Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: LVM snapshots for iterative backups? (Score 2, Informative) 300

by dstech (#32543708) Attached to: Volume Shadow Copy For Linux?

Depending on how long you're keeping them around, LVM Snapshots are likely to be a bad choice anyway. Their intended use-case is to have a very short lifespan, because they're intended to be used like so:

1. Create snapshot

2. Mount snapshot & copy data to backup server

3. Unmount & destroy snapshot

The point behind them is to create an unchanging version of a live partition so that you can copy the data out without worrying about whether it is being updated while you copy. Since the snapshots keep a diff of all changes to the original volume, they continue to grow in size as you make changes to the original volume. When the snapshot runs out of space, it simply dies (completely... can't mount it or anything, just have to destroy it).

There are some other possibly valid use-cases (e.g., if you have simple throw-away virtual test machines, you can build a gold image, and snapshot it and then mount & use the snapshot, which allows for a quick restore to the gold state), but keeping iterative backup copies on the local volume for quick restoration isn't really the best idea.

Comment: Re:Just like Redhat (Score 1) 238

by dstech (#31599178) Attached to: Oracle/Sun Enforces Pay-For-Security-Updates Plan

If you have a support subscription for the relevant product, the answer is either "On Red Hat Network" or "Available via snail mail", which is in accordance with the GPL. Also, I assume you mean RHEV, not RHVE (since no product by that acronym is sold by Red Hat), and some parts of its licensing may be closed, since it is based on software recently acquired from another company (similar to the state Red Hat Directory Server was in until the release of RHDS 8). Although the parent seems to have only been talking about RHEL, being potentially unaware that Red Hat has other products.

Comment: Re:Insanity. (Score 4, Insightful) 673

by dstech (#30933116) Attached to: Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn

"3. Look at the fucking guy, Jesus Christ.

Sure, any one of those things, no problem, but his previous conviction combined with 1, 2, and 3 are enough that without some fairly strong exonerating evidence I'd vote to convict if I were on the jury."

This is why trials by a "jury of one's peers" is so utterly flawed. Anyone who would use "Just look at him!" as a factor in deciding a conviction should not be serving on a jury.

Comment: Re:I'd rather pay $400 for bugs likes this (Score 2, Informative) 281

by dstech (#29983848) Attached to: Bug In Most Linuxes Can Give Untrusted Users Root

Of course, if you run a maintained version of any Enterprise Linux I'd put good bets down that they'll be patched shortly. If you spun your own distro, then you made the choice to maintain it yourself anyway.

The RHEL patch was released yesterday: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1548.html

Red Hat Software

+ - Red Hat's stock price now higher than Microsoft's-> 3

Submitted by isabright
isabright (666) writes "Did anyone see this historic event coming? As of the last Nasdaq trade on October 19, 2009, Red Hat’s share price stood at $28.46 with the mighty Microsoft in its shadow at $26.36. That's right, the Linux vendor Red Hat now has a higher share price than Microsoft and it isn't due to the dotcom boom. Who said you can’t make a business out of free software? What’s more, the growth in the value of each share tells a very different story. According to Nasdaq data, since 2001 Red Hat has experienced more than 600 per cent growth, while during the same period Microsoft has experienced negative growth of its share price. How long will it take Microsoft to regain its lost share value?"
Link to Original Source

The universe does not have laws -- it has habits, and habits can be broken.

Working...