Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #13197 > unrolled thread

How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:11 +0000
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-03 22:25 +0000
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2015-01-04 09:48 +1100
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jack Strangio  <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-04 01:36 +0000
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-04 03:43 +0000
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-01-04 21:31 +0000
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 18:30 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:17 +0000
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 13:48 -0600
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 13:48 -0600
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:08 +0000
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 15:23 -0600
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:29 +0000
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Mladen Gogala <gogala.mladen@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 01:29 +0000
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-01-05 13:22 -0800
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:32 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-03-06 01:44 -0500
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-06 16:19 +0000
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-04 12:16 +0000
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-04 13:33 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 14:00 +0000
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-04 08:29 -0600
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 15:06 +0000
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised   changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-04 09:31 -0600
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-01-04 09:29 -0800
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised   changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 18:25 +0000
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-04 17:56 +0000
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-04 18:20 +0000
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-04 23:30 +0000
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 11:15 +0000
                  Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 12:33 +0000
                    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 12:49 +0000
                      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 13:10 +0000
                        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 13:36 +0000
                          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 18:56 +0000
                    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 15:13 +0100
                      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-05 12:31 -0800
                    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:05 +0000
                      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:05 +0100
                        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 18:12 +0000
                          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-06 09:56 +0100
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-04 08:21 -0600
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-04 18:04 +0000
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 18:43 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 13:48 -0600
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 19:51 +0000
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2015-01-04 17:18 -0600
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2015-01-04 17:26 -0600
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 18:57 -0500
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-04 16:07 -0800
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 19:57 -0500
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-05 01:01 +0000
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 23:20 -0500
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-05 06:49 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2015-01-04 18:40 -0800
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:02 +0000
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-05 12:42 -0800
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:08 +0000
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-01-05 22:01 -0800
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-06 06:59 +0000
                  Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-01-06 10:00 +0100
                    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 +0000
    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 14:21 +0100
      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 13:35 +0000
        Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0100
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 14:25 +0000
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 16:18 +0100
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised  changes? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2015-01-05 09:35 -0600
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 16:20 +0000
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2015-01-05 16:50 +0000
                  Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 18:12 +0000
                    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:20 +0000
                      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 21:05 +0000
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 23:25 +0100
                  Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-05 22:48 +0000
                    Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-06 19:11 +0100
                      Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-01-06 18:28 +0000
          Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-01-05 15:50 +0000
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-01-05 16:30 +0000
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-05 10:51 -0600
                Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:20 +0000
            Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2015-01-05 23:26 +0100
              Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-01-05 16:43 -0600

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#13197 — How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose configuration
screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?

Is the norm to boot a single-user version of the OS (eg from an install CD,
or from any live CD, and get a minimal environment form which they try to
undo the damage?

Does anyone run with what you might call two or three generations of system
bits of the OS - perhaps on two or three separate partitions, and apply
fixes to one of them at a time?  Test that a bit, then when it seems stable,
use it as their day-to-day system (but still have the prior one to revert to
if needed), then apply the next set of patches to the third system, and when
that eventiually becomes their live one move the other two on a bit?  That
is, always have their own current system, the previous one that seemed to
work ok, and the next one that they're preparing?  

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13198

On 03/01/15 22:11, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?
>
> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose configuration
> screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
>

that's when the nightly backup is handy..

> Is the norm to boot a single-user version of the OS (eg from an install CD,
> or from any live CD, and get a minimal environment form which they try to
> undo the damage?

Something like that yes..

>
> Does anyone run with what you might call two or three generations of system
> bits of the OS - perhaps on two or three separate partitions, and apply
> fixes to one of them at a time?  Test that a bit, then when it seems stable,
> use it as their day-to-day system (but still have the prior one to revert to
> if needed), then apply the next set of patches to the third system, and when
> that eventiually becomes their live one move the other two on a bit?  That
> is, always have their own current system, the previous one that seemed to
> work ok, and the next one that they're preparing?
>
Sort of. I have a regular total backup, and would rsync before any major 
upgrade.

All data of any value is not held on te desktop, buty on a file server.

So upgrades for me are generally
- try the upgrade first. If that fails then
- reinstall OS and all apps, and rebuild. Takes about a day max.

A bare MINT install is less than an hour

The rest of the time is all the custom bits I like to have,.

BUT upgrades that fail to boot are almost unkown.

at worst, the X-serevr wont come up and its down to console tools




-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13199

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 22:11:23 +0000, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

>How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

Form a lynch mob, seek out the guilty parties and hang them? ;^)
>
>What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose configuration
>screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?

An unbootable machine from installing software is rare for me, 
I'm much more likely to fat-finger some command and accidentally 
kill a machine.

