the phone used for multiple things.
10:20:00 <BenB> warlord: is there a bug filed for the tags? I could like the requests.
10:20:04 <BenB> s/like/link/
10:20:39 <warlord> I dont know.
10:20:42 <warlord> probably?
10:22:40 <BenB> warlord: that's true... but with this feature, I can invent solutions for that: either I make another "reason" branch "Shared costs", or I assign it to both reason accounts (meaning it would be summed into both, which may not be desirable), or maybe another feature to assign a % as well, i.e. book on reason private, but only 50%, and on business, also 50%, and on phone (100%)
10:23:42 <warlord> BenB: yes, having a 'tags pulldown' would be an appropriate way to do it, similar to the 'accounts' pulldown.. But I think it's still just a freeform string.
10:23:43 <joslwah> BenB, But how would you assign 31% to private, 22% to business1, etc. And if you can't do that then it isn't going to work. And you'd want to do it on a per-transaction basis.
10:24:31 <BenB> joslwah: why not? just enter the %-value - the transaction value will be multiplied with that.
10:25:27 <joslwah> Because this is all getting extremely complicated. What you're really looking for is having splits tagged, with the possibility of multiple splits to the same account with different tags.
10:25:31 <BenB> joslwah: I don't think the % is critical, though: I can created a "Shared Cost" account in the "reason" hierarchy, without much problem. It *is* a problem in the current scheme, because I need again the while kind hierarchy underneath it.
10:25:44 <warlord> Oooh, you could use the Split Memo for that now!
10:25:55 <joslwah> Then you don't need to worry about the %'age.
10:26:03 <joslwah> Split memo?
10:26:42 <BenB> warlord: the conceptual problem I have with "tags" is exactly that they are free-form strings, and that they are not hierarchical.
10:26:59 <BenB> (and I have that problem with any use of tags anywhere)
10:27:31 <warlord> Well, if you want to see tags done the way you want then I suggest you supply the patch! :-D
10:28:03 <BenB> warlord: fair enough :)
10:28:30 <BenB> does anybody of you know the DB engine of gnucash? how much of an abuse of it would that be?
10:28:46 <warlord> What do you mean?
10:28:55 <warlord> GnuCash uses QOF
10:29:05 <BenB> not having exactly 2 accounts per transaction/split part, but several accounts on either side.
10:29:19 <joslwah> Each split has precisely 1 account.
10:29:36 <joslwah> Transactions can have multiple (>=2) splits.
10:29:38 <spabhat> where are bug lists for gnucash?
10:30:00 <BenB> ah, ok, makes it easier... so, the problem is to have several accounts *per split*.
10:30:47 <BenB> spabhat: bugzilla.gnome.org, Project "GnuCash"
10:31:01 <warlord> spabhat: bugzilla.gnome.org
10:31:20 <warlord> No, that's not the problem.
10:31:22 <spabhat> and is there any new version of release expected soon? (say v 2.2.9)
10:31:35 <joslwah> No. Each split has precisely one account.
10:31:40 <warlord> spabhat: no, not soon.
10:31:54 <joslwah> Exactly 1 account, no more, no less.
10:32:09 <joslwah> I suspect that changing that would be a huge change, and a bad idea.
10:32:47 <BenB> joslwah: yes, I fully understand that's how it is now. it's exactly what I propose to change, and I think I gave very good use cases for it.
10:33:03 <BenB> joslwah: so, it's a huge change, ok.
10:34:01 *** spabhat has left #gnucash
10:34:39 <joslwah> But why do you want more than one account per split?
10:34:58 <BenB> joslwah: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=569200
10:35:40 <warlord> I think the right answer is still going to be multiple splits..
10:35:56 <joslwah> Except your first line isn't true for gnucash.
10:36:17 <BenB> joslwah: yes, you corrected me, and I noted that in the bug in the comment.
10:36:19 <joslwah> Not all transactions only involve two accounts.
10:36:57 <joslwah> BenB, Nope. You misunderstand. Each transaction can have multipe splits.
10:37:02 <joslwah> That is already there.
10:37:08 <BenB> warlord: well, one cost belongs to *both* Phone and Child:Martin. how do I reflect that using splits?
10:37:55 <warlord> A split to phone with a tag of child:martin
10:38:18 <joslwah> So, for example. I go to a shop and buy an apple (for me to eat, personal) and a pot of paint (for business). I have a transaction with 3 splits. 1. Cost from my bank account. 2. Charge to personal. (cost of apple) 3. Charge to business (cost of paint)
10:38:28 <BenB> warlord: well, that's using tags, not splits. but you said that tags are not supported yet, and not hierarchical either.
