Search Results

Search found 4990 results on 200 pages for 'traffic measurement'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 105/200 | < Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >

  • Multi-site email relay based on email address (in AD?)

    - by MarkRobinson
    We have a multi site setup currently based around Exchange 2003, but we are getting a lot of traffic over the vpn as only one server has an internet facing IP. Is there such a product that could sit on a hosted rack somewhere that would look at an incoming email and from information in AD determine which mail server to relay the message to?

    Read the article

  • What to filter when providing very limited open WiFi to a small conference or meeting?

    - by Tim Farley
    Executive Summary The basic question is: if you have a very limited bandwidth WiFi to provide Internet for a small meeting of only a day or two, how do you set the filters on the router to avoid one or two users monopolizing all the available bandwidth? For folks who don't have the time to read the details below, I am NOT looking for any of these answers: Secure the router and only let a few trusted people use it Tell everyone to turn off unused services & generally police themselves Monitor the traffic with a sniffer and add filters as needed I am aware of all of that. None are appropriate for reasons that will become clear. ALSO NOTE: There is already a question concerning providing adequate WiFi at large (500 attendees) conferences here. This question concerns SMALL meetings of less than 200 people, typically with less than half that using the WiFi. Something that can be handled with a single home or small office router. Background I've used a 3G/4G router device to provide WiFi to small meetings in the past with some success. By small I mean single-room conferences or meetings on the order of a barcamp or Skepticamp or user group meeting. These meetings sometimes have technical attendees there, but not exclusively. Usually less than half to a third of the attendees will actually use the WiFi. Maximum meeting size I'm talking about is 100 to 200 people. I typically use a Cradlepoint MBR-1000 but many other devices exist, especially all-in-one units supplied by 3G and/or 4G vendors like Verizon, Sprint and Clear. These devices take a 3G or 4G internet connection and fan it out to multiple users using WiFi. One key aspect of providing net access this way is the limited bandwidth available over 3G/4G. Even with something like the Cradlepoint which can load-balance multiple radios, you are only going to achieve a few megabits of download speed and maybe a megabit or so of upload speed. That's a best case scenario. Often it is considerably slower. The goal in most of these meeting situations is to allow folks access to services like email, web, social media, chat services and so on. This is so they can live-blog or live-tweet the proceedings, or simply chat online or otherwise stay in touch (with both attendees and non-attendees) while the meeting proceeds. I would like to limit the services provided by the router to just those services that meet those needs. Problems In particular I have noticed a couple of scenarios where particular users end up abusing most of the bandwidth on the router, to the detriment of everyone. These boil into two areas: Intentional use. Folks looking at YouTube videos, downloading podcasts to their iPod, and otherwise using the bandwidth for things that really aren't appropriate in a meeting room where you should be paying attention to the speaker and/or interacting.At one meeting that we were live-streaming (over a separate, dedicated connection) via UStream, I noticed several folks in the room that had the UStream page up so they could interact with the meeting chat - apparently oblivious that they were wasting bandwidth streaming back video of something that was taking place right in front of them. Unintentional use. There are a variety of software utilities that will make extensive use of bandwidth in the background, that folks often have installed on their laptops and smartphones, perhaps without realizing.Examples: Peer to peer downloading programs such as Bittorrent that run in the background Automatic software update services. These are legion, as every major software vendor has their own, so one can easily have Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, Adobe, Google and others all trying to download updates in the background. Security software that downloads new signatures such as anti-virus, anti-malware, etc. Backup software and other software that "syncs" in the background to cloud services. For some numbers on how much network bandwidth gets sucked up by these non-web, non-email type services, check out this recent Wired article. Apparently web, email and chat all together are less than one quarter of the Internet traffic now. If the numbers in that article are correct, by filtering out all the other stuff I should be able to increase the usefulness of the WiFi four-fold. Now, in some situations I've been able to control access using security on the router to limit it to a very small group of people (typically the organizers of the meeting). But that's not always appropriate. At an upcoming meeting I would like to run the WiFi without security and let anyone use it, because it happens at the meeting location the 4G coverage in my town is particularly excellent. In a recent test I got 10 Megabits down at the meeting site. The "tell people to police themselves" solution mentioned at top is not appropriate because of (a) a largely non-technical audience and (b) the unintentional nature of much of the usage as described above. The "run a sniffer and filter as needed" solution is not useful because these meetings typically only last a couple of days, often only one day, and have a very small volunteer staff. I don't have a person to dedicate to network monitoring, and by the time we got the rules tweaked completely the meeting will be over. What I've Got First thing, I figured I would use OpenDNS's domain filtering rules to filter out whole classes of sites. A number of video and peer-to-peer sites can be wiped out using this. (Yes, I am aware that filtering via DNS technically leaves the services accessible - remember, these are largely non-technical users attending a 2 day meeting. It's enough). I figured I would start with these selections in OpenDNS's UI: I figure I will probably also block DNS (port 53) to anything other than the router itself, so that folks can't bypass my DNS configuration. A savvy user could get around this, because I'm not going to put a lot of elaborate filters on the firewall, but I don't care too much. Because these meetings don't last very long, its probably not going to be worth the trouble. This should cover the bulk of the non-web traffic, i.e. peer-to-peer and video if that Wired article is correct. Please advise if you think there are severe limitations to the OpenDNS approach. What I Need Note that OpenDNS focuses on things that are "objectionable" in some context or another. Video, music, radio and peer-to-peer all get covered. I still need to cover a number of perfectly reasonable things that we just want to block because they aren't needed in a meeting. Most of these are utilities that upload or download legit things in the background. Specifically, I'd like to know port numbers or DNS names to filter in order to effectively disable the following services: Microsoft automatic updates Apple automatic updates Adobe automatic updates Google automatic updates Other major software update services Major virus/malware/security signature updates Major background backup services Other services that run in the background and can eat lots of bandwidth I also would like any other suggestions you might have that would be applicable. Sorry to be so verbose, but I find it helps to be very, very clear on questions of this nature, and I already have half a solution with the OpenDNS thing.

