On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Ross Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Basically, in a nutshell what I was trying to get across is:
>
> 1) Keep passwords in local passwd files or Kerberos, using NIS or LDAP for
> passwords is generally not a good idea as there are too many ways these can be
>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM, MHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Ross Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Sigh...
>>
>> I resist top posting and trim and thread my replies, stay on topic, am
>> polite, all while tapping out on my iPhone display.
>>
>> But that
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Ross Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sigh...
>
> I resist top posting and trim and thread my replies, stay on topic, am
> polite, all while tapping out on my iPhone display.
>
> But that ain't enough no, now I have to watch my run on sentences!
>
> Sheesh, fro
On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:47 PM, MHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Ross Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If all your doing is serving up mount maps or netgroups then ldap
is over
kill, definitely don't put passwords in nis (or ldap) use kerberos
for
those.
A
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Ross Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If all your doing is serving up mount maps or netgroups then ldap is over
> kill, definitely don't put passwords in nis (or ldap) use kerberos for
> those.
>
> A small user base can be handled more easily via nis then lda
On Oct 15, 2008, at 9:51 AM, "Filipe Brandenburger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:05, Laurent Wandrebeck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/10/15 Ian Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Without knowing more specifics, you could always try using the /net
automount... as in:
Laurent Wandrebeck wrote:
.
.
A centralized storage solution is impossible due to our (awfully) low IT budget.
I'm used to that. "We need this, this, this and that. Here's a dollar."
Only important data is backuped (/home and a couple other things), as
we can't afford to save several TB.
3 se
2008/10/15 Filipe Brandenburger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
> automount is actually quite a good tool if you really need to do this
> kind of stuff, which in your case you will probably have to anyway.
> The setup with automount is actually good in that volumes will be kept
> mounted only while the
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:05, Laurent Wandrebeck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/15 Ian Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Without knowing more specifics, you could always try using the /net
>> automount... as in: /net/servername/data
>>
>> It's ugly, and rarely used, but it works for small n
2008/10/15 Toby Bluhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there any way you would/could consider a centralized storage solution
> like netapp or similar? Yes, it could be costly but you *are* currently
> tossing back and forth up to 160 TB of data on discreet storage. Do you do
> backups? Do you have 20 serv
Laurent Wandrebeck wrote:
2008/10/15 Ian Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Without knowing more specifics, you could always try using the /net
automount... as in: /net/servername/data
It's ugly, and rarely used, but it works for small networks...
OK, here are some more details:
each /data is between
2008/10/15 Ian Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Without knowing more specifics, you could always try using the /net
> automount... as in: /net/servername/data
>
> It's ugly, and rarely used, but it works for small networks...
OK, here are some more details:
each /data is between 1 and 8 TB, network i
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:52 +0200, Laurent Wandrebeck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently using nis/nfs3/autofs in a small network (20 boxes), and
> planning on using a more secure/elegant method. The thing is, which
> solution to adopt ? The network is mainly composed of Centos boxes,
> and a couple M
13 matches
Mail list logo
