Weblogs for lykwydchykyn
#14
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Tue 15 Apr 2008 at 17:38
I have several debian machines running at remote sites on older hardware. Occasionally the hard drive gives out on one of these machines and I have to build a replacement. When I do this, I usually stage the HD at my office using qemu or a spare workstation, then bring just the HD out to stick in the remote machine.
The biggest problem with this is that while staging the machine at my office, whatever NIC (real or virtual) in the staging machine becomes eth0. When I put the HD in the actual final machine, it becomes eth1. Is there some way to make debian forget about the original NIC so that the final NIC will be eth0?
I guess I can just plan ahead and set up eth1, but it doesn't seem clean to me to have eth0 assigned to a card that the instance will never see again.
The biggest problem with this is that while staging the machine at my office, whatever NIC (real or virtual) in the staging machine becomes eth0. When I put the HD in the actual final machine, it becomes eth1. Is there some way to make debian forget about the original NIC so that the final NIC will be eth0?
I guess I can just plan ahead and set up eth1, but it doesn't seem clean to me to have eth0 assigned to a card that the instance will never see again.
#13
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Fri 8 Feb 2008 at 05:05
Our Novell sales rep came to the office yesterday to talk up all their latest products and sell us everything. He was talking up Linux a lot, getting my Netware-loving coworkers all excited about SLES. They told him I was the "linux guy". He asks what distro I run, but before I could tell him he says:
"Let me guess: Debian?" I confirm.
He says "I thought so. Everyone I talk to who has run Linux for a long time runs Debian."
I wonder what that says, that anyone who has actually worked with Linux for a decent amount of time tends to run Debian. I wonder if he thought about what it means.
"Let me guess: Debian?" I confirm.
He says "I thought so. Everyone I talk to who has run Linux for a long time runs Debian."
I wonder what that says, that anyone who has actually worked with Linux for a decent amount of time tends to run Debian. I wonder if he thought about what it means.
#12
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Mon 28 Jan 2008 at 17:38
I'm trying to set up a PXE netinstall server to put etch on some old laptops that don't have CDROM drives.
I have successfully set up tftp and dhcpd so that the clients boot to the installer, there's no problem there.
The trouble starts when I want to hit a repository. My plan originally was to have a local apt-mirror repository on the netinstall server and keep the whole process on its own subnet. For some reason, it wasn't working. When I point the installer to the repository, it keeps telling me it can't find a valid release file. I can pop over to another terminal and wget the release file, but the installer is saying it's not valid.
So I enabled routing on the server, and pointed it to another local mirror which I know works with network installation because I use it all the time with netinstall CD's. Still telling me it couldn't download the release file, even though I can wget the file from a second terminal.
But since I'm routing anyway, I decided to try hitting an actual debian repository, so I pointed it to the default US repo. Success! It works. But what I really want is to use my local apt-mirror, for speed reasons (and to save the debian project a little bandwidth).
Anyone know why this wouldn't work with the PXE netinstall when it does just fine with the CD netinstall?
I have successfully set up tftp and dhcpd so that the clients boot to the installer, there's no problem there.
The trouble starts when I want to hit a repository. My plan originally was to have a local apt-mirror repository on the netinstall server and keep the whole process on its own subnet. For some reason, it wasn't working. When I point the installer to the repository, it keeps telling me it can't find a valid release file. I can pop over to another terminal and wget the release file, but the installer is saying it's not valid.
So I enabled routing on the server, and pointed it to another local mirror which I know works with network installation because I use it all the time with netinstall CD's. Still telling me it couldn't download the release file, even though I can wget the file from a second terminal.
But since I'm routing anyway, I decided to try hitting an actual debian repository, so I pointed it to the default US repo. Success! It works. But what I really want is to use my local apt-mirror, for speed reasons (and to save the debian project a little bandwidth).
Anyone know why this wouldn't work with the PXE netinstall when it does just fine with the CD netinstall?
#11
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Wed 9 Jan 2008 at 20:13
Trying to set up a proxy filtering server using pure, clean install of etch, and I've found that dansguardian will only start if I turn off the antivirus feature in dansguardian.conf. I'm not an expert at this setup, though I have successfully set it up on Ubuntu and Sarge machines using the same recipe.
My setup is squid + dansguardian + clamav. I've tried updating clamav out of debian-volatile but it does the same. It gives no errors, either at the terminal or in any log file I can find. When I try to restart the init script, it just sits there for a minute or so then silently times out. There are no dansguardian processes running after that.
But if I turn of av scanning, all is well (apart from no virus scanning).
Anyone successfully set this up? I've googled every which way, but I appear to be the "only one having this problem"(TM) (on multiple machines, I might add).
My setup is squid + dansguardian + clamav. I've tried updating clamav out of debian-volatile but it does the same. It gives no errors, either at the terminal or in any log file I can find. When I try to restart the init script, it just sits there for a minute or so then silently times out. There are no dansguardian processes running after that.
But if I turn of av scanning, all is well (apart from no virus scanning).
Anyone successfully set this up? I've googled every which way, but I appear to be the "only one having this problem"(TM) (on multiple machines, I might add).
#10
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Tue 2 Oct 2007 at 16:43
I have about 15 Linux servers that I need to change the passwords for root and another account on. Is there a reasonably secure way to do this all at once? I've read up on cfengine but it is more than my feeble addlebrain can comprehend.
