Re: [gentoo-user] Strange gentoo.org address
On Friday 08 April 2011 00:39:07 Peter Humphrey wrote: > So why can't links find the site? Because I had a bad alias lurking in the undergrowth. Sorry about the noise. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 07 April 2011 23:47:22 Dale wrote: I mistyped a package name the other day and portage actually made suggestions as to what I meant to type. O_O I think the devs are trying to program in some ESP code. lol No mate, they've just finally cottoned-on to your and my bad typing! At first, it freaked me out. I reproduced the "feature" here tho: root@fireball / # emerge -1av nvidia-driver These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "nvidia-driver". emerge: searching for similar names... emerge: Maybe you meant any of these: x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers, dev-db/libdbi-drivers, dev-util/nvidia-cuda-profiler? root@fireball / # I thought dang, that is neato!! Now if they can just make it read my mind and me not have to show off my bad typing or forgetting the name of the package. ;-) So, you may be right. o_O Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Strange gentoo.org address
On Friday 08 April 2011 00:09:29 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Friday 08 April 2011 00:55:19 Peter Humphrey wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > Why do boxes on my network return this? > > > > $ nslookup www.gentoo.org > > Server: 127.0.0.1 > > Address:127.0.0.1#53 > > > > Non-authoritative answer: > > www.gentoo.org canonical name = www-bytemark.gentoo.org. > > Name: www-bytemark.gentoo.org > > Address: 89.16.167.134 > > Short answer: it is correct, working as designed. > > Long answer: > > That answer came from a DNS cache, which by definition is not authoritative > - it is merely a copy (which you trust to be legit) > > It does match the actual records on the real auth servers: So why can't links find the site? -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Strange gentoo.org address
On Friday 08 April 2011 00:55:19 Peter Humphrey wrote: > Hello list, > > Why do boxes on my network return this? > > $ nslookup www.gentoo.org > Server: 127.0.0.1 > Address:127.0.0.1#53 > > Non-authoritative answer: > www.gentoo.org canonical name = www-bytemark.gentoo.org. > Name: www-bytemark.gentoo.org > Address: 89.16.167.134 Short answer: it is correct, working as designed. Long answer: That answer came from a DNS cache, which by definition is not authoritative - it is merely a copy (which you trust to be legit) It does match the actual records on the real auth servers: === $ dig NS gentoo.org +trace [snip] gentoo.org. 86400 IN NS ns1.gentoo.org. gentoo.org. 86400 IN NS ns2.gentoo.org. ;; Received 96 bytes from 199.19.56.1#53(a0.org.afilias-nst.info) in 460 ms gentoo.org. 86400 IN NS ns1.gentoo.org. gentoo.org. 86400 IN NS ns2.gentoo.org. ;; Received 96 bytes from 194.116.84.30#53(ns2.gentoo.org) in 214 ms $ dig A www.gentoo.org @ns1.gentoo.org +short www-bytemark.gentoo.org. 89.16.167.134 $ dig A ns1.gentoo.org +short 208.92.234.78 -- Alan McKinnon Systems Engineer^W Technician Infrastructure Services Internet Solutions +27 11 575 7585 -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thursday 07 April 2011 23:47:22 Dale wrote: > I mistyped a package name the other day and portage actually made > suggestions as to what I meant to type. O_O I think the devs are > trying to program in some ESP code. lol No mate, they've just finally cottoned-on to your and my bad typing! -- Rgds Peter
[gentoo-user] Strange gentoo.org address
Hello list, Why do boxes on my network return this? $ nslookup www.gentoo.org Server: 127.0.0.1 Address:127.0.0.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: www.gentoo.org canonical name = www-bytemark.gentoo.org. Name: www-bytemark.gentoo.org Address: 89.16.167.134 (This is on the dnsmasq box, which has no difficulty with any other addresses.) It doesn't cause Firefox a problem on my KDE workstation, but on this box and others the links text-only browser can't find the site. Not helpful when I'm trying to find a cure for a problem while working in text mode. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
> > > > > > > Thanks, I've installed this and it seems to work. > > > > > >> learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" > > > > > > That I'll have to do. I'm not fully comfortable with emerge yet. > > > > > >> Jeremy > > > > Sounds like you are new. Interesting commands: The "q" family. Just > > do a "man q" and check it out since there is a few of them. There is > > also eix, genlop which sort of has some common tools as the "q" family. > > You also need use eselect from time to time as well. There are also > > times when revdep-rebuild will rear its head too. > > To search for specific packages, I think Dale and Mark did a good set. > As for the others, like "revdep-rebuild", there is also "python-updater" > and > "etc-update". Huh, I've been using gentoo for years and never knew about the "q's", definitely learned something new today! But I just wanted to make a note that a few of these programs are part of the gentoolkit package. Querying portage for revdep, equery, etc won't give you the package it belongs to.
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday 07 April 2011 21:10:32 Mark Knecht wrote: mark@c2stable ~ $ equery files telnet-bsd | grep bin Which of course he can't do until after he's installed the package. -- Rgds Peter Damn. You're right. My bad. Well, had he used eix (or emerge -s telnet) at least he would have determined that he had the wrong package name. - Mark I mistyped a package name the other day and portage actually made suggestions as to what I meant to type. O_O I think the devs are trying to program in some ESP code. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Thursday 07 April 2011 21:10:32 Mark Knecht wrote: > >> mark@c2stable ~ $ equery files telnet-bsd | grep bin > > Which of course he can't do until after he's installed the package. > > -- > Rgds > Peter Damn. You're right. My bad. Well, had he used eix (or emerge -s telnet) at least he would have determined that he had the wrong package name. - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thursday 07 April 2011 21:10:32 Mark Knecht wrote: > mark@c2stable ~ $ equery files telnet-bsd | grep bin Which of course he can't do until after he's installed the package. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:14:43 Dale wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> > Hi, Jeremy. >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:41AM -0500, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: >> >> [I] net-misc/netkit-telnetd >> >> >> >> Available versions: 0.17-r6 0.17-r8 ~0.17-r9 ~0.17-r10 >> >> Installed versions: 0.17-r8(04:51:44 11/19/09) >> >> Homepage: >> >> ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/ >> >> Description: Standard Linux telnet client and >> >> server >> > >> > Thanks, I've installed this and it seems to work. >> > >> >> learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" >> > >> > That I'll have to do. I'm not fully comfortable with emerge yet. >> > >> >> Jeremy >> >> Sounds like you are new. Interesting commands: The "q" family. Just >> do a "man q" and check it out since there is a few of them. There is >> also eix, genlop which sort of has some common tools as the "q" family. >> You also need use eselect from time to time as well. There are also >> times when revdep-rebuild will rear its head too. >> >> That should be a start and I'm sure someone will point out one or two I >> missed as well. ;-) > > To search for specific packages, I think Dale and Mark did a good set. > As for the others, like "revdep-rebuild", there is also "python-updater" and > "etc-update". > > The last "etc-update" is only really needed when doing upgrades. I would like > to recommend you try these commands before you are too dependent on the > installation. > Making mistakes while learning is a good method, but can also be extremely > frustrating when these same mistakes keep you from enjoying the use of the > computer. (Yes, I am speaking from personal experience ;) ) > > -- > Joost Let's potentially add module-rebuild -X rebuild to the list of little gems that keep Gentoo systems happy when installing a new kernel. Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:14:43 Dale wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Hi, Jeremy. > > > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:41AM -0500, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: > >> [I] net-misc/netkit-telnetd > >> > >> Available versions: 0.17-r6 0.17-r8 ~0.17-r9 ~0.17-r10 > >> Installed versions: 0.17-r8(04:51:44 11/19/09) > >> Homepage: > >> ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/ > >> Description: Standard Linux telnet client and > >> server > > > > Thanks, I've installed this and it seems to work. > > > >> learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" > > > > That I'll have to do. I'm not fully comfortable with emerge yet. > > > >> Jeremy > > Sounds like you are new. Interesting commands: The "q" family. Just > do a "man q" and check it out since there is a few of them. There is > also eix, genlop which sort of has some common tools as the "q" family. > You also need use eselect from time to time as well. There are also > times when revdep-rebuild will rear its head too. > > That should be a start and I'm sure someone will point out one or two I > missed as well. ;-) To search for specific packages, I think Dale and Mark did a good set. As for the others, like "revdep-rebuild", there is also "python-updater" and "etc-update". The last "etc-update" is only really needed when doing upgrades. I would like to recommend you try these commands before you are too dependent on the installation. Making mistakes while learning is a good method, but can also be extremely frustrating when these same mistakes keep you from enjoying the use of the computer. (Yes, I am speaking from personal experience ;) ) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hi, Jeremy. On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:41AM -0500, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: [I] net-misc/netkit-telnetd Available versions: 0.17-r6 0.17-r8 ~0.17-r9 ~0.17-r10 Installed versions: 0.17-r8(04:51:44 11/19/09) Homepage:ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/ Description: Standard Linux telnet client and server Thanks, I've installed this and it seems to work. learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" That I'll have to do. I'm not fully comfortable with emerge yet. Jeremy Sounds like you are new. Interesting commands: The "q" family. Just do a "man q" and check it out since there is a few of them. There is also eix, genlop which sort of has some common tools as the "q" family. You also need use eselect from time to time as well. There are also times when revdep-rebuild will rear its head too. That should be a start and I'm sure someone will point out one or two I missed as well. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hi, Jeremy. > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:41AM -0500, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: >> [I] net-misc/netkit-telnetd >> Available versions: 0.17-r6 0.17-r8 ~0.17-r9 ~0.17-r10 >> Installed versions: 0.17-r8(04:51:44 11/19/09) >> Homepage: ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/ >> Description: Standard Linux telnet client and server > > Thanks, I've installed this and it seems to work. > >> learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" > > That I'll have to do. I'm not fully comfortable with emerge yet. > >> Jeremy > > -- > Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). OK, then teaching a man to fish, you'd try mark@c2stable ~ $ eix -c telnet [N] dev-java/telnetd (2.0): A telnet daemon for use in java applications [N] dev-perl/Net-Telnet (3.03-r1): A Telnet Perl Module [N] dev-perl/Net-Telnet-Cisco (1.10): Automate telnet sessions w/ routers&switches [N] net-misc/netkit-telnetd (0.17-r6): Standard Linux telnet client and server [I] net-misc/telnet-bsd (1.2-r1@01/21/11): Telnet and telnetd ported from OpenBSD with IPv6 support [N] net-misc/utelnetd (~0.1.9-r1): A small Telnet daemon, derived from the Axis tools [N] sec-policy/selinux-telnet (--): SELinux policy for general applications Found 7 matches. mark@c2stable ~ $ mark@c2stable ~ $ equery files telnet-bsd | grep bin /usr/bin /usr/bin/telnet /usr/sbin /usr/sbin/in.telnetd mark@c2stable ~ $ and you have an answer. In this case telnet, the binary executable, can be provided by multiple packages, but this gets you much closer than you were. Good luck, learn the distro and ask questions. Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
Hi, Jeremy. On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:41AM -0500, Jeremy McSpadden wrote: > [I] net-misc/netkit-telnetd > Available versions: 0.17-r6 0.17-r8 ~0.17-r9 ~0.17-r10 > Installed versions: 0.17-r8(04:51:44 11/19/09) > Homepage:ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/ > Description: Standard Linux telnet client and server Thanks, I've installed this and it seems to work. > learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" That I'll have to do. I'm not fully comfortable with emerge yet. > Jeremy -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 11:35:42 BRM wrote: > - Original Message > > > From: J. Roeleveld > > I think the issue comes from the fact that LVM2 supports Mirroring without > an underlying RAID controller: > > http://tinyurl.com/3woh2d7 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Volume_Manager_%28Linux%29 > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/performance/59776 > > Which would be a redundancy. Ok, I wasn't aware of that bit. >From the first hit in the google-list, I do think that LVM-mirror isn't really ready. Especially as the read-performance is less then using software raid. I don't find mdadm difficult to use though. It's a vast improvement over the old raidtools. > > I do hope you didn't loose too much important data when you had this > > issue. > > No, I didn't loose any important data (fortunately). If I did, I would have > paid for the drive to be recovered; it was mostly portage, var/tmp, some > extra sandbox stuff, kind of things. Glad to hear that. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thursday 07 April 2011 17:19:24 Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hi, Gentoo! > > I would like a telnet client installed on my gentoo amd64 system. When I > try > emerge telnet > , I get told that telnet doesn't exist. > > What am I doing wrong? Is there a telnet client on gentoo? As others said there's more than one option, not forgetting netcat: nc -t address However, you don't need to install anything if you don't want to, because busybox contains a telnet client and daemon. Just create a symlink from your /usr/local/bin/telnet to /bin/busybox: # ln -s /bin/busybox /usr/local/bin/telnet $ ls -la /usr/local/bin/telnet lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Jan 30 12:24 /usr/local/bin/telnet -> /bin/busybox $ telnet BusyBox v1.17.4 (2010-12-26 22:07:56 GMT) multi-call binary. Usage: telnet [-a] [-l USER] HOST [PORT] Connect to telnet server Options: -a Automatic login with $USER variable -l USER Automatic login as USER Or just run: $ busybox telnet -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
- Original Message > From: J. Roeleveld > On Thu, April 7, 2011 7:31 pm, BRM wrote: > > The attraction to LVM for me was that from what I could tell it supported > > and > > implemented a software-RAID > > so that I could help protect from disk-failure. I never got around to > > configuring that side of it, but that was my goal. > > Or are you saying I was misunderstanding and LVM _does not_ contain > > software-RAID support? > > Unless I am mistaken, LVM does not provide redundancy. It provides > disk-spanning (JBOD) and basic striping (RAID-0). > > For redundancy, I would use a proper RAID (either hardware or software). > On top of this, you can then decide to have a single filesystem, LVM or > even partition this. > > I think the confusion might have come from the fact that both LVM and > Linux Software Raid use the "Device Mapper" interface in the kernel config > and they are in the same part. > > Also, part of the problem is that striping is also called RAID-0. That, to > people who don't fully understand it yet, makes it sound like it is a > RAID. > It actually isn't as it doesn't provide any redundancy. I think the issue comes from the fact that LVM2 supports Mirroring without an underlying RAID controller: http://tinyurl.com/3woh2d7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Volume_Manager_%28Linux%29 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/performance/59776 Which would be a redundancy. > > I do hope you didn't loose too much important data when you had this issue. > No, I didn't loose any important data (fortunately). If I did, I would have paid for the drive to be recovered; it was mostly portage, var/tmp, some extra sandbox stuff, kind of things. Ben
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 14:21:33 Joost Roeleveld wrote: > Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you would be > perfect for some QA or Testing job :) QA != Testing QA is the features of a company organisation that give it the characteristic of not introducing faults. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Missing distfile?
