World: r3wp
[Linux] group for linux REBOL users
older newer | first last |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [2096] | Good idea, I will see how nice changes things. |
btiffin 1-Apr-2008 [2097] | And priocntl may help too |
Anton 1-Apr-2008 [2098x2] | Kaj, that is a good feature. |
I'll look at priocntl too. | |
btiffin 1-Apr-2008 [2100] | But a user-oriented scheduler versus a server-oriented scheduler (as Kaj mentioned with Syllable already on the crest) will be the next wave in Desktop Linux, umm, I hope. |
Kaj 2-Apr-2008 [2101x5] | We've been hearing that and similar claims for a decade |
Improving one segment of a chain, even if it's the weakest one, only exposes the next-weakest | |
A scheduler is not much use if the rest of the system doesn't present meaningful pieces to schedule | |
Major apps like Thunderbird and REBOL effectively locking the rest of the system means that the system is not meaningfully handling apps in a concurrent way, so I would venture to say that the scheduler has very little if any effect on this | |
In fact, Syllable used to have a very primitive scheduler and was already as responsive as now, except for some corner cases | |
Anton 4-Apr-2008 [2106x3] | Does mounting a filesystem change anything on the filesystem ? I'm on Kubuntu and I've taken a new laptop's 80GB internal disk into an external drive enclosure and connected it via USB to my computer. Kubuntu detected it and automounted the filesystem. My task was to duplicate the disk, in the pursuit of which I've used various combinations of dd and gzip. However, I can't get a straight 80GB image to compare equally (using cmp or diff) with a compressed image. (I decompress the compressed image on the fly and pipe it into cmp.) After many hours, it occurs to me that having the filesystem mounted might be changing it slightly over time... which would make my images different. (This would make my mission a failure, as I wanted a pristine image.) So can anyone answer the above question ? |
From the depths of my memory comes a blurry message from someone who did this exact thing... I think I should have made sure not to automount it, and only mount it read-only. :-/ | |
But the evidence collected so far does not support this theory strongly, actually... Hmm... It's confusing. | |
btiffin 4-Apr-2008 [2109] | Linux does track accesstime to files. So, I'd wouldn't be surprised if mounting doesn't touch at least a few bits. |
Anton 4-Apr-2008 [2110] | Yes... (damn)... this discussion of atime agrees with that http://lwn.net/Articles/244829/ |
btiffin 5-Apr-2008 [2111] | I'm a little bit confused; I didn't read the dd and gzip part until just now. You want a compressed mirror? I don't think that will ever cmp true to the original. dd will include partition table info that is normally "invisible to the naked eye". Including that in the compressed file doesn't give dd the chance to dump the invisible bits back into invisible places. Or am I more than just a little bit confused? Maybe Kaj will come by shortly and fill us in with the technicals instead of the voodoo. :) |
Gabriele 5-Apr-2008 [2112] | if it's journaled, mounting it will probably change the journal. also, mounting it will surely change a flag in the filesystem. you need to mount it read only. |
Anton 5-Apr-2008 [2113] | Yes, this all makes sense in retrospect, now. Thanks for the confirmation. |
Kaj 5-Apr-2008 [2114x5] | Mounting it on juggernauts like (K)Ubuntu is also likely to unleash automatic indexing tools on the partition |
Unless I'm very mistaken, you don't have to mount a disk to dd it, as dd works on bare disk blocks | |
Otherwise, indeed mount it read-only | |
For backup purposes, be aware that dd-ing a partition mounted read-write is likely to result in a more or less inconsisten state of the backup, as data is changed on the partition at the same time, and dd has no knowledge of the file structure | |
Also, you would only be able to restore the dd backup to a disk of exactly the same size | |
Anton 5-Apr-2008 [2119x3] | Kaj, you're right. dd works at device level. After practising my mount skillz, I can automount it 'ro', so this is looking good. (There is only a HAL error to deal with now, during unmount.) |
(sorry, HAL error, during "Safely remove"). | |
(I umount it myself) | |
