• Re: [gentoo-user] Permission error when trying to rsync over nfs

    From Michael@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 20 12:46:38 2025
    On Monday, 19 May 2025 14:39:21 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    Howdy,

    I'm wanting to move a Data partition over to a new set of drives that
    are encrypted. I decided the easiest way to do this is to put the new
    drives on the NAS box and mount them like I do when I backup my large
    Video directory only copy the Data files instead. So, on the NAS box, I
    set up the three drives, 2 16TB and the famous 20TB drive, with LVM and dm-setup. Once I had that setup, I mounted in just like I would the
    Video directory. I also ran exportfs -a so it would see the newly
    mounted drive set and make it available. On my main rig, I then mounted
    it using the same command I would for the Video directory for backups.
    Then I took the same command for backing up my video but just replaced
    the source and target with the Data path instead of video. Basically, everything is set up the same, I just replaced everything with the
    drives I want info copied to in both mounting drives and commands.

    This is the error I get.


    rsync: [generator] recv_generator: mkdir "/mnt/TV_Backup/Data/random directory" failed: Permission denied (13)


    I know to run the rsync command as a user, not root. I have to do that
    when updating my video backups. I recall getting a error, could be this
    one, at first but setting something to make it work. I can't recall
    what I had to do tho. I also have no notes on this. I'm sure I'm
    missing something but no idea what. Anyone ran into this before and
    remember what to do to fix it? Internet searches aren't helping either.

    Thanks.

    Dale

    :-) :-)

    OK, I am confused ... :-/

    If you want to update the contents of a fs over the network, then rsync is
    your tool. Why is NFS coming into this at all?

    Assuming the user IDs are the same across systems, add '--numeric-ids'.
    That's all.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmgsa54ACgkQseqq9sKV ZxmrEQ//QISlfofgma11BFDUZshl0d3Z8Kj/rLalgPl7x7ob5LToW7r3Zaj0PAaM 2QdWevm2cq+dwII1SnG/XoFG3N6VOvrK206JXrPlO4oVnwaxzjOqW/hxLJuE0YJf EznEstE8nmwYkkergoBKdackbL5Xs32S2v6daQUghVulx2HKnV6H6EJCTBiBUvkU h7BBlrS11cnsCFvJ0w0l1FhMPdF/L/hdF9EGsHzaxWHunXtz35iRhXi4kMgyFz41 6imMhj63paNMRE3E6w1rpm+rPUKobMeXxS71Xl9vyf+9PuF+ZCEwnkz49xDI+epv oVjjLSL0TVFT5GrMTEQehReUxAv9UczFIoqk5UqMoFuAMHS5G6DP4Uj51gVq342z LYkpJ2xeY+r+uqWkb4Ql5LbwHu6T/YMM9li+kVgWblSsxHmR4q6vq2R2FrEvqAft S78dvKWA3JuOQ4TOU+Oc4N66vTjSRXTuK8g4n4mgVyjGHTQoA7CA42ddht/IBC3U oIn2G1gdF7zX+7f4uL6QwdbhlxCB1Y4qGJ+UfRJTORoeQCdp38hfUqUJ7bkvEMuM HmW+5j1oyLA//NlmSUlZOiHxCZwgzV1t94k2iOqTTP5u6vZN7dQ0sR33/zoyL/4s cZe4NSC1f5+sW4QZNODMrUslUlx5+Q8vogOQqxfw0WkkyasTbuA=
    =0fW0
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 20 15:02:30 2025
    On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 14:27:51 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    Michael wrote:

    OK, I am confused ... :-/

    If you want to update the contents of a fs over the network, then rsync is your tool. Why is NFS coming into this at all?

    Assuming the user IDs are the same across systems, add '--numeric-ids'. That's all.

    Well, I mount the drives on the NAS box over the network with nfs on my
    main rig. It's just how I set it up. For some reason, it just won't
    work this time. It works when I do my video backups tho. :/

    NFS has other advantages, but running rsync through it ain't one of them.

    Are the directories exported in the *same* way?

    Do you use (rw) as an option?

    Have you set up anonuid and anongid options in the exports for the IDs you
    want the remote users to acquire when connecting over NFS?


    It does mount fine and everything shows up. It's just that it won't let
    me create a directory or anything to copy files over.

    Can you drag & drop individual files using the GUI or CLI, without rsync?

    Check the above suggestions in case one of them works for you.

    However, I still think you should use rsync directly, since we're talking
    about updating remote data to match your local data - it is what it was designed for.


    You get your system fixed?

    Almost:

    Installing (411 of 481) ...