On Thursday 07 April 2011 11:13:18 Dale wrote: > Either the mirrors you are trying don't have it yet for some reason or > it *could* be a bug and it is looking in the wrong place or something. I have three mirrors in make.conf, but when those were exhausted, portage tried 106 others around the world. It took a while. And, as I said, this the third day of trying. > I found it here tho. > > http://ftp.download-by.net/gnu/gnu/gnutls/ > > You can download it and put it in distfiles and see if that helps. Well done, that man! It's compiling now - thanks! -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How can I inactivate the anachronism called CAPSLOCK on X?
On Wednesday 06 April 2011 12:14:14 Gregory Fontenele wrote: > want to leave this list but I can not, can someone erase me from this list? > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 00:37, Bill Longman wrote: > > Maybe switch it to just a shift key? > > > > And I really *do* like the idea of language switch, Kfir! read the fucking header OR go to gentoo.org and look at the site about mailing lists. All the instructions are there.
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thu, April 7, 2011 7:31 pm, BRM wrote: > - Original Message > >> From: Joost Roeleveld >> On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:52:26 BRM wrote: >> > - Original Message >> > >> > > From: Joost Roeleveld >> > > >> > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: >> > > > - Original Message >> > > > >> > > > > From: Neil Bothwick >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: >> > > > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough >> > > > > > to put my >> > > > > > >> > > > > > OS >> > > > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. >> > > > > >> > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an >> hour >> > > > > or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. >> > > > >> > > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. >> > > > >> > > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, >> > > > the fact that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole >> LVM >> > > > group, leaving the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There >> > > > was a thread on that (started by me) a while back (over a >> year). >> > > > >> > > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives >> > > > under LVM >> > > > >> > > > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a >> PITA >> > > > waiting >> > > > >> > > > to happen. >> > > > >> > > > Ben >> > > >> > > Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple >> disks >> > > can be >> > > >> > > affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism >> in >> > > place that can handle the loss of a disk. >> > > For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) >> provides >> > > that. >> > > >> > > Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, >> I >> > > think that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from >> LVs >> > > that were not >> > > >> > > using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? >> > >> > If you have the LV configuration information, then yes. Since I >> managed to >> > find the configuration information, I was able to remove the affected >> PVs >> > from the VG, and get it back up. >> > I might still have it running, but I'll back it out on the next >> rebuild - > or >> > if I have a drive large enough to do so with in the future. I was >> wanting >> > to use LVM as a bit of a software RAID, but never quite got >> > that far in the configuration before it failed. It does do a good job >> at >> > what it's designed for, but I would not trust the OS to it either >> since the >> > LVM configuration is very important to keep around. >> > >> > If not, good luck as far as I can tell. >> > >> > Ben >> >> LVM isn't actually RAID. Not in the sense that one gets redundancy. If >> you >> consider it to be a flexible partitioning method, that can span >> multiple >>disks, >> >> then yes. >> But when spanning multiple disks, it will simply act like JBOD or >> RAID0. >> Neither protects someone from a single disk failure. >> >> On critical systems, I tend to use: >> DISK <-> RAID <-> LVM <-> Filesystem >> >> The disks are as reliable as Google says they are. They fail or they >> don't. >> RAID protects against single disk-failure >> LVM makes the partitioning flexible >> Filesystems are picked depending on what I use the partition for >> > > The attraction to LVM for me was that from what I could tell it supported > and > implemented a software-RAID > so that I could help protect from disk-failure. I never got around to > configuring that side of it, but that was my goal. > Or are you saying I was misunderstanding and LVM _does not_ contain > software-RAID support? Unless I am mistaken, LVM does not provide redundancy. It provides disk-spanning (JBOD) and basic striping (RAID-0). For redundancy, I would use a proper RAID (either hardware or software). On top of this, you can then decide to have a single filesystem, LVM or even partition this. I think the confusion might have come from the fact that both LVM and Linux Software Raid use the "Device Mapper" interface in the kernel config and they are in the same part. Also, part of the problem is that striping is also called RAID-0. That, to people who don't fully understand it yet, makes it sound like it is a RAID. It actually isn't as it doesn't provide any redundancy. I do hope you didn't loose too much important data when you had this issue. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: revdep-rebuild Not Fixing Broken Links
> I think that package is there, but I'll check this weekend. I didn't feel like carrying my laptop today. > It would be nice if I just had to install it, but I would think revdep-rebuild should pull it in . . . or doesn't revdep-rebuild work that way? revdep-rebuild will only rebuild the package with the broken link. It won't pull in anything (unless the ebuild pulls something else in), so revdep-rebuild can't fix an issue that needs another package that the ebuild doesn't depend on. --Brennan Shacklett
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
- Original Message > From: Joost Roeleveld > On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:52:26 BRM wrote: > > - Original Message > > > > > From: Joost Roeleveld > > > > > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: > > > > - Original Message > > > > > > > > > From: Neil Bothwick > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough > > > > > > to put my > > > > > > > > > > > > OS > > > > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > > > > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour > > > > > or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > > > > > > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. > > > > > > > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, > > > > the fact that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM > > > > group, leaving the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There > > > > was a thread on that (started by me) a while back (over a year). > > > > > > > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives > > > > under LVM > > > > > > > > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA > > > > waiting > > > > > > > > to happen. > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks > > > can be > > > > > > affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in > > > place that can handle the loss of a disk. > > > For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides > > > that. > > > > > > Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I > > > think that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs > > > that were not > > > > > > using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? > > > > If you have the LV configuration information, then yes. Since I managed to > > find the configuration information, I was able to remove the affected PVs > > from the VG, and get it back up. > > I might still have it running, but I'll back it out on the next rebuild - or > > if I have a drive large enough to do so with in the future. I was wanting > > to use LVM as a bit of a software RAID, but never quite got > > that far in the configuration before it failed. It does do a good job at > > what it's designed for, but I would not trust the OS to it either since the > > LVM configuration is very important to keep around. > > > > If not, good luck as far as I can tell. > > > > Ben > > LVM isn't actually RAID. Not in the sense that one gets redundancy. If you > consider it to be a flexible partitioning method, that can span multiple >disks, > > then yes. > But when spanning multiple disks, it will simply act like JBOD or RAID0. > Neither protects someone from a single disk failure. > > On critical systems, I tend to use: > DISK <-> RAID <-> LVM <-> Filesystem > > The disks are as reliable as Google says they are. They fail or they don't. > RAID protects against single disk-failure > LVM makes the partitioning flexible > Filesystems are picked depending on what I use the partition for > The attraction to LVM for me was that from what I could tell it supported and implemented a software-RAID so that I could help protect from disk-failure. I never got around to configuring that side of it, but that was my goal. Or are you saying I was misunderstanding and LVM _does not_ contain software-RAID support? Ben
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: revdep-rebuild Not Fixing Broken Links
- Original Message -From: walt Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:32 pmSubject: [gentoo-user] Re: revdep-rebuild Not Fixing Broken LinksTo: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> On 04/05/2011 07:23 AM, dhk...@optonline.net wrote:> > On my amd64 laptop I have broken links that never clear up. > The laptop is new and the install is only about two months old. > Everything works all right, but revdep-rebuild lists the > following broken links, and after a few weeks of sync'ing they > haven't gone away. If I remember correctly, the problem began > after the removal of a package that was causing blocking after > an update. I think the package was polkit/policykit but not > sure. Even after an emerge with the -E option the problem persists.> >> > The output of revdep-rebuild is below. Thanks.> >> > [ 39% ] * broken /usr/lib32/gtk-> 2.0/2.10.0/engines/libpixmap.so (requires libEGL.so.1> > libGL.so.1)> > Looks like you're missing the emul package for opengl.> > >I think that package is there, but I'll check this weekend. I didn't feel like carrying my laptop today. It would be nice if I just had to install it, but I would think revdep-rebuild should pull it in . . . or doesn't revdep-rebuild work that way?Thanks
[gentoo-user] Re: revdep-rebuild Not Fixing Broken Links
On 04/05/2011 07:23 AM, dhk...@optonline.net wrote: On my amd64 laptop I have broken links that never clear up. The laptop is new and the install is only about two months old. Everything works all right, but revdep-rebuild lists the following broken links, and after a few weeks of sync'ing they haven't gone away. If I remember correctly, the problem began after the removal of a package that was causing blocking after an update. I think the package was polkit/policykit but not sure. Even after an emerge with the -E option the problem persists. The output of revdep-rebuild is below. Thanks. [ 39% ] * broken /usr/lib32/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libpixmap.so (requires libEGL.so.1 libGL.so.1) Looks like you're missing the emul package for opengl.
