duplicity and S3
Hello, Is there anyone out there using duplicity with Amazon S3 backend? Last night I was trying to set-up some backup with this, but I'm always getting message "backend cannot be accessed". Google does not help, however I've found some article on bugs of the python module used. So, the question is is there any working solution for fedora using S3 as backup destination? Thanks L: -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: rsyslog
> I demonstrated several simple and practical commands that have real-life > use cases, where similar filtering would not be as simple or direct with > bare rsyslog. The addition of journald was not arbitrary, and I was > offering genuinely helpful advice, not trolling. > > If my tone at the beginning suggested otherwise, it was because I've seen > threads like this turn into "I like the old thing fine so Fedora should > not > use the new thing" many, many times. The discussion is never productive > and rarely based on any technical technical argument . > > As to your question, there are probably answers in various mailing list > archives. Fedora editions that wanted to have rsyslog do, others do not. > Consensus on the user support mailing list is not a prerequisite for > change. If you want to participate in an effective and useful way, I'm > happy to help you find that path, but please don't lessen the value of > this > list with opinion rants and overtly negative attitudes. I do think your tone was a bit negative to my somewhat playful response about losing my house. So I donât think I was âlessening the value of this listâ. I can figure out how to use journalctl and will if that is the direction we must move in. However, someone must speak for the trees. Change by its very nature is disruptive and by removing something like /var/log/messages we create a butterfly effect. Are you one of the developers that made this change?  Did you take into account all the history we have had with that file? If you are not one of the developers, why argue the point anyway? My hope is to catch the eye of the decision makers and give them a point of view that perhaps they didnât have when making this decision. Or is this the wrong place for such a hope? It is true. You did demonstrate possible ways to use journalctl and I appreciate that. I'm not against using it. However I do also have the responsibility to teach the junior admins at my job how to get things done on our systems. If we need to change, it takes not just learning the new way of doing it, we have to change our documentation. In the case of the messages file, we have to change a wide array of scripts that were developed over years (sometimes by people no longer with us) to use a new process. Why does this matter on Fedora? Well, isn't Fedora the building blocks for Redhat Enterprise Linux? If we change it here, won't it eventually make it there? Then it is no longer just an issue for the Fedora crowd right? I use Fedora because we use Redhat. Maybe that link isn't as pronounced for everyone else here but those are _my_ reasons for wanting to moderate the changes. Anyway, sorry for my reaction there but I think open discussions as to the reasons for the changes are good and necessary. It could even be that we find out a change will cause too much disruption from an open discussion just like this one. ^.^ Consensus on the user support mailing list may not be a prerequisite for change but it should have a strong bearing on said change. --- Will Y. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 21 pulseaudio
Hope someone can offer some suggestions here
I converted my desktop from Arch to Fedora last night and I am having some
sound issues.
from journalctl -f:
Mar 05 11:11:14 rtkit-daemon[755]: Successfully made thread 3115 of
process 3115 (/usr/bin/pulseaudio) owned by '1000' high priority at nice
level -11.
Mar 05 11:11:14 rtkit-daemon[755]: Supervising 1 threads of 1 processes of
1 users.
Mar 05 11:11:14 pulseaudio[3115]: [pulseaudio] pid.c: Stale PID file,
overwriting.
Mar 05 11:11:14 kernel: traps: pulseaudio[3115] general protection
ip:7fbec50e6481 sp:7fff2a02b8a0 error:0 in
libasound.so.2.0.0[7fbec5067000+e1000]
Mar 05 11:11:14 abrt-hook-ccpp[3118]: Not saving repeating crash in
'/usr/bin/pulseaudio'
Mar 05 11:11:14 pulseaudio[3112]: [pulseaudio] main.c: Daemon startup
failed.
