windows dynamic storage

Tags:

Debian ISP

Hi all,
Does anybody have any experience with mounting / recovering /
managing windows dynamic storage volumes under debian/linux ?
We are backing up some of our windows servers with SATA hotswappable
disks that are bound to each other (or in other words "linked"
together) with windows dynamic storage. The backing up machine that
runs on debian etch can mount only the first drive that is containg
partial data. Some of ntfs files are something like hard links to the
filesystem on the one or two other disks but when trying to read there
is "Input/Output Error" .
WDS is required by one of our apps so we cant get rid of this S*** .

Hope anybody will help.
Regards.

--
Wojciech Ziniewicz
Unix SEX :{look;gawk;find;sed;talk;grep;touch;finger;find;fl
ex;unzip;head;tail; mount;workbone;fsck;yes;gasp;fsck;more;yes;yes;eje
ct;umount;makeclean; zip;split;done;exit:xargs!!;)}

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Average:

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Craig Sanders on Tue, 2007-02-27 17:00.

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:28:29AM +0100, Wojciech Ziniewicz wrote:
> Does anybody have any experience with mounting / recovering / managing
> windows dynamic storage volumes under debian/linux ? We are backing
> up some of our windows servers with SATA hotswappable disks that are
> bound to each other (or in other words "linked" together) with windows
> dynamic storage. The backing up machine that runs on debian etch can
> mount only the first drive that is containg partial data. Some of ntfs
> files are something like hard links to the filesystem on the one or
> two other disks but when trying to read there is "Input/Output Error".
>
> WDS is required by one of our apps so we cant get rid of this S*** .
>
> Hope anybody will help.

i've never used WDS.

the only thing i can think of is to mount the windows drives onto your
linux box over the network (i.e. smbfs), and use rsync to back them up.
rsync only copies the files that have changed since the last backup, and
you can even configure it to do versioned backups - so you can keep the
last N versions of a changed file.

alternatively, use amanda or some other tape backup program to do the
backups. if you don't have a tape drive, amanda can be configured to
backup to disk.

craig

--
craig sanders

BOFH excuse #61: not approved by the FCC

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

Hi All,

Again, not sure of the term to search for on Google, so here is my question.

My main website is www.jdcomputers.com.au with an ip of 203.79.115.45. If
for some reason this goes down I would like the domain name to point to my
"hot spare" web server (203.79.115.42). How would I accomplish this?

Regards,

Julian De Marchi

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Jim Popovitch on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:04 +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Again, not sure of the term to search for on Google, so here is my question.
>
> My main website is www.jdcomputers.com.au with an ip of 203.79.115.45. If
> for some reason this goes down I would like the domain name to point to my
> "hot spare" web server (203.79.115.42). How would I accomplish this?

DNS is the easiest way (publish both IPs in DNS). Otherwise you need a
front-end loadbalancer (which itself is subject to falling over).

-Jim P.

RE: Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

> DNS is the easiest way (publish both IPs in DNS). Otherwise you need a
> front-end loadbalancer (which itself is subject to falling over).

Could I please have an example of a dns record? I was unaware that you could
for example have jdcomputers.com.au resolve to two ip address...

Thanks for the great feedback!

Julian

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Wojciech Ziniewicz on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

2007/2/27, Julian De Marchi :
> > DNS is the easiest way (publish both IPs in DNS). Otherwise you need a
> > front-end loadbalancer (which itself is subject to falling over).
>
> Could I please have an example of a dns record? I was unaware that you could
> for example have jdcomputers.com.au resolve to two ip address...
>
> Thanks for the great feedback!

try simple heartbeat rules (apt-get install heartbeat) or just use DNS
. other thing is to use script that touches both server and manages
your firewall.
first and third solutions assume that u have *nix box on ur firewall.

RE: Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Jim Popovitch on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:27 +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> > DNS is the easiest way (publish both IPs in DNS). Otherwise you need a
> > front-end loadbalancer (which itself is subject to falling over).
>
> Could I please have an example of a dns record? I was unaware that you could
> for example have jdcomputers.com.au resolve to two ip address...

~$ host www.google.com
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
www.l.google.com has address 209.85.165.99
www.l.google.com has address 209.85.165.103
www.l.google.com has address 209.85.165.104
www.l.google.com has address 209.85.165.147
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.

IIRC, to do this in bind, you would edit your db. file and do
something like this:

www IN A 203.79.115.45
IN A 203.79.115.42

DNS queries for www.jdcomputers.com.au would then return both IPs to a
client, the client would then use either one to connect to your website.
Additionally if one didn't work, the client would (eventually in the
case of IE) try the other.

-Jim P.