    Read the article

  • How do I block IP addresses in SuSEFirewall?

    - by Evgeny
    Does SuSEfirewall in OpenSuSE 11 provide an easy way to block all traffic from a list of IP addresses? Ideally just a textfile into which I can put all IP addresses I want blocked, otherwise some configuration option. I've looked through /etc/sysconfig/SuSEfirewall2, but haven't been able to find anything like that.

    Read the article

  • pfSense gateway rules by IP ranges

    - by lpfavreau
    Hello, I have pfSense (1.2.3) with a WAN (gateway 10.10.20.1/24) and an OPT1 (gateway 10.10.21.1/24). I also have a LAN (static 10.10.12.1/24, DHCP 10.10.12.128-199/24). I want to create rules so that traffic coming from LAN go through WAN if the source IP address is below 10.10.12.128/24 and through OPT1 otherwise. I would I go and make that happen? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to configure Transparent IP Address Sharing (TAS) on a Mediatrix 4102 with DGW 2.0 firmware?

    - by Pascal Bourque
    I am making the switch to VoIP. I chose voip.ms as my service provider and Mediatrix 4102 as my ATA. One reason why I chose the Mediatrix over other popular consumer ATAs is that it's supposed to be easy to place it in front of the router, so it can give priority to its own upstream traffic over the home network's upstream traffic. This is supposed to work transparently, with the ATA and router sharing the same public IP address (the one obtained from the modem). They call this feaure Transparent IP Address Sharing, or TAS. Their promotional brochure describes it like this: The Mediatrix 4102 also uses its innovative TAS (Transparent IP Address Sharing) technology and an embedded PPPoE client to allow the PC (or router) connected to the second Ethernet port to have the same public IP address, eliminating the need for private IP addresses or address translations. I am interested by this feature because my router, an Apple Time Capsule, doesn't support QoS and cannot give priority to the voice packets if the ATA is behind the router. However, after hours of searching the web, reading the documentation, and good ol' trial and error, I haven't been able to configure the Mediatrix to run in this mode. Then I found a version of the manual that looks like it was for a previous version of the firmware (SIP), where there is an entire section dedicated to configuring TAS (starting at page 209). But my Mediatrix comes with the DGW 2.0 firmware, whose documentation does not mention TAS at all. So I tried to follow the TAS setup instructions from the SIP documentation and apply them to my DGW firmware, using the Variable Mapping Between SIP v5.0 and DGW v2.0 document as a reference, but no success. Some required SIP variables don't have an equivalent in DGW. So it looks like the DGW firmware does not support TAS at all, or if it does they are not doing anything to help us set it up. So right now, the Mediatrix is behind the router and VoIP works perfectly except when my upstream bandwidth is saturated. My questions are: Is downgrading to SIP firmware the only way to have my Mediatrix 4102 run in TAS mode? If not, anybody knows how to setup TAS on the DGW firmware? Is TAS mode the only way to give priority to the voice packets if I want to keep my current router (Apple Time Capsule)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Accessing local resources over wifi with a BES-connected Blackberry

    - by bshacklett
    I'm trying to get to a local web site on my LAN at 192.168.1.10 with my Blackberry, but I'm getting a message saying the server did not respond. I know that some, if not all, internet traffic on a BES-connected blackberry goes through the BES. This is clear because I can access internal resources on my employers network via the mobile network. Is there any way for me to specify that the device should attempt to route directly over wifi before it tries to connect via the BES server at work?

