[00:03] <Seannie> thanks sarnold. I feel a lot better now.
[00:03] <sarnold> you're welcome Seannie :) have  a good weekend
[00:10] <lkthomas> hey guys, if I want to setup nfs server as public share folder, what should I aware for the permission part ?
[00:13] <RiotBlasto__> I actually prefer Open Media Vault over Ubuntu for NFS, at least for personal use.
[00:14] <lkthomas> RiotBlasto__: we are running single sign on, and we need to do something special on NFS server itself
[00:23] <RiotBlasto__> @lkthomas: I haven't setup an nfs in 3 or 4 years so don't remember. NFS servers are usually simple setup and go with minor changes.    If you haven't gone through this yet already, check out the link below. You should be good if you cover everything in it + all the resources linked in there:  https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpNFSHowTo
[04:54] <Phibs> is there an elegant way to get the dpkg -l output to show me what repo the package was installed from
[05:27] <lkthomas> Phibs: there is something call apt policy..etc, maybe Google it
[05:28] <Phibs> yeah, I wanted a single cmd
[05:28] <Phibs> found that though, thanks
[05:38] <lkthomas> :)
[07:56] <lordievader> Good morning.
[09:15] <zune^> hey anyoner who is has used a nis setup on multiple vm's with ubuntu in a home envirement.
[09:54] <Castbound> hello, I have Ubuntu 11.04 \n \l , is it possible to upgrade from command line without reimage?
[09:55] <cfhowlett> !eolupgrade | Castbound
[14:41] <tiblock> Hi. When shellshock was discovered, i upgraded and rebooted mine 3 servers, but then second update released, i again installed and rebooted mine servers with online users on it, now i see new update. Do i need repeat it again?
[14:42] <cfhowlett> tiblock, yes
[14:42] <Thumpxr> Is there a way to automount multiple smb:// shares at boot/logon? User/Password protected.
[14:42] <Thumpxr> damn wrong channel
[14:43] <tiblock> cfhowlett, can i see test exploit to see how it works for second update?
[14:44] <cfhowlett> tiblock, over my of understanding.  the 2nd patch fixed the shortcomings of the 1st patch, as I understand it.
[14:45] <tiblock> cfhowlett, but now 2nd patch hacked too and now heres is 3rd patch. Where i can get exploit for 2nd patch to test it on other linux distros?
[14:45] <cfhowlett> tiblock, I don't know such things.  sorry.
[14:46] <cfhowlett> tiblock, ##linux would probably know
[14:46] <tiblock> Here is exploit for second patch if somebody need to test http://pastebin.com/2RMmjpCh it will execute "echo date" if it works
[14:48] <tiblock> *for first patch
[15:50] <bilde2910> Hi! My 14.04 server doesn't want to apt-get upgrade. This is the error I get: http://paste.ubuntu.com/8441170/ - given the "gzip: stdout: No space left on device", here's the output of df: http://paste.ubuntu.com/8441181/ - any help on this? I'm afraid to restart my system in fear that it might not boot.
[15:53] <bilde2910> /boot seems to be filled with a lot of old files, but can I delete any of them safely? http://paste.ubuntu.com/8441203/
[15:54] <cfhowlett> bilde2910, yes.  sudo apt-get autoremove
[15:54] <cfhowlett> bilde2910, that will remove all but the two most recent kernels
[15:55] <bilde2910> Thank you, cfhowlett, I will try that
[15:55] <cfhowlett> bilde2910, also         sudo apt-get clean will clean out your .cache of downloaded .debs
[16:02] <bilde2910> This worked great! Saved my day
[16:02] <bilde2910> Thanks
[16:24] <Norlander> Anyone knowledgeable in ubuntu-vm-builder error messages? I don't
[16:24] <Norlander> understand why the creation of my VM guest is failing... :S
[21:08] <iDealz> Anyone have any experience with recovering a RAID 5 array with one failed drive using MDADM?  It asks me if I want to boot into a degraded raid environment but whether I hit y/N it seems to do the same thing.  Loads an initramfs prompt
[21:09] <qman__> you could try rebuilding from a live environment
[21:10] <qman__> it's possible your failed drive contained your /boot
[21:10] <iDealz> I should preface this with my skill level; Noob
[21:10] <iDealz> shouldnt
[21:10] <iDealz> have os on ssd drive
[21:10] <qman__> it's also possible that the bit that tries to ask you what to do is broken
[21:10] <qman__> I've had a lot of trouble with it in the past regarding fsck questions
[21:10] <hurin> hi everybody
[21:11] <qman__> anyway
[21:11] <iDealz> doesnt sound promising
[21:11] <qman__> you could boot any live linux environment and use mdadm within it to add a new drive to the array
[21:11] <qman__> then let it rebuild
[21:11] <qman__> then attempt to reboot
[21:12] <iDealz> how do you boot it live?
