xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_create looping, missing dirs/files, corrupt inodetables, etc.

To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_create looping, missing dirs/files, corrupt inodetables, etc.
From: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:57:47 +0200
>received: from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274BC57306; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: yocum@xxxxxxxx, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, xfs-list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Sauter AG, Basel
References: <3B8130DC.B0DCAC6C@xxxxxxxx> <3B813433.99FCCF2B@xxxxxxx> <4.3.2.7.2.20010820212625.03d832d8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Seth Mos schrieb:
> 
> At 14:01 20-8-2001 -0500, yocum@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >I'd test on a non-RAID system if I had one (how often do you hear that?
> >;-).  I suppose I could try it on my desktop.  I'll let you know how that
> >goes, too. We're moving *lots* of data around (a few hundred GB/week at
> >least).  I'm trying to get the data analysts to use rcp instead of NFS, but
> >that'll take some time.
> 
> Slightly OT.
> 
> how about scp and then using publickey authentication. I just managed to
> set something like that up for the kt.zork.net mirror.

More OT again :)

Using ssh/scp with public key authentication is very nice but there is
one problem: If you need good performance, rsh/rcp is much better than
the secure versions. So ssh/scp is good on public/insecure networks
while rsh/rcp is good in secure ineternal networks.

-Simon

> 
> You won't even need to enter passwords then although it is highly risky
> when you use this on laptops.
> 
> Cheers
> --
> Seth
> Every program has two purposes one for which
> it was written and another for which it wasn't
> I use the last kind.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>