|
LooseChanj posted:Yes, I do. And they're retarded as gently caress for it, because like I've said a dozen times what happens when the automagic doesn't work? I'm expected to guess what settings to put in xorg.conf? If there isn't, someone should create one. Half the drat posts in the Linux thread end up being people who can't get their nvidia card to work or something like that.
|
#
?
May 29, 2009 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
I hate samba.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2009 10:43
|
|
|
uksheep posted:I hate samba. Who doesn't? I'd trample little furry creatures for a non retarded nfs client for windows xp/vista.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
uksheep posted:I hate samba. I'm really not trying to be the open-source zealot here, but most hate for samba should be directed at Microsoft. The samba guys have done an outstanding job reverse-engineering a crap protocol, and handling all kinds of interoperability issues with MS products. I have an older 3.0.x installation that had no trouble letting a brand new Server 2k8 join it's domain. I was not expecting it to work at all and it did. The work on AD stuff also seems to be coming along pretty well. That's not to say there isn't some well deserved hate for samba too, but I haven't had any serious issues with it lately aside from outdated documentation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
conntrack posted:Who doesn't? I'd trample little furry creatures for a non retarded nfs client for windows xp/vista. You can mount NFS in XP/Vista with Services for Unix or whatever the hell they're calling it these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2009 22:29
|
|
|
CrzyDTpBoy posted:You can mount NFS in XP/Vista with Services for Unix or whatever the hell they're calling it these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2009 04:56
|
|
|
Cpt.Wacky posted:I'm really not trying to be the open-source zealot here, but most hate for samba should be directed at Microsoft. The samba guys have done an outstanding job reverse-engineering a crap protocol, and handling all kinds of interoperability issues with MS products. I have an older 3.0.x installation that had no trouble letting a brand new Server 2k8 join it's domain. I was not expecting it to work at all and it did. The work on AD stuff also seems to be coming along pretty well. I have just wasted a few days of my life to Samba/AD integration. I actually don't think my gripe is with Samba - more the lack of documentation or half decent error messages. Its up and working now and it works well. Looking forward to Samba 4 with fully featured AD support. If you are ever connecting to a post 2k domain it needs to use kerberos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2009 11:23
|
|
|
What's the state of ZFS running under FreeBSD these days? It's still listed as an "experimental" option and the wiki still lists it as having a long way to go until it's ready for production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
I've been using it with 0 problems on my fileservers. If you're using 7.X you'll need to create a UFS boot volume. I occasionally have to replace chflags as it bombs out on zfs volumes but I think that might've been fixed. You can boot off of ZFS in 8.0 if you're feeling courageous http://lulf.geeknest.org/blog/freebsd/Setting_up_a_zfs-only_system/
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
Hey, cool, thanks. (I'm not sure I'm feeling brave enough to run 8 just yet; I kept up with OpenBSD's CURRENT for awhile and it was always...an adventure, let's say  )
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 20:17
|
|
|
raruler posted:I occasionally have to replace chflags as it bombs out on zfs volumes but I think that might've been fixed. It has, when ZFS v13 was MFC'ed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
I am beginning to get fed up with Made2Own and have started looking at Slicehost based on it's great reputation but they do not offer a FreeBSD option. Is there something like Slicehost that offers FreeBSD and has similar packages and prices (256M RAM, 10G Storage, 100G BW for $20/mo)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 23:23
|
|
|
http://www.rootbsd.net/virtual-hosting/ I used them for a few months. They are exactly what you are looking for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 04:22
|
|
|
greenskeleton posted:http://www.rootbsd.net/virtual-hosting/ Nice, I haven't been able to find anything bad about them yet. Can you make snapshots of your system and roll back to that snapshot after you bork it up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 14:00
|
|
|
They don't appear to be as slick as Slicehost when it comes to system images. Although I don't have an account with them anymore, I don't recall seeing an option for that. For what it's worth, they now offer 2GB of backup for the minumum plan. I don't remember having that with my account so I'm not sure how it would work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 15:10
|
|
|
How would I install something like gnome on computer A, when I already have it built no computer B? I'd just rebuild it on computer A but it's old, slow, and doesn't have much HD space? Can I just tar up some files, ftp them over, untar, then what? Or if computer B is running FTP, can I do a sysinstall or something using that computer as a source? Would I have to 'create' the packages or anything?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
Any reason you don't want to use pkg_add -r ? If you've got the build files still in /usr/ports/whatever, I believe you can use "make package" to create a package you can install with pkg_add. I don't have a copy of the ports tree handy so I can't look up the exact command. Edit: I also use rootbsd, but I haven't really done anything with it yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
You probably want "make package-recursive" which will build the package for the port you want and packages for all of its dependencies. Ideally you would have a web server on the server you're making packages on and you can just "pkg_add -r http://server/Latest/package_name.tbz". You could also just somehow get the files to the other server and call the file directly. The PACKAGESITE variable is looked at by default. If you change it to your server it will be looked at first and you could just use "pkg_add -r gnome" will work. If you really want to get in depth, use tinderbox.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:11
|
|
|
I am going to be rebuilding some aging and broken web/database servers (Apache 2/PHP 5.3, MySQL 5) with Samba/Active Directory authentication as virtual machines (VMware ESXi 4) later this year/early next. I understand that FreeBSD 8 is right around the corner and was wondering what your thoughts on it's use are. Conventional wisdom for software is to never use a release until it's first update, but I was wondering if there are any reasons why I should consider using 8. Or, for that matter, why I should specifically avoid it. 7.2 is the other option.
