is it normal for the he.net tunnel servers to have high pings? maybe cos it's free i'm getting 135 to 145 msec ping to tunnel end point in lax, then like 190 msec to ge9-12.core1.lax1.he.net mercutio: You could check out https://smokeping.cobryce.com/?target=Internet.HENet which fpings all HE tunnel endpoints from ARM ahh cool oh it's hop one after tunnel endpoint that's the issue *ARP and it's an issue even getting to www.he.net over the tunnel from lax where www.he.net is in fremont afaik cool very useful none hte less https://smokeping.cobryce.com/?target=Internet.HENet.NorthAmerica.HEtserv15lax1v4 looks coincidental but i'm on tserver15.lax1 and it seemed to be getting worse and worse That would be the same server it is it's called tserv anyway i wasn't thinking and completed it :) you'd said "but I'm on" so I thought that you thought you were on a different one (it's 02:31, I'm very tired) heh (so I could've misread, or misunderstood) it sucks when you want to test stuff and then you find random other unrelated issues :/ but it does seem that by far he.net having issues seems to be the central issue with arp ipv6 atm and it's hard to know if they're deprioritising tunnel servers or not you'd think they wouldn't because advertising and all looks like i should get fremont tunnel though hmm, los angeles is full now it says yeh fremont is more stable i wonder if i could get a tour of he's fremont dc :D mercutio, is there a provider physically located in NZ that offers dedi (looking for a buddy) ? think it's you lives out that way... grody: i'm not sure if there's anything good as far as good spec, service, network, etc. on front pages or anything ugh. racking my brain trying to figure out how to save off ACLs & xattrs w/ rsnapshot/rsync to a ZFS share. i guess this would be the only way: http://superuser.com/questions/247689/backup-file-attributes-restore-them-later JC_Denton: that looks like a way i don't envy your position :) mercutio: yeah. i could run the job after rsnapshot runs. my only concern would be if the file's ACL is changed during that time. seems unlikely, though. is this for windows acl's or something nah, POSIX have some interesting dirs that allow things like Apache to write, other users to individually access & execute files, etc. maybe i should try that i've always used the normal unix permission system hangon so you have them on zfs i like the ACLs, a lot more powerful nah oh i setup a NAS with ZFS and i'm trying to backup with rsnapshot i see which i've done to another ext4 system w/o issue, obviously :) i was going to ask why you're using rsnapshot instead of zfs snapshot but yeah, with no xattr support on ZFS for FreeBSD i'm kinda up the creek w/o a paddle you could make a zfs volume on it hm? and put ext4 on it :/ zfs create -V 200G raid/aclbackup or something then mkfs.ext4fs /dev/zvol/raid/aclbacku +p sure it's not as clean an interesting idea but hmm, opensolaris had acl support no EA/ACL support on FreeBSD's extfs ahh my really hideous thought is to just make a huge ext4 container served out over NFS that the rsnapshot hosts mount but to me that's hideous so maybe the recursive getfacl solution is the trick so the basic problem is not in zfs but in freebsd? yeah, because Linux w/ ZFS supports xattrs and POSIX ACLs then maybe you shoudl just use linux? :) zfs on linux works ok *shrug* i bought a freenas mini, so it's running freenas i actually kind of like it ahh. i just do things the manual way :) i usually do the same until i get an admin headache ;) i'm still wondering about grody's dedicated question :) and where i'd go to try and get dedicated server heh i could probably ask someone that lives out that way the cheapest i've found so far is $295+GST and that was without even having redundant power. at least that list prices there is somewhere i know is cheaper, but they have always been on the dubious side to me there's actually quite a few places that do it it seems but they all to have high prices for old hardware like $250 for dell poweredge 1950 with 2gb of ram and 1 har-didsk I thought tar and rsync both had switches to enable ACL copying. Think rsync's was X -A, --acls preserve ACLs (implies -p) -X, --xattrs preserve extended attributes from my man page for rsync 3.1.1 he's using rsnapshot though brycec ? which does symlinks etc. so even if tar and rsync can support acl's then if the underlying filesystem doesn't support it you're in a dark place. (Unless I'm missing something, which I could well be) mercutio: I was going with12:48:35 JC_Denton | ugh. racking my brain trying to figure out how to save off ACLs & xattrs w/ rsnapshot/rsync to a ZFS share. oh hmm i suppose it could end in tarball on the server :) and still meet that But apparently I was wrong about FreeBSD's ZFS supporting them in the first place. 