$ lspci | grep Audio
00:06.1 Audio device: NVIDIA Corporation MCP55 High Definition Audio (rev
a2)
$ aplay -l
List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices
card 0: NVidia [HDA NVidia], device 0: AD1988B Analog [AD1988B Analog]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
card 0: NVidia [HDA NVidia], device 1: AD1988B Digital [AD1988B Digital]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
card 0: NVidia [HDA NVidia], device 2: AD1988B Alt Analog [AD1988B Alt
Analog]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
Card 0:0 sort of works if I:
aplay -D plughw:0,0 /usr/share/sounds/alsa/Front_Right.wav
** I say sort of because it plays through both front speakers, not just the
Front Right.
Anyways, I've tried a couple of things that I've googles, but nothing seems
to work in getting sound working..
I put in /etc/asound.conf
pcm.!default {
type plug slave.pcm {
type hw card 0 device 0
}
}
and blacklisted pcspkr (This is all I needed to do in Arch.)
Anyone have an suggestions on getting sound to work?
Thanks,
Chad
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Assistance building a backup server
Hi, I have a fedora20 system acting as a backup server, and I've exceeded its capacity. I'd like to build a bigger one, probably using fedora21. I currently have a 3TB backup system using five 1TB disks in RAID5. Restore times in case of disk failure are already exceedingly long, so I'd like to consider another method of providing redundancy, and would like suggestions. I'd like to have 6TB of usable space using 2TB disks. Is ext4 still best for this? Some RAID variant or is there something better? Are there any NAS projects that may be beneficial? Thanks for any ideas. Alex -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Assistance building a backup server
On 03/05/2015 08:48 AM, Alex Regan wrote: Hi, I have a fedora20 system acting as a backup server, and I've exceeded its capacity. I'd like to build a bigger one, probably using fedora21. I currently have a 3TB backup system using five 1TB disks in RAID5. Restore times in case of disk failure are already exceedingly long, so I'd like to consider another method of providing redundancy, and would like suggestions. Five 1TB disks in a RAID5 should give you about 4TB usable storage. Are you sure you're not using RAID6 (two parity drives)? I'd like to have 6TB of usable space using 2TB disks. Four 2TB drives in a RAID5 or five 2TB drives in a RAID6 would give you this. I'd vote for the RAID6. Is ext4 still best for this? BTRFS or (gulp!) XFS might be better, although ext4 would work. Some RAID variant or is there something better? The bigger the partition (LUN, PV, LV, whatever), the longer the recovery times are in case of a disk failure. I run a number of very large storage platforms (>500TB) and as soon as any LUN hits the 1TB mark, I immediately go to RAID6, simply because there is a possibility that a second drive may go bad while the first one is rebuilding. RAID6 gives me that cushion. There are a couple of things I do: 1. I prefer using hardware RAID over software RAID. More expensive, but I feel it's more reliable. 2. I like using hot-swappable drive arrays so drive replacement is easy. 3. I like having my drives from different manufacturing batches because (and this is just based on experience--I can't prove it) when one drive from a batch dies, another from that same batch with the same number of running hours on it will likely die soon. Are there any NAS projects that may be beneficial? The underlying technology of the drive arrays will be the same in a NAS as a SAN. It's only the access method that's different and the fact that some attributes (permissions, ACLs, etc.) may not be translatable between the native system and a NAS. Generally they are translatable on a SAN (and I include raw SAN LUNs shared via iSCSI in this) simply because it is a directly coupled system and uses the host's native filesystems. Your mileage may vary and I'm sure others on the list have equally strong opinions. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - To err is human. To forgive, a large sum of money is needed.- -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 21 pulseaudio