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by John Keimel on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

On 2/27/07, Julian De Marchi <julian@jdcomputers.com.au> wrote:
> DNS is the easiest way (publish both IPs in DNS). Otherwise you need a> front-end loadbalancer (which itself is subject to falling over).Could I please have an example of a dns record? I was unaware that you could
for example have jdcomputers.com.au resolve to two ip address...The first hit for google 'dns load balance' is:
http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.htmlOf course, this is not true redundancy. If one host is down, DNS doesn't know and doesn't care. It'll just point people at whichever host comes up during the query.
If you really want redundancy, you can install two load balancers in front of the web servers you have and let the load balancers (such as LVS) handle the balance. LVS set up is relatively trivial. Good luck

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Roberto C. Sanchez on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:21:21PM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:04 +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Again, not sure of the term to search for on Google, so here is my question.
> >
> > My main website is www.jdcomputers.com.au with an ip of 203.79.115.45. If
> > for some reason this goes down I would like the domain name to point to my
> > "hot spare" web server (203.79.115.42). How would I accomplish this?
>
> DNS is the easiest way (publish both IPs in DNS). Otherwise you need a
> front-end loadbalancer (which itself is subject to falling over).
>
Except that by default DNS will use a round-robin approach for multiple
A records. So, 50% of the requests will go one server and the other 50%
to the other server. Is that what you want? If not, you probably want
something like fake and/or heartbeat.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

RE: Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

> Except that by default DNS will use a round-robin approach for multiple
> A records. So, 50% of the requests will go one server and the other 50%
> to the other server. Is that what you want? If not, you probably want
> something like fake and/or heartbeat.

Load balancing is not the issues, but the website given has put some *good*
ideas in my head. I think the heart beat will be the solution I will look
into to, because either way I will have NS1, NS2, NS3 or NS4 to check for
the availability of my WWW and MX servers. So the heartbeat will always be
ticking away.

Julian

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Craig Sanders on Tue, 2007-02-27 19:00.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:52:36AM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> > Except that by default DNS will use a round-robin approach for multiple
> > A records. So, 50% of the requests will go one server and the other 50%
> > to the other server. Is that what you want? If not, you probably want
> > something like fake and/or heartbeat.
>
> Load balancing is not the issues, but the website given has put some *good*

DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you
want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then half
the requests will fail.

> ideas in my head. I think the heart beat will be the solution I will
> look into to, because either way I will have NS1, NS2, NS3 or NS4 to
> check for the availability of my WWW and MX servers. So the heartbeat
> will always be ticking away.

i suggest you look into LVS anyway....by the time you've got heartbeat set up,
you've already done about two-thirds of the work needed to get load-balancing
working as well. with a little bit more work, you get load-balancing as well
as just failover.

craig

--
craig sanders

"If there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb,
the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is he a
sadist who enjoys spectator blood sports? ... Is he manuvering
to maximize David Attenborough's television ratings?"
[Richard Dawkins, "River Out of Eden"]

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Jim Popovitch on Tue, 2007-02-27 19:00.

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:09 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:52:36AM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> > > Except that by default DNS will use a round-robin approach for multiple
> > > A records. So, 50% of the requests will go one server and the other 50%
> > > to the other server. Is that what you want? If not, you probably want
> > > something like fake and/or heartbeat.
> >
> > Load balancing is not the issues, but the website given has put some *good*
>
> DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you
> want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then half
> the requests will fail.

True. But the client will figure out (in the case of websites) which IP
to use. So the client experience "just works", perhaps after a bit of
delay by hitting the down server first.

> > ideas in my head. I think the heart beat will be the solution I will
> > look into to, because either way I will have NS1, NS2, NS3 or NS4 to
> > check for the availability of my WWW and MX servers. So the heartbeat
> > will always be ticking away.
>
> i suggest you look into LVS anyway....by the time you've got heartbeat set up,
> you've already done about two-thirds of the work needed to get load-balancing
> working as well. with a little bit more work, you get load-balancing as well
> as just failover.

What if the load-balancer fails? :-)

-Jim P. (don't over architect a simple solution ;-) )

RE: Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Tue, 2007-02-27 19:00.

> What if the load-balancer fails? :-)

I will be running the LVS on multiple servers for that very reason, and I
will look into setting it up in multiple locations if applicable. As I have
one or two servers in Texas at my disposal for this cause.

Julian

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Andrew Miehs on Tue, 2007-02-27 20:00.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/02/2007, at 12:27 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:

>>
>> DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you
>> want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then
>> half
>> the requests will fail.
>
> True. But the client will figure out (in the case of websites)
> which IP
> to use. So the client experience "just works", perhaps after a bit of
> delay by hitting the down server first.

The client doesn't figure anything out.

Either you are lucky, and you get the server that is up - or you are
unlucky - and you get the one that is down.

And seeing how wonderful browsers (and resolver libraries) are, they
have
probably cached the IP address - and you will need to restart your
browser
to try to get to the second and working web server.

The only real way of doing this is as previously suggested, having some
form of IP address takeover system.