SmirkingJack fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Oct 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 15:48
|
|
|
SmirkingJack posted:I am going to be rebuilding some aging and broken web/database servers (Apache 2/PHP 5.3, MySQL 5) with Samba/Active Directory authentication as virtual machines (VMware ESXi 4) later this year/early next. I understand that FreeBSD 8 is right around the corner and was wondering what your thoughts on it's use are. Conventional wisdom for software is to never use a release until it's first update, but I was wondering if there are any reasons why I should consider using 8. Or, for that matter, why I should specifically avoid it. 7.2 is the other option. Do you care about any of the following: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd8.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 16:02
|
|
|
They are not fooling around with security in FreeBSD. I just finished installing the 8.0 RC and am currently left without root access to the box I had to take several steps to even enable SSH and things like that. Fine. But I did not expect that I would not be able to 'su' to root without adding myself to a particular group. And since I can't get to root, I don't have the permissions to do the fix I found. Of course I can drag a monitor and keyboard over to the thing (again) and login there as root (I hope!) and fix it but WOW these guys are careful. If you get your FreeBSD box remotely rooted you have to go out of your way to let someone have even the oppuortunity! roadhead fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Oct 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 02:18
|
|
|
requiring users to be in the wheel group in order to su to root from ssh has been in freebsd for a long time. I always think it's odd when I install redhat or centos and don't have to be in the wheel group, in fact, I can just ssh in as root!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 02:34
|
|
|
Dare I ask what the 20 hard drives are for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Dare I ask what the 20 hard drives are for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Dare I ask what the 20 hard drives are for? Only hooking up 10 right away - but to answer your question I want a very large Raid-Z2 pool for everything I have currently on optical media. The other 10 bays are for when I want to put in a second Raid-Z2 and mirror the first one! adorai posted:he's probably building a home virtualization environment and needs 20 spindles worth of IO. The machine has a Phenom II x 3 705e with 4 gigs of DDR2-800 on a MA785G-UD3H. I still need a few more PCI-E 4 and 2 port SATA cads to hook all 20 bays up actually, right now only the first 8 are hooked into the anything besides a fan-out cable. I won't actually be storing anything interesting, except maybe all the home-grown ripped from my Sony Digital8 camera that will never ever see the light of day! adorai posted:requiring users to be in the wheel group in order to su to root from ssh has been in freebsd for a long time. I always think it's odd when I install redhat or centos and don't have to be in the wheel group, in fact, I can just ssh in as root! Forgot to mention this is my first Foray into BSDLand
roadhead fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Do you care about any of the following: I saw that page before I posted, but I don't know what most of it means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 12:01
|
|
|
Got myself some wheels! Installing mencoder - FreeBSD has a high "scrolling text" in response to commands ratio, all I typed was "make" and the bitch has been going crazy for a bit now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 22:56
|
|
|
roadhead posted:Got myself some wheels! That's why its awesome. press enter and movie style "lots of stuff happening"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2009 23:41
|
|
|
Anyone code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 14:19
|
|
|
roadhead posted:Anyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 15:12
|
|
|
adorai posted:requiring users to be in the wheel group in order to su to root from ssh has been in freebsd for a long time. I always think it's odd when I install redhat or centos and don't have to be in the wheel group, in fact, I can just ssh in as root! Use of the wheel group is one of those Linux / BSD philosophical differences. If I remember right a lot of it comes from Richard Stallman being upset about users not being able to run anything as root without the administrator adding them to the wheel group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 17:16
|
|
|
Cyne posted:Use of the wheel group is one of those Linux / BSD philosophical differences. If I remember right a lot of it comes from Richard Stallman being upset about users not being able to run anything as root without the administrator adding them to the wheel group. Yeah, that confused the hell out of me the first time I used BSD. Here's Stallman's explanation: RMS posted:Why GNU `su' does not support the `wheel' group I don't really agree with it and I prefer the UNIX way now, but it does explain why su in Linux and BSD behave the way they do. Kreeblah fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Oct 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 17:47