The only way I am getting it to work is to force it.. /etc/pulse/default.pa load-module module-alsa-sink device=hw:0,0 On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Chad Kellerman wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Paul Cartwright > wrote: > >> On 03/05/2015 11:53 AM, Chad Kellerman wrote: >> > Ok??? That worked >> > >> > Default output device says Dummy Output. But I got sound.. >> > >> > >> > Thanks... >> output depends on what is playing from.. You need your source to be >> playing, then change the PAvolume to your card.. > > > Now it's gone. I rebooted and can't get sound... I was able to pull up > youtube with sound before now it's gone.. > > > > > > -- > Remember Folks... "I'm sorry" and "My Bad" mean the same thing. Unless > you are at a funeral. > -- Remember Folks... "I'm sorry" and "My Bad" mean the same thing. Unless you are at a funeral. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: rsyslog
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Will Yonker wrote: > Are you one of the > developers that made this change? Did you take into account all the history > we have had with that file? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoDefaultSyslog Fedora is a community project. The people who decide are necessarily the developers of the change itself. There's a change process through FESCo, just like this one. With Fedora 21, productization resulted in just the server product reverting to including and enabling rsyslog by default. > My hope is to catch the eye of the decision makers and > give them a point of view that perhaps they didn’t have when making this > decision. Or is this the wrong place for such a hope? Those discussions happen on devel@ and I'd also say it's about timing. These rsyslog and systemd-journald discussions go back to late 2012. > Why does this matter on Fedora? Well, isn't Fedora the building blocks for > Redhat Enterprise Linux? If we change it here, won't it eventually make it > there? The change is already in RHEL/CentOS 7. The journal is the primary logging tool, however rsyslog is installed and runs by default as well. > Anyway, sorry for my reaction there but I think open discussions as to the > reasons for the changes are good and necessary. It could even be that we > find out a change will cause too much disruption from an open discussion > just like this one. ^.^ That's completely appropriate, but when people start complaining about a change that happened quite a while ago, at a time when all the angles were exposed and argued multiple times, it just seems like a case of "oh boy, here we go again" rather than something new. > Consensus on the user support mailing list may not be a prerequisite for > change but it should have a strong bearing on said change. That's a difficult approach. For one it produces a lot of noisy data (statistically and figuratively), but it's also going to be subject to a lot of confirmation bias by users who just don't have any common frame of reference yet for the proposed change. So they can only imagine problems, rather than benefits. That leads to an inherent resistance to new things. Fedora decision makers are users, so they're subject to their own changes. I wouldn't consider these decisions being done in isolation. What does /var/log/README say about this? I haven't read it in forever but there is a README there that explains these changes. I wonder if it does, or should if it doesn't, describe how to revert back to the old behavior by installing rsyslog? -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Assistance building a backup server
Hi, I currently have a 3TB backup system using five 1TB disks in RAID5. Restore times in case of disk failure are already exceedingly long, so I'd like to consider another method of providing redundancy, and would like suggestions. Five 1TB disks in a RAID5 should give you about 4TB usable storage. Are you sure you're not using RAID6 (two parity drives)? Yes, that's what I also thought. It's been so long since it was built that after just checking, I see it's actually only four disks, with two other 1TB drives in the system set up as a mirror. I'd like to have 6TB of usable space using 2TB disks. Four 2TB drives in a RAID5 or five 2TB drives in a RAID6 would give you this. I'd vote for the RAID6. Is ext4 still best for this? BTRFS or (gulp!) XFS might be better, although ext4 would work. Is btrfs used in production? I wasn't sure that it was fully stable yet. Some RAID variant or is there something better? The bigger the partition (LUN, PV, LV, whatever), the longer the recovery times are in case of a disk failure. I run a number of very large storage platforms (>500TB) and as soon as any LUN hits the 1TB mark, I immediately go to RAID6, simply because there is a possibility that a second drive may go bad while the first one is rebuilding. RAID6 gives me that cushion. Yes, cool, I'd definitely use RAID6 then. There is that relatively larger portion of unusable data, however. It's not so bad on a 500TB array, but with just 5TB or 6TB, it's more expensive. It's always about tradeoffs, though. 