Gene> Humm, interesting John. Neither yumex, or smart, is offering it
Gene> to me as an installable rpm for FC6.
Go and grab it from http://www.bacula.org, I'm pretty sure there are
RPMs available on there. You might also need to install seperate RPMs
for the follwoing packages:
bacula
On Wednesday 11 April 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
>> "Gene" == Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Gene> Does Bacula not use tar for its dirty work?
>
>Nope, it uses it's own filesystem walking code.
>
>John
Humm, interesting John. Neither yumex, or smart, is offering it to me as
an in
> "Gene" == Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gene> Does Bacula not use tar for its dirty work?
Nope, it uses it's own filesystem walking code.
John
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Wednesday 11 April 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>On Apr 10 2007 23:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
>So fix tar to not do silly things.
>Kernel major:minor numbers are not stable.
YOU Tell that to the tar/star people, they are flabbergasted that its
not stable. It apparently is for
On Wednesday 11 April 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
>> "Jan" == Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Jan> On Apr 10 2007 23:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> So fix tar to not do silly things.
>> Kernel major:minor numbers are not stable.
>
> YOU Tell that to the tar/star people,
On Apr 11 2007 18:43, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think that's especially true. If a user begins with a single full disk
>> for their entire filesystem, uses tar to backup, and then later adds a
>> second disk, copies everything from /usr
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that's especially true. If a user begins with a single full disk
> for their entire filesystem, uses tar to backup, and then later adds a
> second disk, copies everything from /usr and /home onto partitions there
> (making sure to p
> "Jan" == Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jan> On Apr 10 2007 23:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> So fix tar to not do silly things.
> Kernel major:minor numbers are not stable.
YOU Tell that to the tar/star people, they are flabbergasted that its
not stable
On Apr 10 2007 23:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
So fix tar to not do silly things.
Kernel major:minor numbers are not stable.
>>>
>>>YOU Tell that to the tar/star people, they are flabbergasted that its
>>> not stable. It apparently is for every other OS tar can be run on.
>>
>>FreeBSD als
> > I violently agree on that point, but the limited conversations I've had with
> > the tar maintainer so far indicates that AFAHIC, its linux that's broken. A
> > new device number is a new disk and must be treated as such.
>
> Sumbit a patch adding an option to ignore the device number, and sl
On Wednesday 11 April 2007, Phillip Susi wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I violently agree on that point, but the limited conversations I've
>> had with the tar maintainer so far indicates that AFAHIC, its linux
>> that's broken. A new device number is a new disk and must be treated
>> as such.
>
>
Gene Heskett wrote:
I violently agree on that point, but the limited conversations I've had
with the tar maintainer so far indicates that AFAHIC, its linux that's
broken. A new device number is a new disk and must be treated as such.
Sumbit a patch adding an option to ignore the device number
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Phillip Susi wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> YOU Tell the tar people, they are flabbergasted that linux is
>> apparently the only unstable OS that tar can be run on.
>
>How about cygwin/windows? It has no concept of static device numbers.
>And what about external usb disks
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I haven't seen any 200GB for $55 yet, more like $129 & maybe a rebate
>> at Circuit City. We don't have a Fry's around here.
>
>Fry's:
>http:/http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4697788?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_
>PG
>
>500 GB SAT
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>On Apr 10 2007 03:51, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
>>>On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU
tar saves the device and inode numbers from the
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
>> >So fix tar to not do silly things.
>> >Kernel major:minor numbers are not stable.
>>
>> YOU Tell the tar people, they are flabbergasted that linux is
>> apparently the only unstable OS that tar can be run on.
>
>Linux is not unstable. It's
Gene Heskett wrote:
YOU Tell the tar people, they are flabbergasted that linux is apparently
the only unstable OS that tar can be run on.
How about cygwin/windows? It has no concept of static device numbers.
And what about external usb disks on any other unix os? Surely they
don't have stat
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on eac
Gene Heskett wrote:
I haven't seen any 200GB for $55 yet, more like $129 & maybe a rebate at
Circuit City. We don't have a Fry's around here.
Fry's:
http:/http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4697788?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
500 GB SATA for $119. Pricewatch shows several other vendors having
On Apr 10 2007 03:51, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
>>> It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
>>> saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on each
>>> file and decides it is
On Tue, Apr 10, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
> >> It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
> >> saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on each
> >> file and decides it is a
> >So fix tar to not do silly things.
> >Kernel major:minor numbers are not stable.
>
> YOU Tell the tar people, they are flabbergasted that linux is apparently
> the only unstable OS that tar can be run on.
Linux is not unstable. It's developmental! Linux is like one giant
international resear
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on each
file and decides it is a new file if either number change
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
>> It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
>> saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on each
>> file and decides it is a new file if either number changes from run to
On Tuesday 10 April 2007, Olaf Hering wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
>> It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
>> saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on each
>> file and decides it is a new file if either number changes from run to
On Mon, Apr 09, Dave Dillow wrote:
> It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
> saves the device and inode numbers from the {,l}stat() call on each file
> and decides it is a new file if either number changes from run to run.
So fix tar to not do silly things.
Kernel
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:34:44PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I haven't seen any 200GB for $55 yet, more like $129 & maybe a rebate at
> Circuit City. We don't have a Fry's around here.
Wow. 200GB HDs can be had for AUD91 here. I think you need to shop
around. The internet can be your friend.