    It would not let me emerge python, because of missing keywords ... on an otherwise stable system. I invoked emerge by prefixing it with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" and it is progressing at the moment. I'll try to sort out rust next.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmgsi3YACgkQseqq9sKV Zxn6WA//UOZ510T3fyl+4KV/DsoWlZf8Vn7dS0W/VsLF4nIc+zshSPYpSbokED0f qaZ18xE2LKMUA5iludcchu5/I/2sSCtss49afLNYH76Lq5fGzTaSNzhTLvIHRc2o GEQySkW4czPaKi4jCxIMQAgxxYdq3uLrmErea+2DYUY9oXT4MjJCDz5QrqwQN62A Kicj5hVIgVPOGQM3mfbkYPzolDZwNTNc01jZLywYq15AunwBynMC0P7Z8FjUhH+W jaEIxnmKTwMbSwPdnru5t+mKnIc4yHyNyMGh50PY5Aab4JCpuAclp2KOFuPaigQv 6pRFRLhAynRFf/jz68LQ4Drp5Tz1CFw9fCwffY+M2YAdAmoBqsUM88OCNM2uN7OX A3sbXbamTCSQA11VT37M/uoxW/C2aOgRzQCVnKVgE/hyjIf+4MGaZFsXIlKEBK+W 0XZwndsoMIYtr5kXlY+/gbUSSUfVOxaSic1hgCnYZrC/5pXN/IPRaVHIgLs4oplz Y1yeIH3xpscaY0F7IkqYXG85fvzNdb4VgScfiOFGsfPcJWKfOxlQEv44SP1wpqRt Yz8db5hBtdJ05snclcRZDdBuqPh56+PsD1oKQD6O3oz/AaJFOJ9D6l7E138ISFGy 28IA+polJLEDPQjF3zYGW/JNPYZLff+U7rm6Qea2wHUxvwvp0Wk=
    =Tp29
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 21 19:16:53 2025
    On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 17:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    Michael wrote:
    On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 14:27:51 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    Michael wrote:
    OK, I am confused ... :-/

    If you want to update the contents of a fs over the network, then rsync >>> is
    your tool. Why is NFS coming into this at all?

    Assuming the user IDs are the same across systems, add '--numeric-ids'. >>> That's all.

    Well, I mount the drives on the NAS box over the network with nfs on my
    main rig. It's just how I set it up. For some reason, it just won't
    work this time. It works when I do my video backups tho. :/

    NFS has other advantages, but running rsync through it ain't one of them.

    Are the directories exported in the *same* way?

    Do you use (rw) as an option?

    Have you set up anonuid and anongid options in the exports for the IDs you want the remote users to acquire when connecting over NFS?

    It does mount fine and everything shows up. It's just that it won't let >> me create a directory or anything to copy files over.

    Can you drag & drop individual files using the GUI or CLI, without rsync?

    Check the above suggestions in case one of them works for you.

    However, I still think you should use rsync directly, since we're talking about updating remote data to match your local data - it is what it was designed for.

    I had a idea. I checked permissions of things while connected to the
    new data drive set. Then I pulled the backup drive set from the safe
    and hooked it up. I then checked the permissions of it. There is
    something different between the two. Could this be the problem. This
    is the info, removing unneeded bits. This is the data drive set.



    root@nas ~ # mount | grep /mnt
    /dev/mapper/data on /mnt/backup type ext4 (rw,relatime)
    root@nas ~ # ls -al /mnt/
    total 24
    drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 May 12 23:43 .
    drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Mar 23 10:05 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 20 09:32 backup
    root@nas ~ #


    root@Gentoo-1 / # mount | grep TV_Backup
    10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup on /mnt/TV_Backup type nfs4 (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nocto,prot o=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.0.0.4,local_lock= none,addr=10.0.0.5) root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /mnt/
    total 68
    drwxrwxr-x 17 dale users 4096 Oct 22 2024 .
    drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Sep 11 2024 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 20 09:32 TV_Backup
    root@Gentoo-1 / #



    This is the backup drive set which works fine.



    root@nas ~ # mount | grep /mnt
    /dev/mapper/backup on /mnt/backup type ext4 (rw,relatime)
    root@nas ~ # ls -al /mnt/
    total 24
    drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 May 12 23:43 .
    drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Mar 23 10:05 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 4 1000 users 4096 Aug 4 2024 backup
    root@nas ~ #


    root@Gentoo-1 / # mount | grep TV_Backup
    10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup on /mnt/TV_Backup type nfs4 (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nocto,prot o=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.0.0.4,local_lock= none,addr=10.0.0.5) root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /mnt/
    total 68
    drwxrwxr-x 17 dale users 4096 Oct 22 2024 .
    drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Sep 11 2024 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 4 dale users 4096 Aug 4 2024 TV_Backup
    root@Gentoo-1 / #


    The difference is on the NAS box. Permissions are set to 1000:users. I don't recall setting that. So, I reconnected the data drive set and
    changed the permissions to match the backup drive set. As I type, it is doing the backups.

