Search Results

Search found 39420 results on 1577 pages for 'eleven two'.

Page 175/1577 | < Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >

  • Failed to bring up eth1 in a dual ips solution in ubuntu

    - by lxyu
    I'm using ubuntu 12.04. I tried to assign two ips to two ethernet cards in my server. The content of /etc/network/interfaces is like this: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 114.80.156.a netmask 255.255.255.224 gateway 114.80.156.b auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 114.80.156.c netmask 255.255.255.240 gateway 114.80.156.d a b c d have different values, which means the two ips are in different vlans. But I can only bring up eth0 with this command: $ /etc/init.d/networking restart RTNETLINK answers: File exists Failed to bring up eth1. ...done. I have checked the question here which shows the same problem like the one I encountered: Can only bring up one of two interfaces But it seems it's not really solved. And in my situation, I need the 2 ips to use 2 different gateways. So how to fix this problem? Edit1, changed the example config ip from 192.168.0.0/16 subnet to another 'real' subnet. Edit2, the purpose of doing this is fairly simple. Because the ip range I previous in don't have more room for new servers, and I have to move to another ip range. So I want to make the public servers bind to 2 ips for the transition period. I only have really limited knowledge about routing and subnet. @BillThor @rackandboneman, would you please give me some keywords or links on how to setup route for 2 ips? and @Mike Pennington, how do you know I speak chinese?

    Read the article

  • CheckPoint/Amazon VPC VPN tunnel working inconsistently

    - by Lee
    First time poster, so please be gentle and correct me if there's Server Fault etiquette I'm missing. We have two CheckPoint edge devices at sites A & B, independently managed, connecting to two Amazon private clouds. In both cases, the two Amazon VPCs are in the same community on the CheckPoint device. A VPN tunnel exists between the two CheckPoint devices as well. Between Sites A & B and the Amazon VPC in Northern Virigina, we are unable to keep more than one tunnel up. Both will come up, but tunnel 2 will drop an hour after initiation and will not come back up while tunnel 1 is up. We believe the 1-hour period is due to IPsec phase 2 renegotiation, but can't be sure. On our side, we see the tunnel 2 remote endpoint as not responding to phase 2 negotiation. Between Sites A & B and the Amazon VPC in Oregon, we have no issues. Both tunnels are up and fail over properly. The CheckPoint gateways are using domain-based VPNs. According to CheckPoint's advice to Amazon, this won't work. Yet, in Oregon, it does. We've pursued this with Amazon and, despite the fact it's working in Oregon, they've refused to troubleshoot with us further. Can anyone suggest anything we can do to try to get this stabilized? Going to route-based VPNs is not an option for us.

    Read the article

  • ProCurve network expansion

    - by Blue Warrior NFB
    I've hit a bit of a wall with our network scale-out. As it stands right now: We have five ProCurve 2910al switches connected as above, but with 10GbE connections (two CX4, two fiber). This fully populates the central switch above, there will be no more 10GbE Ethernet connections from that device. This group of switches is not stacked (no stack directive). Sometime in the next two or three months I'll need to add a sixth, and I'm not sure how deep of a hole I'm in. Ideally I'd replace the core switch with something more capable and has more 10GbE ports. However, that's a major outage and that requires special scheduling. The two edge switches connected via fiber have dual-port 10GbE cards in them, so I could physically put another switch on the far end of one of those. I don't know how much of a good or bad idea that would be though. Is that too many segments between end-points? Some config-excerpts: Running configuration: ; J9147A Configuration Editor; Created on release #W.14.49 hostname "REDACTED-SW01" time timezone 120 module 1 type J9147A module 2 type J9008A module 3 type J9149A no stack trunk B1 Trk3 Trunk trunk B2 Trk4 Trunk trunk A1 Trk11 Trunk trunk A2 Trk12 Trunk vlan 15 name "VM-MGMT" untagged Trk2,Trk5,Trk7 ip helper-address 10.1.10.4 ip address 10.1.11.1 255.255.255.0 tagged 37-40,Trk3-Trk4,Trk11-Trk12 jumbo ip proxy-arp exit

    Read the article

  • How to tackle dell support system? [closed]

