Re: [SLUG] Transferring servers (binaries, libraries configs etc) from old hd to new raid1
Thanks for that insight. It's certainly relieved the pressure of loosing the old disk. However, if I just find . -print | cpio -pmudv / the raid1 array will be overwritten with the old system while the servers, binaries configs etc are copied over, surely. e.g the fstab of the old system is totally different to the one on the raid1 array. There's also the matter of kernels; 2.4 to 2.6. Q. Is there an easy way to only copy the relevant files or copy everything except the files that'll break the new system? John On 11/29/06, O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John wrote: Hi List, I was running an ata hd on the dmz which I've removed (before it finally dies) and replaced with 2 brand new drives which I've set up as a raid1 array. The old hd is 2.4.18 Debian Etch. The new raid1 is 2.6.17-10 Debian Etch. (Both are identical from the viewpoint of apt-get update, upgrade, dist-upgrade) The partitioning on the old hd: hda1 /boot hda2 / hda4 /var hda5 /tmp hda6 /home hda7 swap hda8 /usr The partitioning of the 2 new drives (in situ): hda1 /boot hda2 raid hda4 swap hdb1 /boot2 (A spare boot partition. I read somewhere that it was a good idea) hdb2 raid hdb4 swap md0 / I've read numerous howtos (incl. Jamie's) and tried a number of times by setting the old drive up as hdc but all have failed and I'm getting nervous about how long the old drive will last. Q. How do I transfer all the servers from the old drive to the new raid1 array? Suggested steps: 1. Configure by setting hard drive jumper selector so that the old drive is recognized as /dev/hdc; so you have old /dev/hda1-(transforms to) /dev/hdc1(/boot); /dev/hda2- /dev/hdc2 (/ ) /dev/hda3-/dev/hdc3 (You have no /dev/hda3 ?) /dev/hda4-/dev/hdc4 (/var) /dev/hda5-/dev/hdc5 (/tmp) /dev/hda6-/dev/hdc6 (/home) /dev/hda7-/dev/hdc7 (swap) /dev/hda8-/dev/hdc8 (/usr) Your new drives remains recognized as you indicated above,i.e, /dev/hda - /dev/hda /dev/hdb-/dev/hdb 2. Re-Boot your OS. 3. mkdir /old.drive 3.a cd /old.drive 3.b #for i in boot var tmp home usr do mkdir $i done 3.c cd 4. mount /dev/hdc1 /mnt 4.a. cd /mnt 4.b. find . -print | cpio -pdmuv /old.drive/boot; cd 4.c. umount /mnt 5. mount /dev/hdc2 /mnt 5.a. cd /mnt 5.b. find . -print | cpio -pdmuv /old.drive; cd 5.c. umount /mnt 6. /dev/hdc3 (You have no /dev/hdc3) 7. mount /dev/hdc4 /mnt 7.a. cd /mnt 7.b find . -print | cpio -pdmuv /old.drive/var; cd 7.c umount /mnt 8. mount /dev/hdc6 /mnt 8.a cd /mnt 8.b. find . -print | cpio -pdmuv /old.drive/home; cd 8.c umount /mnt 9. mount /dev/hdc8 /mnt 9.a cd /mnt 9.b find . -print | cpio -pdmuv /old.drive/usr ; cd 9. c umount /mnt 10. At this stage all your data from the old drive are in /old.drive. Providing you don't format your new drives the old data is now imaged in /old.drive. 11. Then, do #cd /old.drive #find . -print | cpio -pmudv / 12. Reboot your OS and test. You can put many of the above steps in a script, if that's what you want. Hope this helps. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] t/s dns name resolution, lack of
On Wed, November 29, 2006 12:11 pm, Marty Richards wrote: Everything looks good for that domain in DNS land currently. You could also log a fault with Telstra on behalf of your BigPond customer - it doesn't hurt to attack these problems from both sides. Marty, as well as tests you've done, I've tried connecting to the website from other Bigpond users locations, it fails from all BigPond links logging fault with BP was next to useless, as far as BP support is concerned, it all works fine: --- Thank you for your email dated 27 Nov regarding www.gazetaprawna.pl. I have tested this website on a standard BigPond Cable connection, and was able to reach it without an issue. This was done on a standalone PC, with all DNS and IP information assigned to me by BigPond automatically. We cannot specify a DNS server for you to access, as our system changes these addresses depending on server load. If your computer is unable to resolve the URL, but can successfully access the site via IP address, I would have to advise that this is an issue with your computer or one of your other devices. If you have any other questions, please visit our Help Centre at www.bigpond.com/help. The Help Centre is a handy resource for our members which includes things such as our Frequently Asked Questions and our new Email Troubleshooter which has been set up to help you solve all your email problems. Thank you for choosing BigPond. --- -- Voytek -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Simple and reliable home folder encryption for Ubuntu 6.10