Cheers

Andrew

PS: There are some systems out there which fiddle with DNS records,
and set the
ttl to 3 seconds or so - and change your DNS once a server goes down,
but I
would recommend to stay away from this black magic.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF5Mf0W126qUNSzvURAkP2AKCDXC9SzUTcGvIamRqbn45C6vIBDgCfU6Ym
mskNvPz68+5rzP+AMtuq0LM=
=Ik8s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Roberto C. Sanchez on Tue, 2007-02-27 20:00.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:08:18AM +0100, Andrew Miehs wrote:
>
> PS: There are some systems out there which fiddle with DNS records,
> and set the
> ttl to 3 seconds or so - and change your DNS once a server goes down,
> but I
> would recommend to stay away from this black magic.
>
That also assumes that every ISP out there at every level actually obeys
the TTL in set for that zone. Many do not.

Regards,

-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Jim Popovitch on Wed, 2007-02-28 03:00.

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 01:08 +0100, Andrew Miehs wrote:
> On 28/02/2007, at 12:27 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> >>
> >> DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you
> >> want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then
> >> half
> >> the requests will fail.
> >
> > True. But the client will figure out (in the case of websites)
> > which IP
> > to use. So the client experience "just works", perhaps after a bit of
> > delay by hitting the down server first.
>
> The client doesn't figure anything out.

Most web browsers do. The OP stated his issue was with a website, of
which browsers would be the de facto client.

> Either you are lucky, and you get the server that is up - or you are
> unlucky - and you get the one that is down.
>
> And seeing how wonderful browsers (and resolver libraries) are, they
> have probably cached the IP address - and you will need to restart your
> browser to try to get to the second and working web server.

Actually most browsers (and certainly most resolver libs) cache as many
IPs as are returned by the query. So, the browser will have the list of
IPs necessary to reach the website, and if one doesn't work it will try
the next one.

> The only real way of doing this is as previously suggested, having some
> form of IP address takeover system.

:-)

-Jim P.

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Andrew Miehs on Wed, 2007-02-28 05:00.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/02/2007, at 8:05 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:

>>
>> And seeing how wonderful browsers (and resolver libraries) are, they
>> have probably cached the IP address - and you will need to restart
>> your
>> browser to try to get to the second and working web server.
>
> Actually most browsers (and certainly most resolver libs) cache as
> many
> IPs as are returned by the query. So, the browser will have the
> list of
> IPs necessary to reach the website, and if one doesn't work it will
> try
> the next one.

Which browsers are those that work in this way?!

If this is the case, then you may also have a session persistence
problem.
If the browser switches IP addresses between queries, the other web
server
may be asked to respond, in which case, you will not be able to store
state
in the web server, and will need to store it in the backend - and
this between
requests - not visits.

Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF5UUlW126qUNSzvURAjKsAJ9o+NXDeAZl/+ObJYTY9szzUi9cvwCeMFoH
UJho0pLQvqdV16SSiww//VQ=
=FrUa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Jim Popovitch on Wed, 2007-02-28 11:00.

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:02 +0100, Andrew Miehs wrote:
>
> Which browsers are those that work in this way?!

Lets just list the ones (that I know) that don't: lynx.

> If this is the case, then you may also have a session persistence
> problem.

:-) I thought you said that we would have a 50% loss problem. Are you
just grasping for straws? :-)

> If the browser switches IP addresses between queries, the other web
> server may be asked to respond, in which case, you will not be able to store
> state in the web server, and will need to store it in the backend - and
> this between requests - not visits.

Yes. But you assume that state is necessary to maintain. It may not
be. My experience has shown me that browsers don't switch IP addresses
between queries, they use the first one that works and they keep using
it as long as it works. When it quits working they try the next one in
round-robin fashion.

-Jim P.

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Andrew Miehs on Wed, 2007-02-28 12:00.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You may want to have a look at this

http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dns-round-robin-is-
useless.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_robin_DNS
"Some desktop clients may even try alternate addresses after a
connection time out of 30-45 seconds."

It looks like you are correct, and some browsers seem to implement
their round robin
dns like this.

This behavior is unfortunately not specified - and could be changed
at any time.

On 28/02/2007, at 4:54 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:

>> If this is the case, then you may also have a session persistence
>> problem.
>
> :-) I thought you said that we would have a 50% loss problem. Are you
> just grasping for straws? :-)

The problem is that there is no specification on how to deal with
multiple
IP addresses for the one host.
A) Do you swap IPs every request?
B) Do you stay with the one IP till end of session?
C) Do you stay with the one IP for 30 minutes?
D) Do you change IP when you get a 'no able to connect'?

As it seems, at the moment, IEs implementation seems to solve your
problem.

>> If the browser switches IP addresses between queries, the other web
>> server may be asked to respond, in which case, you will not be
>> able to store
>> state in the web server, and will need to store it in the backend
>> - and
>> this between requests - not visits.
>
> Yes. But you assume that state is necessary to maintain. It may not
> be. My experience has shown me that browsers don't switch IP
> addresses
> between queries, they use the first one that works and they keep using
> it as long as it works. When it quits working they try the next
> one in
> round-robin fashion.

