On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:22:00 -0600
Les Mikesell wrote:
> No, but when doing a restore for any reason other than accidental
> complete deletion of a file or directory I nearly always restore to a
> different location and compare things instead of overwriting the
> existing current versions anyway.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, B wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:45:40 -0600
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> Yes, but things have to be very, very screwed up to get to the point
>> where the user can't fix it with a tar download through a browser
>> followed by an appropriate restore command.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 17:57:59 +0100
Holger Parplies wrote:
Whoops, wrong from: (and strange setup), putting this back in the list.
> B wrote on 2017-11-16 00:50:52 +0100 [Re: [BackupPC-users] error
> in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) (Restoring)]:
> > [...]
> > In
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:45:40 -0600
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but things have to be very, very screwed up to get to the point
> where the user can't fix it with a tar download through a browser
> followed by an appropriate restore command. When things have been
> broken that badly it may be time
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] error in rsync protocol data stream (code
12) (Restoring)
Bzzzz wrote on 2017-11-16 00:50:52 +0100 [Re: [BackupPC-users] error in
rsync protocol data stream (code 12) (Restoring)]:
> [...]
> In short: being root and (especially) removing directories is bad, on
&
B wrote on 2017-11-16 00:50:52 +0100 [Re: [BackupPC-users] error in rsync
protocol data stream (code 12) (Restoring)]:
> [...]
> In short: being root and (especially) removing directories is bad, on
> the other hand, using root as part of a controlled process doesn't mean
&g
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, B wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:21:49 -0600
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> damaging) direct restore. But the admin should know what to tweak if
>> he does need that massive restore.
>
> Yup, and the problem is: in this configuration, you *need* an admin
> inte
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:21:49 -0600
Les Mikesell wrote:
> damaging) direct restore. But the admin should know what to tweak if
> he does need that massive restore.
Yup, and the problem is: in this configuration, you *need* an admin
intervention to fix a restore, when the other solution easily l
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Jamie Burchell wrote:
> Running as a restricted user is actually part of the BackupPC
> documentation. It just neglects to mention that doing so as described
> means restores are blocked.
>
> Having a non root user with sudo permissions to just rsync with the
> "--
Running as a restricted user is actually part of the BackupPC
documentation. It just neglects to mention that doing so as described
means restores are blocked.
Having a non root user with sudo permissions to just rsync with the
"--server" param works fine for backup and restore.
-
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:29:58 -
Jamie Burchell wrote:
> Because you'll seldom find any good advice that advocates doing
> anything as root.
You misread it.
Doing stuffs as root when it can be done by a regular user, or a sudo
user _can_ be a risk (although I don't know any real admin that ha
Because you'll seldom find any good advice that advocates doing anything
as root.
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:48:01 -
Jamie Burchell wrote:
> I followed the instructions to make a restricted backuppc user on
> client machines with limited sudo permission thus:
> backuppc ALL=NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender *
Why on earth did you use that instead of let it to root !?
Hi!
I followed the instructions to make a restricted backuppc user on client
machines with limited sudo permission thus:
backuppc ALL=NOPASSWD: /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender *
This works fine for backing up, but I just discovered I can no longer
restore directly, as I’m getting the foll
14 matches
Mail list logo