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Hi, Gentoo! >> >> I would like a telnet client installed on my gentoo amd64 system. When I >> try >> emerge telnet >> , I get told that telnet doesn't exist. >> >> What am I doing wrong? Is there a telnet client on gentoo? >> >> -- >> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). >> >> > > telnet-bsd has a telnet client. (I think...) there is also netkit-telnetd (and net-misc/putty if you're so inclined)... or net-misc/tn5250 if you're dealing with AS/400's And probably more :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hi, Gentoo! > > I would like a telnet client installed on my gentoo amd64 system. When I > try > emerge telnet > , I get told that telnet doesn't exist. > > What am I doing wrong? Is there a telnet client on gentoo? > > -- > Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). > > telnet-bsd has a telnet client. (I think...) - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
[I] net-misc/netkit-telnetd Available versions: 0.17-r6 0.17-r8 ~0.17-r9 ~0.17-r10 Installed versions: 0.17-r8(04:51:44 11/19/09) Homepage:ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/ Description: Standard Linux telnet client and server learn to search portage. either "eix" or "emerge -s" Jeremy On Apr 7, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hi, Gentoo! > > I would like a telnet client installed on my gentoo amd64 system. When I > try >emerge telnet > , I get told that telnet doesn't exist. > > What am I doing wrong? Is there a telnet client on gentoo? > > -- > Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). > > >
[gentoo-user] Why can't I emerge telnet?
Hi, Gentoo! I would like a telnet client installed on my gentoo amd64 system. When I try emerge telnet , I get told that telnet doesn't exist. What am I doing wrong? Is there a telnet client on gentoo? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[gentoo-user] Re: LVM for data drives but not the OS
Dale gmail.com> writes: > If you know how to do that, then that works. Right now, I have no > experience with LVM. All I know is what I have read which is about as > clear as mud. Yes, I agree with you Dale. The docs on LVM raid and many related issues are in poor shape, confusing and missing current information. James
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 09:11:35 Dale wrote: > Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:41:00 Joost Roeleveld wrote: > >> On Thursday 07 April 2011 14:31:43 Neil Bothwick wrote: > >>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) > > Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you > would > be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) > >>> > >>> But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) > >> > >> LOL :) > >> Seriously, if all the Open Source developers would make the software > >> reliable enough to pass his testing methods, there wouldn't be any > >> grounds for discussion :) > >> It would just work, always > >> > >> -- > >> Joost > >> > >> PS. I actually enjoy having people on the list with different levels > >> and > >> types of experience. I think I probably learn more stuff via questions > >> from so-called "beginners" then from the "old-timers" ;) > > > > Actually, thinking about it. > > Dale, please do try what Neil suggested. Preferably also document what > > you do so we have a few test cases :) > > > > -- > > Joost > > I did this many years ago. When I built my very first rig, I installed > Mandriva. Don't shoot me, Why would I? :) I first played with Linux in 1997. First distro I tried was slackware and then Redhat. When redhat started moving more towards Gnome, and I was hit by rpm- dependencies once too many, I started looking. It was then that I noticed Gentoo and after a bit of playing with it, moved to Gentoo fully. If, at that time, Ubuntu had been around, I might have missed Gentoo alltogether. > I hadn't heard of Gentoo yet. I only knew > about Redhat and Mandriva at the time. Anyway, I had one heck of a time > installing the nvidia drivers. Lots of people had issues where their > GUI wouldn't come back up when they installed the drivers. So, since I > was a "fool" at the time, I made notes and such as to how I did mine. > When it worked, I did a howto on it from a "fools" point of view. I put > it on about three different sites. LQ, JL and one other one. It had a > HUGE amount of views. If followed, it worked. I think me explaining > from a beginners perspective helped a lot of people, plus I tried to > keep it simple, like me. lol Simple-worded howtos tend to be the best. Unfortunately, people who really know and understand the subject tend to become unable to properly word it all in such a way that mere mortals understand it as well. > I think some of the reason I haven't grasped LVM is that it is somewhat > complicated and it is explained by folks that know the nuts and bolts of > it. It's like explaining Gentoo Linux to a windoze user who has never > seen Linux or even knows what a kernel is. Hmm... I've given up on those conversations ;) I'll simply wait till people get curious about what I'm doing with computers and why I never complain about them crashing all the time ;) > I'm still looking up howtos in hope of having a light bulb moment. I'll > have one, it's just a matter of when. Well... I'm confident that light bulb can be lit... -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 08:57:40 Dale wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > >> I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) > >> > >> Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you > >> would > >> be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) > > > > But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) > > Joost, I see your point. This is my life saying. If it wasn't for bad > luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all. I hope for the best but expect > the worst. You should see my dining room. Full of food stuff just in > case. After my last visit to the grocery store, I'm thinking I may not > have enough yet. o_O I also have a generator and some gas stored too. > I also have a big garden to grow food as well. I may be disabled but I > ain't stupid. I just try to keep the bad things that can happen in the > back of my mind and keep a plan going, just in case it does hit the fan. The Internet is a mixed blessing. We only see what people type. But have difficulty understanding their personal situation because we don't see it. Up untill the point you mentioned you're disabled, I was like "Hmm... I know a few people like that :) " I would call that self-sufficient and quite clever. I would like to be able to move somewhere where I could just enjoy life and life of some piece of land. I would not consider you stupid, you've shown, at least in my opinion, that you're not :) > I'm sort of wanting to use this as a learning experience. If I can get > things set up, working and understand what the heck things do, then I > may try some more stuff. Right now, my light bulb is pretty dim on > LVM. I don't understand how it works and what the heck those commands > do. I'll have my light bulb moment eventually. Since I don't have the > new drive ordered yet, I got time to read, listen and try to grasp it all. The beginning of wisdom is admitting you don't have it ;) > Just a old dog trying to learn new tricks. lol I'm lousy at training dogs (or other animals), but lets see if I can make LVM, or at least the way I use it, a bit clearer. If anything isn't clear, please ask. We've already discussed the benefits of using it in a previous thread. So I'll just skip those for now. With LVM, you end up with 1 or more VGs (Volume Group) Each VG consists of 1 or more PV (Physical Volume) Each VG can contain 1 or more LV (Logical Volume) In simple graphic: PV <-> VG <-> LV A PV is either an entire physical disk or a partition on a physical disk. This is why they're called "Physical Volume" A VG is a collection of Physical Volumes. The size of this depends equals the total size of all the PVs in this group. An LV is a partition on this Volume Group. Now, here comes the nice part. It is possible to extend a VG and LV. A VG is extended by adding a PV. It can also be reduced in size by removing a PV. NOTE: when removing a PV, ensure it is not used. (Tools exist for this) An LV can be extended as long as the VG has room for this. No movement of LVs is necessary, just like files on a filesystem, they get spread over available space. NOTE: Yes, this does lead to fragmentation (Tools exist to assist in defragmenting LVM) You can also reduce the size of an LV. (Again, make sure reducing the LV in size does not lead to loss of data) On top of an LV, any filesystem (Ext2/3/4, Reiserfs, XFS, JFS,) can be placed. Once an LV is created, the filesystem tools can simply access it just like any other block device (eg. physical disk) When selecting a filesystem to put on top of an LV, do check wether or not it at least supports increasing the size after creation. Most filesystems in use do support this even while the filesystem is mounted. Reducing the size of the filesystem is, in my use, less common. And I tend to simply copy data to a temporary location when I do need to reduce the size. I hope the above makes it a bit clearer on how it "works". The actual commands for creating and managing an LVM-system, I'll leave for another time if and when they are needed. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:52:26 BRM wrote: > - Original Message > > > From: Joost Roeleveld > > > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: > > > - Original Message > > > > > > > From: Neil Bothwick > > > > > > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough > > > > > to put my > > > > > > > > > > OS > > > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour > > > > or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > > > > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. > > > > > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, > > > the fact that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM > > > group, leaving the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There > > > was a thread on that (started by me) a while back (over a year). > > > > > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives > > > under LVM > > > > > > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA > > > waiting > > > > > > to happen. > > > > > > Ben > > > > Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks > > can be > > > > affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in > > place that can handle the loss of a disk. > > For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides > > that. > > > > Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I > > think that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs > > that were not > > > > using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? > > If you have the LV configuration information, then yes. Since I managed to > find the configuration information, I was able to remove the affected PVs > from the VG, and get it back up. > I might still have it running, but I'll back it out on the next rebuild - or > if I have a drive large enough to do so with in the future. I was