12:53:57 JC_Denton | but yeah, with no xattr support on ZFS for FreeBSD freebsd might now freenas usually lags behind apparently freebsd supports nfsv4 acl's "man zfs" says xattr "is currently not supported on FreeBSD" for 10.1 but acl stuff is still good https://clusterhq.com/2014/09/11/zfs-suitable-replacement-file-system/ this seems to haev a table Or as you sorta-mentioned earlier, he could create disk volumes, exported over iscsi and mounted on each system Then every guest can format it whatever filesystem works best for the machine being backed up, including ext4 with full ACL/xattr support there's something dirty about using iscsi for a backup system :) I disagree a lot of os's go funny if backup server has issues if using iscsi, nfs etc. Can't say I've ever experienced that myself well if it's down or such i suppose as long as you have your cron script so it checks that its' not already running and don't type df it's not toob ad although tehre can be things like locate etc too Last I checked, locate's default config didn't index netfs mounts (on Debian) (but it's been awhile since I cared) (And it's easy enough to add further exceptions) hmm. what do you think JC? iscsi was my next thought, but meh seems like a PITA for such a small backup set heh i think i could use rsnapshot's post exec to do the recursive getfacl it's probably a hell of a lot easier trying to decide if i could live with the small and significant chance of the ACL changing Are you actively using acls/xattrs? It's been my limited experience that people don't, so perhaps you're not actually losing anything? it sounded like he was brycec: yeah, i'm using ACLs i think the chance of losing things is similar to the chance of losing things from not backing up frequently enough i was using xattrs too at one point courtesy of SELinux, but i've since turned that system off if you're behind in time and some permissions don't work properly that you just applied then at least it'll be stuff you've done recently that you were checking anyway because you had to restore from backup.. There's also the point to be made that if you're backing up data, you care about the data and not so much the properties of the files. (I worded that funny) (tl;dr At least you backed up the contents of the files) and having recent data with outdated permissions seems better than having stale data with up to date permissions ^ or no data at all ;P no data at all sounds easier :) why would people want data anyway! You can always just create new data that's how i used to feel about backups why would you want to cling onto the past? :) uhh for personal stuff that is yeah shame ZFS on BSD doesn't have xattr worse shame i think is that Linux doesn't support the richacls ZFS/NFSv4 has well, support w/o patching the kernel and a ton of coreutils aren't nfs acl's better than posix acl's? i wonder if it's possible to store the stuff using nfs acl's rather than posix acl's NFSv4/Windows ACLs are more fine-grained than POSIX ACLs. so freebsd supports nfs acl's, so does freenas support? nfs may be simpler than iscsi or it may be possible to use them anyway with rsync or such somehow Or maybe just store a copy of the acls/xattrs (getfacls > blah) alongside the backup - no worries whether the underlying filesystem supports it, and no information lost. brycec: that's the current plan, the issue is what happens if the ACL changes in between that short time mercutio: yeah, rich/nfs acls are nicer, but there's no native linux support for them and rsync can't convert between thet wo JC_Denton: take a dump before and a dump after. then compare the two after the copy Heck even rsync isn't invulnerable to that and will complain if files have disappeared since rsync started running That's why people take filesystem snapshots, backup from that, and destroy the snapshot when complete So nothing is changing during the backup (relative to the backup process) actually, duplicity might be a better bet for this, no? since it tarballs first You could just tar in the first place for that matter Of course depending on how long the tar takes, you're looking at the same issue I think it really boils down to how do you want your backup files, JC_Denton *sigh* *sigh* https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/558385 eg: rsnapshot-like, just a bunch of dated tar files, something more advanced with incremental backups, etc damn. caught my headphone cable on my chair and broke the suspension hardware on the left side. audio-technica discontinued them too. grr. hmm, zsh just made a huge change to cut and paste i'm still trying to figure out how to deal with it :) basically if you cut and paste stuff with new lines in it it will come through as a new line, rather than the end of a statement. oh it's not so bad, you can still do multiple commands, you just press enter to do them all I'm in favor. yeh as soon as i realised you can press enter and do them all it's fine i used to stick echo on the front of stuff i was cut and pasting so as to not run it or # hopefully it makes the next ubuntu lts actually it should main concern would be getting used to it, and finding it hardly anywhere just rolled a quick ruby script to do the acl and xattr dump on all three rsnapshot instances. cross your fingers for me :) easymac seems to have issues for a while now seems to be around once an hour