Happy New Year everyone.

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD compatiable, and most
importantly, if it would be a worthwhile upgrade?



Regards,
Phil
bayhaus.org

... A Smith & Wesson *ALWAYS* beats 4 Aces.

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.6 (FreeBSD-i386)
* Origin: Serving the Front Range (1:128/2)

Phil Kimble wrote to All <=-

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD compatiable, and most
importantly, if it would be a worthwhile upgrade?

95.15 I believe is what I am running here. I am running the development snapshot that Michiel has available for downloading from his website.
Running it under Debian 7.0 "Wheezy".


... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
* Origin: Omicron Theta | Memphis TN | fpsoft.net (1:116/18)

Hello Phil!

12 Jan 13 01:54, you wrote to All:

Happy New Year everyone.

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD
compatiable, and most importantly, if it would be a worthwhile
upgrade?

The changes since 95.6 can be seen in the Changelog and yes it is worth upgrading and there is no change to
compatability to FreeBSD prviding you have the prerequesites (libraries etc) still installed in order to
compile it.

Also look at the readme's for any upgrade procedures.


Vince

--- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
* Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1)

Robert.

12 Jan 13 13:30, you wrote to Phil Kimble:

Phil Kimble wrote to All <=-

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD
compatiable, and most importantly, if it would be a worthwhile
upgrade?

95.15 I believe is what I am running here.

Hm... I've a test build of 95.14 running here...

Running it under Debian 7.0 "Wheezy".

That's what I have here, but apparantly I didn't make a version of the package publically available for a Debian install... Guess it's about time to update the package...<g>

There is one available for Ubuntu v12.04 (precise) for both i386 & amd64, in the package archive [1] over at the FTN Applications project at launchpad.net (mbsebbs_0.92.0+111209-1ppa1~precise1).




Jame
[1] https://launchpad.net/~ftnapps/+archive/main/+packages

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20111217
* Origin: RJC eeePC (1:120/419)

Vince Coen wrote to Phil Kimble:

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD
compatiable, and most importantly, if it would be a worthwhile
upgrade?

The changes since 95.6 can be seen in the Changelog and yes it is worth upgrading and there is no change to
compatability to FreeBSD prviding you have the prerequesites (libraries etc)
still installed in order to
compile it.

Also look at the readme's for any upgrade procedures.

Great advice! I will look seriously into an upgrade!



Regards,
Phil
bayhaus.org

... At a store: In God we trust; all others pay cash.

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.6 (FreeBSD-i386)
* Origin: Serving the Front Range (1:128/2)

Robert Wolfe wrote to Phil Kimble:

Phil Kimble wrote to All <=-

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD

compatiable,

and most
importantly, if it would be a worthwhile upgrade?

95.15 I believe is what I am running here. I am running the development snapshot that Michiel has available for downloading from his website. Running it under Debian 7.0 "Wheezy".

Thanks Robert! I will have to dig it out & take a close look. I hate doing remote upgrades but it will give me time to research & testing.



Regards,
Phil
bayhaus.org

... "640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates '81

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.6 (FreeBSD-i386)
* Origin: Serving the Front Range (1:128/2)

Phil Kimble wrote to Robert Wolfe:

95.15 I believe is what I am running here. I am running the

development

snapshot that Michiel has available for downloading from his website. Running it under Debian 7.0 "Wheezy".

Thanks Robert! I will have to dig it out & take a close look. I hate doing
remote upgrades but it will give me time to research & testing.

A quick check of the software version informatio shows I am running
version 0.95.15 of MBSE.


Greetings, Robert Wolfe

... "Keyboard? How quaint!" - Scotty

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.15 (GNU/Linux-i386)
* Origin: Omicron Theta | Memphis TN | fpsoft.net (1:116/18)

Phil Kimble wrote to Robert Wolfe:

95.15 I believe is what I am running here. I am running the

development

snapshot that Michiel has available for downloading from his website. Running it under Debian 7.0 "Wheezy".

Thanks Robert! I will have to dig it out & take a close look. I hate doing
remote upgrades but it will give me time to research & testing.

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)


Greetings, Robert Wolfe

... A Smith & Wesson *ALWAYS* beats 4 Aces.