#9
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Tue 3 Apr 2007 at 22:27
I have been searching off and on for a while now to find some good materials on what it takes to go totally Linux -- that is, a roadmap for a complete Linux infrastructure. There seems to be a dearth of "standard" material once you get beyond single-system administration.
I mean, take for example the recent news about the french MP's migrating to Ubuntu. With 1100+ workstations, I want to know:
1. What sort of single-sign on or Identity management solution are they going to use?
2. What sort of software deployment system?
3. Are they going to have any sort of desktop policies being deployed?
It seems like a lot of things are "roll your own" nowadays, there isn't really an integrated solution a-la NDS or AD.
Can anyone point me to some relevant material on Linux infrastructures? Case studies, how-tos, etc? I mean, I can find "how to setup LDAP", but not really anything relevant on how to use it, if you know what I mean.
I mean, take for example the recent news about the french MP's migrating to Ubuntu. With 1100+ workstations, I want to know:
1. What sort of single-sign on or Identity management solution are they going to use?
2. What sort of software deployment system?
3. Are they going to have any sort of desktop policies being deployed?
It seems like a lot of things are "roll your own" nowadays, there isn't really an integrated solution a-la NDS or AD.
Can anyone point me to some relevant material on Linux infrastructures? Case studies, how-tos, etc? I mean, I can find "how to setup LDAP", but not really anything relevant on how to use it, if you know what I mean.
#8
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Tue 31 Oct 2006 at 04:37
I have a sarge box at work that hosts our county library's website. It's not a great piece of hardware, but it only serves up a few static html pages; the interactive content is hosted on a solaris server.
It's worked ok for quite some time, but recently apache2 has been slowing down and locking up on us, such that we have to restart the process. The log files only indicate that we need to raise the "maxclients" value, which I did (from whatever the default is (20?) to 30, then later to 150 because the problems persisted).
Are sarge's default settings too conservative? Should I have to tweak these out for a relatively low-traffic site like this?
It's worked ok for quite some time, but recently apache2 has been slowing down and locking up on us, such that we have to restart the process. The log files only indicate that we need to raise the "maxclients" value, which I did (from whatever the default is (20?) to 30, then later to 150 because the problems persisted).
Are sarge's default settings too conservative? Should I have to tweak these out for a relatively low-traffic site like this?
#7
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Fri 15 Sep 2006 at 17:13
Our organization just bought an iSCSI device for backups and various other things; I need to get my sarge boxes on this thing, but I am just a moron when it comes to compiling stuff. Under my hands the "make" command is strictly for generating massive amounts of errors to the screen.
Does anyone know if there is a backported .deb for the iSCSI initiator?
Does anyone know if there is a backported .deb for the iSCSI initiator?
#6
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Wed 31 May 2006 at 17:48
I use ncpmount to connect to netware servers here at work. The trouble is, after an hour or so the connection just goes comatose and won't work. If I try to unmount it, I get a failure to disconnect.
So I wrote a little script that kills all the ncp processes, and I figured that had it fixed. WRONG!
If I do a netstat, I still have 1 connection listed for every ncp connection I've made (including the ones I've killed). So after a few days I can end up with around 20-30 connections. Doing a netstat with the -p flag (even as root), there is no process associated with the connection, and ps -A turns up no ncp processes.
If I try to do /etc/init.d/networking restart, I get an error that there are still shares mounted. If I do a force-reload, it reloads the networking, but the connections are still there.
The only way I've found to clear the connections so far is a reboot, and that just won't do.
Which brings me to my question: is there a way to manually kill a udp or tcp connection that persists even when the process is dead?
So I wrote a little script that kills all the ncp processes, and I figured that had it fixed. WRONG!
If I do a netstat, I still have 1 connection listed for every ncp connection I've made (including the ones I've killed). So after a few days I can end up with around 20-30 connections. Doing a netstat with the -p flag (even as root), there is no process associated with the connection, and ps -A turns up no ncp processes.
If I try to do /etc/init.d/networking restart, I get an error that there are still shares mounted. If I do a force-reload, it reloads the networking, but the connections are still there.
The only way I've found to clear the connections so far is a reboot, and that just won't do.
Which brings me to my question: is there a way to manually kill a udp or tcp connection that persists even when the process is dead?
#5
Posted by lykwydchykyn on Fri 19 May 2006 at 04:51
I've played around with putting two IP's on a NIC before (e.g. -- eth0 & eth0:1), but I never could get use out of it because whenever I do it it seems to cause a delay when accessing network services, either from the box or to the box.
Well, now I have had to implement it for a server for actual reasons, and I'm wondering what exactly is causing this delay. I've observed it on at least 3 debian boxes, so I know it's not just a hardware issue or anything.
The delay seems to happen just on first access; once the service is accessed, there is no slowness; just an initial delay of 10-30 seconds.
The two IP's are on the same block, if it makes a difference, though I've observed it in situations where the IP's were on different blocks and at least once where there were two NIC's on separate blocks on the machine.
Anyone know what's up? Do I need to put in static routes or something?
Well, now I have had to implement it for a server for actual reasons, and I'm wondering what exactly is causing this delay. I've observed it on at least 3 debian boxes, so I know it's not just a hardware issue or anything.
The delay seems to happen just on first access; once the service is accessed, there is no slowness; just an initial delay of 10-30 seconds.
The two IP's are on the same block, if it makes a difference, though I've observed it in situations where the IP's were on different blocks and at least once where there were two NIC's on separate blocks on the machine.
Anyone know what's up? Do I need to put in static routes or something?