wanting > to use LVM as a bit of a software RAID, but never quite got > that far in the configuration before it failed. It does do a good job at > what it's designed for, but I would not trust the OS to it either since the > LVM configuration is very important to keep around. > > If not, good luck as far as I can tell. > > Ben LVM isn't actually RAID. Not in the sense that one gets redundancy. If you consider it to be a flexible partitioning method, that can span multiple disks, then yes. But when spanning multiple disks, it will simply act like JBOD or RAID0. Neither protects someone from a single disk failure. On critical systems, I tend to use: DISK <-> RAID <-> LVM <-> Filesystem The disks are as reliable as Google says they are. They fail or they don't. RAID protects against single disk-failure LVM makes the partitioning flexible Filesystems are picked depending on what I use the partition for -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Joost Roeleveld wrote: On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:41:00 Joost Roeleveld wrote: On Thursday 07 April 2011 14:31:43 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you would be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) LOL :) Seriously, if all the Open Source developers would make the software reliable enough to pass his testing methods, there wouldn't be any grounds for discussion :) It would just work, always -- Joost PS. I actually enjoy having people on the list with different levels and types of experience. I think I probably learn more stuff via questions from so-called "beginners" then from the "old-timers" ;) Actually, thinking about it. Dale, please do try what Neil suggested. Preferably also document what you do so we have a few test cases :) -- Joost I did this many years ago. When I built my very first rig, I installed Mandriva. Don't shoot me, I hadn't heard of Gentoo yet. I only knew about Redhat and Mandriva at the time. Anyway, I had one heck of a time installing the nvidia drivers. Lots of people had issues where their GUI wouldn't come back up when they installed the drivers. So, since I was a "fool" at the time, I made notes and such as to how I did mine. When it worked, I did a howto on it from a "fools" point of view. I put it on about three different sites. LQ, JL and one other one. It had a HUGE amount of views. If followed, it worked. I think me explaining from a beginners perspective helped a lot of people, plus I tried to keep it simple, like me. lol I think some of the reason I haven't grasped LVM is that it is somewhat complicated and it is explained by folks that know the nuts and bolts of it. It's like explaining Gentoo Linux to a windoze user who has never seen Linux or even knows what a kernel is. I'm still looking up howtos in hope of having a light bulb moment. I'll have one, it's just a matter of when. Alex, I saw your post. I read it a couple times already and am trying to grasp it before replying. It has a lot of good info. May take me a bit. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you would be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) Joost, I see your point. This is my life saying. If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all. I hope for the best but expect the worst. You should see my dining room. Full of food stuff just in case. After my last visit to the grocery store, I'm thinking I may not have enough yet. o_O I also have a generator and some gas stored too. I also have a big garden to grow food as well. I may be disabled but I ain't stupid. I just try to keep the bad things that can happen in the back of my mind and keep a plan going, just in case it does hit the fan. I'm sort of wanting to use this as a learning experience. If I can get things set up, working and understand what the heck things do, then I may try some more stuff. Right now, my light bulb is pretty dim on LVM. I don't understand how it works and what the heck those commands do. I'll have my light bulb moment eventually. Since I don't have the new drive ordered yet, I got time to read, listen and try to grasp it all. Just a old dog trying to learn new tricks. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
- Original Message > From: Joost Roeleveld > On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: > > - Original Message > > > From: Neil Bothwick > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my > > > > OS > > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, > > > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. > > > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, the fact > > that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM group, leaving > > the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There was a thread on that > > (started by me) a while back (over a year). > > > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives under LVM > > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA waiting > > to happen. > > > > Ben > > Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks can > be > > affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in place > that can handle the loss of a disk. > For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides that. > > Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I think > that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs that were > not > using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? > If you have the LV configuration information, then yes. Since I managed to find the configuration information, I was able to remove the affected PVs from the VG, and get it back up. I might still have it running, but I'll back it out on the next rebuild - or if I have a drive large enough to do so with in the future. I was wanting to use LVM as a bit of a software RAID, but never quite got that far in the configuration before it failed. It does do a good job at what it's designed for, but I would not trust the OS to it either since the LVM configuration is very important to keep around. If not, good luck as far as I can tell. Ben
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 15:41:00 Joost Roeleveld wrote: > On Thursday 07 April 2011 14:31:43 Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > > I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) > > > > > > Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you > > > would > > > be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) > > > > But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) > > LOL :) > Seriously, if all the Open Source developers would make the software > reliable enough to pass his testing methods, there wouldn't be any grounds > for discussion :) > It would just work, always > > -- > Joost > > PS. I actually enjoy having people on the list with different levels and > types of experience. I think I probably learn more stuff via questions from > so-called "beginners" then from the "old-timers" ;) Actually, thinking about it. Dale, please do try what Neil suggested. Preferably also document what you do so we have a few test cases :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 14:31:43 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) > > > > Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you would > > be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) > > But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) LOL :) Seriously, if all the Open Source developers would make the software reliable enough to pass his testing methods, there wouldn't be any grounds for discussion :) It would just work, always -- Joost PS. I actually enjoy having people on the list with different levels and types of experience. I think I probably learn more stuff via questions from so-called "beginners" then from the "old-timers" ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:33 +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) > > Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you would > be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) But not on any project you wanted to finish on time ;-) -- Neil Bothwick Blessed be the pessimist for he hath made backups. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:20:55 BRM wrote: > - Original Message > > > From: Neil Bothwick > > > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my > > > OS > > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, > > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > Makes perfect sense to me as well. > > Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, the fact > that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM group, leaving > the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There was a thread on that > (started by me) a while back (over a year). > > So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives under LVM > for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA waiting > to happen. > > Ben Unfortunately, any method that spreads a filesystem over multiple disks can be affected if one of those disks dies unless there is some mechanism in place that can handle the loss of a disk. For that, RAID (with the exception of striping, eg. RAID-0) provides that. Just out of curiousity, as I never had the need to look into this, I think that, in theory, it should be possible to recover data from LVs that were not using the failed drive. Is this assumption correct or wrong? -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 14:04:05 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:49:55 -0500, Dale wrote: > > > Bear in mind that LVM has been around for years. It is proven and > > > reliable. Once setup, you don't have to touch it, so you can't break > > > it. The least trustworthy part of your system remains the user. > > > > Since I have no experience with LVM, that is the part I am worried > > about. If I knew everything you, Alan, Joost and others knew, I'd just > > install everything on it and hope for the best. I'm concerned that if > > something did go wrong and I couldn't get help, I'd loose everything. > > I don't have any way to back up this much data. I hate webmail. I > > guess I could but that would just get on my nerves something bad. > > In that case, set up a small physical volume and create a volume group > that holds nothing important. Do you best to break it and only when you > fail should you consider putting anything of any importance on there. Eeerh... Neil I think Dale will probably succeed in breaking it :) Dale, this comment isn't meant as an insult. I honestly think you would be perfect for some QA or Testing job :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
- Original Message > From: Neil Bothwick > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS > > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > Makes perfect sense to me as well. Having installed LVM - and then removed it due to issues; namely, the fact that one of the hard drives died taking out the whole LVM group, leaving the OS unbootable, and not easily fixable. There was a thread on that (started by me) a while back (over a year). So, perhaps if I had a RAID to underly so I could mirror drives under LVM for recovery I'd move to it again. But otherwise it is just a PITA waiting to happen. Ben
Re: [gentoo-user] screen just saved my day!