    - by Nishant Kumar
    We have purchased a Dell Optiplex 9010 SSFV for our organization's work. Since the first installation two of the USB keyboard keys were not working properly. I had to press those keys two times simultaneously, on first time keys did not work and for for second time it printed two characters (as it were buffering first character.) Two keys that were not working properly: Hexangrave (Below the ESC key: `) Double Quotes (Left the enter key ") We registered our complaint with DELL and they suggested (with some hard to understand and weird ENGLISH accent) some test and tricks, such as switching to different ports, checking keyboard on different PC, and it worked well with diff. PC(with Windows 7 Home Premium installed). It was clear that it is an OS fault, hence they suggested to re-install OS. Problem began here, we have a project on the run and currently a video editing project setup on our system, so can't re-install system in hurry and also DELL persons were not providing any other solution such as updating keyboard driver, etc. Arguments I am a Software Engg. and don't think it is a feasible solution to re-install entire system for simple problems. This prob is coming since the fresh system installation, so I don't think it will solve the problem. Finally, I had to find solution myself and got it here, now I want to show my disappointment to dell persons or at least tell them that they should improve there support system to not advice to re-install entire system for that simple problems. Notes We have purchased 5 years NEXT business day support from DELL for around 8000 INR (Not for that kind of solutions from DELL). So can anyone tell me how to tackle dell support system officially, so that they will pay more attention in near future. Thanks

    Read the article

  • rsync not copying hard links

    - by A.Ellett
    I have two computers (both MacBook Airs) for which I sync one directory tree in both, but not the entire hard drive or any other directories. Let's say on computer A the directory is /Users/aellett/projects Let's say on computer B the directory is /Users/bellett/projects Generally, I'll log into computer B and then remotely connect to computer A as user 'aellett'. As super user I sync the two project directories as follows: rsync -av /Volumes/aellett/projects/ /Users/bellett/projects/ and this works as expected. On both computers I have another file letter.txt in a different directory which is not getting synced. Let's say on computer A the file is found in /Users/aellett/letters On computer B the file is found in /Users/bellett/correspondence Generally, I don't want to share what's not included in /Users/<username>/projects. But I do want to share this particular file. So on both computer I made a correspondence directory in projects. And then I made hard links as follows On computer A: ln /Users/aellett/letters/letter.txt /Users/aellett/projects/correspondence/letter.txt On computer B: ln /Users/bellett/correspondence/letter.txt /Users/aellett/projects/correspondence/letter.txt The next time I synced the two computers I did the following rsync -av -H /Volumes/aellett/projects/ /Users/bellett/projects/ When I checked on computer B, /Users/bellett/projects/correspondence/letter.txt was correctly synced. But, the hardlink to /Users/bellett/correspondence/letter.txt was no longer there. In other words, /Users/bellett/projects/correspondence/letter.txt was identical to /Users/aellett/projects/correspondence/letter.txt but it differed from /Users/bellett/correspondence/letter.txt. Since these two files were hard linked on both computers, I expected them to still have the hard link. Why are my hard links not being preserved?

    Read the article

  • VPN Trunk Between Cisco ASA 5520 and DrayTek Vigor 2930

    - by David Heggie
    I'm a bit of a VPN newbie, so please go easy on me ... I'm trying to use the VPN trunking capabilities of the DrayTek Vigor 2930 firewall to bond two IPSec VPN connections to a Cisco ASA 5520 device and I'm getting myself tied in knots and hope someone here with more knowledge / experience can help. I have a remote site with two ADSL connections and the DrayTek box. The main office site has the Cisco ASA device. I am able to setup a single IPSec connection between the two sites on either of the ADSL connections' public IP addresses, but as soon as I try to use the VPN bonding, nothing works. The VPN tunnels are both still up, but the traffic is getting lost somewhere. I suspect it's due to the ASA not knowing how to route the traffic back over the VPN - one minute, traffic from my remote office's network is coming from public ip address #1, the next it's coming from public address #2 and it doesn't know what to do. Well, that's my newbie impression of what's going wrong, but I don't really know: If this is really what's happening If what I'm trying to do (bond two VPN connections from a single remote network to improve the bandwidth / resiliency) is possible with the kit I've got Could anyone help?