Quoting one of the links above

"
Microsoft's Internet Explorer caches the results of domain name
lookups internally, retaining the results of previous lookups for 30
minutes by default (which can be modified by adjusting the
DnsCacheTimeout value of the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft
\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings key in the Windows
registry). This caching occurs separately within each Internet
Explorer process, but an individual Internet Explorer process may be
responsible for several web browser windows.
"

If you assume that you don't need to deal with session persistence
due to
experience, you may end up getting bitten when someone changes the
behavior of .

Cheers

Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF5bBtW126qUNSzvURArUrAJ9PgyJUCoW7ZeHDO6Oz9+jvI4rCHACePIrg
6+0ghBGFKjSWNV0FOeQoEDU=
=f5Ww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Michelle Konzack on Tue, 2007-03-13 12:00.

Hi Jim,

Am 2007-02-28 10:54:52, schrieb Jim Popovitch:
> Yes. But you assume that state is necessary to maintain. It may not
> be. My experience has shown me that browsers don't switch IP addresses
> between queries, they use the first one that works and they keep using
> it as long as it works. When it quits working they try the next one in
> round-robin fashion.

Not "Lynx" not "Mozilla" do this otherwise I would run into heavy
trouble with my php-Website (3 Servers in Paris/FR, Offenburg/DE
and Bale/CH) which require autentication.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant

--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Craig Sanders on Wed, 2007-02-28 17:00.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:05:01AM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:

> > Either you are lucky, and you get the server that is up - or you are
> > unlucky - and you get the one that is down.
> >
> > And seeing how wonderful browsers (and resolver libraries) are, they
> > have probably cached the IP address - and you will need to restart your
> > browser to try to get to the second and working web server.
>
> Actually most browsers (and certainly most resolver libs) cache as many
> IPs as are returned by the query. So, the browser will have the list of
> IPs necessary to reach the website, and if one doesn't work it will try
> the next one.

some browsers will. others wont. so your site will work for some people, and
not for others. not good.

design for the worst case, hope for the best.

craig

--
craig sanders

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses
or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not
change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
[Giordano Bruno (1548-burned at the stake,1600)]

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Craig Sanders on Tue, 2007-02-27 20:00.

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:27:19PM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:09 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i suggest you look into LVS anyway....by the time you've got heartbeat set up,
> > you've already done about two-thirds of the work needed to get load-balancing
> > working as well. with a little bit more work, you get load-balancing as well
> > as just failover.
>
> What if the load-balancer fails? :-)

you have a redundant LVS server.

with LVS, that could be dedicated LVS boxes, or it could be the real web
servers doubling as LVS boxes.

> -Jim P. (don't over architect a simple solution ;-) )

i've used both simple failover and LVS load-balancing on numerous
occasions. in my experience, LVS is not significantly more complicated
than just plain heartbeat and gives a whole lot more than just failover.

i.e. i don't think it is "over-architecting" the solution. most of the
design (and implementation) work you have to do for LVS is exactly the
same as what you would have to do for just heartbeat.

of course, it gets more complicated if you're doing, say mysql
clustering, as well as web site failover/load-bal....but that's going to
be more complicated anyway, whether you do failover or LVS

in fact, IMO, it's simpler to do LVS than failover for both web serving
and mysql clustering. with load-balancing you don't need to write any
scripts to handle the changeover from "backup" to "primary" server
because there is no changeover - all servers in the array are up and
running and serving requests at all times.

this is much simpler than having to handle the changeover event
(bringing up interfaces, starting up server daemons, etc) when the
primary goes down (so the backup takes over) and the reverse when the
primary comes back up (so the backup needs to be taken down). getting
this part of the failover stuff right can be very tricky and complicated
and there are several potential race-conditions if you're not careful.
IME, this is the hardest part of getting heartbeat working.

LVS avoids all that because there is no changeover.

craig

--
craig sanders

BOFH excuse #401: Sales staff sold a product we don't offer.

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Craig Sanders on Tue, 2007-02-27 20:00.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:16:20AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> LVS avoids all that because there is no changeover.

of course, there's a catch (isn't there always :). and the catch is that if
you need to store any data (e.g. session info) between browser requests,
you have to do in such a way that it is available no matter which server
happens to serve any particular request. mostly this means storing your data
in a database rather than on a filesystem.

to illustrate:

user fred visits your site, and fills in a form. he is served by
real-server "web1". you record the data in some way. an hour later he
returns, but this time he is served by real-server "web2". unless the saved
data is shared somehow (e.g. sql database), web2 will know nothing about fred
or the data he already supplied.

the easiest ways to do this is with a shared or network filesystem (be careful
of file locking), or in a database (let the db handle locking issues).

craig

--
craig sanders

"God is as real as I am," the old man said. My faith was restored, for
I knew that Santa would never lie.

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Chris Wagner on Thu, 2007-03-01 01:00.

