Discuss November 2010

discuss@lists.centos.org

259 participants
220 discussions

Fail Transfer of Large Files
by Michael D. Berger 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

On my intranet, I sometimes transfer large files, about 4G, to an CentOS old box that I use for a web server. I transfer with ftp or sftp. Usually, before the file is complete, the transfer "stalls". At that point, ping from the destination box to the router fails. I then deactivate the net interface on the destination box and then activate it. Ping is then successful, and the transfer is completed. The transferred file is correct, as verified with sha1sum. All connections are via cat6 wire. So what do you think? Should I try changing the net card? Any tests to run? Any other suggestions? Thanks for your help. Mike.

7 13

Sendmail, localloop, and iptables -- should I be more paranoid?
by Robert Moskowitz 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

By default, sendmail only listens on the localloop: DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp,Addr=127.0.0.1, Name=MTA')dnl But by default to allow sendmail to even work the iptables entry is: -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT Without this, sendmail can't even connect to localloop. But should I handedit this line to something like: -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d 127.0.0.1 --dport 25 -j ACCEPT And once you handedit iptables, you can't use the gnome firewall applet, I suspect...

3 5

upcoming mailman version change?
by Dave Stevens 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

Hi, I'm using CentOS on a box that, among other things, offers mailman mailing lists, currently mailman 2.1.9. Version 2.1.14 is avilable from the developers but integrating it into the system promises to be tedious. I looked at RHEL 6 and don't know where to look to find the version there, which I assume will be the version in CentOS 6. Can anyone either confirm what version will be in C6 or where to find the full feature list in RHEL 6? Dave -- "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Krishnamurti

2 2

where to download tzdata-java-20101-1.e15 RPM fro CENTOS 5.5 X86?
by mcclnx mcc 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

I am installed CENTOS 5.5 on X86. After finish, I tried to apply latest patches. Rpm patch manager say need "dependency" "tzdata-java-20101-1.e15". I search CENTOS 5.5 CD and can NOT find this file. I also search Internet and no result. Can anyone tell me where to download "tzdata-java-20101-1.e15" RPM? Thanks.

3 2

firefox. java. 64 bit. bleah!
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

Found this <http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html#java-sun>, and I remember the plugins directory... except firefox 3.6.11, I can't find any, not in ~/.mozilla, not in /usr/lib64/mozilla. Anyone have a clue for the poor? mark

4 6

Re: [CentOS] Router for SOHO network - hardware considerations
by Bob Puff＠NLE 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

I am looking for something similar to this thread.. Is there a way to make a small CentOS distro that is bootable and runnable from only a USB memory stick? It would need to be able to have files modified, but I wouldn't want the USB stick to die prematurely due to a ton of writes... Bob

2 1

Strange ntp behaviour?
by Robert Moskowitz 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

The following is from my logwatch email: --------------------- XNTPD Begin ------------------------ XNTPD Killed: 7 Time(s) XNTPD Started: 8 Time(s) Total interfaces 8 (non-local: 4) Total synchronizations 6 (hosts: 1) Errors getaddrinfo: "0.centos.pool.ntp.org" invalid host address, ignored: 2 time(s) getaddrinfo: "1.centos.pool.ntp.org" invalid host address, ignored: 2 time(s) getaddrinfo: "2.centos.pool.ntp.org" invalid host address, ignored: 2 time(s) ---------------------- XNTPD End ------------------------- Yet from this host I get: # host 0.centos.pool.ntp.org 0.centos.pool.ntp.org has address 208.53.158.34 0.centos.pool.ntp.org has address 69.50.219.51 0.centos.pool.ntp.org has address 108.76.168.145 So what is NTP doing here; why the errors for getaddrinfo? Or is this nothing more than 2 out of some many times getaddrinfo failed, but worked just fine enough to count?

2 2

TC Filter Flows & ESFQ - Traffic Shaping
by Frederick Abrams 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

Hi, We currently have ESFQ running on an old Fedora machine and i'm trying to build a new router with something similar using CentOS 5.5 The problem is that it seems by default the CentOS is not compiled with TC ESFQ or TC filter hash flows I get the following error: Unknown filter "flow", hence option "hash" is unparsable How can i add support for the hash flow option or ESFQ or perhaps someone can suggest a better option where I can get the same functionality of even sharing based on src / dst tc filter add dev eth0 parent 10: protocol ip handle 10 flow hash keys dst divisor 1024 -- Fred -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Intelvision MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

"Cracking Passwords In The Cloud: Amazon’s New EC2 GPU Instances" -- using CentOS
by Timo Schoeler 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, in case someone missed it: CentOS was used in a EC2 setup to demonstrate GPU-based brute force cracking of passwords. "Cracking Passwords In The Cloud: Amazon’s New EC2 GPU Instances" http://stacksmashing.net/2010/11/15/cracking-in-the-cloud-amazons-new-ec2-g… See also: http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/11/16/1549245/Cracking-Passwords-With-Amazo… Cheers, Timo :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFM6i59fg746kcGBOwRAoioAKC6oCVuh0meM5ynVUe7L+a3JlLFHgCeMivH nwFIhD4rcm6pP66uE9/M3Uo= =ZWeW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Routing of outgoing packets
by Mitja Mihelič 22 Nov '10

22 Nov '10

Hi! I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network. Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able to shed some light on the subject. Here is the setup: (the IP addresses gvien here are fake, but they do represent the correct state of the networking setup) vlan interface IP mask V2 eth0 192.168.20.20 32 V4 eth1 172.16.4.40 32 V6 eth2 172.16.6.60 32 The default route is set to eth1. The idea is to use eth2 for pinging only, the other two interfaces are used by another service and management access. If I do: ping -c 2 -I eth2 74.125.39.147 or fping -c 2 -I eth2 74.125.39.147 It binds to eth2 and sends its ICMP probes via that interface with the IP on that interface. If I do: hping3 -1 -c 2 -I eth2 74.125.39.147 -VD or [root@server ~]# hping3 -c 2 -I eth2 74.125.39.147 -VD DEBUG: if lo: Don't Match (but seems to be UP) DEBUG: if eth0: Don't Match (but seems to be UP) DEBUG: if eth1: Don't Match (but seems to be UP) DEBUG: if eth2: OK using eth2, addr: 172.16.6.60, MTU: 1500 It supposedly binds to eth2. But tcpdump tells another story. Packets get sent out via the default route (eth1) with the IP from eth2 set as the source address. The same happens with tcptraceroute (tcptraceroute-1.5-0.beta7.el5.rf.i386.rpm). I have tried various routing policies, but I have yet to find a solution that works. I have used iptables to log the packets in the OUTPUT chain, but they arrive there with the interface already set to eth1. Can anyone help ? Regards, Mitja Mihelic

3 3

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss November 2010