Gene Heskett wrote:
I haven't seen any 200GB for $55 yet, more like $129 & maybe a rebate at
Circuit City. We don't have a Fry's around here.
pricewatch.com is your friend :)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Monday 09 April 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 06:22:10PM -0400, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > On Apr 9 2007 15:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > >On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > >>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
On Monday 09 April 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>On Apr 9 2007 15:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a 2.6.20 that is. I wonder
why it even moves around. However, even then, those who use
Gene> I haven't seen any 200GB for $55 yet, more like $129 & maybe a
Gene> rebate at Circuit City. We don't have a Fry's around here.
Newegg.com, 320Gb for $85 ea, plus shipping, plus a SATA controller
board, just under $200. I'm happy. And thanks for the SATA
controller work Jeff!
John
-
To
On Monday 09 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> For those of you with big tapes that can hold a complete dump of every
>> partition (and partitions is the only way dump works in case some have
>> forgotten), go ahead and use dump/restore. Tar quite simply, allows
>> one to brea
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:40:46PM -0400, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > However, it also doesn't explain what the point is of backing up /dev
> > when it's dynamically created.
>
> It's not /dev he's backing up -- its /home, /usr, and others. GNU tar
> saves the device and inode numbers from the {
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 21:27 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 06:22:10PM -0400, Dave Dillow wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > On Apr 9 2007 15:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > >On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > >>Jan Engel
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 06:22:10PM -0400, Dave Dillow wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Apr 9 2007 15:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > >>> dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Apr 9 2007 15:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>> dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a 2.6.20 that is. I wonder why
> >>> it even moves around. However, even then,
On Apr 9 2007 15:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a 2.6.20 that is. I wonder why
>>> it even moves around. However, even then, those who use udev and
>>> device names rather than (major,minor)
Jeff Garzik wrote:
mounted into fairly bulky subsystems, tapes can be easily handled by
robots.
Actually there are HD robots now :)
The best part is you can just electrify each slot, no need for
mechanical arms.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:08:34 EDT, Jeff Garzik said:
With current hard drive prices (200GB @ US$55, 500GB @ US$120) you can
just keep buying hard drives :)
Surely tape price/GB is higher than hard drive price/GB...
Erm. No. We're in the middle of installing an Storag
Ralf Baechle wrote:
Tapes can be archived for long time, drives can't. Drives need to be
True.
mounted into fairly bulky subsystems, tapes can be easily handled by
robots.
Actually there are HD robots now :)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:08:34 EDT, Jeff Garzik said:
> With current hard drive prices (200GB @ US$55, 500GB @ US$120) you can
> just keep buying hard drives :)
>
> Surely tape price/GB is higher than hard drive price/GB...
Erm. No. We're in the middle of installing an StorageTek SL8500 for backu
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:08:34PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Wow, people still use tapes for backup?
>
> With current hard drive prices (200GB @ US$55, 500GB @ US$120) you can
> just keep buying hard drives :)
>
> Surely tape price/GB is higher than hard drive price/GB...
Tapes can be archiv
John Stoffel wrote:
The only sure strategy is to do your dumps in single user mode, with
only one process touching the filesystem during the backup window.
This obviously won't fly in a 24x7 environment, so people take their
calculated chances and run backups with the system live.
That's what
> "Gene" == Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gene> I wouldn't touch dump/restore with a 50 foot pole, particularly
Gene> since I have serious doubts about it viability in the LVM
Gene> environment.
Why? It's can't be any worse than Tar with it's silly assumption
about the static devi
Gene Heskett wrote:
For those of you with big tapes that can hold a complete dump of every
partition (and partitions is the only way dump works in case some have
forgotten), go ahead and use dump/restore. Tar quite simply, allows one
to break his backup files down into small enough pieces that
On Monday 09 April 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
>> "Gene" == Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Gene> On Monday 09 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Gene Heskett wrote:
Now the 64k$ question: While running with LVM2 managed disks, is it
possible to run without dm_mod, the devic
On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a 2.6.20 that is. I wonder why
>> it even moves around. However, even then, those who use udev and
>> device names rather than (major,minor) tuples should not have any
>> problem.
>
>It m
On Monday 09 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a 2.6.20 that is. I wonder why
>> it even moves around. However, even then, those who use udev and
>> device names rather than (major,minor) tuples should not have any
>> problem.
>
>It m
> "Gene" == Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gene> On Monday 09 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> Now the 64k$ question: While running with LVM2 managed disks, is it
>>> possible to run without dm_mod, the device-mapper? If so, please tell
>>> me how to achieve
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
dm is on 254 for me.. in opensuse with a 2.6.20 that is. I wonder why it
even moves around. However, even then, those who use udev and device names
rather than (major,minor) tuples should not have any problem.
It moves around because someone at some point thought it was
On Apr 9 2007 11:37, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Monday 09 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>Gene Heskett wrote:
>>
>>No; device mapper is the kernel portion of LVM2.
>>
>> Jeff, who actively avoids LVM on home computers
>
>Ya shoulda warned me. :-)
>
>It should have lots bigger warning labels, i
On Monday 09 April 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Now the 64k$ question: While running with LVM2 managed disks, is it
>> possible to run without dm_mod, the device-mapper? If so, please tell
>> me how to achieve this.
>
>No; device mapper is the kernel portion of LVM2.
>
>
Gene Heskett wrote:
Now the 64k$ question: While running with LVM2 managed disks, is it
possible to run without dm_mod, the device-mapper? If so, please tell me
how to achieve this.
No; device mapper is the kernel portion of LVM2.
Jeff, who actively avoids LVM on home computers
-
53 matches
Mail list logo