At 12:26 AM 3/1/2007, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>I think, but am not sure, that robocopy checks file / date times (modified
>or created) and then only acts if these provide a trigger. I don't think
>that a binary difference in the file (like a corrupted file) will be picked
>up if the date times are identical -- is this the same with rsync? Or am I
>incorrect with my theory with any of this?

Rsync normally does time/size comparisons but can do contents with a switch
AFAIK. It also can't do unicode file names since it uses the ANSI file
system interface. Another bone headed thing it does is sets strange
permissions on target files and does't propagate inheritance. So it's good
but it's not all it's cracked up to be. This only applies to the Cygwin
version, I haven't tried others.

--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede malis"

00000100

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Thu, 2007-03-01 01:00.

Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone has had any luck getting the Veritas Remote Unix
Agent working under debian. So far my google searches have told me that it
is not supported in debian. Any work around ideas if that is the case?

http://forums.veritas.com/discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=49292&messageID=4
374806

Julian

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Greg Folkert on Thu, 2007-03-01 03:00.

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 15:58 +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has had any luck getting the Veritas Remote Unix
> Agent working under debian. So far my google searches have told me that it
> is not supported in debian. Any work around ideas if that is the case?
>
> http://forums.veritas.com/discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=49292&messageID=4
> 374806

Nope, not supported. But if it works on 12 or so versions I see
supported it should work on Debian, with a bit of massage.

Ok, next questions: What have you tried? What error codes? Have you put
the agent into debug mode? Has the server logs given you any errors? Are
you getting "permission" denied or access invalid... what?

--
greg,

Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's
Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive
product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at
the playfield. -- Thane Walkup

RE: Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Thu, 2007-03-01 03:00.

> Ok, next questions: What have you tried? What error codes? Have you put
> the agent into debug mode? Has the server logs given you any errors? Are
> you getting "permission" denied or access invalid... what?
>
Have not tried anything (have not installed it), have finally convinced my
work to let me install a debian server, and that is the backup system they
use. To save any bad tastes (for linux's sake), I also convinced them it is
smarter to let me transfer my backup files to their FTP server for the
backup.

Thanks for the quick response.

Julian

RE: Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Greg Folkert on Thu, 2007-03-01 04:00.

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 17:59 +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> > Ok, next questions: What have you tried? What error codes? Have you put
> > the agent into debug mode? Has the server logs given you any errors? Are
> > you getting "permission" denied or access invalid... what?
> >
> Have not tried anything (have not installed it), have finally convinced my
> work to let me install a debian server, and that is the backup system they
> use. To save any bad tastes (for linux's sake), I also convinced them it is
> smarter to let me transfer my backup files to their FTP server for the
> backup.

Is it a Windows machine you'll be sending stuff to? Make sure you have a
"dpkg --get-selections > somefile.txt" included in you tar file.

--
greg,

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Victor Rodrigue... on Thu, 2007-03-01 04:00.

Hi,

After messing a lot with the last versions of the Ralus agent I gave up and I'm using
the old one (the one shipped with Backup Exec 9.x or 10.0) and it works flawlessly with a
Windows 10d server.

Download and installation procedure (extremely easy):

http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/269803.htm
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/240654.htm

It's been some time since I did it, but I believe that I managed to install the latest
version using the rpm coverted to a .deb package with alien in an Etch installation, but then I
found that I had to install the agent on some systems that couldn't be updated from woody so
didn't tested it.

Anyway, no problems so far with the old version :)
Regards,

Victor Rodriguez

> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has had any luck getting the Veritas Remote
> Unix Agent working under debian. So far my google searches have told
> me that it is not supported in debian. Any work around ideas if that
> is the case?
>
> http://forums.veritas.com/discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=49292&messa
> geID=4 374806
>
> Julian
>
>
> --

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by josep.llaurado@... on Thu, 2007-03-01 05:00.

Hi,

I'm currently using the Veritas Remote
Unix Agent under several Debian hosts.

Which kind of problem you have configuring
it? Or you need a few guidelines about the installation?

Best regards.

"Julian De Marchi"
<julian@jdcomputers.com.au>
01/03/2007 06:57

Para
<debian-isp@lists.debian.org>

cc
<debian-user@lists.debian.org>

Asunto
Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone has had any luck getting the Veritas Remote Unix
Agent working under debian. So far my google searches have told me that
it
is not supported in debian. Any work around ideas if that is the case?

http://forums.veritas.com/discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=49292&messageID=4
374806

Julian

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Thu, 2007-03-01 05:00.

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 10:11 +0100, wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently using the Veritas Remote Unix Agent under several Debian
> hosts.
>
> Which kind of problem you have configuring it? Or you need a few
> guidelines about the installation?
>
Not having any dramas, just in prep stage, as this is my works first
linux server, and i need to give it a good impression, as they say first
impressions last.

I am just going to transfer "my backups" to their ftp server using the
method greg mentioned...

Thanks all!!!!