[21:12] <qman__> a live USB or CD or DVD
[21:12] <qman__> like you did when you installed in the first place
[21:13] <iDealz> ah
[21:14] <qman__> only instead of isntalling, drop to a shell, and use mdadm
[21:14] <iDealz> that wont effect data on existing array?
[21:14] <qman__> that depends on what you do within that environment
[21:14] <qman__> merely booting it won't do a thing
[21:14] <qman__> adding a new disk to the array will cause it to rebuild
[21:15] <qman__> following the install procedure would overwrite your data with a new install (not what you want)
[21:15] <iDealz> do you need to do anything to remove the broken disk?
[21:15] <qman__> if mdadm is complaining at boot time, it's already removed
[21:15] <qman__> logically speaking
[21:16] <qman__> make sure you have the right one
[21:17] <qman__> another thing you can try is booting to "recovery mode" from grub
[21:17] <qman__> though that may or may not work
[21:17] <qman__> the idea here is you need to get a working linux environment from which to run the mdadm tools
[21:18] <iDealz> makes sense, wasnt sure what I could do from the initramfs prompt so I just powered off
[21:18] <qman__> can't do much from there
[21:19] <qman__> if recovery mode gets you to a root shell, it'll work
[21:19] <qman__> if not you'll have to boot from CD/DVD/USB/network/whatever
[21:19] <iDealz> ty qman
[21:19] <iDealz> once I get to the point of being in the root I'll probably be back with more questions =)
[21:20] <qman__> I personally prefer SystemRescueCD for that sort of thing, as the recovery shell in the ubuntu installer is kind of awkward
[21:20] <qman__> sure
[21:20] <qman__> but the ubuntu one will work
[21:20] <iDealz> from what I've read you really only get one shot at recovering the array
[21:20] <iDealz> so dont want to mess it
[21:20] <iDealz> *up
[21:20] <qman__> pretty much
[21:21] <qman__> RAID 5 is not particularly robust
[21:21] <iDealz> 4TBs of data lost would be sad to say the least
[21:21] <iDealz> may need to reconsider setup
[21:21] <qman__> if you're lucky enough that only one drive failed, it's probably going to recover ok
[21:21] <qman__> but the fact that it won't boot isn't promising
[21:22] <iDealz> looks like just one, only shows 3 drives in boot menu
[21:22] <iDealz> so one is completely hosed
[21:23] <iDealz> probably why they recommend not using cheap drives for RAID set up
[21:23] <iDealz> think the one that dies was WD Green
[21:24] <qman__> the reason desktop drives shouldn't be used in RAID is because, in the event of an error, they can sit there lagging out forever and drop out of the array
[21:24] <qman__> drives designed to be used in a RAID will give up after 7 seconds
[21:24] <iDealz> ahh
[21:24] <qman__> the generally low quality doesn't help much either
[21:25] <qman__> but that's the specific reason not to do it
[21:25] <iDealz> any drive you recommend?
[21:25] <iDealz> my others are WD Reds
[21:25] <qman__> I've had good luck with WD reds
[21:25] <qman__> they're not fast but they are pretty reliable
[21:25] <qman__> and they are designed to be used in RAID
[21:25] <iDealz> this is my first attempt at Linux and a RAID setup so its a bit daunting
[21:26] <iDealz> havent used a command line os since DOS
[21:27] <qman__> I don't recommend RAID 5 at all though, it only still works in niche cases
[21:29] <qman__> for some good reading on the reasons why, check this out: http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/356486-why-is-raid5-so-bad
[21:29] <iDealz> do you recommend 6?
[21:29] <qman__> not particularly
[21:29] <iDealz> oh LOL
[21:30] <qman__> raid 6 fixes some of the reliability problems of raid 5 at the expense of a drastic performance decrease
[21:30] <qman__> if you want reasonable performance and reliability, I recommend raid 10
[21:30] <iDealz> how many redundant drives in raid 10?
