John Summerfield wrote:
... _might_ be preferable to share / and mount the volatiles/per-machine
stuff over it, but you'd need to have a good hard think about it.
This works. Neat idea. Do have a long hard think about it. Z/OS does
something like it.
-- R,
Adam Thornton wrote:
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:54 PM, Dominic Coulombe wrote:
Is there a reason to use SSH without encryption over telnet?
Just wondering.
X11 port forwarding, when you know the environment's reasonably
trustworthy, comes to mind immediately.
you can also forward arbitrary
Dominic Coulombe wrote:
Yes, you're right, I posted this a little quick...
What I was thinking was more like :
All of your machines share the same /usr disk, then you take the
master down, clone his /usr disk, apply patches to the new disk and
then do a little testing on the results.
If
Rick Troth wrote:
As an example, the 1B0 disk is bootable and has three partitions:
/boot, /usr, and /opt. (The DASD driver only supports up to three
partitions. The boot disk must be partitioned to save room for the
IPL text in the first track.) The 1B1 disk a copy of MAINT 1B1,
with
Dominic Coulombe wrote:
Is there a reason to use SSH without encryption over telnet?
Just wondering.
The primary reason _I_ use ssh is its simplicity compared with using
telnet. Mostly, I use it over trusted (I control it all) or
already-encrypted channels (VPN).
I often use it's X
/var should not be shared, as there are a lot of critical files in
there, see /var/lock .
The sharing thing is more complicated that I tought...
On 28-Jul-2006, at 23:19, John Summerfield wrote:
/var might be okay, for example, but I don't know that it's defined to
be so.
On Saturday, 07/29/2006 at 11:28 AST, Dominic Coulombe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/var should not be shared, as there are a lot of critical files in
there, see /var/lock .
The sharing thing is more complicated that I tought...
Remember our discussion of live backups? Live sharing is another
Dominic,
Does it makes sense ?
Have you heard/read Gordon Wolfe's Managing a Penguin Farm on the VM
Prairie? See http://linuxvm.org/present/ and it looks like there are 4
copies of it from various SHARE conferences. You might want to read
through the oldest and the newest. Gordon maintainted
Thank you for the info, I will read the paper for sure.
On 7/28/06, Michael MacIsaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dominic,
Does it makes sense ?
Have you heard/read Gordon Wolfe's Managing a Penguin Farm on the VM
Prairie? See http://linuxvm.org/present/ and it looks like there are 4
copies
hi Tim,
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 07:45:03AM -0700, MOEUR TIM C wrote:
Hello List,
I'm pursuing an architecture for multiple guests under VM and I'd like
to know if anyone else has done the same, or if this is just an accident
waiting to happen. I invite your thoughts, comments, and witty
Hi Tim,
What you want to do is feasible, but require good planning.
For an example, you can share RO the /usr filesystem. When you apply a
patch on the main system which owns the disk in RW, your other machines ARE
NOT aware of the changes until you re-mount the filesystem on each Linux
It should work, but you will need to do some planning around doing updates
on the master copy (Bill Scully's paper on how CA does this is instructive
as to the various issues).
One thing that I've been tinkering with is whether this sort of
configuration is really more like setting up diskless
Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MOEUR TIM C
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:45 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Shared common Directories
Hello List,
I'm pursuing an architecture for multiple guests under VM and I'd like
to know if anyone else has
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Shared common Directories
Hi Tim,
What you want to do is feasible, but require good planning.
For an example, you can share RO the /usr filesystem. When you apply a
patch on the main system which owns the disk in RW, your other machines ARE
NOT aware of the changes until you re
, theory and practice are different.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MOEUR TIM C
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:45 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Shared common Directories
Hello List,
I'm pursuing an architecture for multiple
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Yu Safin wrote:
If you are not trying to save disk (we use about 1 Gb for all system
files), why not use something simpler such as unison/rsync to keep all
your files synchronized to a master. That way, if the disk takes a
hit you won't see all your systems go down.
Good
Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of MOEUR TIM C
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:45 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Shared common Directories
Hello List,
I'm pursuing an architecture for multiple guests under VM and I'd like
to know if anyone else has
On Thursday 27 July 2006 16:50, Nix, Robert P. wrote:
Actually, I don't think you want a shared filesystem r/w to any image while
it is r/o to several other images. Subtle things change on a read-write
disk; accessed dates get touched, and things in the directory float. These
things could make
On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Nix, Robert P. wrote:
because you can't just use the tools supplied by the vendor to do
the maintenance; you have to do something extra to catch all the
extra fallout. I think, for this reason, most people have abandoned
the shared /usr concept, and are just
On 7/27/06, Rick Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Yu Safin wrote:
If you are not trying to save disk (we use about 1 Gb for all system
files), why not use something simpler such as unison/rsync to keep all
your files synchronized to a master. That way, if the disk takes a
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Adam Thornton wrote:
OTOH, unionfs is a much easier approach.
UNIONFS is cool. Way cool.
But it's not the only way to do shared disks.
Read only is really effective. It works. It also does require
some rolling up of the sleeves and care and feeding of vendors.
-- R;
Dominic Coulombe wrote:
For an example, you can share RO the /usr filesystem. When you apply a
patch on the main system which owns the disk in RW, your other machines ARE
NOT aware of the changes until you re-mount the filesystem on each Linux
machine.
I will put that a little more
Nix, Robert P. wrote:
Not only would you have to shut down all the guests to introduce your maintenance
(although not during the actual apply; you could allocate new disks, copy the
old ones, and apply your maintenance there, then switch everybody over),
Robert
Can you check that your email
Rick Troth wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Yu Safin wrote:
If you are not trying to save disk (we use about 1 Gb for all system
files), why not use something simpler such as unison/rsync to keep all
your files synchronized to a master. That way, if the disk takes a
hit you won't see all your
Long response here. Shared disk is the way to go!!
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, MOEUR TIM C wrote:
I'm pursuing an architecture for multiple guests under VM
and I'd like to know if anyone else has done the same,
or if this is just an accident waiting to happen. ...
Yes, done the same here.
Yes, you're right, I posted this a little quick...
What I was thinking was more like :
All of your machines share the same /usr disk, then you take the
master down, clone his /usr disk, apply patches to the new disk and
then do a little testing on the results.
If everything goes right, your
Is there a reason to use SSH without encryption over telnet?
Just wondering.
On 27-Jul-2006, at 20:00, John Summerfied wrote:
There is a patch to openssh that allows to turn encryption off; I
think it's been mentioned in TH's nahant list in the past three
months or so.
On Jul 27, 2006, at 5:54 PM, Dominic Coulombe wrote:
Is there a reason to use SSH without encryption over telnet?
Just wondering.
X11 port forwarding, when you know the environment's reasonably
trustworthy, comes to mind immediately.
Passwordless key-based login for automation, if, again,
Warning: another long post...
What we are looking for I think is software virtualization and it
just is not there yet.
It's about giving each participant the illusion that he has the entire
thing for himself, while under the covers you take advantage of the
architecture to use less resources
29 matches
Mail list logo
