On 06/23/2012 05:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
Sorry, I misread my notes, 8.2 uses v 15, 8.3 uses v 28.
R's,
John
yeah, I remember version 15 was really stable. Opensolaris 2009.06
last binary production ready, used version 14; i also found it to
be stable
Any opensource zfs pool ve
>> snafu on my part freebsd 8.3 also uses zfs pool version 28:-)
>
>No, 8.3 uses version 15. It's been quite stable for me.
Sorry, I misread my notes, 8.2 uses v 15, 8.3 uses v 28.
R's,
John
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lis
> snafu on my part freebsd 8.3 also uses zfs pool version 28:-)
No, 8.3 uses version 15. It's been quite stable for me.
R's,
John
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscr
On 06/23/2012 04:19 PM, Edward M wrote:
On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know
your opinion on ZFS stability. Is there any success story using
ZFS in 24x7, large volume, heavy duty servers? Is there any
other option other than ZFS to
On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know
your opinion on ZFS stability. Is there any success story using
ZFS in 24x7, large volume, heavy duty servers? Is there any
other option other than ZFS to build larger than 2TB file systems?
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sat Jun 23 02:48:26 2012
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:17:13 +0430
> From: Hooman Fazaeli
> To: Wojciech Puchar
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready?
>
>
> I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS?
Of course not. U
I seem to have run into the problems described in this old thread.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-April/044927.html
tl:dr mountd may give incorrect permission denied errors when it is
refreshing the exports list, /sbin/mount has code that sends SIGHUP to
mountd on any mo
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Fri Jun 22 13:47:20 2012
>> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:41:46 -0500
>> From: Mark Felder
>> Subject: Re: Sendmail and Postfix
>>
>> When you installed Postfix did
Actually, a Wake-On-LAN feature is not at all necessary for me in this
case. It's a simple enough task to just trigger a backup manually at the
command line via a script that automates the process.
still. a separate wol tool is available in ports. You may easily construct
shell script that will
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:17:36AM +0200, herbert langhans wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:10:06AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > >lftp does work incremental. Take a look at Chad's posting again and read
> > >what he needs. And of course, ftp via ssh is nothing new ...
>
> > still - any ftp
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 09:46:02AM -0400, Jorge Luis Gonzalez wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >
> > what exactly deficiences and requirements not met by rsync are you talking
> > about?
>
> Perhaps "deficiencies" was too strong a word. I think the OP required--or
> perhaps desired--a WOL func
On Jun 23, 2012, at 6:37 AM, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
> For setting the dafault hash used to hash /etc/master.passwd, it has
> been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the sense of
> being more expensive to crack.
>
> The handbook describes the procedure used in
> http://www.
been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the
sense of being more expensive to crack.
is md5 that easy to crack?
It has been discussed recently, cf
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2012-June/006271.html
or virtually the first half of
http://lists.freebsd.org
Thanks for pointing out that there are Windows ports of rsync, and that you
provide examples of their use. I'm not sure I would entrust my system backups
to them if they come with the disclaimer that you've "no idea how stable and
usable they are."
http://justinsomnia.org/2007/02/how-to-regular
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:40:51 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > For setting the dafault hash used to hash /etc/master.passwd, it has
> > been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the
> > sense of being more expensive to crack.
>
> is md5 that easy to crack?
It has been dis
you mean "wake on lan"? there is "wol" tool in ports.
proper. I meant, too, that dirvish, which was the alternative that I
recommended, presents an elegant and easily-comprehended way to manage rsync's
considerable abilities, not that it provides features that can't be managed
directly by rsync.
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> what exactly deficiences and requirements not met by rsync are you talking
> about?
>
Perhaps "deficiencies" was too strong a word. I think the OP required--or
perhaps desired--a WOL function. I'm not aware of any such capability in rsync
proper. I meant, too, that di
windoze, under linux) is enough.
If the ROI does not exceed the expenditure to meet a specification that
only applies to a niche segment of the potential market, then it is in
all probability not going to happen.
Right. Fine.
There is not written on them "conforms to USB Mass Storage standard"
For setting the dafault hash used to hash /etc/master.passwd, it has
been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the sense of
being more expensive to crack.
is md5 that easy to crack?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http:/
For setting the dafault hash used to hash /etc/master.passwd, it has
been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the sense of
being more expensive to crack.
The handbook describes the procedure used in
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/crypt.html.
Allegedly,
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:00:29 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar articulated:
> >> ports.
> >>
> > Same as in my case.
> >
> > USB is more a lottery than real computing for me.