Julian

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Thu, 2007-03-01 05:00.

I am just going to transfer "my backups" to their ftp server using the
method greg mentioned...

Thanks all!!!!

Julian

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by josep.llaurado@... on Thu, 2007-03-01 05:00.

Hi,

I'm currently using the Veritas Remote
Unix Agent under several Debian hosts.

Which kind of problem you have configuring
it? Or you need a few guidelines about the installation?

Best regards.

"Julian De Marchi"
<julian@jdcomputers.com.au>
01/03/2007 06:57

Para
<debian-isp@lists.debian.org>

cc
<debian-user@lists.debian.org>

Asunto
Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone has had any luck getting the Veritas Remote Unix
Agent working under debian. So far my google searches have told me that
it
is not supported in debian. Any work around ideas if that is the case?

http://forums.veritas.com/discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=49292&messageID=4
374806

Julian

Veritas Remote Unix Agent

Submitted by Julian De Marchi on Thu, 2007-03-01 01:00.

Hi All,

http://forums.veritas.com/discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=49292&messageID=4
374806

Julian

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Anders Holmstrom on Thu, 2007-03-01 02:00.

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 00:34 -0500, Chris Wagner wrote:
> Rsync [...] Another bone headed thing it does is sets strange
> permissions on target files and does't propagate inheritance.
> [...] This only applies to the Cygwin version

-p preserve permissions
-o preserve owner
-g preserve group

works fine but I can see how it may not under Windows. Don't know if
it's fair to blame rsync though, Windows != Linux. You'd probably have
to rewrite rsync as a native Windows app.

Anders.

--
Please don't copy list-mail to me ... I read the list.

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Roberto C. Sanchez on Thu, 2007-03-01 09:00.

On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 12:34:09AM -0500, Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> Rsync normally does time/size comparisons but can do contents with a switch
> AFAIK. It also can't do unicode file names since it uses the ANSI file
> system interface. Another bone headed thing it does is sets strange
> permissions on target files and does't propagate inheritance. So it's good
> but it's not all it's cracked up to be. This only applies to the Cygwin
> version, I haven't tried others.
>
I know I have run into some strange behavior with rsync on my MacBook
between it and my Debian machines (though I imagine the same thing would
happen to other Linux variants). Whenever I do any sort of rsync
to/from the MacBook, I have to use the -c switch to rsync, to tell it to
compute the md5sum for the file and use that for comparison instead of
the actual rsync algorithm.

I've not investigated why this is necessary, but it is annoying when I
forget it and literally transfers every single file it considers, even
if the content has not changed.

Regards,

-Roberto

--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Chris Wagner on Thu, 2007-03-01 04:00.

At 05:19 PM 3/1/2007 +1100, Anders Holmstrom wrote:
>works fine but I can see how it may not under Windows. Don't know if
>it's fair to blame rsync though, Windows != Linux. You'd probably have
>to rewrite rsync as a native Windows app.

Well the bigger problem is the Cygwin API. It's not exactly fully
functional. So when u try to do unixish things on Windows ur mileage will
vary. Given it's lack of unicode support it's general purpose usability is
severly hampered. I think there is a natively compiled rsync app for
Windows but I've never used it.

--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede malis"

00000100

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Anders Holmstrom on Thu, 2007-03-01 05:00.

At 03:25 AM 1/03/2007 -0500, Chris Wagner wrote:
> >You'd probably have to rewrite rsync as a native Windows app.
>
>Well the bigger problem is the Cygwin API.

Why would a native Windows app use Cygwin?

>I think there is a natively compiled rsync app for Windows but I've never
>used it.

Deltacopy? I can't seem to find its home though.

Anders.

--
Please don't copy list-mail to me ... I read the list.

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Turbo Fredriksson on Thu, 2007-03-01 11:00.

Quoting Craig Sanders :

> DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you
> want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then half
> the requests will fail.

>From my experience with this, most clients (be it web or LDAP etc) will
eventually try the other IP (without returning an error)... ?

> i suggest you look into LVS anyway.

This probably the most sane way... I haven't tried it in a couple of
years, but when I did, it wasn't mature enough. That was a long time
ago though, so I probably would go this route if I had to do it all
over...

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Wojciech Ziniewicz on Thu, 2007-03-01 13:00.

2007/3/1, Turbo Fredriksson :
> This probably the most sane way... I haven't tried it in a couple of
> years, but when I did, it wasn't mature enough. That was a long time
> ago though, so I probably would go this route if I had to do it all
> over...

If you've got funds - the best enterprise solution would be to use a
storage server (keeping the maildirs) with fiber channel interfaces so
two servers would share the same storage (via global filesystem - GFS
) so there would be no "locking issues" even if you use mailbox format
etc..
between theese two MX servers and internet i woudl use a simple
loadbalancer utilizing your favourite failover protocol (maybe stp on
you switches etc etc etc... )

regards.