10:38:47 <BenB> warlord: can I filter reports based on string searches?
10:38:53 <joslwah> 1. = 2. + 3., so everything balances.
10:38:56 <BenB> so that I can see only costs of child:martin?
10:39:45 <BenB> joslwah: I understand splits fully, that's not what I mean. I have a phone bill which is *only* phone for Martin.
10:40:17 <BenB> joslwah: but I want to have reports both for all phone costs, for all martin's costs, and for how much martin spent on phone.
10:40:23 <warlord> BenB: depends on the report.
10:40:35 <joslwah> For that, you want to do it in a report.
10:40:50 <BenB> how?
10:42:01 <joslwah> Depends on the report, but in general you can select the accounts you want to use.
10:42:23 <BenB> joslwah: yes... that the thing. I can't make the accounts reflect that.
10:42:44 <BenB> joslwah: please read the bug carefully.
10:42:47 <warlord> Having a split attach to multiple accounts would make the "balance" logic REALLY hard.
10:43:03 <BenB> warlord: in which way?
10:44:49 <joslwah> BenB, I have, but you're asking how to solve the problem, but then deciding how you want to do it. Either you say "I know how to do it" or you ask "Is it possible, and if so how do I do it"
10:45:23 <joslwah> warlord, I have a feeling having multiple accounts on a split would break qof as currently used.
10:45:42 <BenB> joslwah: well, I believe I know how to do it, but that's not possible in gnucash right now. the one question is: how hard to implement would it be? (that's what I discuss with warlord)
10:46:13 <BenB> joslwah: the other question is: how can I achieve as much of that as possible, and importantly as painless and practical as possible.
10:46:20 <warlord> BenB: multiple /accounts/ on a split would be very very VERY hard.. Which is why I keep calling it a tag.
10:46:32 <warlord> But let's talk about requirements, not solutions.
10:46:38 <warlord> what does this feature need to do.
10:46:39 <BenB> joslwah: meaning: it needs to fulfill the requirements, and be efficient to use esp. when classifying transactions.
10:46:40 <joslwah> exacty.
10:46:43 <warlord> THEN let's figure out how to solve it.
10:46:51 *** ircleuser has joined #gnucash
10:46:58 <warlord> (either with existing infrastructure, or necessary extensions)
10:47:19 <joslwah> And I wish I could type. My exactly was referring to warlord's comment.
10:47:40 <BenB> warlord, joslwah: most of the bug report text is about what I need to do. The solution is only 2 paragraphs.
10:49:12 <BenB> however it's mapped to gnucash, a cost is, inherently *both* Infrastructure:Phone and Private:Hobby:Development:ProjectY
10:50:15 <BenB> call it accounts, tags or whatever, but I need to have sums on phone ands infrastructure level and private, hobby, projectY levels, and intersections of them.
10:50:34 <warlord> The point I'm making is that 'tags' (what Quicken would call a Class) is really the right answer. You COULD implement tags as a secondary account hierarchy, but it would really be a "Tags Hierarchy"
10:51:09 <BenB> ok, but they don't exist either.
10:51:20 <warlord> Of course not.. We're talking about a new feature here.
10:51:25 <warlord> None of this exists now.
10:51:44 <warlord> Since it doesn't exist now, we're talking about the right way to implement it should you choose to do it.
10:51:44 <BenB> ok... would these hierarchical tags be easy to implement? engine, transaction UI and reports?
10:52:21 <BenB> I guess so, because it's just another attribute, right?
10:52:37 <warlord> It would be relatively easy, I think.
10:53:30 <BenB> cool... maybe, if you consider it "additional accounts", which are not used for booking, but can be filtered and reported on, you can reuse the accounts UI and engine code.
10:54:09 <warlord> Yes, like I said, a secondary "tags" hierarchy.
10:54:14 <warlord> I don't want to call it an account.
10:54:21 <BenB> ok.
10:58:13 <warlord> We could probably reuse the Account code pretty much as-is, just with a new "Root" account that's the TAGS root.
10:58:36 <ircleuser> Hi, I was wondering if anyone would have time to help me? I am a new mac user and not great with computers - I tried installing gnucash last night, but when I open it says "please visit the gnome application crash page for more info". I'm sure I'm just missing something, but I don't know how to fix it. Thank you in advance.
10:59:07 <warlord> ircleuser: I dont know if any of the Mac users are here.. You might try asking on gnucash-user mailing list.
10:59:25 <ircleuser> ok thanks
10:59:34 <BenB> warlord: that's precisely what I thought of.