> but this is not USB standard fault, but USB device manufacturers that
> cannot really read standard specifications. "It works
PXE booting gives a lot of possibilities. I use it to boot Clonezilla to
back up Windows systems. That is better than dd, since only used disk blocks
ntfsclone is what you need. for sure simpler.
For FreeBSD and other open operating systems, sysutils/rsnapshot is a
what is exactly rsnapsh
what exactly deficiences and requirements not met by rsync are you talking
about?
simplifications of rsync's ability to exclude files or directories, elegant
handling of backups' expirations) are sufficient to make it a worthy
alternative to naked rsync. The frontend is written in Perl and eas
Wojciech Puchar:
> >
> >Hmm, I'm not sure that there is _anything_ that meets _all_ your criteria!
>
> rsync meets. It can be a little harder with windoze, with any unix-like OS
> it will work.
>
rsync, or some front-end to rsync, is indeed probably the best option, though
it lacks several of t
daily basis, Luckily, very few of them involve FreeBSD, which is why I
do not exhibit such a negative attitude, except of course when I do
attempt to plug one in a FreeBSD machine with negative results. I do
not know what is more pathetic; the fact that so many devices fail to
operate correctly --
ports.
Same as in my case.
USB is more a lottery than real computing for me.
but this is not USB standard fault, but USB device manufacturers that
cannot really read standard specifications. "It works" (under windoze,
under linux) is enough.
___
fr
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > My elder colleague often told me that it is the easiest and well-working
> way
> > to check whether the one is certified to work for Mac OS X to get USB
> mass
> > storage devices which work with *BSD :)
>
> > Just my 5 yen,
>
> -|-__ YA
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, Eduardo Morras wrote:
At 02:37 23/06/2012, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:47:40PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:09:03AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I'm setting up a "new" backup server using FreeBSD. It will be used
for
> > back
Hi,
On Saturday 23 June 2012 18:18:58 Jerry wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:50:05 +0700
>
> Erich Dollansky articulated:
> > USB is more a lottery than real computing for me.
>
> That is really sad. I am sort of forced to use USB devices on a
> daily basis, Luckily, very few of them involve Free
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:50:05 +0700
Erich Dollansky articulated:
> USB is more a lottery than real computing for me.
That is really sad. I am sort of forced to use USB devices on a
daily basis, Luckily, very few of them involve FreeBSD, which is why I
do not exhibit such a negative attitude, excep
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:57:01 +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > My suggestion: Set background_fsck="YES" in /etc/rc.conf and let
> > the system boot up that way. _If_ you have a faulty disk or other
> > data corruption, you'll notice this _before_ going multi-user and
> > maybe making things worse.
Hi,
On Saturday 23 June 2012 15:33:45 RetspaN Code wrote:
> also this
>
> 14417 ?? Ss 0:00.02 /bin/sh - /usr/sbin/periodic daily
> 14425 ?? I 0:00.04 /bin/sh - /usr/sbin/periodic daily
as long it is online, there is a very, very low chance to get anything done.
And even when it
On Saturday 23 June 2012 11:52:53 Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 21 June 2012 23:22, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > usbconfig -d 7.6 add_quirk UQ_MSC_NO_INQUIRY
> >
> > Then re-plug it.
> >
> > I'm sorry to say a lot of USB flash sticks out there are broken and only
> > tested with the timing of MS Wi
Hi,
On Saturday 23 June 2012 15:08:53 Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
> I don't think I ever tried to connect a USB 2.0 device to 3.0 port, but I
> tried the opposite.
>
I have here 2 hard disks and 2 flash drives with USB 2.0. Three of them work
on FreeBSD on an USB 3.0 port. One hard disk only works
> My suggestion: Set background_fsck="YES" in /etc/rc.conf and let
> the system boot up that way. _If_ you have a faulty disk or other
> data corruption, you'll notice this _before_ going multi-user and
> maybe making things worse. Yes, it might take some time, but it's
> time well invested in your
a) activate PXE/WOL on bios
b) start the laptop via PXE using a freebsd/linux/whatever_os_you_want_to_use
c) use dd piped to rsync to make the backups
not really efficient but working.
ntfsprogs from ports can be helpful. you may use ntfsmount and access NTFS
files directly.
if backup is do
still - any ftp client will no go faster than ftp protocol allows.
That's sure. But I think it's an option for the laptops what Chad
only if $HOME directly or part of it is copied and nothing more
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http:
On 21 June 2012 23:22, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> usbconfig -d 7.6 add_quirk UQ_MSC_NO_INQUIRY
>
> Then re-plug it.