Why not just encrypt the the documents you need Some products will even append the encrypted data to the end of an image file so that when you open the file it looks like a picture. and the only clue that there is anything more than meets the eye is that the image file is bigger than it actually needs to be I believe that is the encryption that I would prefer and If I could find a program to do this in Linux I would be very happy and dance around going Yay ! -Original Message- From: Ben [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:22 PM To: slug@slug.org.au Subject:[SLUG] Simple and reliable home folder encryption for Ubuntu 6.10 I need to encrypt the home folder on my laptop and desktop. I realise there are vulnerabilities associated with not encrypting the whole disk, but I'm willing to cope with a lower level of protection as I'm more concerned about accidental loss or casual theft, rather than a targetted attack. I've spent some time looking up encryption and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of choice. I'm looking for a recommendation on a method that favours simplicity and reliability (performance is not a major concern). Ben -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Re: slug Digest, Vol 10, Issue 72
On Thursday 30 November 2006 09:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not just encrypt the the documents you need Some products will even append the encrypted data to the end of an image file so that when you open the file it looks like a picture. and the only clue that there is anything more than meets the eye is that the image file is bigger than it actually needs to be I believe that is the encryption that I would prefer and If I could find a program to do this in Linux I would be very happy and dance around going Yay ! http://steghide.sourceforge.net/ James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Simple and reliable home folder encryption for Ubuntu 6.10
I've heard lots of good things about http://www.truecrypt.org/ - never used it myself though. It sounds like it's probably overkill for what you're looking for... On 11/28/06, Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need to encrypt the home folder on my laptop and desktop. I realise there are vulnerabilities associated with not encrypting the whole disk, but I'm willing to cope with a lower level of protection as I'm more concerned about accidental loss or casual theft, rather than a targetted attack. I've spent some time looking up encryption and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of choice. I'm looking for a recommendation on a method that favours simplicity and reliability (performance is not a major concern). Ben -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- There is nothing more worthy of contempt than a man who quotes himself - Zhasper, 2004 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Simple and reliable home folder encryption for Ubuntu 6.10
On 11/30/06, Stephen Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not just encrypt the the documents you need I have a large number of files that need to be encrypted, of varying types, including locally stored email. The files I need to encrypt also need to be modified regularly. Some products will even append the encrypted data to the end of an image file so that when you open the file it looks like a picture. and the only clue that there is anything more than meets the eye is that the image file is bigger than it actually needs to be For this sort of thing I would probably use a TrueCrypt hidden volume. I believe that is the encryption that I would prefer and If I could find a program to do this in Linux I would be very happy and dance around going Yay ! Here's a few: http://home.earthlink.net/~emilbrandt/stego/softwareunix.html Ben -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] laptop sound playing out onboard speaker headphones
I have a problem with sound on my laptop, that commenced with my upgrade to Ubuntu Edgy - any hints on how to troubleshoot it? The problem is that when I plug in headphones, the sound keeps playing out the laptop speakers, thus annoying other people who have to listen to my atrocious taste in music :-) On previous version of Ubuntu, plugging in headphones would stop the sound coming out the laptop speakers. I've tried all the settings in System - Preferences - Sound (ALSA, OSD, OSS) - no effect. The chipset is Intel ICH6. -- Sonia Hamilton. GPG key A8B77238. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Simple and reliable home folder encryption for Ubuntu 6.10
* On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:21:32PM +1100, Ben wrote: I need to encrypt the home folder on my laptop and desktop. I realise there are vulnerabilities associated with not encrypting the whole disk, but I'm willing to cope with a lower level of protection as I'm more concerned about accidental loss or casual theft, rather than a targetted attack. I've spent some time looking up encryption and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of choice. I'm looking for a recommendation on a method that favours simplicity and reliability (performance is not a major concern). The Ubuntu Hacks book has a hack (#70) about doing this - you could 'sudo apt-get install dmsetup cryptsetup' and read the doco, or get the book :-) -- Sonia Hamilton. GPG key A8B77238. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] NAT stuff