    I wonder, why does it have to be set that way???? Oh, you can bet I put
    this info in a file, for me to forget I have when I run into this
    again. :/

    Dale

    :-) :-)

    P. S. Is there a better way to do this? I'm not worried about security
    as it only goes between one box through my router to the other box. I
    just need to be able to go both ways.

    Normally, /mnt is owned by root:root. Plain users are not allowed to create mountpoints at will.

    UID 1000 would be the first user you set on this PC, e.g. 'dale'.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmguGJUACgkQseqq9sKV Zxknbw/9EFQSn9iH2cHX9lK1ZNRjFe5g/moNzZv+X6yYTHMPh0kp9tPDh52f0OC6 I1316qQfqD5Rweh3C0OOmpuuiuq/lURYjvztf/bW7JsRm9Yth4lKuIOjWbrQqAhI AgHtprmXaS/vjgIhzdJjhjbguX5dvT0KZbj3KBumFObeFjzN5qk9CMkKrNCEG2AI mpjhaEwW9tT8FMxDtJayFAWFIW5sJDLrQfJqADgY4Lu4bQMZj+fPxiAG0SJMP1LY dHPpNJfTBx1h0pAlv4GcN14CcO46x1DV8UETm1u+NOkogJI6oC9t2aoYIr7KjXTv vMIHMY+W3J+fTU8dBrhlgQTQOAvJmvQXj3URu6AoCx4BILKtssFVxAZ/JcYQi7cq FNavbKrQxM6thNxSB0FKtNgHw2CUmm3Q0uwcUeYFtT+zMBaZOw+cyXMtDIjCLzh1 nf2IYbKXmrt+vkDuSF3zzPa3OdW165Yut1+UmCE+gSK7pTo894iz7ELet48n297/ XU9M48VR+xphKTtRV5QrgQfw2QUo/PORv/vZyVGCCtoPEDraTg72rIRB7KuYg5ff MPgZQTLXOWodFLvfeqArd3iL9qQoIbedBR4WgQBvDo8DpVkgzk4WfF7PLW3Gtwi+ l45C8pclSvrPJSN4PVbuXmO1Xf+JhZKGgTvDceDIuw6YfBMRC/o=
    =Ue/K
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 21 21:03:23 2025
    On Wednesday, 21 May 2025 20:42:28 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    Michael wrote:
    On Tuesday, 20 May 2025 17:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    I had a idea. I checked permissions of things while connected to the
    new data drive set. Then I pulled the backup drive set from the safe
    and hooked it up. I then checked the permissions of it. There is
    something different between the two. Could this be the problem. This
    is the info, removing unneeded bits. This is the data drive set.



    root@nas ~ # mount | grep /mnt
    /dev/mapper/data on /mnt/backup type ext4 (rw,relatime)
    root@nas ~ # ls -al /mnt/
    total 24
    drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 May 12 23:43 .
    drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Mar 23 10:05 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 20 09:32 backup
    root@nas ~ #


    root@Gentoo-1 / # mount | grep TV_Backup
    10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup on /mnt/TV_Backup type nfs4
    (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nocto,p >> rot
    o=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.0.0.4,local_l >> ock= none,addr=10.0.0.5) root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /mnt/
    total 68
    drwxrwxr-x 17 dale users 4096 Oct 22 2024 .
    drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Sep 11 2024 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 May 20 09:32 TV_Backup
    root@Gentoo-1 / #



    This is the backup drive set which works fine.



    root@nas ~ # mount | grep /mnt
    /dev/mapper/backup on /mnt/backup type ext4 (rw,relatime)
    root@nas ~ # ls -al /mnt/
    total 24
    drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 May 12 23:43 .
    drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4096 Mar 23 10:05 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 4 1000 users 4096 Aug 4 2024 backup
    root@nas ~ #


    root@Gentoo-1 / # mount | grep TV_Backup
    10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup on /mnt/TV_Backup type nfs4
    (rw,relatime,vers=4.2,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,nocto,p >> rot
    o=tcp,nconnect=4,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.0.0.4,local_l >> ock= none,addr=10.0.0.5) root@Gentoo-1 / # ls /mnt/
    total 68
    drwxrwxr-x 17 dale users 4096 Oct 22 2024 .
    drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Sep 11 2024 ..
    drwxr-xr-x 4 dale users 4096 Aug 4 2024 TV_Backup
    root@Gentoo-1 / #


    The difference is on the NAS box. Permissions are set to 1000:users. I >> don't recall setting that. So, I reconnected the data drive set and
    changed the permissions to match the backup drive set. As I type, it is >> doing the backups.