11:00:13 <BenB> added comments to http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=569200
11:01:46 <warlord> BenB: but you still have a problem that you couldn't easily split a split. So if you have a phone bill for $40, you could apply that $40 fully to multiple tags from a single split, but you couldn't apply it as $20 to tag1, $15 to tag2, and $5 to tag3
11:01:55 <warlord> You would need multiple splits to do that.
11:02:03 <BenB> warlord: yes, sure.
11:02:12 <BenB> warlord: splits work well for that.
11:02:27 <warlord> Well, in the SHORT term you could use the Split Memo for the tag info.
11:02:55 <BenB> warlord: unless I want to flat-out share costs for a whole account 50%/50%. in that case, I'd make a Shared Cost account/tag and manually multiply with 0.5
11:04:04 <BenB> warlord: can I run reports on that? what's important is that I can see: I spent 300 eur on martin, of which 150 eur were phone, 30 eru were cloths, and 120 eur were food. which tells me that I should do something about the phone costs.
11:04:25 <BenB> or that I can tax-deduct 150 eur, if s/martin/customer
11:04:46 *** ircleuser has left #gnucash
11:06:36 <BenB> warlord: I am talking mostly about the "einnahmenüberschussrechnung" (german) - "profit calcuation"?
11:07:09 <BenB> where it shows me how much was booked one each account, and it sums up on all hierarchy levels. that's the most useful report for me.
11:07:19 <BenB> s/one/on/
11:08:15 <BenB> (within a certain time period, with ability to select the accounts included) - so, instead of accounts, I would need to be able to group based on "split memos"
11:09:03 <warlord> I think the txn report can search on split memo..
11:09:20 <warlord> Most other reports would probably need to be extended.
11:10:45 * BenB starts the gnucash in english
11:15:31 *** MechtiIde has quit IRC
11:17:36 <BenB> the report I meant is called "income statement" in english
11:17:44 <BenB> that's what I usually work eith
11:17:46 <BenB> with
11:21:54 <BenB> warlord: how do I filter the "txn report" based on split memo or description?
11:22:40 <BenB> I don't see anything in options, and seems to be insensitive to from where I start it (e.g. be in a search and start report from there, it still contains all transactions)
11:27:37 <warlord> Yeah, Income Statement == P&L (Profit & Loss)
11:27:51 <warlord> Yes, it's a standalone report.
11:27:56 <warlord> It would need to be extended.
11:37:37 *** IanL has quit IRC
11:49:39 *** nomeata has joined #gnucash
12:01:40 *** chris has quit IRC
12:23:06 *** chris has joined #gnucash
12:33:00 *** palatin has joined #gnucash
13:11:20 *** MechtiIde has joined #gnucash
13:12:00 <warlord> [ot] Hmm... LVM or "software raid"... *ponders*
13:12:23 <warlord> actually, this isn't quite off-topic -- it's the new GnuCash VM server host configuration...
13:21:58 <joslwah> I use LVM, because of convenience, but, for mirroring it gets messy and takes an age to resync the mirrors on boot.
13:22:13 <joslwah> Even with a clean shutdown, unless you have at least 3 drives.
13:22:44 <joslwah> With 3 or more drives it is nice. For two, depending on the situation I'd be cautious.
13:26:51 <warlord> I think what I'm going to do is LVM on top of RAID1.
13:27:13 <joslwah> That is what I did before. Now gotta dash. Talk more later?
13:27:19 <warlord> I'll be here.
13:27:27 <warlord> but I might have the system installing by the time you get back.
13:45:34 <joslwah> Back.
13:46:12 <joslwah> If I were you, and could be bothered with the setup time, I'd go for LVM over RAID1, or possibly split the disk and have two LVMs, over RAID0 and RAID1
13:46:12 <warlord> welcome back.
13:46:27 <warlord> I have 4 1TB disks.
13:46:29 <joslwah> If you need a scratch area.
13:47:21 <joslwah> Oh. in that case I'd probably go for 4 pvs. Then a mixture of RAID1 the whole way across, RAID5 and/or RAID10 depending on what the need was.
13:47:54 <joslwah> LVM raid is fine as long as you have a spare disk for the mirror log, in the straight 2 copy RAID1 case.
13:47:56 <warlord> My current plan: sda1/sdb1 -> 500MB RAID1 (md0) -> /boot
13:47:56 <warlord> sda2/sdb2 -> (rest of Disk) -> md1 -> LVM
13:47:56 <warlord> sdc1/sdd1 -> (whole disk) -> md2 -> LVM
13:48:26 <warlord> then combine the md1/LVM and md2/LVM into VolGroup00 and build /, swap, and /vmware out of that.
13:49:10 <joslwah> I'd do something slightly different: sd[ab]1 boot. One is the master, the other a straight copy, periodically. Don't worry about RAIDing it.
13:49:15 <Simon_> erm. surely that's a little crazy?
13:49:29 <Simon_> if you lose the right two disks for / you've lost it
13:49:36 <warlord> So I have a 25GB LogVol00 for /, 20GB LogVol01 for swap, and 1.25TB LogVol02 for /vmware
13:49:36 <joslwah> Then sd[ab]2, sd[cd]1 pvs for LVM.
13:49:50 <Simon_> if you do raid6 on 4 disks you can lose any two disks
13:50:07 <joslwah> Then RAID over the 4 pv's as appropriate.
13:50:09 <jsled> 20GB for swap?
13:50:13 <joslwah> You have much more flexibility.
13:50:16 <jsled> Where's that bikeshed?
13:50:18 *** sjc has joined #gnucash
13:51:04 <joslwah> I'd also be different and have sd[ab]1 being ext2.
13:51:08 <warlord> jsled: buried under all that snow.
13:51:21 <warlord> why ext2 instead of ext3?
13:51:35 <joslwah> No need for fast updates. Less to go wrong.
13:51:43 <joslwah> And normally keep it ro.
13:51:47 <warlord> Simon_: I've heard bad things about raid6
13:52:03 <warlord> (and worse about raid5)
13:52:20 <warlord> like, if you have a failing (but not failed) disk, it could corrupt..
13:52:49 <Simon_> warlord: I don't think your plan is any better - you'd be better off using 2 disks for /vmware in that situation
13:52:51 <warlord> Also, with raid6 all partitions need to be the same size.. which I can't do here.
13:53:15 <Simon_> yes you can...
13:53:20 <Simon_> you just put lvm on top of it
13:53:29 <joslwah> Oh. Another issue. If you want RAID1 for speed then go with md. With LVM RAID1 you don't get parallel reads.
13:53:37 <joslwah> But with md RAID1 you do.
13:54:03 <warlord> Any raid1 (or 6) would be md
13:54:23 <Simon_> warlord: regular checks of the whole array appear to be standard practise with any raid
13:54:47 <joslwah> It depends on whether you are doing it for the speed or security. For latter, LVM is easier. For former md seems to be the way to go from experience.
13:55:10 <warlord> Simon_: that doesn't help. /boot needs to be raid1.. So that means if I need 4 partitions of the same size then I lose the equivalent of sda1 on sdc and sdd.. Yes, I could LVM them on top but how do I raid them?
13:55:14 <joslwah> I've done LVM RAID5, and didn't have any problems.
13:55:34 <joslwah> LVM does RAID.
13:55:42 <Simon_> warlord: make a small /boot on every disk
13:55:54 <Simon_> it doesn't need to be 500MB either
13:56:35 <warlord> Simon_: eh, they are 1TB disks.. I'd rather err on too-large than too-small for /boot. Yes, I suppose I could just raid1 across all four drives.
13:57:01 <joslwah> Using LVM RAID is simpler, because there is only one technology. BTW, you can't do online resizing of LVM RAID1 partitions.
13:57:30 <joslwah> You can for LVM over md RAID.
13:58:09 <warlord> I'm not worried about multiple technolgies. I'm familiar with md. Never used LVM. LVM makes the RAID0 part of RAID10 easy.
13:58:40 <joslwah> LVM does everything md does conveniently, but not necessarily as efficiently.
13:58:55 <warlord> Well, I'm not sure how to set up RAID1 in LVM.
13:59:06 <warlord> Nor do I know how to monitor it.
13:59:14 <warlord> I do understand how to set up and monitor md raids.
13:59:19 <joslwah> You just specify that you want n copies.
14:00:04 <warlord> Anyways.. I'm willing to do a 4xRAID1 for /boot and a 4-disk RAID-6 with LVM on top of it.
14:00:30 <joslwah> So, to create an ordinary logical volume (lv) you do lvcreate -L size -n name <vg-name>
14:00:57 <warlord> joslwah: This is the anaconda installed.
14:01:00 <warlord> Commandlines mean nothing to me.
14:01:06 <warlord> er, installER
14:01:07 <joslwah> To do RAID1 you do lvcreate -L size -n name -m <number of copies> <vg-name>
14:01:33 <joslwah> warlord, O.k. Never used anaconda. I do most stuff from the commandline.
14:02:08 <warlord> anaconda is the fedora installer. I'm trying to set it all up there.
14:02:38 <warlord> Simon_: RAID6 on 6 drives gives me the same storage as RAID10, right?