|
|
|
This is a fun one. I was having trouble with an in-place upgrade, so decided to do a fresh 8.0RC2 install since my previous RC1 install was my first BSD install ever, and I now had much better idea of the packages I would actually be requiring. In my due diligence I export my main Raid-Z2 "zpool export storage" - thinking this would make it easier to correctly import the pool into the new install. I could not have been more wrong. The installs are wigging out early on, with the screen getting all weird and never prompting me. I blame this on the dodgy IDE dvd-rom I've been using, and just go back to the still untouched RC1 install (I was trying the clean install on a different drive) - and I try and import my array. Invalid vdev configuration! HURRAY! I try -f. Same. All the discs show online, but the pool just can NOT be re-imported. One thing that might factor in here, is when the pool was created, I had /dev/ad20 and /dev/ad22 (in addition to 6-18 by even numbers) - at some point I apparently did something in the BIOS to cause 20 and 22 to become 3 and 4. Strangely the ZFS didn't flinch, I didn't even have to re-silver, it just kept on trucking. It was in this state of vdev labels or whatever when I exported it. I have since the data loss investigated the option I changed, and can now have the drives appear as either set of names with a reboot and a trip into the BIOS. That doesn't help. I've pretty much resigned myself to total data loss at this point (it WAS the back-up, so I have to go about the task of filling it again. A lot of what I backed up to it is still on DVD-R) but have not yet created a new pool with the disks because I haven't spent enough time troubleshooting it (none really) and there is the possibility someone might still be able to help me So uhhh guys. Whats your prognosis? Have I wasted 4 weeks of time that I spent uploading data onto this server, or can this thing be re-imported?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2009 22:05
|
|
|
Have you tried booting off of an OpenSolaris live CD? It might be able to mount your zpool where the FreeBSD port of ZFS wasn't able to. It's not a solution by any stretch, but it would tell you if your zpool is corrupt or if you've encountered a particularly nasty bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Have you tried booting off of an OpenSolaris live CD? It might be able to mount your zpool where the FreeBSD port of ZFS wasn't able to. It's not a solution by any stretch, but it would tell you if your zpool is corrupt or if you've encountered a particularly nasty bug. Good idea, heading to grab the ISO now
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 13:25
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Yeah, that confused the hell out of me the first time I used BSD. Here's Stallman's explanation: No, it doesn't explain it. That is the dumbest loving excuse ever. His logic is essentially "how can users get root without authorization if su requires them to be in the wheel?!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
three posted:No, it doesn't explain it. That is the dumbest loving excuse ever. His logic is essentially "how can users get root without authorization if su requires them to be in the wheel?!" Hack the planet! Hack the planet! No seriously, he is a fat ol' hobbit that needs to die of the diabetus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
it's also stupid because the sympathetic guy whose going around telling everyone the root password (what the gently caress?) can just add them into wheel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 17:06
|
|
|
If anyone remembers my problem (exported Raid-Z2 pool under 8.0RC1 - never to be able to import again) I finally got opensolaris booting (got a new IDE optical drive in) and it has an even lower opinion of the pool that FreeBSD does.Opensolaris posted:jack@opensolaris:~# zpool import 8.0RC1 posted:hydra# zpool import I think the devices are just being enumerated incorrectly - so the labels written to the disks during export don't match what its finding now. Is there anyway to edit/move these around manually? Solaris just thinks 7 of the devices are in the wrong place (I think?) or maybe the drives really are all rear end end up? roadhead fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Nov 10, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
roadhead posted:I think the devices are just being enumerated incorrectly - so the labels written to the disks during export don't match what its finding now. Is there anyway to edit/move these around manually? The import action takes into account that the disks may not have the same /dev nodes as they did when they were exported. The ZFS labels written to disk don't contain the /dev paths of the disks when the zpool was exported. They contain, among other metadata, the name/UUID of the zpool and the UUIDs of the other member disks. As long as all member disks are present in the system when you go to import the zpool, ZFS should be able to figure out the stripe order of the zpool from the labels. I hate to say it, but it looks like your zpool is hosed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 00:42
|
|