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.15 (GNU/Linux-i386)
* Origin: Omicron Theta | Memphis TN | fpsoft.net (1:116/18)

Phil Kimble wrote to All:

Happy New Year everyone.

I have been out of the loop during the past year &
curious to learn the latest of MBSE, if it remains FreeBSD compatiable, and
most
importantly, if it would be a worthwhile upgrade?

I don't see why it would NOT work under FreeBSD. If in doubt, set up a test machine and see if the 0.95.15 source will build under it.


Greetings, Robert Wolfe

... A Smith & Wesson *ALWAYS* beats 4 Aces.

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.15 (GNU/Linux-i386)
* Origin: Omicron Theta | Memphis TN | fpsoft.net (1:116/18)

Hello Robert!

07 Feb 13 13:11, you wrote to Phil Kimble:

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)

Absolutely! If you don't backup first, you're just asking for there to be some stupid glitch that takes HOURS to recover from.

Andrew


--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120826
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * bnbbbs.dyndns.org:2323 (1:320/219)

Hi All!

12 Jan 13 15:20, I wrote to Robert Wolfe:

mbsebbs_0.92.0+111209-1ppa1~precise1

And note that I'm still using primary package version numbers like "0.92.0+111209" instead of "0.95.14" (which is what that one is) because I still haven't heard how the versioning is going to go. IIRC; even version numbers were for stable releases and odd version numbers were for develpment versions. That's fine except that they weren't in sequence; 0.93.x was used to develop 0.92.0 instead of 0.91.x as I would expect.

Personally, I think v0.94.0 should should be just skipped and some kind of note as to why added to the ChangeLog (or some kind of v0.94 release could be done but still continue with 0.95.x as the current development leading to a v0.96.0 release). That way, v0.95.x development versions can lead to a stable v0.96.0, which makes more sense.


Jame


--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5--b20111217
* Origin: RJC eeePC (1:120/419)

Robert Wolfe wrote to Phil Kimble <=-

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)

Just had to say Hi to you too.. :) Wish I had a backup!

Ttyl :-),
Al

... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49

Re: MBSE Latest
By: Alan Ianson to Robert Wolfe on Wed May 01 2013 03:59 pm

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)

Just had to say Hi to you too.. :) Wish I had a backup!

Ttyl :-),
Al

... Direct from the Ministry of Silly Walks

Hi Al! Nice to see you are still around these days :) Was beginning to
wonder what had happened to you :)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: RiverNet BBS | Memphis TN | bbs.rivernet.us (1:116/18)

Hello Robert!

07 Feb 2013 13:11, Robert Wolfe wrote to Phil Kimble:

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)

raid6 raid6 raid6 raid6 :)

i have not loosed any files on my qnap with logical drive in 3.6TB size yet, even there is 2 fail fysical bad drives

i think the linux geek inside qnap just works


Regards Benny

... there can only be one way of life, and it works :)

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0 (Linux/3.9.6-gentoo (i686))
* Origin: duggi.junc.org where qico is waiting (2:230/0)

Hello Andrew!

08 Feb 2013 11:37, Andrew Leary wrote to Robert Wolfe:

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of
upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)

Absolutely! If you don't backup first, you're just asking for there
to be some stupid glitch that takes HOURS to recover from.

does mbse have a dump config option that export current config to one single xml file ?

equant to mysqldump ?

in husky its nearly just tparser -E >newconfig


Regards Benny

... there can only be one way of life, and it works :)

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0 (Linux/3.9.6-gentoo (i686))
* Origin: duggi.junc.org where qico is waiting (2:230/0)

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote to Robert Wolfe:

My philosophy is BACKUP, BACKUP, AND BACKUP before doing ANY kind of upgrade, local or remote :) but ESPECIALLY remote :)

raid6 raid6 raid6 raid6 :)

RAID is -=NOT=- a backup strategy... RAID is only for storage, access speed, and redundancy... even data stored on a RAID must be backed up... loose your RAID card or take a lightening strike that destroys the machine and see how much data you can get that's workable... off-site backups do not have this problem...

)\/(ark

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
* Origin: (1:3634/12.71)

Hello mark!