    I wonder, why does it have to be set that way???? Oh, you can bet I put >> this info in a file, for me to forget I have when I run into this
    again. :/

    Dale

    :-) :-)

    P. S. Is there a better way to do this? I'm not worried about security >> as it only goes between one box through my router to the other box. I
    just need to be able to go both ways.

    Normally, /mnt is owned by root:root. Plain users are not allowed to create mountpoints at will.

    UID 1000 would be the first user you set on this PC, e.g. 'dale'.

    That makes sense then. I learned early on that I can not rsync as
    root. It just plain doesn't like that at all. Works as a user tho. I
    guess I could set up a group, called backup perhaps, and then put the
    stuff under /mnt in that group and make it writable by the group
    backup. I think that would work. Thing is, the NAS box doesn't have
    any users, only root. It doesn't usually run much anyway, maybe a hour
    or two each week.

    Have a look at this (random) page which makes some security recommendations:

    https://www.thegeekdiary.com/basic-nfs-security-nfs-no_root_squash-and-suid/

    What is suggested may be not apply in your case, within a secure LAN and only one user let loose on the fs, so exercise your judgement as you see fit.


    I tend to put things that are mounted temporarily under /mnt. Things
    that are more permanent, my video collection for example, actually
    mounts to a mount point on my Desktop. That way I can click on the
    little icon and go to whatever video I want. It may not make much sense
    to anyone else but it works for me. ;-)

    You get your OS back up and running?

    Dale

    :-) :-)

    The OS is slowly coming together, another 90 packages to go. Some of them rather large. Sadly many of my USE flags are not satisfied by binhost packages, so I will be emerging them slowly overnight. Should be done by tomorrow, unless a package fails to emerge for some reason.

    What I can't understand is why I have to set explicitly
    ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64" for emerge and it does not source this off the make.conf file. I hope this problem will be resolved once all the packages which had been emerged over the last 5 weeks have been re-emerged, so both the software on the / fs and the portage idea of it become aligned again. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAmguMYsACgkQseqq9sKV ZxluFA//T9mK0JwWsPSUYUmERrO1WZxrG+YitENHD27wGfuf/79owOOKAO9Ztlsg 4n1yeKisr/i4nEUx9EKMlqt2whAZXs2KdaLCpKhyPI2jB1vls6ZhqQmvrgYxo9Zu m2YUnySDZQXh8Ce8urbUlg2Xso0I+Yo1mXe5SLwZdXM3ucYeX3WqIz9Nf6bS8suh Owy6cQgdl4ca6BvMaCBOxILhQWP3OwOSMOUn64KSyZYXpZzHtQuAEK0ErZNS9Xle 7CX3rfNv3XpCYXr/fZxy+vQe0PC0BSgDj3KWzQgugp+Q1juNKiT94pABAxwlNVAL TpKc7hIjmrllVf3Ll5mza2s4U9rZfKdenRyC5e8YNu/VAS0cwB0U89gvwalYzJGK L4m0htLweriqVPl4lph0Ihf0ZBit7Eh+I/UppLZqUu1aD4YIbj375Z1CUzjG8IWt yfMFJzLFXxupNSReMf4IIaeZ/qDBi3FCuZIldKyzDJRdMLAwN8Melnn2BIo8rKVS ZTmcgeUhZNjUPA2mjSFBTYG+WehATEPA3pSLawkCTNOi7kWgMbCA8JQSTHBug/bZ 26nQH8mDv1HbDi5xIv4yKeN6C6AVuC+CX2qG5uYmMDbLcdqiiYr5aDRAgkanCTsf P8fx4fDIcNQYX60+/LDWb65OYDpeeuNkWaKI6rcDku7JVg8QAP0=
    =IqtH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Steinmetzger@21:1/5 to destination directory is already pa on Sat May 31 01:40:01 2025
    Am Mon, May 26, 2025 at 05:09:23AM -0500 schrieb Dale:
    Michael wrote:
    On Monday, 19 May 2025 14:39:21 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
    Howdy,

    I'm wanting to move a Data partition over to a new set of drives that
    are encrypted. I decided the easiest way to do this is to put the new
    drives on the NAS box and mount them like I do when I backup my large
    Video directory only copy the Data files instead. So, on the NAS box, I >> set up the three drives, 2 16TB and the famous 20TB drive, with LVM and
    dm-setup. Once I had that setup, I mounted in just like I would the
    Video directory. I also ran exportfs -a so it would see the newly
    mounted drive set and make it available. On my main rig, I then mounted >> it using the same command I would for the Video directory for backups.
    Then I took the same command for backing up my video but just replaced
    the source and target with the Data path instead of video. Basically,
    everything is set up the same, I just replaced everything with the
    drives I want info copied to in both mounting drives and commands.