Hi everyone, Got a stupid question. If I have 2 NICs on one machine: eth0 192.168.0.1 and eth1 10.0.0.1 and I want to let all the computers on eth0 network to talk to an internet connection on the 10.0.0.1 network, how would I use iptables and/or NAT to make this happen? I have a theory but haven't tested it yet: iptables -A FORWARD -j MASQUERADE -o eth0 -t nat I think I am missing something.??? Thanks -- Scott Waller Sales Account Manager Lots of Watts Pty Ltd 2 Bridge St, Rydalmere NSW 2116 Ph: (02) 9638 0302 Fx: (02) 9638 0331 Mb: 0421 038 526 www.lotsofwatts.com.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
Scott Waller (Lots of Watts) wrote: and I want to let all the computers on eth0 network to talk to an internet connection on the 10.0.0.1 network, how would I use iptables and/or NAT to make this happen? I have a theory but haven't tested it yet: Why not? :-) iptables -A FORWARD -j MASQUERADE -o eth0 -t nat I think I am missing something.??? Close. -o specifies the *output* interface. So it should be -o eth1 . In addition, the nat table doesn't have a FORWARD builtin chain. You should be using POSTROUTING instead. The man page for iptables is fairly comprehensive. It's also worth checking out the netfilter docs at http://netfilter.org/documentation/ . The NAT HOWTO covers precisely this situation; http://netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO//NAT-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.1 Cheers, -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:03:13 +1100, Scott Waller (Lots of Watts) wrote: and I want to let all the computers on eth0 network to talk to an internet connection on the 10.0.0.1 network, how would I use iptables and/or NAT to make this happen? Make sure that all the computers on eth0 have 192.168.0.1 as their default gateway and then something list this should do the trick: # accept all packets that are part of an existing connection iptables -I FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # forward anything from eth0 to eth1 iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/24 -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT # masquerade anything forwarded from eth0 to eth1 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE Cheers, John -- Yeah, but imagine all the helpdesk calls. The term 'clitmouse' gives an accurate indication of how to operate the control[1]. But with a 'penis control' it'd be seconds before a luser calls in my cursor doesn't move when I move my hand up and down the shaft.-- Arthur van der Harg -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On 11/30/06, John Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:03:13 +1100, Scott Waller (Lots of Watts) wrote: and I want to let all the computers on eth0 network to talk to an internet connection on the 10.0.0.1 network, how would I use iptables and/or NAT to make this happen? Make sure that all the computers on eth0 have 192.168.0.1 as their default gateway and then something list this should do the trick: # accept all packets that are part of an existing connection iptables -I FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # forward anything from eth0 to eth1 iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/24 -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT # masquerade anything forwarded from eth0 to eth1 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 - 10 network, as its very likely a device is already doing on the 10 network to the internet. Basically why would you want to double NAT, maybe we should just setup some sort of route to get this traffic out to the net via the nat device on the 10 network? Thanks -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote: Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 - 10 network, as its It's not a silly question. very likely a device is already doing on the 10 network to the internet. Basically why would you want to double NAT, maybe we should just setup some sort of route to get this traffic out to the net via the nat device on the 10 network? You could do it with routing, but all devices on eth1 (10.x) would need to have a route to the 192.x network. Using NAT means that nothing on eth1 needs to know about the 192.x network (they don't even need to know it exists). Of course, that may be a bad thing -- you might not want 192.x to get to any hosts on 10.x -- but it's not my network so I don't know that :-) Cheers, John -- Is someone piping me through sed without my knowledge? No, they're using your request as a command line for teco, with the error message as the input file. -- Joe Zeff in reply to Malcolm Ray -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
