Skip to main content

making lunch - multiple sources of fire

There is a consensus that a hiker or camper needs to carry multiple methods to create fire. I cannot agree more strongly. Many months ago I wanted to have a torch lighter as a backup, however, as backups go it was pretty crappy. The lighter failed the soak test and it took weeks for the mechanism to dry out. I would probably prefer to have a zippo but they are not without their own challenges.


I originally purchased the toaks 550ml and it was great. Last week I purchased the toaks 750ml because some of the mountainhouse foods required more than 2 cups of water. But even though it's supposed to be a 750ml there are no such markings. It stops at 550ml. It's crappy but not bad news. Now I can make enough water for lunch and a cups of tea.


I tried to light my esbit fuel according to the instructions I watched (fero rod), however, the small tray that is supposed to hold the esbit was too small to create and contain the esbit dust I needed. Next, I tried some drier lint. Since my workspace made striking the steel difficult I had a few fails. With a larger ball of lint I got it to flame but it would not light the esbit.


Lastly I tried the SOL tinder. The first attempt was pretty bad. It was not until I noticed that the wheel was directional. Once I sorted that out the tinder ignited which n turn ignited the esbit. One downside is that the SOL tinder was never fully consumed and in turn the esbit was not fully consumed. So the stand required some cleaning.


As a side note I was using the extra space in the cookset to hold my coffee and tea set; but as I was getting ready for the boil I realized that there were simply too many loose items and that was going to make cleanup longer. Chances are that if I'm making hot water for a meal then a coffee or tea could be around the corner. So why not keep the food together. And leave the stove stuff to the stove.


One last thing. Today I had the mountainhouse lasagna. It was a 2 serving bag with 240 calories per service. It's impossible to know what the pack weight might be and whether dry or wet weight is meaningful. One thing I did not like was that it was so cheesy that my spoon was covered in the thick sludge. I hate the idea of making more work for myself. Some work is ok but more work is not. I can see an argument whereby the stove is exclusively for coffee or tea and maybe the simplest oatmeal or grits.

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…