I assume you already read this:
# rsync version 2.5.6 contains a heap overflow vulnerability that can
be used to remotely run arbitrary code.
# While this heap overflow vulnerability could not be used by itself to
obtain root access on a rsync server, it could be used in combination
with the
Martin Spott writes:
> I assume you already read this:
>
> # rsync version 2.5.6 contains a heap overflow vulnerability that can
> be used to remotely run arbitrary code.
> # While this heap overflow vulnerability could not be used by itself to
> obtain root access on a rsync server, it could
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ftp.flightgear.org is still rebooting ... /dev/hdh1 (120Gb) has gone
> 204 days without being checked, check forced ... might be another hour
> or two ... :-)
I usually put everything over 10 GByte on XFS per 'default' - as well
as any data that has
Martin Spott writes:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ftp.flightgear.org is still rebooting ... /dev/hdh1 (120Gb) has gone
> > 204 days without being checked, check forced ... might be another hour
> > or two ... :-)
>
> I usually put everything over 10 GByte on XFS per 'defau
On Saturday, 6 December 2003 17:31, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> I'm running ext3 so normally rebooting, even after a crash would not
> be a problem, but in this case I exceeded the "last check date"
> threshold so it ran a full fsck on me. This drive has zillions of
> tiny little files on it so it's
Paul Surgeon writes:
> Can't you just force a check every now and then from a cron job?
> Anyway it's a small problem - a few hours of down time every year won't hurt
> anyone.
You need to unmount the drive before fsck'ing it, which you can't do
unless all services / processes using files on that
"Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott writes:
>> I usually put everything over 10 GByte on XFS per 'default' - as well
>> as any data that has some value for me. It should take about 5 seconds
>> to mount a 200 gig filesystem - cheching included ;-)
> I'm running ext3 so no
Martin Spott wrote:
>
> Here you realize the difference between a wannabee "enterprise
> filesystem" and an "enterprise filesystem" that was designed as such
> from the very beginning
>
The automatic filesystem check is an issue of filesystem policy, and
says nothing about the implementatio
Andy Ross writes:
> The automatic filesystem check is an issue of filesystem policy, and
> says nothing about the implementation thereof. Neither, I should add,
> does the appelation "enterprise". :)
>
> If I had to pick, I'd go for reiserfs because of the nifty tail
> folding. But saying that X
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 06:18:01PM +, Martin Spott wrote:
> "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm running ext3 so normally rebooting, even after a crash would not
> > be a problem, but in this case I exceeded the "last check date"
> > threshold so it ran a full fsck on me. [...]
Simon Fowler writes:
> Actually, ext3 is a better choice than XFS if you really care about
> your data - it does full data journalling (at a performance cost),
> unlike XFS which only journals metadata. Since it halves your write
> performance people generally don't use it, but it's there in ext3 .
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 06:35:57PM -0600, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Simon Fowler writes:
> > Actually, ext3 is a better choice than XFS if you really care about
> > your data - it does full data journalling (at a performance cost),
> > unlike XFS which only journals metadata. Since it halves your wr
Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Spott wrote:
>>
>> Here you realize the difference between a wannabee "enterprise
>> filesystem" and an "enterprise filesystem" that was designed as such
>> from the very beginning
>>
> The automatic filesystem check is an issue of filesystem po
13 matches
Mail list logo