1. I prefer using hardware RAID over software RAID. More expensive, but I feel it's more reliable. 2. I like using hot-swappable drive arrays so drive replacement is easy. 3. I like having my drives from different manufacturing batches because (and this is just based on experience--I can't prove it) when one drive from a batch dies, another from that same batch with the same number of running hours on it will likely die soon. Good tips. I've got a few Adaptecs in production, but have always been worried about 1) having to be physically at the machine to fix the serious (any?) problems 2) increased sense of general lack of control and more of a feeling of one wrong move destroys the whole array, 3) lack of status reporting without being in the GUI. I believe Adaptec has some remote logging capabilities, but historically it's been limited and perhaps even now only on certain models. Are there any NAS projects that may be beneficial? The underlying technology of the drive arrays will be the same in a NAS as a SAN. It's only the access method that's different and the fact that some attributes (permissions, ACLs, etc.) may not be translatable between the native system and a NAS. Generally they are translatable on a SAN (and I include raw SAN LUNs shared via iSCSI in this) simply because it is a directly coupled system and uses the host's native filesystems. I thought SANs were generally attached via iSCSI, correct? There are cases where they are not? Maybe over dedicated ethernet? That's a much bigger proposition, but interesting idea. This creates the ability for a separate enclosure dedicated to storing the array's disks, correct? How about backup applications? I'm currently using rsync with the --hard-links option and a shell script built years ago. It was built before Amanda had support for spanning tapes/disks. Is there something that's robust and easier to setup than Amanda? Thanks, Alex -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Assistance building a backup server
On 03/05/2015 10:53 AM, Alex Regan wrote: Hi, I currently have a 3TB backup system using five 1TB disks in RAID5. Restore times in case of disk failure are already exceedingly long, so I'd like to consider another method of providing redundancy, and would like suggestions. Five 1TB disks in a RAID5 should give you about 4TB usable storage. Are you sure you're not using RAID6 (two parity drives)? Yes, that's what I also thought. It's been so long since it was built that after just checking, I see it's actually only four disks, with two other 1TB drives in the system set up as a mirror. I'd like to have 6TB of usable space using 2TB disks. Four 2TB drives in a RAID5 or five 2TB drives in a RAID6 would give you this. I'd vote for the RAID6. Is ext4 still best for this? BTRFS or (gulp!) XFS might be better, although ext4 would work. Is btrfs used in production? I wasn't sure that it was fully stable yet. btrfs is in production now. F21 fully supports it and (I think) it's the default for F21. Some RAID variant or is there something better? The bigger the partition (LUN, PV, LV, whatever), the longer the recovery times are in case of a disk failure. I run a number of very large storage platforms (>500TB) and as soon as any LUN hits the 1TB mark, I immediately go to RAID6, simply because there is a possibility that a second drive may go bad while the first one is rebuilding. RAID6 gives me that cushion. Yes, cool, I'd definitely use RAID6 then. There is that relatively larger portion of unusable data, however. It's not so bad on a 500TB array, but with just 5TB or 6TB, it's more expensive. It's always about tradeoffs, though. Yes, but again, with a rebuild of a failed drive taking a LONG time, I'm worried about a second drive going "poof!" during that period. Another 2TB drive seems cheap compared to a degraded RAID5 losing a second drive during rebuild. 1. I prefer using hardware RAID over software RAID. More expensive, but I feel it's more reliable. 