    Read the article

  • Linux server very slow after IP change and synflood attack

    - by Johannes Ruof
    our server experienced a synflood attack and we used the csf firewall synflood settings to block it. Our server administrators also changed the IP of the server to a new one and blackholed the old IP. The attack went over and I changed the synflood settings back. However the server is still very slow, with a very low CPU usage and very low traffic on the website. Does anybody have an idea what might be causing this? The server is a CENTOS 6.4 x86_64 Thanks in advance, J. Ruof

    Read the article

  • Configuration Manager sub site codes

    - by NA Slacker
    I have two sub-sites set up in configuration manager. When the SCCM agent installs on the client machines within the boundaries of those sub sites they are assigned the site code of the Primary site, not the sub site code. As a result their management server remains the main server not the sub site server. I am setting up thes sub sites on cross WAN locations to cut down on traffic. What could be preventing the clients from getting associated with the proper sub site code.

    Read the article

  • .NET 4 Shared Hosting

    - by Unknown
    Are there any companies that offer shared .NET 4 hosting? I know its still in beta, but from about hours worth of searching, I only found that ASPHostCentral.com offers it. MaximumASP.com and DiscountASP.net currently only offer sandboxing plans. I don't want to get a dedicated server or VPS since my website has low traffic.

    Read the article

  • How to interpret Rackspace server diagnostics?

    - by Ben
    We've been having some trouble lately with our site timing out during times of high traffic. We're working on a number of things to resolve it. During this process I came across our server diagnostics page on Rackspace, and it has the following line: The host server's load is: 0.08 0.08 0.03 1/204 2437 I couldn't find an explanation on their site or Google. Can anyone explain what these numbers mean? For I am a lowly programmer. Much appreciated, -Ben

    Read the article

  • How to configure Transparent IP Address Sharing (TAS) on a Mediatrix 4102 with DGW 2.0 firmware?

    - by Pascal Bourque
    I am making the switch to VoIP. I chose voip.ms as my service provider and Mediatrix 4102 as my ATA. One reason why I chose the Mediatrix over other popular consumer ATAs is that it's supposed to be easy to place it in front of the router, so it can give priority to its own upstream traffic over the home network's upstream traffic. This is supposed to work transparently, with the ATA and router sharing the same public IP address (the one obtained from the modem). They call this feaure Transparent IP Address Sharing, or TAS. Their promotional brochure describes it like this: The Mediatrix 4102 also uses its innovative TAS (Transparent IP Address Sharing) technology and an embedded PPPoE client to allow the PC (or router) connected to the second Ethernet port to have the same public IP address, eliminating the need for private IP addresses or address translations. I am interested by this feature because my router, an Apple Time Capsule, doesn't support QoS and cannot give priority to the voice packets if the ATA is behind the router. However, after hours of searching the web, reading the documentation, and good ol' trial and error, I haven't been able to configure the Mediatrix to run in this mode. Then I found a version of the manual that looks like it was for a previous version of the firmware (SIP), where there is an entire section dedicated to configuring TAS (starting at page 209). But my Mediatrix comes with the DGW 2.0 firmware, whose documentation does not mention TAS at all. So I tried to follow the TAS setup instructions from the SIP documentation and apply them to my DGW firmware, using the Variable Mapping Between SIP v5.0 and DGW v2.0 document as a reference, but no success. Some required SIP variables don't have an equivalent in DGW. So it looks like the DGW firmware does not support TAS at all, or if it does they are not doing anything to help us set it up. So right now, the Mediatrix is behind the router and VoIP works perfectly except when my upstream bandwidth is saturated. My questions are: Is downgrading to SIP firmware the only way to have my Mediatrix 4102 run in TAS mode? If not, anybody knows how to setup TAS on the DGW firmware? Is TAS mode the only way to give priority to the voice packets if I want to keep my current router (Apple Time Capsule)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • HAProxy redirect HTTPS to HTTP

    - by tarnfeld
    I'm using HAProxy as a load balancer and i'd like to redirect any traffic that comes in on 443 (HTTPS) to 80 (HTTP). My site doesn't support HTTPS at all and i'd rather just redirect users than cause any SSL warnings in browsers. All I can find is using the redirect location <to> syntax, but as far as I can tell that requires me to hard code the hostname. The load balancer receives connections for various hostnames so would like to keep it relative.

    Read the article

  • "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading"

    - by andygeers
    I've just taken over managing the network for a small charity, and am finding internet access very flaky - we keep getting "The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading." errors (HTTP Error 12031 according to the Windows network diagnostic tool). It doesn't seem to be anything to do with our ISP since it also affects internal traffic (even requests to an Apache instance on my localhost!) Adjusting the MTU setting in the Windows XP registry sometimes seems to help for a few minutes after rebooting, but the problem always returns.