>
> I'm sorry to say a lot of USB flash sticks out there are broken and only
> tested with the timing of MS Windows. Part of the problem is that it is
> difficult to autodetect th
At 02:37 23/06/2012, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:47:40PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:09:03AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I'm setting up a "new" backup server using FreeBSD. It will be used for
> > backing up laptops, which will not be connected to
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:10:06AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >lftp does work incremental. Take a look at Chad's posting again and read
> >what he needs. And of course, ftp via ssh is nothing new ...
> still - any ftp client will no go faster than ftp protocol allows.
That's sure. But I thin
lftp does work incremental. Take a look at Chad's posting again and read
what he needs. And of course, ftp via ssh is nothing new ...
still - any ftp client will no go faster than ftp protocol allows.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http:
lftp does work incremental. Take a look at Chad's posting again and read
what he needs. And of course, ftp via ssh is nothing new ...
Cheers
herb langhans
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:22:04AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:49:39 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > > Maybe
However, fsck'ing such large volumes will take considerable time if such a
thing needs doing. There is the new "Soft-update plus Journaling" coming
along with the advent of 9.x, which is supposed to ameliorate this. Not
it is far from perfect. But fine to use it.
Just DO full fsck every some ti
Hi,
On Saturday 23 June 2012 14:44:18 RetspaN Code wrote:
>
> I did own now by root:wheel but now i'm under on ddos attack. :( but still
> not yet done the exploit not yet remove.
>
> too lag my server due to ddos attack.
>
the server must be off-line if you want to have the tiniest chance to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:49:39 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > Maybe take a look at lftp, at the mirror option. For basic demands its a
> > compact solution.
>
> try doing backup of things with 1 dirs and million files and certainly
> you will understand you need rsync.
In addition to
Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
>
> I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS?
>
Yes. The 2TB limitation so many are used to applies more to the tools than
the UFS2 file system itself. UFS2 has a max volume size of 2^73, or 8
Zeta-Bytes. If you utilize the old Dos MBR scheme with old fdisk an
What if a USB mass storage device works with some BSDs but not all?
well the only thing i never experiences with USB pendrives is a one that
works everytime properly. Everything else is possible.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://li
> My elder colleague often told me that it is the easiest and well-working way
> to check whether the one is certified to work for Mac OS X to get USB mass
> storage devices which work with *BSD :)
> Just my 5 yen,
-|-__ YAMAMOTO, Taku
| __ <
What if a USB mass storage device works with
Hmm, I'm not sure that there is _anything_ that meets _all_ your criteria!
rsync meets. It can be a little harder with windoze, with any unix-like OS
it will work.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/list
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 06:37:17PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:47:40PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:09:03AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > I'm setting up a "new" backup server using FreeBSD. It will be used for
> > > backing up laptops, whic
and hardware in the lab on last week.
I reformatted the USB drive with extFAT and standard block size on
Windows 7. The USB drive is now seen again on FreeBSD and recognized as
this points that the pendrive's controller is not just flaky but horrid.
The communiation with OS, and how/whether it is
I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS?
UFS2 is here since IMHO year 2005.
Now the only problem is fsck time.
actually IMHO fsck can be improved a lot but someone must have time and
will to do this. if parallelism would be exploited on gstripe type(*)
volumes then it should tak
Maybe take a look at lftp, at the mirror option. For basic demands its a
compact solution.
try doing backup of things with 1 dirs and million files and certainly
you will understand you need rsync.
ftp protocol is plain bad for that.
___
freebsd
I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS?
On 6/21/2012 6:54 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for >2TB f
Hi,
On Saturday 23 June 2012 14:20:58 RetspaN Code wrote:
>
> That was before. and i notice most of files on / directory is not own by
> wheel group. :( i try to chown but still not done. can u tell me why that
> happen?
all in / has to be owned by root:wheel.
Who else has had root access and m
On 06/22/12 08:22, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2012 08:01:38 O. Hartmann wrote:
>> I have a USB drive/stick, Lexar USB Flash drive as reported by FreeBSD
>> shown below.
>> When first used, I was able to put approx. 30 GB of data on it - it was
>> visible to FreeBSD 9 and 10 as e
I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously!
I look at large corporate software vendors and see them treating
customers seriously maybe 2% of the time at best. In this case, most of
I assumed FreeBSD team are OK and would fit in this 2% or even those 0.2%
am i wrong?
_
Hi,
On Saturday 23 June 2012 13:41:24 RetspaN Code wrote:
> 49129472 drwxr-x--x 20 root tonyx 512 Jun 5 13:00 ..
who belongs to this group?
> 49134586 -rw-r--r--1 root wheel6206 Jun 13 2010 COPYRIGHT
> 49134587 -rw-r--r--1 root wheel 442 Jun 13 2010 LOCKS
> 49134588 -
58 matches
Mail list logo