    Read the article

  • Virtualization and best hardware sharing scenario for me

    - by azera
    Hello, Following this thread on super user, I now want to start installing all my vm on the hardware. As a remainder, i have a (powerful enough) server on which i want to install 3 OS: there is a debian (general dev testbed purposes), an ipcop (network control/firewall) and a freenas (local network file sharing). I'm wondering which scenario would be the best for me and if I will be able to share the hardware to do what i want; either a - install an hypervisor like the free vmware esx and all three vms in it, or b - install debian, and the other two running inside it with virtual box My need being that: the ipcop should handle all network traffic to the internet, meaning all traffic from my main computer but also all traffic from the other two vm the freenas shares should be accessible from the other two vm and my main computer too i don't really care about the debian access, i only need to access it from my main computer, not the other vms Will I need to install additionnal network cards for each vm or can they all share the same one happily ? (right now I have two, one linking the server to my router [which only ipcop is gonna use] and one linking it to my switch [which i would like all three to use]) As for harddrives, I was going to use 1 harddrive cut in 3 partitions to install all three OSes, then add to that the freenas drives, will it be correct ? Thanks a lot for anyone who can help me, this is kind of a vast area and I'm not sure which way to go at all

    Read the article

  • Are there cloud network drives that let users lock files or mark them as "in use"?

    - by Brandon Craig Rhodes
    Having spent several hours reading about the features and limitations of services like DropBox and Jungle Disk and the hundreds of competitors they seem to have (as though everyone with an AWS account these days goes ahead and writes a file sharing application just for fun), I have yet to find one that would let a team of people at a small business collaborate without stepping all over each other's toes. At a small business there are often many small documents per project — estimates, contracts, project plans, budgets — and team members frequently have to open and edit them, with all sorts of problems happening if two people edit a file at once. Even if a sharing service is smart enough to keep both versions of the file created, most small-business software (like word processors, spreadsheets, estimating software, or billing systems) has no way to compare — much less to merge! — the changes in two rival versions of a file that two people edited at the same time without each other's knowledge. So, my question: are their cloud-based file sharing solutions that not only provide a virtual network drive that people can access, but that also let users lock files — even if it's not a real lock but just a flag or indicator — that could possibly prevent remote workers from both editing the same file at once? Having one person wait for another person to finish editing is a very, very small inconvenience compared to the hour or more than it can take to compare two estimates by hand until you find and resolve the rival changes. Given this fact, I am surprised that almost none of the popular file sharing solutions seem to recognize this problem and provide some solution! Does anyone know of a service that does?

    Read the article

  • ASA Slow IPSec Performance with Inconsistent Window Size

    - by Brent
    I have a IPSec link between two sites over ASA 5520s running 8.4(3) and I am getting extremely poor performance when traffic passes over the IPSec VPN. CPU on the devices is ~13%, Memory at 408 MB, and active VPN sessions 2. The load on both of the the devices is particularly low. Latency between the two sites is ~40ms. Screenshot of wireshark file transfer between the two hosts over the firewall IPSec VPN performing at 10MBPS. Note the changing window size. http://imgur.com/wGTB8Cr Screenshot of wireshark file transfer between the two hosts over the firewall not going over IPSec performing at 55MBPS. Constant window size. http://imgur.com/EU23W1e I'm showing an inconsistent window size when transferring over the IPSec VPN ranging in 46,796 to 65535. When performing at 55+MBPS, the window size is consistently 65,535. Does this show a problem in my configuration of the IPSec VPN in the ASA or a Layer1/2 issue? Using ping xxxxxx -f -l I finally get a non-fragment at 1418 bytes so 1418+28 for IP/ICMP headers = 1446. I know that I have 1500 set on the ASA and Ethernet. I do have "Force Maximum segment size for TCP proxy connection to be" "1380" bytes set under Configuration Advanced TCP Options on the ASA. Using IPERF, I am getting a "TCP Window Full" every few seconds and ~3 MBPS performance. http://imgur.com/elRlMpY Show Run on the ASA http://pastebin.com/uKM4Jh76 Show cry accelerator stats http://pastebin.com/xQahnqK3

