Slashdot Mirror

You know, there's something that's really rather simple that secures your backups from being toyed with.

All of my backups end in .tar.gz.gpg.

Ah, simplicity of well thought out security. (Concerning backups, anyways.)

Shameless plug follows
A bit ago, I accidently nuked my home dir, so I made myself a backup script that scans $HOME for ".nobackup" files, and then archives everything but those directories containing those (I really don't need three copies of the kernel source in my backups, you know?). It .tar.gz compresses them into $HOME/.backups/, and if $HOME/.backups/gpgkey exists, will use gpg to encrypt your backup for you. More info here.

I do.

Heck, I documented the entire process... Knoppix itself makes it easy, but I didn't want to be forced to run a knoppix computer whenever I wanted to boot into knoppix.

First read setting up PXE and then PXE Booting Knoppix (less running a knoppix terminal server 24/7, and causing dual DHCP server collisions, and etc. etc. etc.)

I do.

Heck, I documented the entire process... Knoppix itself makes it easy, but I didn't want to be forced to run a knoppix computer whenever I wanted to boot into knoppix.

First read setting up PXE and then PXE Booting Knoppix (less running a knoppix terminal server 24/7, and causing dual DHCP server collisions, and etc. etc. etc.)

Shamelessly copied from my previous, rather misplaced post:

I wanted to know the differences in the optimization levels, so I made up a script[1] that compiled zlib and libpng with various optimizations on various archs and timed how long it took to run the test suite with 4 various images[2][3][4][5].

I ran this test on a 2.8GHz Intel P4 HT proc, with 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR-400. Results are at http://www.brantleyonline.com/school/sf/graph1.sxw .

The X axis, is in the format "L-Z", where "L" is the libpng optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)), and "Z" is the zlib optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)). The Y axis is in seconds, and for precise values, look at the graph data vs the visual graph.

The google logo[3] was useless, it's far too small to give me accurate results. However, if you compare the comic[5], the difference is 0.665 seconds... while this may not seem *huge*, in the case of a server where every tenth of a second counts, multiply the time by requests and compare the two. In the simple case of a libpng test case (opens a PNG image, re-writes it, compares the old to the new), optimizations matter, and a lot.

Of course, some code can be optimized more than others, and there is a large number of variables to take into account, but I'd hope that booting into single user mode and running this in a terminal should remove as much of that as possible.

The thing is, very few people are going to notice the 2/3rds of a second optimizations give you, vs the hours spent compiling OpenOffice.

Not linked due to bandwidth reasons (384kbps upstream = teh suck)
[1]http://www.brantleyonline.com/sf.sh
[2] Tranqulity - @ gallery.artofgregmartin.com - down due to bandwidth, but it's a 1.4MB file (PNG format), 1600x1200, using a large variety of blues and blacks.
[3]http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/l ogo.gif
[4]Screenshot of OSX on dual monitors, large amount of windows, varied transparancies, 1440x576, 570.2kb. (not linked due to bandwidth)
[5]http://www.applegeeks.com/comic_arc hive/viewcom ic.php?issue=134
Note: if you use the script, please, PLEASE, mirror the images LOCALLY and use that instead...

Not that pertains to SSA trees, but...

I wanted to know the differences in the optimization levels, so I made up a script[1] that compiled zlib and libpng with various optimizations on various archs and timed how long it took to run the test suite with 4 various images[2][3][4][5].

I ran this test on a 2.8GHz Intel P4 HT proc, with 512MB Kingston HyperX DDR-400. Results are here.

The X axis, is in the format "L-Z", where "L" is the libpng optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)), and "Z" is the zlib optimization level (3, 2, 1, 0, or s (size)). The Y axis is in seconds, and for precise values, look at the graph data vs the visual graph.

The google logo[3] was useless, it's far too small to give me accurate results. However, if you compare the comic[5], the difference is 0.665 seconds... while this may not seem *huge*, in the case of a server where every tenth of a second counts, multiply the time by requests and compare the two. In the simple case of a libpng test case (opens a PNG image, re-writes it, compares the old to the new), optimizations matter, and a lot.

Of course, some code can be optimized more than others, and there is a large number of variables to take into account, but I'd hope that booting into single user mode and running this in a terminal should remove as much of that as possible.

The thing is, very few people are going to notice the 2/3rds of a second optimizations give you, vs the hours spent compiling OpenOffice.


Not linked due to bandwidth reasons (384kbps upstream = teh suck)
[1]http://www.brantleyonline.com/sf.sh
[2] Tranqulity - @ gallery.artofgregmartin.com - down due to bandwidth, but it's a 1.4MB file (PNG format), 1600x1200, using a large variety of blues and blacks.
[3]http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/logo.gif
[4]Screenshot of OSX on dual monitors, large amount of windows, varied transparancies, 1440x576, 570.2kb. (not linked due to bandwidth)
[5]http://www.applegeeks.com/comic_archive/viewcom ic.php?issue=134
Note: if you use the script, please, PLEASE, mirror the images LOCALLY and use that instead...