    This is the error I get.


    rsync: [generator] recv_generator: mkdir "/mnt/TV_Backup/Data/random
    directory" failed: Permission denied (13)


    I know to run the rsync command as a user, not root.

    Just as you should all programs that deal with user data. With rsync, if you give it a --delete with the wrong destination or so, you can wipe the
    system. Or overwrite the wrong files.

    I have to do that
    when updating my video backups. I recall getting a error, could be this >> one, at first but setting something to make it work.

    If you copy to an NFS, I don’t quite see how running the writing process (be it rsync or cp) as root changes the permission situation. Unless the destination directory is already part of the share and has write perms only for root.

    If you want to update the contents of a fs over the network, then rsync is your tool. Why is NFS coming into this at all?

    You can use rsync for local copies. In this case, local also means a mounted NFS share. Plus, if your CPU is as old as in Dale’s NAS, using rsync over ssh introduces even more overhead for SSH encryption.

    I did some digging.  I found some info on rsync to a networked system. 
    I switched to that method.  This is the command I used. 


    time rsync -uivr --progress /home/dale/Desktop/Data/* root@10.0.0.5:/mnt/backup

    -i and -v are redundant. While v only shows the processed file, -i adds the reason to the output.

    My old way did act odd.  It would read a lot of data from the main rig, transfer across the network and then write to the NAS drive.  Then
    repeat.  It did not do it in a continuous way tho.  It did them one at a time.  Read a while.  Transfer.  Then write a while.  Repeat.  Overall, it was kinda slow, ish. 

    With this new method it is doing it all at the same time in a continuous
    flow but slower.

    There is nothing fancy about the command you posted. I, too, observe this read-write cycle when doing stuff over SSH onto a ZFS share and it annoys me sometimes. But haven’t had the urge to solve it yet. I don’t transfer huge volumes of files that often.

    What is not very often used in my experience is the -u flag. It causes rsync to skip all files whose timestamp hasn’t changed. If you don’t use it, maybe
    rsync’s detection of unchanged files does not work properly over NFS, hence it reads and writes all files again. (Just a conjecture on my part.)

    --
    Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
    Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

    As long as my boss pretends to pay me adequatly,
    I will pretend to work properly.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEVbE9o2D2lE5fhoVsizG+tUDUMMoFAmg6QNgACgkQizG+tUDU MMq2yRAAhwUsNRhebkD5XM8oKzCHli5en92BQDTvuA5WoL5ndz0xvqhOJimh5Vw0 fV8Pr8lOeItaEkJAGPv5/YXVmYtkN2fZacz1CNF9gohxaya0xFWdjqjda/sOCVU/ Y54NDALyWpPH9MFegf7MzFb9ERACF8Fcbx2BhVMhgVhFZTPewzh8zjgK6OqnRCvB ZYmbHQx6KmjZUgyXs4pCL/ejkWjtpzl66cLeCb3M304n6DHBL87WdAGU5fVcvAm6 xeEd1+9SAmHA8wxOojFvMBfD2V+0Bv9rti1MO8ezZXMblfl7b7big/glSYUhBXOz RC9hkB8QRt3zsDFKAvEIcO6azHKDfGi8qhirUNSOComdX3zLi6tYzQvwV+K0NB1i FUkem7fwqxXTK/ZNonHXivsDcNvckWUhrA9fCQeqDje/7V1+q5hdoOu4cLeWZ9Wh CkysoInbxZDv0pPrgUms2F0UkzGSLiOMY4T8JYyP6JDVqlBJfauq+QWpabnc59Wg XOuMgDCCl5+3d7XlzWuPaRbq+f972yPipNjI5uvBFBxbVet3iAeGSHUCHeIAOk+J 8uTlywzhwM7r8z/6yfsUS1fTUNwgQLoTbU/UbBcdQQwfqPr7/5e2Zi2Spuh9P4/7 W8KVNbLzGAgQgQy0H5TjnP3iGOdcVjziZyXfxutNQpmONPgIcoI=
    =r