I run Slackware, the install boot CD is enough to fix minor issues 
like Windows install wiping out the MBR, or some kerfuffle with 
>
>Is the norm to boot a single-user version of the OS (eg from an install CD,
>or from any live CD, and get a minimal environment form which they try to
>undo the damage?

Yes, not much else one can do if the box don't boot, is there?
>
>Does anyone run with what you might call two or three generations of system
>bits of the OS - perhaps on two or three separate partitions, and apply
>fixes to one of them at a time?  Test that a bit, then when it seems stable,
>use it as their day-to-day system (but still have the prior one to revert to
>if needed), then apply the next set of patches to the third system, and when
>that eventiually becomes their live one move the other two on a bit?  That
>is, always have their own current system, the previous one that seemed to
>work ok, and the next one that they're preparing?  

Not exactly, when I partition a hard drive for Slackware, I allow 
for two independent OS installs.  For a parallel switchover.  

Right now I'm in the process of moving my Internet facing 
firewall / server box to new hardware, the old box is still 
available for me to take off any config files, etc, I missed.

Allowing for a parallel install gives you the security of being 
able to look at the old files.

For example:
# /etc/fstab for slackware64-14.1 on deltree -- 2015-01-02
#
/dev/sda1       /               ext4    defaults                1 1
/dev/sda3       swap            swap    defaults                0 0
/dev/sda5       /home           ext4    defaults                1 2
/dev/sda7       /var            ext4    defaults                1 2
/dev/sda9       /usr/local      ext4    defaults                1 2
/dev/sda11      /home/common    ext4    defaults                1 2
/dev/sda12      /home/mirror    ext4    defaults                1 2
#
/dev/sda2       /alt            ext4    noauto,defaults         0 0
/dev/sda6       /alt/home       ext4    noauto,defaults         0 0
/dev/sda8       /alt/var        ext4    noauto,defaults         0 0
/dev/sda10      /alt/usr/local  ext4    noauto,defaults         0 0
#
/dev/sdb1       /home/grant/kernel ext4 defaults                1 2
#
devpts          /dev/pts        devpts          gid=5,mode=620  0 0
proc            /proc           proc            defaults        0 0
tmpfs           /dev/shm        tmpfs           defaults        0 0
#
# NAS box
pooh:/home/archive      /home/archive   nfs     noauto,user,hard,intr
pooh:/home/nasdata      /home/nasdata   nfs     noauto,user,hard,intr
#
# 'doze box
//phoboswin/download    /home/download  cifs    noauto,users,credentials=/usr/local/etc/xsmb
#
Grant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13201

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> writes:
> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?
> 
> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose configuration
> screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?

I have two distros installed at all times. If one distro gets mangled in any
way I just reboot using the 'backup' distro.

When I partition a disk, I set aside two partitions for two distro root
systems.  Then there is a common swap, a common /home and a common /u
(long-term storage) partition.  Generally, the two distros are the current
and the previous distro versions, so I might be running Mint 16 on my
'non-current' partition and Mint 17 on my 'current' partition.

When Mint 18 gets released, it will be installed over the Mint 16
partition. That then becomes the 'current' distro and Mint 17 will then
become my 'non-current' or 'backup' system.

I do a daily backup overnight which saves /etc, crontabs, software
packages list, mysql databases, /usr/local, user /home(s), and local
git and calibre data.

I keep handy a grub rescue disk in case the grub boot manager gets
clobbered somehow.

Jack 
-- 
"I'm a home-loving girl. And that's where I wish I was."
"At home ..."
"Loving."
               - Laugh-In, 1968

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13202

On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?
>
> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose configuration
> screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?

Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion. I have not
had an update destroy my system, but it could happen. Usually updates
are tested so that at least on some system they work.

>
> Is the norm to boot a single-user version of the OS (eg from an install CD,
> or from any live CD, and get a minimal environment form which they try to
> undo the damage?

It is not the norm, but it is one possiblity. Another is to boot to
single user mode if you can, or systemd drops you into rescue mode when
it dicovers (a sometimes sekf inflicted) boot block.

>
> Does anyone run with what you might call two or three generations of system
> bits of the OS - perhaps on two or three separate partitions, and apply
> fixes to one of them at a time?  Test that a bit, then when it seems stable,
> use it as their day-to-day system (but still have the prior one to revert to
> if needed), then apply the next set of patches to the third system, and when
> that eventiually becomes their live one move the other two on a bit?  That
> is, always have their own current system, the previous one that seemed to
> work ok, and the next one that they're preparing?  

