On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 13:23 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 24 August 2008, Craig White wrote: > >On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 01:21 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> And now, even samba seems to have failed, with ubuntu apparently using an > >> incompatible version. I was backing up the kubuntu's machines /home > >> directory with amanda, but I never got around to rebuilding the amanda > >> client after finding the hard way that that particular machine apparently > >> cannot tolerate 2 pata hard drives, it seemed to like to trash the > >> filesystems on both in a week, but with just one drive it runs for years. > > > >---- > >samba has made a lot of changes from 3.0.23 to current and has broken > >many setups because they are getting tighter integration into Windows > >and have disrupted a lot of marginal setups. > > > >as far as amanda and pata drives...I wouldn't know because I stopped > >using amanda (though I liked it) in favor of bacula. > > I should get amanda working as a client on that machine, its considerably more > secure when setup correctly. Unforch, much of that security can be perceived > as broken by shoehorning the old girl into a packaging system such as rpm, > which has no (visible) facilities to do some things as the user, and some > things as root, which the normal amanda install from the tarball does. ---- been a while since I used amanda and I always used the rpm packages and never had an issue with that but... - amanda IIRC was a member of 'disk' group and thus had sufficient privileges to backup / restore - under the notion of least privileges necessary to perform, backups should never run as super user - installation is done as root, building should be done as user and whether you install from tarball or rpm makes no difference...in fact, when you build an rpm, it compiles the tarball just the same and the rpm packaging only creates predictable files, processes, locations and pre/post installation scripts that make things easier for users to remove/upgrade. - your commentary above about building/setup from tarballs as opposed to rpm is utter nonsense which only serves your lack of understanding of how things work. ---- > > And to clarify an apparent assumption, there is no problem with the pata > drives that is even remotely amanda related, particularly since amanda is not > installed on that box. All I have to do to trash the filesystems on both > drives is connect a 2nd drive to either the IDE0 or IDE1 cables on that > particular box. The second drive doesn't even have to be mounted, just > there. Its a Mach-Speed mobo FWIW. ATM the dvd reader is on IDE1, and a > 46GB pata drive on IDE0. Working great now for about a year that way. > > >---- > > > >> I did have nfs running between them, for about a week, but local weather > >> created a power failure that outlasted both UPS's, and that hasn't worked > >> since the reboots. And typical of nfs when it fails, no error msg, it > >> just doesn't mount. > > > >---- > >the errors can be cryptic - usually a stale mount and a > >'umount -l -f /path/to/nfs/mount && mount /path/to/nfs/mount' > >should fix this. > >---- > Stale locks at bootup after doing a graceful shutdown? That is buggy code... ---- I've never seen that occur and can't imagine it occurring - clearly something that should get bugzilla'd if it is repeatable. ---- > >to be honest...I've never fooled with pulseaudio configurations at all > >and know very little about them...it just works. Sorry for my blissful > >ignorance. > > > >Craig > > Chuckle. Now if I could just find someone who does know whereof he speaks > about pulseaudio configuration details. But I can't get a top secret > clearance. :( ---- Rex pointed you to the developers support list for pulseaudio but you seem to want spoonfeeding...good luck. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