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Turbo Fredriksson on Mon, 2007-03-05 17:00.

Quoting "Wojciech Ziniewicz" :

> If you've got funds

How many do!? :)

> storage server (keeping the maildirs) with fiber channel interfaces so
> two servers would share the same storage (via global filesystem - GFS
> ) so there would be no "locking issues" even if you use mailbox format
> etc..
> between theese two MX servers and internet i woudl use a simple
> loadbalancer utilizing your favourite failover protocol (maybe stp on
> you switches etc etc etc... )

They you STILL get single-point-of failure... On hardware that costs
a fortune! Better to have that problem with stuff you can easily
replace...
--
$400 million in gold bullion Khaddafi NSA jihad radar ammonium PLO
Clinton class struggle terrorist Mossad congress supercomputer FBI
SEAL Team 6
[See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this]
[Or http://www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/rapport_echelon_en.pdf]
If neither of these works, try http://www.aclu.org and search for echelon.
Note. This is a real, not fiction.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/09/06/eu_releases_echelon_spying_report/
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/23989res20060131.html#echelon

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Wojciech Ziniewicz on Mon, 2007-03-05 21:00.

2007/3/5, Turbo Fredriksson :
[...]
> They you STILL get single-point-of failure... On hardware that costs
> a fortune! Better to have that problem with stuff you can easily
> replace...
this solution assumes costs, but rather stability and lack of failures
(every failure does not harm the continuity of the service). moreover
you gain scalability..

p.s. and as far as i know HP would like to support debian, so there's
a chance of good cooperation in "datacentrish" cases ;)

regards..
--
Wojciech Ziniewicz
Unix SEX :{look;gawk;find;sed;talk;grep;touch;finger;find;fl
ex;unzip;head;tail; mount;workbone;fsck;yes;gasp;fsck;more;yes;yes;eje
ct;umount;makeclean; zip;split;done;exit:xargs!!;)}

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Adrian Minta on Wed, 2007-02-28 13:00.

For web server redundancy I strongly recommend a pound server in front
of the real web servers.
Pound "knows" how to distribute load among back end web servers and
knows how to check if the servers are available.

The next step is a dedicated appliance but is more expensive and does
practically the same thing.
DNS round-robin is not very accurate and best to be avoided. However the
DNS could be used for a geographical distribution of web servers (akamay
style) with multiple views depending on the query source IP.

--
Best regards,
Adrian Minta MA3173-RIPE, MA314-ROTLD, www.minta.ro

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Joe Emenaker on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

Julian De Marchi wrote:
> My main website is www.jdcomputers.com.au with an ip of 203.79.115.45. If
> for some reason this goes down I would like the domain name to point to my
> "hot spare" web server (203.79.115.42). How would I accomplish this?
>
Since they're on the same subnet, you can have a process on the spare
that periodically pings the main server. If it fails, the script just
starts answering to the main server's IP:

ifconfig eth0:0 203.79.115.45

You may or may not have to restart/reload your httpd after doing that.

Be warned that, if your main server "comes back to life" (via a reboot
or whatever) and starts answering to the IP that the spare has assumed,
I imagine that mass hilarity will ensue. In other words, make sure you
"ifdown eth0:0" on the spare right before you reboot your main (or, at
least, before your main executes /etc/init.d/networking during the boot
process).

- Joe

Webserver Redundacy

Submitted by Craig Sanders on Tue, 2007-02-27 19:00.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:04:57AM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> Again, not sure of the term to search for on Google, so here is my question.
>
> My main website is www.jdcomputers.com.au with an ip of 203.79.115.45. If
> for some reason this goes down I would like the domain name to point to my
> "hot spare" web server (203.79.115.42). How would I accomplish this?

assuming you've already got some way of mirroring your web pages from one
server to the other, the best way is to use LVS (Linux Virtual Server). LVS
is linux-kernel based load-balancing.

there's lots of different ways of setting it up. the best (in terms of
reliability) is to have two dedicated LVS boxes, configured in failover mode
(so that one takes over the load-balancing job if the other dies), and two (or
more) real web servers being load-balanced by the LVS boxes.

if you're on a tighter budget than that, then you can do it a lot cheaper.
one of the nices things about LVS is that the load-balancer boxes can double
as 'real-servers'. so your web server machines can be both the load balancer
AND the web server.

LVS gives you more than just high-availabilty (HA) redundancy, it gives you
load-balancing at the same time, so the load is shared across multiple
computers. this, IMO, is better than having your spare machine sit idle 90+%
of the time.

(note: if you're using a database for your web site, you also need to do
database clustering/replication so that the db is also always available no
matter which servers are up at any given time).

for more info on LVS, see http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/

it's well-documented and reasonably easy to set up if you take the time to
carefully read the documentation and examples, and plan what you're going to
do. it can be a good idea to practice on two (or more) old machines first, so
you understand how it all works before messing with your live web servers.