It is a way of working, sure. While in a busimess that might be
possible, for home use people usually do not have two spare unused
systems sitting around. 

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13229

William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?
>>
>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose configuration
>> screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
> 
> Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion. I have not
> had an update destroy my system, but it could happen. Usually updates
> are tested so that at least on some system they work.
> 
>>
>> Is the norm to boot a single-user version of the OS (eg from an install CD,
>> or from any live CD, and get a minimal environment form which they try to
>> undo the damage?
> 
> It is not the norm, but it is one possiblity. Another is to boot to
> single user mode if you can, or systemd drops you into rescue mode when
> it dicovers (a sometimes sekf inflicted) boot block.
> 
>>
>> Does anyone run with what you might call two or three generations of system
>> bits of the OS - perhaps on two or three separate partitions, and apply
>> fixes to one of them at a time?  Test that a bit, then when it seems stable,
>> use it as their day-to-day system (but still have the prior one to revert to
>> if needed), then apply the next set of patches to the third system, and when
>> that eventiually becomes their live one move the other two on a bit?  That
>> is, always have their own current system, the previous one that seemed to
>> work ok, and the next one that they're preparing?  
> 
> It is a way of working, sure. While in a busimess that might be
> possible, for home use people usually do not have two spare unused
> systems sitting around. 
> 
>>

I do. Or are you interpreting spare unused system as a *physical*
machine? On all my machines except the AA1 netbook I have the previous
version of Salix as an emergency backup. I also have a bootable USB
stick that allows me to boot grub2 in case the disk becomes
unbootable. In addition I have an emergency USB stick I can run Salix
from. Plus weekly incremental backups and I test the restore function.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13286

William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
<jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
changes?
>>
> > What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> > configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
>
>Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.

It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
protect things a lot.

Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
might be a good idea.

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13289

On 05/01/15 18:30, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> changes?
>>>
>>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
>>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
>>
>> Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.
>
> It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
> disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
> structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
> I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
> structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
> protect things a lot.
>
my advice: don't bother.

simply set one disk to mirror the other with rsync.

setting it up to boot from one if the other goes bad is not so trivial


> Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
> systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
> and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
> a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
> might be a good idea.
>


-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13294 — Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

At Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:17:29 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On 05/01/15 18:30, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> > William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> > <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> > changes?
> >>>
> >>> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> >>> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
> >>
> >> Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.
> >
> > It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
> > disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
> > structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
> > I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
> > structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
> > protect things a lot.
> >
> my advice: don't bother.
> 
> simply set one disk to mirror the other with rsync.
> 
> setting it up to boot from one if the other goes bad is not so trivial

Um.  Yes it is.  Just install grub on both drives.  And RAID1 is easy to set 
up as well.

> 
> 
> > Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
> > systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
> > and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
> > a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
> > might be a good idea.
> >
> 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                                  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13299

On 05/01/15 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> my advice: don't bother.
>
> simply set one disk to mirror the other with rsync.
>
> setting it up to boot from one if the other goes bad is not so trivial


If doing that, you might as well tell rsync to keep the incrementals too 
(changed files) - then you have a meaningful backup system as well as 
fast disaster recovery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13293

At Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:30:29 +0000 Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> 
> >On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> >> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> changes?
> >>
> > > What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> > > configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
> >
> >Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.
> 
> It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
> disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
> structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
> I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
> structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
> protect things a lot.

If you install Linux and have multiple disks, you should *definately* go for
mirror RAID (Linux software RAID). What *I* have on my desktop system is three
500Gig disks (in hot-swap bays). Two of them are a RAID1 (mirror) set with LVM
(with a number of logical volumes) on top of the RAID1. The third disks
contains backups and is automounted and set to 'sleep' / 'spin down' when not
mounted. I use AMANDA to run automatic daily backups to a 'virtual' tape
changer (implmentated as a set of numbered directories, all sized to be burned
onto DVDs).  I am *specificly* running CentOS 5 with virtualization (Xen). 
Virtualization lets you run additional O/S's -- useful if you need to test 
things, try other OSes or distros, or to have 'build boxes' for other 
operating systems, or to have sandboxes for experiments.  By running a dead 
stable O/S on the 'bare' metal you will have a system that is pretty much 
proof against just about any sort of problem -- you base system should always 
be bootable.  And as icing, toss in a APC UPS to handle unexpected power 
outages. 

Since most modern motherboards have *at least* four SATA ports (some have 6, 
like mine does), you can have three SATA disks and one SATA optical drive (eg 
DVD burner).  You might as well use all of those ports.  Disks are cheap 
enough.