On Thursday 07 April 2011 18:39:12 Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:31, Mick wrote: > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 05:44:17 Pandu Poluan wrote: > > > Someone really should mention 'screen' in the handbook; that > > > venerable > > > tool just saved my day :) > > > > > > I was in the midst of 'emerge --update --newuse world' over SSH when > > > my office had a 'temporary power failure'. Luckily, I had started a > > > 'screen' session. When the power is restored 5 minutes later, I just > > > re-attach the screen session, and all's well :) > > > > > > Rgds, > > > > Have a look here, under Section 3 - Leaving your Terminal: > > > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-tipsntricks.xml > > -- > > Regards, > > Mick > > Gosh, now I feel stupid and illiterate ;_; Don't worry about that :) I actually think that it's not that easy to find if a "new" Gentoo user can't see it straight away... Just out of curiousity, where did you look? Maybe a link from where you looked to that page might be of use to make the documentation better? Also, the problem with most documented features is, if someone isn't aware of a certain feature, that person might not even look for it and will continue doing things in a sub-optimal method. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] screen just saved my day!
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 19:58, Dale wrote: > Pandu Poluan wrote: >> >> Gosh, now I feel stupid and illiterate ;_; >> >> Rgds, >> -- >> Pandu E Poluan >> ~ IT Optimizer ~ >> Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com >> >> >> > > Welcome to my world. ROFLMAO > > Dale > > :-) :-) > > Of course, after reading the [Gentoo-User] archives on "tmux vs. screen", I think I'll use tmux when Gentoo installation completes ;-) (And yeah, I *did* see your posting there, Dale) Rgds, -- Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:49:55 -0500, Dale wrote: > > Bear in mind that LVM has been around for years. It is proven and > > reliable. Once setup, you don't have to touch it, so you can't break > > it. The least trustworthy part of your system remains the user. > Since I have no experience with LVM, that is the part I am worried > about. If I knew everything you, Alan, Joost and others knew, I'd just > install everything on it and hope for the best. I'm concerned that if > something did go wrong and I couldn't get help, I'd loose everything. > I don't have any way to back up this much data. I hate webmail. I > guess I could but that would just get on my nerves something bad. In that case, set up a small physical volume and create a volume group that holds nothing important. Do you best to break it and only when you fail should you consider putting anything of any importance on there. -- Neil Bothwick Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 07:49:55 Dale wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 06:28:40 -0500, Dale wrote: > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put > my > OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > >>> > >>> This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or > >>> two, > >>> your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > >> > >> It does to me. I want to keep things so that if there is a problem, I > >> know how to fix it or can at least get to a point that I can get help > >> on it. If LVM fails and I can't boot, then I loose everything on LVM > >> because I would have to reinstall from scratch. If it fails just on > >> my > >> data stuff, I can get help and fix it because I can still boot up and > >> get to my email program. > > > > We have these things called live CDs and webmail :P > > > > Bear in mind that LVM has been around for years. It is proven and > > reliable. Once setup, you don't have to touch it, so you can't break > > it. The least trustworthy part of your system remains the user. > > Since I have no experience with LVM, that is the part I am worried > about. If I knew everything you, Alan, Joost and others knew, I'd just > install everything on it and hope for the best. I'm concerned that if > something did go wrong and I couldn't get help, I'd loose everything. I > don't have any way to back up this much data. I hate webmail. I guess > I could but that would just get on my nerves something bad. GMails webmail isn't too bad, tbh :) I agree though, it's difficult to back up all the data and I have actually decided to only back-up a subset of what I have on the server. It also helps to have more then 1 system when something does go wrong. Even a small laptop (netbook-style) that can connect is of great help. I don't think I know everything, but I do tend to be lucky enough to be able to find the info I need online. Then again, internet usage is a bit more widespread where I live. > Why is it that whenever I think I have found a good drive that is in the > 1 to 2Tb range, it has awful reviews? Things like DOA, died after a few > hours, days or weeks of use. This has me concerned. I have yet to have > a drive go bad but are they making crap nowadays or what? Short answer: yes :) Long answer: the drives are getting a higher density the whole time which makes them more difficult to produce. Also, companies have found it's cheaper to offer free warranty-replacements then make more reliable drives in the first place. Never mind most people only have the computer running for a few hours a day. Not like some of us who have them running 24/7 :) I currently use WD's Green drives in my server and they do tend to be reliable as long as they can be kept decently cooled. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] screen just saved my day!
Pandu Poluan wrote: Gosh, now I feel stupid and illiterate ;_; Rgds, -- Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com Welcome to my world. ROFLMAO Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 06:28:40 -0500, Dale wrote: I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. It does to me. I want to keep things so that if there is a problem, I know how to fix it or can at least get to a point that I can get help on it. If LVM fails and I can't boot, then I loose everything on LVM because I would have to reinstall from scratch. If it fails just on my data stuff, I can get help and fix it because I can still boot up and get to my email program. We have these things called live CDs and webmail :P Bear in mind that LVM has been around for years. It is proven and reliable. Once setup, you don't have to touch it, so you can't break it. The least trustworthy part of your system remains the user. Since I have no experience with LVM, that is the part I am worried about. If I knew everything you, Alan, Joost and others knew, I'd just install everything on it and hope for the best. I'm concerned that if something did go wrong and I couldn't get help, I'd loose everything. I don't have any way to back up this much data. I hate webmail. I guess I could but that would just get on my nerves something bad. Why is it that whenever I think I have found a good drive that is in the 1 to 2Tb range, it has awful reviews? Things like DOA, died after a few hours, days or weeks of use. This has me concerned. I have yet to have a drive go bad but are they making crap nowadays or what? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Gregory Shearman wrote: In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. It does to me. I want to keep things so that if there is a problem, I know how to fix it or can at least get to a point that I can get help on it. If LVM fails and I can't boot, then I loose everything on LVM because I would have to reinstall from scratch. If it fails just on my data stuff, I can get help and fix it because I can still boot up and get to my email program. Also, I have the important stuff backed up to DVD. I would only loose things that I can download again. I would just rather avoid that and I'm sure AT&T would agree. That's a lot of downloading. I have all my partitions on LVM except the boot partition. I've used LVM for more years than I could count and have *never* had a failure related to LVM. I backup my machines to an external drive (2 backup drives actually) using rsync. If I have a failure and cannot boot then I just put in my Gentoo Minimal CD (which has all the LVM tools available) and I can fix the damage. If the damage isn't fixable then I can just copy over the backups. LVM snapshots make live backups a breeze. Backups are always in a consistent state and I've tested them and they *work*. If you know how to do that, then that works. Right now, I have no experience with LVM. All I know is what I have read which is about as clear as mud. ;-) Dale :-) :-) P. S. I wonder why this reply was not threaded with the rest? I see this happen sometimes with other threads. Always been curious about that.
