I agree documenting deviations can be nice, but are those deviations moving outside
of the standard configuration locations?
Maybe I should not have said "/etc" but instead said "standard configuration locations"
meaning the standard places where the configuration files should be. Though I will
content that in most cases, that means /etc.
I deal with Oracle databases and application servers a lot and while the asterisk based
systems I create and support have most of their configuration in /etc other things are
stored as data in the MySQL database and other places. With Oracle eBusiness Suite
applications none of it is in /etc and /var except for startup scripts.
Yes I'll admit you can get away with doing what you're saying a lot especially on simple
servers.. *until you can't.* Sometimes there is no reliable working version of the
server to go to.. because the 'working version' was on a hacked server and then
sometimes even your backups have the problem. Usually the stuff in /etc is pretty
safe because it isn't executable but wrong settings there can open a lot of
vulnerabilities; having what you deviated from the default install documented helps a
lot.
I think the horse is dead here :) If you're ok trusting that what you have in /etc and
/var is sufficient good luck to you.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Nathan England <
nathan@nmecs.com[1]> wrote:
Are you serious? Do people actually configure linux servers with configuration files
outside of /etc ? Beyond LDAP and MySQL what else keeps the configuration outside
of /etc ?
I'm not talking about replacing all the data from a web server or loading the data into
an LDAP or MySQL server. I'm talking reconfiguration.
As far as "recreating problems from the original server" did you not read what I wrote?
I said ...
[QUOTE]
A complete backup of /etc and /var from a machine that was running as intended 2
hours before the SHTF.
[/QUOTE]
Notice the *as intended*. If the machine was not running properly to begin with, that
would have to dealt with before the machine goes down. If your misconfigured
machine fails before you get it configured correctly, you have bigger problems my
friend!
What kind of servers do you manage where knowing what is in /etc and /var is
sufficient?
Ho
w
are you sure you aren't recreating problems from the original server on the new one?
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Nathan England <_
nathan@nmecs.com_> wrote:
From my experiences with server rebuilds after catastrophic failures, I absolutely have
to agree. The server *is* the documentation. I have rebuilt servers using extensive
documentation about how it was setup, with scripts and plans included in the
documentation and why it was set up the way it was set up. I have also rebuild servers
after massive failures using only data backups.
If I had to rebuild a server today, in a time crunch, and I had the choice of complete
documentation of how and why vs a copy of the /etc folder.... I'd go /etc in a heart
beat. I wouldn't even flinch.
Who is to say I am going to understand someone else's logic when reading their
documentation. Who's to say the system wasn't built by a genius and then
documented by a teenage kid still wet behind the ears having only built his first 'puter
a week ago.
vs
A complete backup of /etc and /var from a machine that was running as intended 2
hours before the SHTF.
I agree completely that this kind of attitude comes across as arrogance. But is it really
arrogance if I really am just better than you? (lol - ducks)
When you build a machine for a client it is highly recommended that you well
document the system. But at the end of the day, if the admin who must fix what is
broken can't figure it out from looking at the code or reading the configuration files
what makes you think endless reems of documentation is going to help?
I know a few guys who could figure it out, but where some of us could rebuild the
machine in a couple of hours given that /etc backup, the other guy might take days...
The server *is* the documentation.
Good post Lisa!
Nathan
Across the board, the number 1 worst attribute that I see working with the PLUG,
technology teams, and mentoring (at or around year 3 in academics, and year 3 - 10 in
IT/linux professionalism) = arrogance.
What exactly is arrogance anyway. Where is this found? Why?
It's the place in the discussion where one person dominates assuming that their
position or knowledge is greater (without investigation). This is also referred to as
"OneUpManShip".
It's the place in the presentation where students and PLUG peers write off the person
who has taken on the role to "present on the subject" based on their ability to verbally
spiel acronyms. This is referred to "Minimizing".
It's the place in the team dissemination of project roles and tasks where a member's
enthusiasm is downplayed based on experience. This is referred to "Dues Hierarchy".
This is the place in the interview where the employer fails to realize all they need to do
is very the work history, since everything for a Linux professional is motivated by and
driven from an ethical systems administrator viewpoint (not any communications with
or responsibilities disseminated from the employer); just as we are woken from sleep
to work on or check systems; and jazzed beyond belief by a well engineered hardware
server like IBM Blade (can you say Fiber channel switched backplane?)... ---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss 
(text/plain)