2. I like using hot-swappable drive arrays so drive replacement is easy. 3. I like having my drives from different manufacturing batches because (and this is just based on experience--I can't prove it) when one drive from a batch dies, another from that same batch with the same number of running hours on it will likely die soon. Good tips. I've got a few Adaptecs in production, but have always been worried about 1) having to be physically at the machine to fix the serious (any?) problems 2) increased sense of general lack of control and more of a feeling of one wrong move destroys the whole array, 3) lack of status reporting without being in the GUI. Adaptec is good. MegaRAID also is good and there are monitoring tools available for OpsView and Nagios to watch it. We use it a lot. I believe Adaptec has some remote logging capabilities, but historically it's been limited and perhaps even now only on certain models. Are there any NAS projects that may be beneficial? The underlying technology of the drive arrays will be the same in a NAS as a SAN. It's only the access method that's different and the fact that some attributes (permissions, ACLs, etc.) may not be translatable between the native system and a NAS. Generally they are translatable on a SAN (and I include raw SAN LUNs shared via iSCSI in this) simply because it is a directly coupled system and uses the host's native filesystems. I thought SANs were generally attached via iSCSI, correct? There are cases where they are not? Maybe over dedicated ethernet? The classic case is SAN attachment via fiberchannel HBAs. That's a much bigger proposition, but interesting idea. This creates the ability for a separate enclosure dedicated to storing the array's disks, correct? Yup. Our big stuff is in entirely separate racks from the servers. How about backup applications? Anything will work. Amanda, Bacula, you name it. We've done it all. It's more about how reliable your hardware is and what utility you feel comfortable with. I'm currently using rsync with the --hard-links option and a shell script built years ago. It was built before Amanda had support for spanning tapes/disks. Is there something that's robust and easier to setup than Amanda? Look at bacula. It works pretty well. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - Do not taunt the sysadmins, for they are subtle and quick to anger - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_
sound troubles
So I'm trying to get sound working on a Raspberry Pi model B running Pidora which is the Fedora (20?) port to RPi. There is no sound configuration upon first boot, the way it is in the regular Fedora, so I'm guessing I have to configure pulseaudio and alsa manually. Does anyone know how sound is configured first time in Fedora? If there is a tool that does that, I could call it on the RPi. The sound device on the RPi uses the snd_bcm2835 driver, which (for reasons I don't understand) is compiled into the kernel, so the driver should not be the problem. I run pulseaudio -D --log-target=file:pulse.log# as normal user aplay -l # still as normal user aplay: device_list:268: no soundcards found... However, as root [root@apollo ~]# aplay -l List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices card 0: ALSA [bcm2835 ALSA], device 0: bcm2835 ALSA [bcm2835 ALSA] Subdevices: 8/8 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 Subdevice #1: subdevice #1 Subdevice #2: subdevice #2 Subdevice #3: subdevice #3 Subdevice #4: subdevice #4 Subdevice #5: subdevice #5 Subdevice #6: subdevice #6 Subdevice #7: subdevice #7 card 0: ALSA [bcm2835 ALSA], device 1: bcm2835 ALSA [bcm2835 IEC958/HDMI] Subdevices: 1/1 Subdevice #0: subdevice #0 But even as root, [root@apollo ~]# amixer ALSA lib pulse.c:243:(pulse_connect) PulseAudio: Unable to connect: Connection refused amixer: Mixer attach default error: Connection refused Similarly for other alsa Short of some tool to probe for the devices and configure the sound, can someone point me or guide me to configure all this manually? Thanks! P.S. I did post this on the relevant RPi forum, but I haven't got a reply and I doubt I'll get one. That's probably because the mainstream linux on the RPi is raspbian - a version of debian - in which sound seems to work, so things must be configured properly for the RPi in raspbian. Fedora is a different story. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Audacity users - quick check - can you open .wav OK ?
Hi, I'm wondering whether I have a machine specific problem. Can you try using audacity to open a wave .wav file ? Try: - from the File|Open menu - from File|Import|Audio menu - file manager and open with audacity Do you get the normal waveform drawn ? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Different behaviour running under strace?