> 
> Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
> systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
> and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
> a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
> might be a good idea.
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13301

On 05/01/15 19:48, Robert Heller wrote:
> If you install Linux and have multiple disks, you should*definately*  go for
> mirror RAID

I find that doesn't help when I accidentally delete a file...

PS it's spelt, or spelled, 'definitely'...

-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13302 — Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

At Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:08:05 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On 05/01/15 19:48, Robert Heller wrote:
> > If you install Linux and have multiple disks, you should*definately*  go for
> > mirror RAID
> 
> I find that doesn't help when I accidentally delete a file...

Duh.  That is what proper backups are for!

RAID alone is only good for / designed for semi-catastrophic situation 
(typically one disk failing).  For other sorts of problems (accidentally 
deleting a file or something more catastrophic), you have your multiple 
redundant backups (which should include off-line and/or off-site copies).

> 
> PS it's spelt, or spelled, 'definitely'...
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                                                               

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13304 — Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

On 05/01/15 21:23, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:08:05 +0000 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 05/01/15 19:48, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> If you install Linux and have multiple disks, you should*definately*  go for
>>> mirror RAID
>>
>> I find that doesn't help when I accidentally delete a file...
>
> Duh.  That is what proper backups are for!
>
> RAID alone is only good for / designed for semi-catastrophic situation
> (typically one disk failing).  For other sorts of problems (accidentally
> deleting a file or something more catastrophic), you have your multiple
> redundant backups (which should include off-line and/or off-site copies).
>
Grandmother, eggs, suck...
>>
>> PS it's spelt, or spelled, 'definitely'...
>>
>


-- 
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the 
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13310 — Re: How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised changes?

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:29:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Grandmother, eggs, suck...

Grandma got run over by a reindeer...



-- 
Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13303

On 2015-01-05, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/01/15 19:48, Robert Heller wrote:
>> If you install Linux and have multiple disks, you should*definately*  go for
>> mirror RAID
>
> I find that doesn't help when I accidentally delete a file...

While your point (RAID is not the same as backup) is valid, Robert
specifically wrote about his backup strategy.  Why did you snip
that part?

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13305

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> 
>>On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>>> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> changes?
>>>
>> > What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
>> > configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
>>
>>Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.
> 
> It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
> disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
> structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
> I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
> structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
> protect things a lot.
> 
> Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
> systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
> and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
> a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
> might be a good idea.
> 

Me too. When the plants are relying on the applications systems being
available to ship product you tend to be careful that you don't break
things. 

Another useful rule: always test your backups by doing an actual
restore. My test is to restore the current system to the  alternate
set of partitions in preparation for upgrading -- kills 2 birds with
one stone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13956

In article <mpro.nhpves0038sal01jg@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>, 
jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk says...
> 
> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> 
> >On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> >> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> changes?
> >>
> > > What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> > > configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
> >
> >Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.
> 
> It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
> disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
> structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
> I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
> structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
> protect things a lot.
> 
> Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
> systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
> and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
> a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
> might be a good idea.

Perhaps you might want to consider just picking an OS at random, doing a 
bare bones install, adding Hercules, and going back to MVS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13965

On 2015-03-06, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <mpro.nhpves0038sal01jg@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>, 
> jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk says...
>> 
>> William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 2015-01-03, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
>> <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
>> changes?
>> >>
>> > > What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
>> > > configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?
>> >
>> >Do you have a problem or is this a theoretical discussion.
>> 
>> It's theoretical.  I'm contemplating buying a new computer, putting multiple
>> disks in it (perhaps) and wondering what OS to install... and then how to
>> structure things.  I realise that if I go with linux (or eg one of the BSDs)
>> I will have scope for careful separation of different parts of my files
>> structure onto different mounts/ partitions/ disks, and that will help to
>> protect things a lot.

You can if you want. You could also put everything into one partition as
well (plus a swap, but that is not essential). It may be an inconvenient thing
to do, when you next upgrade, but it is possible. The mania for having
15 different partitions is, I think silly, but two, one for stuff that
can be wiped to upgrade, and one for stuff you really want to keep
across and upgrade, makes sense. 

>> 
>> Back when I worked for a living, I helped maintain MVS (nowadays z/OS)
>> systems, and there we always had multiple copies of sets of system drives,
>> and could flip between them.  It struck me that doing something similar with
>> a new system (especially one whose OS I'd not be comfortable with for ages)
>> might be a good idea.

You could set aside an extra partition for your "old" system on an
upgrade, so if the new one caused problems you could boot into the old
one. 

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13204

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> writes:
> How do home users of linux protect themselves against ill-advised
> changes?
>
> What I mean is, if they install patches or some package whose
> configuration screws things up, and they then can't boot - what then?

Restore from backup.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web