    Read the article

  • How to get multipath working for Ubuntu Server 12.04

    - by mlampi
    I'm working on a project which aims to make use of Ubuntu servers running on enterprise class hardware. In our case that means IBM HS23E blade servers, QLogic 4GB fibre channel extension cards and quite old IBM DS4500 disk array with two controllers. At the moment we have fibre channel as only boot option and Ubuntu Server 12.04 installed just fine and is able to boot without multipath. I'm not a linux professional myself but in our team we have people who will understand the technical stuff. Don't let my post confuse :) The current situation is that we have only one fibre channel connection to a single disk array controller. Real life case would be of course quite different. At minimum we should have two fibre channel ports connected to two different switches and two different controllers. However, we have no idea how to set up multipath tool. Is the DM-MPIO the right software? At minimum we should be able to boot when multiple connections are available and achieve fault tolerance when any of them should be down. Since the disk array is not the latest hardware, I managed to find RDAC driver sources only for 2.6.x kernel. And we have 3.2.x. Another issue is to build a multipath.conf. The said driver sources are from IBM support and the QLogic drivers provided to Ubuntu installer are from Ubuntu site. It seems that RHEL and SLES would have near out of the box support but that is not an option for our project. Actual questions: - What is the recommended software tool for multipath for Ubuntu Server 12.04? - Is there available pre-made configurations or templates? Does it require disk array / controller specific settings or do a more generic config work? - Do you have expriences on similar setup and like to share the knowledge? I'll provide you with any additional information you might require. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Different network response for indentical co-located machines

    - by Santosh
    We have a situation as follows: We have a two different virtual machines (VMs) on some remote server farm. The machines are identical in terms of hardware/software(OS) configurations. We have a J2EE application running on JBoss on each of those two machines. These two applications are of different version sav V1 on VM1 and V2 on VM2. We observed some degraded response time for application V2 when accessed via public URL. When we accessed the application through a secured VPN, there is hardly any difference. The bandwidth test (upload/download speed, ping etc) shows that VM1 is responding better when accessed via secured VPN. We concluded that the application does not seem to have performance issue. Because, it that's the case the performance degradation should also be there when access via VPN. So we concluded its the network problem. But since those two identical VMs are on same network we are looking for the reasons for different responses. My question is, given the above situation, what could be reasons for such a behavior ?

    Read the article

  • Are there cloud network drives that let users lock files or mark them as "in use"?

    - by Brandon Craig Rhodes
    Having spent several hours reading about the features and limitations of services like DropBox and Jungle Disk and the hundreds of competitors they seem to have (as though everyone with an AWS account these days goes ahead and writes a file sharing application just for fun), I have yet to find one that would let a team of people at a small business collaborate without stepping all over each other's toes. At a small business there are often many small documents per project — estimates, contracts, project plans, budgets — and team members frequently have to open and edit them, with all sorts of problems happening if two people edit a file at once. Even if a sharing service is smart enough to keep both versions of the file created, most small-business software (like word processors, spreadsheets, estimating software, or billing systems) has no way to compare — much less to merge! — the changes in two rival versions of a file that two people edited at the same time without each other's knowledge. So, my question: are their cloud-based file sharing solutions that not only provide a virtual network drive that people can access, but that also let users lock files — even if it's not a real lock but just a flag or indicator — that could possibly prevent remote workers from both editing the same file at once? Having one person wait for another person to finish editing is a very, very small inconvenience compared to the hour or more than it can take to compare two estimates by hand until you find and resolve the rival changes. Given this fact, I am surprised that almost none of the popular file sharing solutions seem to recognize this problem and provide some solution! Does anyone know of a service that does?

    Read the article

  • internet-based sync software that will keep running after Windows Live Sync stops doing PC-to-PC-syncs?