    Read the article

  • cluster live postgres 8.3 server

    - by bobinabottle
    Our web application is getting more and more traffic, which is making our poor pg8.3 database server have a little trouble keeping up. I've had a look into using pgpool II for clustering the db to relieve a little strain, and I was wondering how this should be done to minimise downtime considering I would be clustering a live database. Has anyone had experience with this or know of any guides to follow? Cheers :)

    Read the article

  • PPTP VPN Not Working - Peer failed CHAP authentication, PTY read or GRE write failed

    - by armani
    Brand-new install of CentOS 6.3. Followed this guide: http://www.members.optushome.com.au/~wskwok/poptop_ads_howto_1.htm And I got PPTPd running [v1.3.4]. I got the VPN to authenticate users against our Active Directory using winbind, smb, etc. All my tests to see if I'm still authenticated to the AD server pass ["kinit -V [email protected]", "smbclient", "wbinfo -t"]. VPN users were able to connect for like . . . an hour. I tried connecting from my Android phone using domain credentials and saw that I got an IP allocated for internal VPN users [which I've since changed the range, but even setting it back to the initial doesn't work]. Ever since then, no matter what settings I try, I pretty much consistently get this in my /var/log/messages [and the VPN client fails]: [root@vpn2 ~]# tail /var/log/messages Aug 31 15:57:22 vpn2 pppd[18386]: pppd 2.4.5 started by root, uid 0 Aug 31 15:57:22 vpn2 pppd[18386]: Using interface ppp0 Aug 31 15:57:22 vpn2 pppd[18386]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/pts/1 Aug 31 15:57:22 vpn2 pptpd[18385]: GRE: Bad checksum from pppd. Aug 31 15:57:24 vpn2 pppd[18386]: Peer armaniadm failed CHAP authentication Aug 31 15:57:24 vpn2 pppd[18386]: Connection terminated. Aug 31 15:57:24 vpn2 pppd[18386]: Exit. Aug 31 15:57:24 vpn2 pptpd[18385]: GRE: read(fd=6,buffer=8059660,len=8196) from PTY failed: status = -1 error = Input/output error, usually caused by unexpected termination of pppd, check option syntax and pppd logs Aug 31 15:57:24 vpn2 pptpd[18385]: CTRL: PTY read or GRE write failed (pty,gre)=(6,7) Aug 31 15:57:24 vpn2 pptpd[18385]: CTRL: Client 208.54.86.242 control connection finished Now before you go blaming the firewall [all other forum posts I find seem to go there], this VPN server is on our DMZ network. We're using a Juniper SSG-5 Gateway, and I've assigned a WAN IP to the VPN box itself, zoned into the DMZ zone. Then, I have full "Any IP / Any Protocol" open traffic rules between DMZ<--Untrust Zone, and DMZ<--Trust Zone. I'll limit this later to just the authenticating traffic it needs, but for now I think we can rule out the firewall blocking anything. Here's my /etc/pptpd.conf [omitting comments]: option /etc/ppp/options.pptpd logwtmp localip [EXTERNAL_IP_ADDRESS] remoteip [ANOTHER_EXTERNAL_IP_ADDRESS, AND HAVE TRIED AN ARBITRARY GROUP LIKE 5.5.0.0-100] Here's my /etc/ppp/options.pptpd.conf [omitting comments]: name pptpd refuse-pap refuse-chap refuse-mschap require-mschap-v2 require-mppe-128 ms-dns 192.168.200.42 # This is our internal domain controller ms-wins 192.168.200.42 proxyarp lock nobsdcomp novj novjccomp nologfd auth nodefaultroute plugin winbind.so ntlm_auth-helper "/usr/bin/ntlm_auth --helper-protocol=ntlm-server-1" Any help is GREATLY appreciated. I can give you any more info you need to know, and it's a new test server, so I can perform any tests/reboots required to get it up and going. Thanks a ton.

    Read the article

  • IPv6 link-local routing

    - by singpolyma
    "Routers do not forward packets with link-local addresses." says Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address) What I want to know is: that makes sense if the destination is a link-local address, but what if I have a box that only has a link-local address trying to reach a global/site scope address? Can the traffic make it back, or will that fail because the return packets will be to a link-local address?

    Read the article

  • How to make `rm` faster on ext3/linux?

    - by depesz
    I have ext3 filesystem mounted with default options. On it I have some ~ 100GB files. Removal of any of such files takes long time (8 minutes) and causes a lot of io traffic, which increases load on server. Is there any way to make the rm not as disruptive?

    Read the article

  • Do all web caches understand the "Cache-Control" HTTP header?

    - by chris_l
    I'd like to avoid the "Expires" header, and use "Cache-Control" only - or maybe the other way around. The headers will account for a significant percentage of my traffic, so I'd prefer not to "use both". AFAIK, the "Cache-Control" header was standardized in HTTP 1.1, but are there still web caches/proxies in use, which don't understand it? Note: This could help answering a part of my stackoverflow (bounty) question

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >