Skip to main content

waterproof folding daypacks

I do not have a need for a new backpack or a daypack for that matter. During my last trip I decided that I needed a drybag so that I could carry my pool stuff without having to lock it up and so I have a 30L version from Earth Pak. This is a very rugged drybag with a single compartment and a folding locking system. The technology has been around long enough.

[a] there are a number of manufacturers that I like, zpack, sea to summit, earth pak. [b] their configuration and key features and sizes vary widely [c] in general there have been some reasonable and many unreasonable complaints.

Here's the way I analyzed the desired features:

  • one main compartment
  • many colored stuff sacks
  • side pocket on one side for water bottle
  • side pocket on the other side for immediate access stuff
  • cordage web on the back for a tarp or poncho carry or maybe some wood picked up along the way
  • a belt type strap to carry a bowie or ax
  • some other strapping system to compress the bag to prevent shifting
  • shoulder, waist and chest straps and buckles
  • optionally being able to fold into a small satchel.
While I want the bag to fold I'm not sure it's a reasonable request. In my case I'm going to change my configuration for my outing. Everything is going to go into ziplock bags and stuff sacks. All of that is going to be backed into plastic boxes unless I can really minimize my load, however, I do not thing that will happen too easily. We are not hiking and so we will have the car close by. The only challenge might be getting the boxes to pack properly into my car. In this convention having a couple of folding drypacks would be ideal since thy do not take much volume at rest.

PS: I think I just realized why Joe was dropped off at his camp site. To prevent vandalism or theft of his car and personal belongings.

Popular posts from this blog

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).

TL;DR;

I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

Weave vs Flannel

While Weave and Flannel have some features in common weave includes DNS for service discovery and a wrapper process for capturing that info. In order to get some parity you'd need to add a DNS service like SkyDNS and then write your own script to weave the two together.
In Weave your fleet file might have some of this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=/opt/bin/weave run --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
In sky + flannel it might look like:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=docker run -d --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStartPre=etcdctl set /skydns/local/ncx/bob '{"host":"`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' bob`","port":8080}' ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
I'd like it to look like this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=skyrun --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
That's the intent anyway. I'm not sure the exact commands will work and that's partly why we…