John Clarke wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote: Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 - 10 network, as its It's not a silly question. very likely a device is already doing on the 10 network to the internet. Basically why would you want to double NAT, maybe we should just setup some sort of route to get this traffic out to the net via the nat device on the 10 network? You could do it with routing, but all devices on eth1 (10.x) would need to have a route to the 192.x network. In theory, this just means adding the static route to your DHCP server. But in practice, both of the dhcp clients I've tried in Linux don't ask for static-routes by default, and I've only idly googled to check whether Windows supports it. The answer seems to be maybe. But yeah. A simpler and more efficient solution would be to make sure your multi-homed box has IP forwarding turned on ( echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward ), and add a static route on the device terminating your internet connection, telling it to use your multi-homed box as a gateway for 192.168.0.0/24. As long as there's nothing else on the 10.0.0 network that you want to talk to, everything will Just Work. -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:41:49 +1100, Peter Hardy wrote: You could do it with routing, but all devices on eth1 (10.x) would need to have a route to the 192.x network. In theory, this just means adding the static route to your DHCP server. Only in the theory that says every device uses DHCP ... But in practice, both of the dhcp clients I've tried in Linux don't ask for static-routes by default, and I've only idly googled to check whether Windows supports it. The answer seems to be maybe. The dhcp-options(5) man page says ... this option is virtually useless, and is not implemented by any of the popular DHCP clients, for example the Microsoft DHCP client. Given that this was written by ISC, I'd be willing to bet that it's not implemented by their DHCP client either. But yeah. A simpler and more efficient solution would be to make sure your multi-homed box has IP forwarding turned on ( echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward ), and add a static route on the device Yes, very important. I forgot to include that bit. terminating your internet connection, telling it to use your multi-homed box as a gateway for 192.168.0.0/24. As long as there's nothing else on the 10.0.0 network that you want to talk to, everything will Just Work. s/will/should/ :-) Cheers, John -- One distinguishing characteristic of BOFHen is attention deficit disorder. Put me in front of something boring and I can find a near-infinite number of really creative ways to bugger off. -- Anthony de Boer -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
John Clarke wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote: Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 - 10 network, as its It's not a silly question. No, it's not a silly question. RFC 1918 implies there is NATting router to the Internet other than this computer/router because 192.168/16 and 10/8 are private networks. NATting is used to route Private Network(RFC1918) - Public Network(Internet). In this configuration, you have Private Network - Private Network. And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation. Hope this helps. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On 11/30/06, O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Clarke wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote: Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 - 10 network, as its It's not a silly question. No, it's not a silly question. It's definitely not a silly questions, but yours is an... let's call it an overly simplistic answer. In this configuration, you have Private Network - Private Network. And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation. There are plenty of times when NATting isn't silly in this situation. As just one example - imagine that the 10.x.x.x network already knows a 192.168.x.x network - ie, the range of that network overlaps with the range of your own 192.168.x.x network. NATting would allow your 192.168.x.x network to connect to the 10.x.x.x network without needing to have any of the networks renumbered. yes, NATting in this case is not ideal, and often NATting introduces unwanted complications. That doesn't mean it's always silly though. -- There is nothing more worthy of contempt than a man who quotes himself - Zhasper, 2004 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:30:07 +1100, O Plameras wrote: NATting is used to route Private Network(RFC1918) - Public Network(Internet). Not necessarily. NAT is Network Address Translation. Any network. There's no reason why you can't use NAT in private networks, and in some situations it makes sense to do so. Do you have a wireless AP on a private network? If so, you're probably doing exactly what you've just said is silly. And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation. No it's not. You can solve the original problem with or without NAT, but without knowing more about the original poster's requirements, you can't say whether it's better to use NAT or not in this case. Cheers, John -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. -- Rich Cook -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