BTW, LVS is a standard part of the linux kernel (you may need to
recompile your kernel to enable LVS), and the LVS tools are packaged for
debian:

# apt-cache search LVS
keepalived - Failover and monitoring daemon for LVS clusters
ldirectord - Monitors virtual services provided by LVS
ldirectord-2 - Monitors virtual services provided by LVS

craig

--
craig sanders

"Is it just me, or does anyone else read `bible humpers' every time
someone writes `bible thumpers?'
-- Joel M. Snyder,

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Wojciech Ziniewicz on Tue, 2007-02-27 18:00.

2007/2/27, Craig Sanders :
> i've never used WDS.
>
> the only thing i can think of is to mount the windows drives onto your
> linux box over the network (i.e. smbfs), and use rsync to back them up.
> rsync only copies the files that have changed since the last backup, and
> you can even configure it to do versioned backups - so you can keep the
> last N versions of a changed file.
>
> alternatively, use amanda or some other tape backup program to do the
> backups. if you don't have a tape drive, amanda can be configured to
> backup to disk.

thx.. after long research - what you say is what we will probably do..
we will use cygwin on the windows server so it will run rsync daemon.
what is rather pesimistic is that copying big files through even 1gbit
uplink with cygwin (that resides on windows ;/) is v. complicated to
rely on ;)
regardz.

Re: windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Tim Warnock on Tue, 2007-02-27 19:00.

> thx.. after long research - what you say is what we will probably do..
> we will use cygwin on the windows server so it will run rsync daemon.
> what is rather pesimistic is that copying big files through even 1gbit
> uplink with cygwin (that resides on windows ;/) is v. complicated to
> rely on ;)
> regardz.
>
>
> --
> Wojciech Ziniewicz
> Unix SEX :{look;gawk;find;sed;talk;grep;touch;finger;find;fl
> ex;unzip;head;tail; mount;workbone;fsck;yes;gasp;fsck;more;yes;yes;eje
> ct;umount;makeclean; zip;split;done;exit:xargs!!;)}
>

Windows has a tool called robocopy that is very similar to rsync. Its
client only, so theres no need to run an rsync server.

It will copy only files that have changed (and can even delete old files
that are no longer there in its mirror mode), and will retry files that
are in use for a configurable amount of times.

Theoretically, you could use robocopy on your servers to keep a mirror
on another samba powered linux box or windows box.

mirrored hard drives and redundant power supplies ftw!

Thanks
Tim Warnock

ISP Technical Manager
getonit internet
1300 88 00 97
timoid (at) getonit.net.au

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Noah Dain on Wed, 2007-02-28 00:00.

On 2/27/07, Tim Warnock wrote:
> From: Wojciech Ziniewicz [mailto:wojciech.ziniewicz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2007 08:36
> To: Debian Isp
> Subject: Re: windows dynamic storage
>
> > thx.. after long research - what you say is what we will probably do..
> > we will use cygwin on the windows server so it will run rsync daemon.
> > what is rather pesimistic is that copying big files through even 1gbit
> > uplink with cygwin (that resides on windows ;/) is v. complicated to
> > rely on ;)
> > regardz.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wojciech Ziniewicz

you can use volume shadow copy in xp and 2003 to create filesystem
level snapshots manually with a few tools. then you can rsync the
snapshot contents.

http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/01/20/357836.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2006/09/18/761515.aspx

cygwin apps (rsync, openssh, other goodies to make life with windows a
little more bearable):
http://www.itefix.no/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=6&MMN_position=150:150

--
Noah Dain
"The beatings will continue, until moral improves" - the Management

windows dynamic storage

Submitted by Andrew McGlashan on Wed, 2007-02-28 22:01.

Noah Dain wrote:
> you can use volume shadow copy in xp and 2003 to create filesystem
> level snapshots manually with a few tools. then you can rsync the
> snapshot contents.
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/01/20/357836.aspx
> http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2006/09/18/761515.aspx
>
> cygwin apps (rsync, openssh, other goodies to make life with windows a
> little more bearable):
> http://www.itefix.no/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=6&MMN_position=150:150

Robocopy seems to work extremely well, has anybody seen any troubles using
it at all?

Is robocopy any less good than rsync?

I think, but am not sure, that robocopy checks file / date times (modified
or created) and then only acts if these provide a trigger. I don't think
that a binary difference in the file (like a corrupted file) will be picked
up if the date times are identical -- is this the same with rsync? Or am I
incorrect with my theory with any of this?

Kind Regards

AndrewM

Andrew McGlashan
Broadband Solutions now including VoIP

Current Fixed Line No: 03 8705 0300
Mobile: 04 2574 1827 Fax: 03 8790 1224

National No: 1300 85 3804

Affinity Vision Australia Pty Ltd
www.affinityvision.com.au
www.affinityvision.net/adsl/

In Case of Emergency -- http://www.affinityvision.com.au/ice.html

Navigation

User login

Spam?

windows dynamic storage

Comment viewing options

Useful Debian Links