On 04Mar2015 18:27, Rick Stevens wrote: On 03/04/2015 05:01 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: Here's a weird one: A system at work has (God knows why) a gazillion symlinks directly under / pointing to NFS mountpoints for filesystems (some of which might well have high latency). If I run "df -l", using the -l option in the apparently vain hope that it might not timeout forever on some NFS mount, it hangs for a long time. "Walks"? This is df, not du. Consult mount table, do fstats. [...] Since strace requires it to report what it's doing, it's getting interrupted a lot, so it doesn't hang. I mean, it's still waiting on the I/O to complete from NFS, but rather than waiting an interminate time, it's getting interrupts (signals) from strace rather than hanging on the one from the NFS system. I'm fairly certain that strace does not work that way. The traced process is not doing work for the tracer. Just a wild guess. I think so too. Tom: - _after_ a fast straced df, is un unstraced df slow again? (thinking about cached answers to call, caches in the OS, possibly quite briefly) - see if the result of strace's -T option is informative. - since df's output is line buffered on a terminal, the presentation of the lines should tell you where it is hanging. df makes pleasingly few system calls on a handy RHEL5 host. It opens /etc/mtab and essentially just calls statfs() on each name. This implies that determining localness is done based entirely on the contents of /etc/mtab. Also, this shows that there are no other system calls between the write() reporting the prior filesystem and the statfs() inquiring about the next, so watching an unstraced on-a-terminal df should pinpoint the place of stallness. Is it similar on your fedora box? Cheers, Cameron Simpson Against stupiditythe Gods themselves contend in vain! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Audacity users - quick check - can you open .wav OK ?
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:07 PM, David Timms wrote: > Do you get the normal waveform drawn ? Yes, to all three. However, my machine is configured as: Fedora 20 Linux hostname.goes.here 3.18.7-100.fc20.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Feb 11 19:01:50 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Audacity 2.0.6 and I'm using a licensed set of encoder/decoders from Fluendo (highly recommended!) What is it you are seeing? There are a lot of settings in Audacity that cause the display to show things other than waveforms. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Different behaviour running under strace?
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:27:03 +1100 Cameron Simpson wrote: > - _after_ a fast straced df, is un unstraced df slow again? > (thinking about cached answers to call, caches in the OS, possibly quite > briefly) I was yesterday, but today the strace'ed version hung as well and I was able to find and unmount some slow filesystems. I don't know why "df -l" even stat()s an NFS mountpoint at all, it could certainly look at /proc/mounts and find the local only filesystems and utterly ignore the network systems, but it apparently doesn't do that (because I certainly see the stat calls when I strace it). Judging from the strace it gathers all the info first, then formats it for output, so when it hangs, it prints nothing. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Best Way to Handle Packages
I've mentioned it here before, but I'm not a huge fan of the current options for checking out and installing Fedora packages. I notice a lot of people mention just using yum/dnf directly, but I'm wondering what people normally use to just check out new packages. So how do people on this list normally handle package management? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: rsyslog
Thank you Tom, you are helpful as always. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:46:43 +1000 > Dan Irwin wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > What kind of secret voodoo does one need to use rsyslog on a systemd > > system? Is it even possible? > > From my notes on making fedora usable: > > rsyslog isn't installed by default, so you get no log files > you can look at with normal tools. The systemd journal has > taken over. To restore sanity: > > yum install rsyslog > > In /etc/systemd/journald.conf set: > > Storage=none > ForwardToSyslog=yes > > Create a file named /etc/rsyslog.d/sd-socket.conf that contains: > > $AddUnixListenSocket /run/systemd/journal/syslog > > Having gotten real log files back, may need to also install > logrotate. > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org > -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: rsyslog
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Bill Oliver wrote: > > What I care about as a *user* is turning on my computer and being able to > get my work done without making futzing with the box my primary focus. I > want my *work* to be my primary focus. I prefer to admin my own machines > for a number of reasons, but wanting to be an administrator first and a > scientist second isn't it. > This is quite an interesting comment. "futzing" is definitely one word that applies to fedora over recent years. Somehow I feel that many linux developers don't use linux for anything other than developing linux. So they don't actually know (or don't care) that their decisions have consequences for people that are real. Honestly, most people (as in net/sys admins) don't even use Linux anymore. They use Windows 7 or Macs. The volume of mail to this list is a fraction of what it once was. I can only assume that successive versions of Fedora have alienated users to the point they have just left. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