Re: [gentoo-user] screen just saved my day!
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 05:44:17 Pandu Poluan wrote: >> Someone really should mention 'screen' in the handbook; that venerable >> tool just saved my day :) >> I was in the midst of 'emerge --update --newuse world' over SSH when >> my office had a 'temporary power failure'. Luckily, I had started a >> 'screen' session. When the power is restored 5 minutes later, I just >> re-attach the screen session, and all's well :) >> Rgds, > > Have a look here, under Section 3 - Leaving your Terminal: > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-tipsntricks.xml > Regards, > Mick I run a SheevaPlug with Gentoo installed. I use 'Screen' to talk to the SheevaPlug via its serial USB connection: # screen /dev/ttyUSB0 115200 This gets me to a login screen on the SheevaPlug. The serial USB connection is only used for installation and if the network connection to the SheevaPlug is unavailable for any reason. Screen should get a medal. -- Regards, Gregory.
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: >> >> >>> I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS >>> on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. >>> >> This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, >> your photos etc. are irreplaceable. >> >> > > It does to me. I want to keep things so that if there is a problem, I > know how to fix it or can at least get to a point that I can get help on > it. If LVM fails and I can't boot, then I loose everything on LVM > because I would have to reinstall from scratch. If it fails just on my > data stuff, I can get help and fix it because I can still boot up and > get to my email program. Also, I have the important stuff backed up to > DVD. I would only loose things that I can download again. I would just > rather avoid that and I'm sure AT&T would agree. That's a lot of > downloading. I have all my partitions on LVM except the boot partition. I've used LVM for more years than I could count and have *never* had a failure related to LVM. I backup my machines to an external drive (2 backup drives actually) using rsync. If I have a failure and cannot boot then I just put in my Gentoo Minimal CD (which has all the LVM tools available) and I can fix the damage. If the damage isn't fixable then I can just copy over the backups. LVM snapshots make live backups a breeze. Backups are always in a consistent state and I've tested them and they *work*. -- Regards, Gregory.
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 06:12:40 Dale wrote: > Joost Roeleveld wrote: > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 05:22:41 Dale wrote: > > You will need to do it in the following steps though: > > - create PV, LVM and LV on the new drive > > - copy data over > > - create PV on old drive and add it to LVM > > Contact me or list if you need help with the actual commands and syntax. > > (There are plenty of howtos around) > > I was reading the howto on a couple sites and it sounded like this could > be done. Glad to know I would have to copy the files over to a LVM > drive tho. That info was something I didn't know. I was hoping for > some magic. lol As far as I know, there is no "automatic conversion tool" for most of these. Switching from non-raid to RAID-1 (mirroring) is the only one I think that might work. > >> I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS > >> on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > > > > Interesting argument. You don't trust LVM, so you put your personal > > files on there, but not the easily replacable stuff like OS? :) > > I like my OS setup and don't want to have to reinstall. Although Gentoo > has never let me down yet, I don't want to add to the confusion. If I > can boot and get to my email, I can get help to fix LVM if needed. I > also keep a backup of my personal files. I could recover the things I > don't backup tho. Most of my concern is my lack of experience with > LVM. If I was a guru on it, I might feel better about it. Worst case I had: the metadata was incorrect. This was back with 2.6.18 kernels though. That was also easily recovered as all the LVM-tools, with default configuration, backup the metadata to a text-file before/after making any chances. You can then easily recover if anything goes wrong :) > > Please note, I have not lost data related to issues with LVM. I have, in > > the distant past, lost data related to issues with filesystems. > > Because of the latter, I rely on a combination of RAID-subsystems with > > LVM on top and reliable backups :) > > > > -- > > Joost Roeleveld > > Unless someone has a better idea, I think LVM is about all I can find > that would do this. The drives won't be even close to each other. I > hope I can find a nice 2Tb drive that I can afford. ;-) Maybe that > will last a while. The 750Gb drive did last a pretty good while. I'm > not sure after that tho. I've got 6 * 1.5TB drives in RAID-5 for documents and media and we have about 2TB left. But with our usage, I'll probably have to look into extending that later this year. > Thanks for the info. It did add to my knowledge and settle one of my > questions. Always glad to help. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 06:28:40 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my > >> OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. > >> > > This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, > > your photos etc. are irreplaceable. > > > > > > It does to me. I want to keep things so that if there is a problem, I > know how to fix it or can at least get to a point that I can get help > on it. If LVM fails and I can't boot, then I loose everything on LVM > because I would have to reinstall from scratch. If it fails just on my > data stuff, I can get help and fix it because I can still boot up and > get to my email program. We have these things called live CDs and webmail :P Bear in mind that LVM has been around for years. It is proven and reliable. Once setup, you don't have to touch it, so you can't break it. The least trustworthy part of your system remains the user. -- Neil Bothwick First Law of Laboratory Work: Hot glass looks exactly the same as cold glass. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] screen just saved my day!
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:31, Mick wrote: > > On Thursday 07 April 2011 05:44:17 Pandu Poluan wrote: > > Someone really should mention 'screen' in the handbook; that venerable > > tool just saved my day :) > > > > I was in the midst of 'emerge --update --newuse world' over SSH when > > my office had a 'temporary power failure'. Luckily, I had started a > > 'screen' session. When the power is restored 5 minutes later, I just > > re-attach the screen session, and all's well :) > > > > Rgds, > > Have a look here, under Section 3 - Leaving your Terminal: > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-tipsntricks.xml > -- > Regards, > Mick Gosh, now I feel stupid and illiterate ;_; Rgds, -- Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Dale writes:
> Quick question about LVM. I have a 750Gb drive that has miscellaneous
> stuff on it. Stuff likes videos, music, pictures, ISO files and a few
> other things. It's not full yet but it is working on it. I have my OS
> on sda. The large drive is on sdc. If I buy another drive it should be
> sdd. I think this is possible from what I have read but want to make
> sure. Could I put sdc and sdd on LVM but the OS remain as it is with
> LVM not involved at all? Basically, my OS stays just like it is and is
> not touched my LVM at all but the two larger drives are managed by LVM.
>
> I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS
> on. Just my personal opinion on LVM.