[21:31] <qman__> raid 10 is striping across mirrored pairs
[21:31] <qman__> so the result is, the "wrong" two drives can take you out, but the "right" N drives won't
[21:34] <iDealz> I've been debating if I even need RAID... it seems like for my purposes it might be more trouble than its worth.  Although I like have some type of redundancy
[21:35] <qman__> well, it's important to note that RAID is not backup
[21:35] <qman__> RAID is for uptime and convenience
[21:35] <qman__> and in some cases performance
[21:36] <qman__> if uptime isn't that important to you, it may be better to spend the money on backup drives instead
[21:36] <iDealz> solid advice
[21:37] <iDealz> I just use my server for backing up my desktop and laptops and as a media server
[21:38] <iDealz> before I went RAID just having separate drives worked fine but I got to worry about a drive failure
[21:38] <iDealz> *worrying
[21:38] <qman__> well, as you saw, all drives will fail eventually
[21:38] <iDealz> indeed
[21:39] <qman__> a simple two-disk raid-0 for speed, and a couple backup drives you rotate, may be a better solution for you
[21:39] <iDealz> how do you mean rotate?
[21:39] <qman__> or even just a few disks without any RAID
[21:40] <qman__> rotate, as in, you back up your data to one disk, unplug it and store it elsewhere, and plug in the other one
[21:40] <qman__> next week, switch them
[21:40] <qman__> repeat
[21:40] <iDealz> ah
[21:41] <iDealz> this will be the dumbest question you hear all day, but for backing up you need the exactly the same size space right... 1GB to 1GB ratio?
[21:41] <qman__> that method only works well for volumes of data that fit on a single external hard drive, though
[21:41] <qman__> yes, for everything you want backed up
[21:42] <qman__> there are ways of compressing or deduplicating your data to get a little more out of it
[21:42] <qman__> but generally that's how it goes
[21:42] <iDealz> well I guess the silver lining is the price of drives are almost back down to reasonable prices
[21:43] <iDealz> so I guess I can get a 4TB drive, fix my array backup to the 4 TB drive and then wipe the array drives?
[21:44] <qman__> you could do that
[21:44] <qman__> I would make sure to do some testing on that new drive before you do the wipe
[21:44] <qman__> keep in mind also that as long as it's plugged in, that external drive could just as easily fail, so the idea is to keep a copy turned off
[21:45] <qman__> and preferably unplugged, in a box, in some other room or building
[21:45] <iDealz> I do have an external 4 TB drive, but it seems like it would take an eternity to move the data from the array to the external drive
[21:46] <iDealz> motherboard doesnt have a USB 3.0 out unfortunately
[21:46] <qman__> that will probably take a long time the first time
[21:47] <qman__> the good news is that if your data doesn't change a ton day to day, you can use a tool like rsync to simply 'update' the backup copy
[21:47] <qman__> which would normally have a lot less data to transfer than a full backup
[21:47] <iDealz> yes
[21:47] <iDealz> doesnt change a tremendous amount
[21:48] <iDealz> alright, sounds like i have to go dig up my boot disc
[21:48] <iDealz> thanks again qman
[21:49] <dasjoe> I'd recommend either raid6 or, as an (unsupported but still "production ready") alternative, taking a good look at ZFS
[21:50] <qman__> ZFS is very cool, but it has some hefty hardware requirements
[21:51] <dasjoe> It's okay, I'm running it on a laptop from 2010 right now
[21:51] <qman__> I would not attempt to run ZFS without server grade hardware top to bottom
[23:03] <hurin> hi o/
[23:04] <hurin> i'm on a ubuntu 14, triyng to set up a virtual host, without success, could anyone give me some hints here ?
[23:04] <hurin> i already checked my log, without seing anything, whatever i do, i keep getting only my default page,...
[23:06] <teward> hurin: virtual host for..?
[23:06] <hurin> my apache2 server
[23:07] <hurin> i followed this tutorial => https://help.ubuntu.com/14.04/serverguide/httpd.html
[23:08] <hurin> and this one too => http://blog.code4hire.com/2011/03/setting-up-virtual-hosts-for-apache-on-ubuntu-for-local-development/
[23:10] <hurin> here's the configuration of my virtual host (in /etc/apache2/sites-available/test.com.conf ) => <VirtualHost *:80>         ServerAdmin admin@test.com         ServerName test.com         ServerAlias www.test.com         DocumentRoot /var/www/test.com/public_html          LogLevel warn          ErrorLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/error.log         CustomLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/access.log combined  </VirtualHost>
[23:11] <hurin> i'm really lost here, i don't know what i did wrong, i'm usually working on a centOs, and never had any problem with apache or any virtual host, i really don't knwo what to do >___<
[23:19] <hurin> well, i don't know exactly why, but i made a service apache2 stop and a service apache2 start, instead of doing a service apache2 restart as usual, and that's working O_o
[23:23] <hurin> ok, i think i'm starting to understand what i did wrong, if i let the 000-default.conf, and, even if you make a a2dissite 000-default.conf, you have to make a service apache2 restart (and not a reload), and then, it's working :)
[23:26] <maxb> how odd, that shouldn't be neccessary