14:02:40 *** twunder has joined #gnucash
14:03:37 <joslwah> Should do. Both give ~2TB.
14:04:35 <warlord> Yes, RAID6 gives any-two-drive failure protection, whereas RAID10 requires special drives to fail (if the wrong two drives fail you're in trouble).
14:05:27 <warlord> BUT, the write performance of RAID6 is much worse than RAID10, and gets even worse than that in a degraded array
14:06:03 <joslwah> Do you care about the write performance in a degraded array? In that case you fix it, rather than caring about performance.
14:07:02 <warlord> Not particularly, no. But I do care about write performance of a full array.
14:07:52 <joslwah> Are the four drives on four separate channels, or on two channels?
14:08:01 <warlord> http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/_common/compatibility/_education/RAID_level_compar_wp.htm#3
14:08:09 <warlord> Two channels.
14:08:48 <warlord> Good point! I should probably make it sda/sdc and sdb/sdd to have the raids cross channels..
14:08:59 <warlord> (if I stick with raid1)
14:09:54 <joslwah> That was my next point.
14:11:03 <joslwah> Anyway. Have fun with it. If speed is an issue, then getting an additional IDE card (I'm guessing it is PATA ide) will make a significant difference.
14:11:30 <warlord> No, it's SATA with hot-swap bays.
14:18:51 <joslwah> In that case, isn't it 4 separate channels? I thought all SATA were independent channels.
14:18:56 <joslwah> I may be wrong, of course.
14:19:58 <warlord> Well, according to the BIOS there's Primary and Secondary on each channel.. But that could just be leftover from PATA dats.
14:20:02 <warlord> Days even.
14:21:28 <joslwah> You could test it. Create a couple of partitions and time dd from one, dd from the other, and then doing them at the same time. If they are independent they should be about the same time.
14:22:46 <warlord> What do you mean, "doing them at the same time"?
14:23:02 <warlord> Also, how do I make sure not to take memory caching into consideration?
14:23:19 <warlord> Moreover, I dont want to spend three days testing just to decide how to configure the underlying drives.
14:26:23 <joslwah> At the same time. By say doing time dd if=/dev/sdb2 of=/dev/null & ; time dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null
14:27:13 <joslwah> Flushing the memory is a bit of a pain. I have an app that does it, but that doesn't help you.
14:29:15 <warlord> Not particularly.. I'd have to do something like that using SystemRescueCD.
14:36:57 <joslwah> Yep. But shouldn't take that long. Don't even need to initialise the partitions. Could always just boot the machine twice. Once for the one at a time tests, and once for the parallel test.
14:37:03 *** chris has quit IRC
14:38:03 <warlord> Well, right now there is no partition written.. But I could just dd the whole drive.
14:42:33 *** chris has joined #gnucash
14:59:40 *** Aganippe{B} has quit IRC
15:11:57 <joslwah> That could take a while.
15:12:17 <joslwah> I'd partition it first, say grab 1 or 2 GB partition.
15:12:30 <joslwah> 1TB will take an age.
15:12:47 <warlord> I'mjust not going to worry about it.
15:18:14 <joslwah> That's the other approach.
15:18:52 *** nomeata_ has joined #gnucash
15:19:29 <warlord> heh
15:19:36 <warlord> The system is installing now...
15:22:58 <joslwah> So, what did you go for in the end?
15:24:07 *** hvx has joined #gnucash
15:25:08 <warlord> RAID10
15:26:31 <joslwah> With the pairs split over the different controllers?
15:32:54 *** aindilis has joined #gnucash
15:32:55 <warlord> sda/sdb and sdc/sdd
16:04:38 *** hvx has quit IRC
16:45:09 *** palatin has quit IRC
16:49:45 *** warlord is now known as warlord-afk
17:08:43 *** ErKa has quit IRC
17:39:45 *** nomeata has quit IRC
17:45:59 *** twunder has quit IRC
17:49:51 *** kling0n has joined #gnucash
18:21:28 *** kling0n has quit IRC
18:38:54 *** BenB has quit IRC
19:21:34 *** twunder has joined #gnucash
19:51:55 *** puck has joined #gnucash
19:57:57 *** twunder has quit IRC
20:06:56 *** sjc has quit IRC
20:35:17 *** twunder has joined #gnucash
20:41:00 *** twunder has quit IRC
21:20:58 *** Jimraehl has left #gnucash
21:21:39 *** JimRaehl2 has joined #gnucash
22:25:01 *** JimRaehl2 has left #gnucash
22:25:24 *** Jimraehl has joined #gnucash
23:44:40 *** Mike_ has quit IRC
23:54:32 *** Aganippe{B} has joined #gnucash