On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 16:10 -0600, Steve Meyers wrote:
> Our meeting is next Wednesday, and I haven't planned ahead. Does anyone
> have anything they could present on somewhat short notice?
I'll have to double check my schedule, but if enough people are
interested I could probably discuss Chef.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> I thought I would ask here, primarily because I know that a few guys on
> here have posted server racks for sale recently. I am looking for a full
> 42U or half rack (full is preferred) and it does not need to be enclosed,
> it is for a serve
On 9/6/2012 12:10 PM, Samuel Morales wrote:
> I've been looking for Symantec Ghost clones and found Fog. I've only tested
> it on virtual machines, but it seems to work pretty well. Has anyone else
> used and what's your experience been like? Are there any other Ghost clones
> that you might recomm
Our meeting is next Wednesday, and I haven't planned ahead. Does anyone
have anything they could present on somewhat short notice?
Actually, I thought someone had said they might be able to present, but
I don't recall who it was. If this is true, I apologize for my faulty
memory and lack of f
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:16:51 -0600
"S. Dale Morrey" wrote:
> I'm using lubuntu precise. I've noticed whenever I plugin anything to
> USB that it mounts to /dev/ttyUSBn but the device is always owned by
> root.
> Is there anyway to make it default to ownership to the currently
> logged in user? O
On a lot of modern linux distros you can use UDev to do this. For example, on
my Ubuntu box I have the following line in "/etc/udev/rules.d/60-galaxy-
s3.rules" for my Galaxy SIII:
SUBSYSTEM=="usb", SYSFS{idVendor}=="04e8", SYSFS{idProduct}=="6601",
MODE="0666"
On Thursday, September 06, 2012
Hello,
I'm using lubuntu precise. I've noticed whenever I plugin anything to
USB that it mounts to /dev/ttyUSBn but the device is always owned by
root.
Is there anyway to make it default to ownership to the currently
logged in user? Otherwise I have to remember to chown each time I
plug in a new
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Samuel Morales wrote:
> Are there any other Ghost clones
> that you might recommend?
>
> --
> Sam Morales
> IT
> Aquaveo
>
>
I've used parted magic a couple of times with great success on windows
machines:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/partedmagic/
The last tim
On 09/06/2012 12:10 PM, Samuel Morales wrote:
> I've been looking for Symantec Ghost clones and found Fog. I've only tested
> it on virtual machines, but it seems to work pretty well. Has anyone else
> used and what's your experience been like? Are there any other Ghost clones
> that you might reco
I use PING (PartImage is not Ghost). Seems to work well for me.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eric Olsen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Duncan <
> jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote:
>
> > dd ?
> >
>
> unless I'm mistaken, dd does a sector-by-sector copy, whereas Ghost (un
On 06 Sep 2012, at 12:38, Joel Finlinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Duncan <
> jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 06 Sep 2012, at 12:10, Samuel Morales wrote:
>>
>>> I've been looking for Symantec Ghost clones and found Fog. I've only
>> tested
>>> it on vir
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Duncan <
jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote:
>
> On 06 Sep 2012, at 12:10, Samuel Morales wrote:
>
> > I've been looking for Symantec Ghost clones and found Fog. I've only
> tested
> > it on virtual machines, but it seems to work pretty well. Has anyone el
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Duncan <
jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote:
> dd ?
>
unless I'm mistaken, dd does a sector-by-sector copy, whereas Ghost (unless
told otherwise) does a file-by-file copy.
I've used CloneZilla in the past, but only for small personal projects,
never for
On 06 Sep 2012, at 12:10, Samuel Morales wrote:
> I've been looking for Symantec Ghost clones and found Fog. I've only tested
> it on virtual machines, but it seems to work pretty well. Has anyone else
> used and what's your experience been like? Are there any other Ghost clones
> that you might
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:50:12 -0600
Merrill Oveson wrote:
> 3) Storage method. You make a request to get your data, then it takes
> 3 to 5 hours. Can you look thru your data before you choose to
> download something?
Maybe that's why it's called Glacier. Not a good name for a computer
product.
I've been looking for Symantec Ghost clones and found Fog. I've only tested
it on virtual machines, but it seems to work pretty well. Has anyone else
used and what's your experience been like? Are there any other Ghost clones
that you might recommend?
--
Sam Morales
IT
Aquaveo
/*
PLUG: http://pl
While I've recently become a big fan of crashplan, it's more of a backup
service, not an archival service. The difference is subtle, but
significant:
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/103152/Backup_vs._archiving_It_pays_to_know_the_difference
Lloyd Brown
Systems Administrator
Fulton Superc
On 06 Sep 2012, at 11:50, Merrill Oveson wrote:
> Anybody know of a good Cloud Archival Data Solution?
>
CrashPlan (http://www.crashplan.com/)
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
Pluggers:
I was excited about Amazon Glacier, but after reading about it - not so much.
I love Amazon s3!
What concerns me about Glacier:
1) No tool to upload data - users need to be able to do easily - S3
has about a billion different tools, 3rd party add-on, etc. I suppose
Glacier will too i
19 matches
Mail list logo