similar to: problems permision owner root

Hi, I have created a certificate, and i execute the following command rsync -arvz /root/.ssh/id_dsa.pub technique_ftp@sinternet:/home/technique_ftp/.ssh/authorized_keys2 <mailto:technique_ftp@sinternet:/home/technique_ftp/.ssh/authorized_keys 2> but I have this problem : sinternet: Connection refused rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes read so far) rsync error: error in rsync

I have some problems while authentication. I created RSA keys and placed the public key on the remote host. With the user toto, I have the following command line : rsync --arvz --rsh=ssh Nouveaudossier essai_ftp@192.168.1.4:/home/essai_ftp/test/ <mailto:essai_ftp@192.168.1.4:/home/essai_ftp/test/> but it tells the password of essai_ftp. So I added this : --password-file=password.txt

I have a subversion repo on a Debian Sarge server. I do rails development on two Debian workstations (home, work) and also a MacBookPro. I installed subversion from Darwinports. Things worked ok for a while and I did commits from and updates to all three machines until today. When I did svn status I noticed a lock on the working dir. $ svn status ? Rakefile ? readme ! L . .... etc I cannot

I obtaing this resulta. Imposible enumerated the object in the container: access negated. Il 11/02/2019 17:35, Rowland Penny via samba ha scritto: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:21:13 +0100 > marco pirola via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Not firewall and selinux policy running  on the domain member; At the >> directory samba I used chown root:"Domain

As part of adding support for OCFS2 to mount huge volumes, we need to check that the sector_t and page cache of the system are capable of addressing the entire volume. An identical check already appears in ext3 and ext4. This patch moves the addressability check into its own function in fs/libfs.c and modifies ext3 and ext4 to invoke it. Signed-off-by: Patrick LoPresti <lopresti at

I noticed that if the free space cache has an error writing out it''s data it won''t actually error out, it will just carry on. This is because it doesn''t check the return value of btrfs_wait_ordered_range, which didn''t actually return anything. So fix this in order to keep us from making free space cache look valid when it really isnt. Thanks, Signed-off-by:

I have a backup script that copies the contents of a backup directory to my local server at night. The command is run from a script: /etc/cron.daily/backup /usr/bin/rsync -arvz -e ssh user@servername.com:/home/backups/* backup_disk/servername/ The output from the cron job is: Permission denied, please try again. Permission denied, please try again. Permission denied

Not firewall and selinux policy running  on the domain member; At the directory samba I used chown root:"Domain User" /home/samba. This command it'ok? Il 11/02/2019 17:02, Rowland Penny via samba ha scritto: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:43:48 +0100 > marco pirola via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> How should I behave? > Is there a firewall running

If this isn't the correct list for cwRsync issues, I apologize and hope someone can point me in the right direction. Otherwise, keep reading . I noticed something odd today with one of our backups. I have an NT 2000 machine that pushes files to a 2003 Server machine and today someone brought to my attention that the backup seems to have well over 100GiB more than

When btrfs_start_transaction() fails, we should call btrfs_std_error() properly for filesystem to readonly. (in this patch, forced readonly framework is used) Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh <t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 1 + fs/btrfs/inode.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 11 ++++++++++- fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 4 +++-

This check for a user transaction is a bogus: fsync() with an open user transaction is verboten. If the caller is the same process who started a user transaction, and this is a different file, we will deadlock. If it''s the same file, this check means we won''t deadlock, but the transaction will be prematurely closed out. Any user transaction ioctl users should be careful to

Hi. In btrfs, fdatasync and fsync are identical. I think fdatasync should skip committing transaction when inode->i_state is set just I_DIRTY_SYNC and this indicates only atime or/and mtime updates. Following patch improves fdatasync throughput. #sysbench --num-threads=16 --max-requests=10000 --test=fileio --file-block-size=4K --file-total-size=16G --file-test-mode=rndwr

Hi. In ocfs2, fdatasync and fsync are identical. I think fdatasync should skip committing transaction when inode->i_state is set just I_DIRTY_SYNC and this indicates only atime or/and mtime updates. Following patch improves fdatasync throughput. #sysbench --num-threads=16 --max-requests=300000 --test=fileio --file-block-size=4K --file-total-size=16G --file-test-mode=rndwr

As part of migrating the FLUSH/FUA knob to the block layer, remove the journal flags and various conditionals in jbd2 that surround flush issue calls in favor of always issuing the flush. The block layer will handle gracefully the situation where a FLUSH or FUA request is issued to a device that doesn't support it. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong at us.ibm.com> ---

fs_info->last_trans_committed is a 64bits variant, we might get a wrong value on the 32bit machines if we access it directly. Fix it by atomic operation. Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/file.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 2

i'm getting some very strange behavior with openssh 2.3.0p1 that i don't recall seeing with 2.2.0p1. here's some short output that will probably sum up what's going on better than i can explain it: admin2:~$ ssh downtown1 df Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/sda3 8457624 2881868 5139192 36% / /dev/sda1 15522

Well, I've received two emails asking me for more information on how I resolved this problem. I felt bad that I didn't know anything more than I had posted. Now the problem is back for me, and I am unable to resolve it again. Has anyone made any progress on this? Thanks, -Michael http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2003-November/002395.html __________________________________ Do you

Last night I did a long overdue security update of my Debian file server. One of the updates was to Samba 2.2.3a-12.3. Since then, I've had a very strange (to me) permissions issue, that I have not been able to resolve digging around in Google. Using the shares on a Win2K machine, everything is fine. I can log in, persuse existing content, and make new directories and files. On my Mac

I have a server with SuSE 9.0 professional and samba 2.2.8a-170, with approximately 70 directories. I have created in samba a resource or share called data, within as the 70 directories inside it. The problem is since I make to assign the permissions to these directories. If for example, userA belongs to group1 and to group2 and directoryA has like group to grupo1, but when a user of group2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I like to know what will happend if: - - one Domain with 2 DCs - - two Admins working on their Windows-ws with RSAT. - - Admin1 is connected to DC1 - - Admin2 is connected to DC2 - - Admin1 creats a user "u1" and a group "g1" - - then the two DCs will lose connection, the user and group is replicated to DC2 - - now Admin1