Anton 9-Apr-2008 [2122] | I have sshd running on my Kubuntu, and when I fish: across to it from another kubuntu box on the local network, it takes a long time to connect. Today I counted 45 seconds before authentication dialog popped up. I think I remember reading something about a delay for encryption etc. but I'm wondering if that's a "normal" length of time to wait. |
btiffin 9-Apr-2008 [2123] | 45 seconds seeems long. My nodes usually (including Dev - old) in under 4. One point; you set no root login in /etc/ssh/sshd_config ? Otherwise brute force password attackers will try, and try, and try... I'm not sure why ssh ships with root login enabled. If an admin is remote configuring a bunch of nodes, let them configure it to allow; ti shouldn't be a default imho. |
Anton 10-Apr-2008 [2124] | Thanks Brian, I will investigate further this delay. I have a long password, so brute force attackers should be kept at bay. |
NormanDep 11-Apr-2008 [2125] | Anton.. dont be fooled by thinking your ssh password is save.. the remote root user knows it anyway... ;-) |
Anton 11-Apr-2008 [2126x3] | :-) |
That's true, actually, the remote computer could be compromised and then keylog me. But I set up the "remote" computer, being my flatmate's in the next room. I can't remember if our firewall allows ssh between local and wide area network... | |
I think that needs a port-forwarding rule and there isn't one enabled for ssh. | |
Will 11-Apr-2008 [2129] | wouldn't it be better to disable password, use a key, move from port 22 to some other port (just to reduce noise) , port knocking.. ? |
NormanDep 11-Apr-2008 [2130] | Anton... You could use "FUSE" very easy quick sshFS mount... works like a charm. no sftp scp or ssh needed to access the remote fs....http://fuse.sourceforge.net/sshfs.html |
btiffin 11-Apr-2008 [2131] | Yes; there are quite a few ways to secure Secure Shell ... but you do have to stay on your toes. Just turning it on ... bad idea. ;) With most distros that is ... Cygwin included. There are copies that default to lockdown and you have to work to open them up, but those are the exception still. Assigning ports above 1024 is always smart, and the $40 firewall routers can easily be setup to forward port 22 or 80 etc, to a usermode port. You might still get broken into, but at least not with root access. And hey, iptables is fun stuff. Light reading. :) And, just because I'm being gabby ... rsync is a wonderful tool if you have multiple nodes and want hot backups. This article expalins how to set it up, and while doing so, explains setting up ssh keys and locking things down. http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/rsync.htm |
Anton 12-Apr-2008 [2132] | Will, I'm not sure what you mean about using a key instead of a password. Wouldn't I still need to login to my box ? Or does using a separate ssh key just mean that it's easier to revoke access (without having to change my root password) ? |
btiffin 12-Apr-2008 [2133] | Umm, read that link Anton. You can set authorization keys for SSH. It takes a liitle to setup, but handy dandy once set. Then you can disallow password login. And if you don't know the machine and have shared keys, no looky no touchy. It's part of what I'd like to see with the REBOL ring of trust. Digital signatures. |
Anton 12-Apr-2008 [2134x4] | Norman, sshFS looks useful (but I'll keep that for a future project). |
I already have ssh, scp and fish installed, so I avoid adding another package on top... | |
I'm quite familiar with rsync since last year, when I used it to transfer a whole bunch of files from WinXP to Kubuntu. | |
btiffin, ok, so using a key with ssh looks like a good thing to do then. It's on my list.... :) | |
Graham 30-Apr-2008 [2138x2] | The Open Source community took an emotional hit when veteran Linux programmer Hans Reiser was convicted of first degree murder. How will this verdict impact the technology in play for Linux file system dominance? |
really?? | |
Henrik 30-Apr-2008 [2140] | sounds like a slashdot headline |
btiffin 30-Apr-2008 [2141] | That news has been hanging over ReiserFS for a long time now. At least people know now. Ext3 has always treated me ok. My guess is, ReiserFS will lose to Ext3. OR ... get a name change, quick fix to the politics. |
Louis 3-May-2008 [2142x4] | Will rebol run on a 64 bit Linux box? or only 32 bit? |
Hummm. I'm using AltMe on a 64 bit Linux box, so I guess that is my answer. | |
But rebolview for Debian does not load on my Kubuntu machine. Well, actually it loads, but after I give my user info it dies and won' | |
t load again. | |
older newer | first last |