# create some partitions, or a single one. I prefer to have multiple ones,
just in case I want to put other stuff there, like another OS.
cfdisk /dev/sdd
# create physical volumes (assuming you have /dev/sdd5 to /dev/sdd8)
pvcreate /dev/sdd[5678]
# create volume group 'stuff', using all those partitions
vgcreate stuff /dev/sdd[5678]
# create logical volumes. You probably will only have a single one, but
here's how you would do this if you want three.
lvcreate -L 300G -n musicstuff
lvcreate -L 100G -n pictures stuff
lvcreate -L 100G -n otherstuff
# create file systems
for fs in music pictures other
do
mke2fs -j -m 1 -L $fs /dev/stuff/$fs
done
> If there is a better solution to link two large drives, I'm open to
> those ideas as well. LVM is all I can think of is why I mention it.
RAID would be another solution.
Beware, when one drive fails, all data can be lost.
# mount the filesystems, and move stuff from sdc to them
# call cfdisk and partition sdc (if you like)
# create physical volumes:
pvcreate /dev/sdc*
# extend volume group
vgextend stuff /dev/sdc*
# want to enlarge file systems?
lvresize -L 1000G /dev/stuff/other
resize2fs /dev/stuff/other
Use pvscan, lvscan and vgscan to check what physical/logical volumes and
volume groups you have. {pv,lv,vg}dispklay give more verbose information.
You might want to have more than one volume group. Maybe one for not so
important data, that spans over two disks, and one or two that reside on a
single drive only. So in case one drive fails, you do not lose too much
data. What about a volume group that stores backups of each file system on
sda?
Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. It does to me. I want to keep things so that if there is a problem, I know how to fix it or can at least get to a point that I can get help on it. If LVM fails and I can't boot, then I loose everything on LVM because I would have to reinstall from scratch. If it fails just on my data stuff, I can get help and fix it because I can still boot up and get to my email program. Also, I have the important stuff backed up to DVD. I would only loose things that I can download again. I would just rather avoid that and I'm sure AT&T would agree. That's a lot of downloading. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:22:41 -0500, Dale wrote: > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. This doesn't make sense. Your OS can be reinstalled in an hour or two, your photos etc. are irreplaceable. -- Neil Bothwick Advanced: (adj.) doesn't work yet, but it's pretty close. See: bug, glitch. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Joost Roeleveld wrote: On Thursday 07 April 2011 05:22:41 Dale wrote: Hi, Quick question about LVM. I have a 750Gb drive that has miscellaneous stuff on it. Stuff likes videos, music, pictures, ISO files and a few other things. It's not full yet but it is working on it. I have my OS on sda. The large drive is on sdc. If I buy another drive it should be sdd. I think this is possible from what I have read but want to make sure. Could I put sdc and sdd on LVM but the OS remain as it is with LVM not involved at all? Basically, my OS stays just like it is and is not touched my LVM at all but the two larger drives are managed by LVM. Simple (and complete answer): Yes, you can use LVM only for a subset of the drives you have inside a system. You will need to do it in the following steps though: - create PV, LVM and LV on the new drive - copy data over - create PV on old drive and add it to LVM Contact me or list if you need help with the actual commands and syntax. (There are plenty of howtos around) I was reading the howto on a couple sites and it sounded like this could be done. Glad to know I would have to copy the files over to a LVM drive tho. That info was something I didn't know. I was hoping for some magic. lol I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. Interesting argument. You don't trust LVM, so you put your personal files on there, but not the easily replacable stuff like OS? :) I like my OS setup and don't want to have to reinstall. Although Gentoo has never let me down yet, I don't want to add to the confusion. If I can boot and get to my email, I can get help to fix LVM if needed. I also keep a backup of my personal files. I could recover the things I don't backup tho. Most of my concern is my lack of experience with LVM. If I was a guru on it, I might feel better about it. If there is a better solution to link two large drives, I'm open to those ideas as well. LVM is all I can think of is why I mention it. RAID-0 (if they're same size) or linking them together. Compared to those, I would always recommend LVM as that is easier to maintain then JBOD or RAID-0. There might also be filesystems that include disk-spanning, but if you're already not convinced about LVM being reliable, I wouldn't use one of these filesystems then. Please note, I have not lost data related to issues with LVM. I have, in the distant past, lost data related to issues with filesystems. Because of the latter, I rely on a combination of RAID-subsystems with LVM on top and reliable backups :) -- Joost Roeleveld Unless someone has a better idea, I think LVM is about all I can find that would do this. The drives won't be even close to each other. I hope I can find a nice 2Tb drive that I can afford. ;-) Maybe that will last a while. The 750Gb drive did last a pretty good while. I'm not sure after that tho. Thanks for the info. It did add to my knowledge and settle one of my questions. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
On Thursday 07 April 2011 05:22:41 Dale wrote: > Hi, > > Quick question about LVM. I have a 750Gb drive that has miscellaneous > stuff on it. Stuff likes videos, music, pictures, ISO files and a few > other things. It's not full yet but it is working on it. I have my OS > on sda. The large drive is on sdc. If I buy another drive it should be > sdd. I think this is possible from what I have read but want to make > sure. Could I put sdc and sdd on LVM but the OS remain as it is with > LVM not involved at all? Basically, my OS stays just like it is and is > not touched my LVM at all but the two larger drives are managed by LVM. Simple (and complete answer): Yes, you can use LVM only for a subset of the drives you have inside a system. You will need to do it in the following steps though: - create PV, LVM and LV on the new drive - copy data over - create PV on old drive and add it to LVM Contact me or list if you need help with the actual commands and syntax. (There are plenty of howtos around) > I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS > on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. Interesting argument. You don't trust LVM, so you put your personal files on there, but not the easily replacable stuff like OS? :) > If there is a better solution to link two large drives, I'm open to > those ideas as well. LVM is all I can think of is why I mention it. RAID-0 (if they're same size) or linking them together. Compared to those, I would always recommend LVM as that is easier to maintain then JBOD or RAID-0. There might also be filesystems that include disk-spanning, but if you're already not convinced about LVM being reliable, I wouldn't use one of these filesystems then. Please note, I have not lost data related to issues with LVM. I have, in the distant past, lost data related to issues with filesystems. Because of the latter, I rely on a combination of RAID-subsystems with LVM on top and reliable backups :) -- Joost Roeleveld
[gentoo-user] LVM for data drives but not the OS
Hi, Quick question about LVM. I have a 750Gb drive that has miscellaneous stuff on it. Stuff likes videos, music, pictures, ISO files and a few other things. It's not full yet but it is working on it. I have my OS on sda. The large drive is on sdc. If I buy another drive it should be sdd. I think this is possible from what I have read but want to make sure. Could I put sdc and sdd on LVM but the OS remain as it is with LVM not involved at all? Basically, my OS stays just like it is and is not touched my LVM at all but the two larger drives are managed by LVM. I want to do it this way because I don't trust LVM enough to put my OS on. Just my personal opinion on LVM. If there is a better solution to link two large drives, I'm open to those ideas as well. LVM is all I can think of is why I mention it. Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Missing distfile?
Peter Humphrey wrote: Hello list, What's happened to =net-libs/gnutls-2.10.5? One of my boxes wants to upgrade to this version (from 2.10.4) but it's nowhere to be seen. This is the third day, too, so it isn't just a brief asynchrony between servers. Either the mirrors you are trying don't have it yet for some reason or it *could* be a bug and it is looking in the wrong place or something. I found it here tho. http://ftp.download-by.net/gnu/gnu/gnutls/ You can download it and put it in distfiles and see if that helps. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Missing distfile?
Hello list, What's happened to =net-libs/gnutls-2.10.5? One of my boxes wants to upgrade to this version (from 2.10.4) but it's nowhere to be seen. This is the third day, too, so it isn't just a brief asynchrony between servers. -- Rgds Peter