04 Jul 2013 16:39, mark lewis wrote to Benny Pedersen:

RAID is -=NOT=- a backup strategy...

lol :)

RAID is only for storage, access
speed, and redundancy...

i dont agree, it was a backup for me, i still in progress to migrade to another
nas for now, 3.6TB to be moved just not take under one sec :)

even data stored on a RAID must be backed up...

in raid6 there is built in backup

loose your RAID card or take a lightening strike that destroys
the machine and see how much data you can get that's workable...

fair for hardware raid, but its not that hard with software raid with ups backup, some hardware raid have batterie backup on the controller, it just dont
have it for the drives

off-site backups do not have this problem...

well i will handle it properly in that way when i have now 2 nas boxes with more then 3.6TB space now

and linux :)


Regards Benny

... there can only be one way of life, and it works :)

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0 (Linux/3.9.8-gentoo (i686))
* Origin: duggi.junc.org where qico is waiting (2:230/0)

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013, Benny Pedersen wrote to mark lewis:

RAID is -=NOT=- a backup strategy...

lol :)

it is not a laughing matter... not in the least...

RAID is only for storage, access speed, and redundancy...

clarification : fault tolerance and performance

i dont agree, it was a backup for me, i still in progress to
migrade to another nas for now, 3.6TB to be moved just not take
under one sec :)

[quote]
A RAID system used as secondary [sic] storage is not an alternative to backing up data. In RAID levels > 0, a RAID protects from catastrophic data loss caused
by physical damage or errors on a single drive within the array (or two drives in, say, RAID 6). However, a true backup system has other important features such as the ability to restore an earlier version of data, which is needed both
to protect against software errors that write unwanted data to secondary storage, and also to recover from user error and malicious data deletion. A RAID can be overwhelmed by catastrophic failure that exceeds its recovery capacity and, of course, the entire array is at risk of physical damage by fire, natural disaster, and human forces, while backups can be stored off-site.
A RAID is also vulnerable to controller failure because it is not always possible to migrate a RAID to a new, different controller without data loss.[17]
[/quote]

even data stored on a RAID must be backed up...

in raid6 there is built in backup

incorrect... A RAID 5 uses block-level striping with parity data distributed across all member disks. RAID 6 extends RAID 5 by adding an additional parity block; thus it uses block-level striping with two parity blocks distributed across all member disks. RAID 6 does not have a performance penalty for read operations, but it does have a performance penalty on write operations because of the overhead associated with parity calculations. Performance varies greatly
depending on how RAID 6 is implemented in the manufacturer's storage architecture - in software, firmware or by using firmware and specialized ASICs
for intensive parity calculations. It can be as fast as a RAID-5 system with one fewer drive (same number of data drives).

there is NO BACKUP in RAID... only Fault Tolerance (multiple copies of the same
data spread over multiple disks) and Performance Enhancement (access of the same data over more than one platter at the same time). while you may think that having multiple copies of the same data spread across multiple drives is a
backup, it is not... RAID is still suseptible to catastrophic loss... it is possible to have very high fault tolerance but this still does not negate catastrophic loss probabilities...

and software RAID? thanks but no thanks! the performance penalties are too great for my liking... give me dedicated hardware RAID any day... then i can RAID multiple RAIDs and have even more fault tolerance and performance... how about a mirrored RAID5 of multiple RAID5s ;)

RAID5 - minumum 3 drives
Mirrored RAID5 (aka RAID5+1) - two RAID5s in mirror = 6 drives
RAID5 of RAID5s - min of 3 RAID5s each w/min of 3 drives = 9 drives
Mirrored RAID5 of RAID5s = 18 drives

and still none of the above provide backup functions... a true backup system has other important features such as the ability to restore an earlier version of data, which is needed both to protect against software errors that write unwanted data to secondary storage, and also to recover from user error and malicious data deletion. you just cannot get that from a RAID in any shape form
or fashion... why? because a malicious deletion or overwrite, for example, is written to all drives in the array at the same time thus the data is lost completely... in the case of deletion, one may be fast enough to perform an OS level undelete operation on that file /if/ such operation is even allowed at all... in the case of overwrite, good luck...

EOT

)\/(ark

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
* Origin: (1:3634/12.71)