Zhasper wrote: On 11/30/06, O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Clarke wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:08:48 +1100, Michael Fox wrote: Might be a silly question, but why NAT the 192 - 10 network, as its It's not a silly question. No, it's not a silly question. It's definitely not a silly questions, but yours is an... let's call it an overly simplistic answer. Yes, it's true I like simplified networks. That's why I adhere to RFCs. In this configuration, you have Private Network - Private Network. And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation. There are plenty of times when NATting isn't silly in this situation. The context of the post was he had this config to connect to Public Network. So, in this situation NATting is silly. As just one example - imagine that the 10.x.x.x network already knows a 192.168.x.x network - ie, the range of that network overlaps with the range of your own 192.168.x.x network. NATting would allow your 192.168.x.x network to connect to the 10.x.x.x network without needing to have any of the networks renumbered. This is not the context of the original post. The original post has the context that the poster wants NATting to connect to the Internet. Hope this clarifies. O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
On 11/30/06, O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it's not a silly question. RFC 1918 implies there is NATting router to the Internet other than this computer/router because 192.168/16 and 10/8 are private networks. Yeah I know both private... :) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NAT stuff
John Clarke wrote: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:30:07 +1100, O Plameras wrote: NATting is used to route Private Network(RFC1918) - Public Network(Internet). Not necessarily. NAT is Network Address Translation. Any network. There's no reason why you can't use NAT in private networks, and in some situations it makes sense to do so. Yes, I know NAT. Do you have a wireless AP on a private network? If so, you're probably doing exactly what you've just said is silly. Yes I have wireless and I use Bridging not NATting. Specifically, I use Bridging with http://www.shorewall.net. I like to simplify my network. Why complicate when life is easier with simple networks. And so, it's silly to use NATting in this situation. No it's not. Yes, it's silly to complicate when you can simplify. You can solve the original problem with or without NAT, but without knowing more about the original poster's requirements, you can't say whether it's better to use NAT or not in this case. Is it not that the original poster is NATting for the purpose of connecting to the internet ? O Plameras -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] DNS and resolv.conf
I have changed the resolv.conf to show the main DNSs of my provider in every place I can find but still I have to manually edit it each time I start up and several times whilst I am on line as it changes back to the address of my modem/router. Obviously there is something running that changes it back every few minutes but I can't guess what, so I have no idea how to stop it changing in Ubuntu. If anyone out there knows something about Ubuntu64 6.10, please give me a clue where to look. TIA Ashley -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] DNS and resolv.conf
Its probably your dhcp client overwriting the settings. There is probably a command line or conf option to turn this off. Cheers, Marty T: 02 9460 8077 F: 02 9460 8166 Ashley said the following on 30/11/2006 6:17 PM: I have changed the resolv.conf to show the main DNSs of my provider in every place I can find but still I have to manually edit it each time I start up and several times whilst I am on line as it changes back to the address of my modem/router. Obviously there is something running that changes it back every few minutes but I can't guess what, so I have no idea how to stop it changing in Ubuntu. If anyone out there knows something about Ubuntu64 6.10, please give me a clue where to look. TIA Ashley -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] DNS and resolv.conf
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 18:17 +1100, Ashley wrote: I have changed the resolv.conf to show the main DNSs of my provider in every place I can find but still I have to manually edit it each time I start up and several times whilst I am on line as it changes back to the address of my modem/router. Obviously there is something running that changes it back every few minutes but I can't guess what, so I have no idea how to stop it changing in Ubuntu. Your DHCP client. By default, one of the options it requests from the server is DNS settings for the network. And when the client renews its lease, it overwrites resolv.conf with the settings it gets. I don't have an ubuntu box handy, but from memory you need to look at /etc/dhcp/dhclient.conf . The dhclient.conf man page has a good description of options. -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