    - by Warren P
    According to the wikipedia page, Microsoft Live Sync will shortly stop offering the PC-to-PC sync service. There are lots of apps to sync two PCs on the same LAN, but I want to sync two PCs that are in different cities, across the internet, traversing two different NATs, and that requires some kind of service running in the internet that both connect into. There is already a few questions about syncing folders and files, but this is not a duplicate because none of them answer this basic question: Microsoft Live Sync works better than RSYNC, or any of the linked SYNC solutions in any of the "not really duplicates" because it works even when the two PCs have NAT and firewalls between them that forbid direct connectivity, because Windows Live Sync has a free always-on internet server that all the client PCs connect into. I'm looking for a FREE (no-fees) Microsoft Live Sync work-alike PC-to-PC sync solution that works between PCs and Macs, at least, as well as between PCs, and works behind NAT and firewalls at least as well as Microsoft's solution. (Note that Microsoft's solution makes only outbound socket calls to a microsoft server, so this solution must necessarily include a server-hub component that is hosted publically on a free site and which does not require that I set up and manage and pay for my own public internet hosting site) Hint: None of the answers in the linked duplicate are equivalent (PureSync,FreeFileSync,BestSync 2010,SyncButler,Comodo BackUp,QuickShadow,Gbridge) in that none of them work for the PC to Mac situation, where firewalls and nats prevent direct connection, or else they require money to be paid. When Microsoft Live Sync / Live Mesh finally kills direct PC-to-PC mode, the limitation will be that you will have to pay for more than 25 GB of cloud service, and you can then only sync PC #1 to PC #2 if you first sync to the cloud, then down to other clients. I can currently sync 100 gb of data from one computer to another, only temporarily "moving the data" through Microsoft's data servers without using up my Skydrive storage quota.

    Read the article

  • DAS vs SAN storage for serving 2 to 4 nodes

    - by Luke404
    We currently have 4 Linux nodes with local storage, arranged in two active/passive pairs with storage mirrored using DRBD, running virtual machines (actually using Xen Hypervisor) for typical hosting workloads (mail, web, a couple VPS, etc.). We're approaching the (presumed) maximum IOPS of those servers, and we're planning to migrate to an external storage solution with two active nodes, with capacity for up to four active nodes. Since we're an all-Dell shop I've done some research and found the MD3200 / MD3200i products should be the ones we're looking for. We are pretty sure we won't be attaching more than 4 hosts on a single storage and I'm wondering if there is any clear advantage for one or the other. In theory I should be able to attach 4 SAS hosts to a single MD3200 (single links on a single controller MD3200, or dual redundant SAS links from each host to a dual-controller MD3200), or 4 iSCSI hosts to a single MD3200i (directly on its 4 GigE ports without any switch, again with dual links for the dual controller option). Both setups should let us implement live VM migration since all hosts can access all the LUNs at the same time, and also some shared filesystem like GFS2 or OCFS2. Also, both setups should allow full redundancy of the whole system (assuming dual controllers in the storage). One difference I can see is that the DAS solution is actually limited to 4 hosts while the iSCSI one should be able to grow to more hosts (adding two GigE switches to the mix). One point for the iSCSI solution is that it would allow us to start out with our current nodes and upgrade them at a later time (we can't add other SAS controllers, but they already have 4 GigE ports each). With the right (iSCSI|SAS) controllers I should be able to connect diskless nodes and boot them off the external storage which I think is a good thing (get rid of any local storage). On the other hand, I would have thought the SAS one to be cheaper but it seems like an MD3200 actually costs a little less than an MD3200i (?) (please note: I've used Dell gear in my examples since that's what we're looking for but I assume the same goes with other vendors) I would like to know if my assumptions above are correct, and if I'm missing any important difference between the two setups.

    Read the article

  • How to edit known_hosts when several hosts share the same IP and DNS name?

    - by Frédéric Grosshans
    I regularly ssh into a computer which is a dual-boot OS X / Linux computer. The two OS instance do not share the same host key, so they can be seen as two host sharing the same IP and DNS. Let's say the IP is 192.168.0.9, and the names are hostname and hostname.domainname As far as I understood, the solution to be able to connect to the two host is to add them both to the ~/.ssh/know_hosts file. However, it is easier said than done, because the file is hashed, and has probably several entries per host (192.168.0.9, hostname, hostname.domainname). As a consequence, I have the following warning Warning: the ECDSA host key for 'hostname' differs from the key for the IP address '192.168.0.9' Is there an easy way to edit the known_hosts file, while keeping the hashes. For example, how can I find the lines corresponding to a given hostame? How can I generate the hashes for some known hosts? The ideal solution would allow me to connect to seamlessly to this computer with ssh, no matter whether I call it 192.168.0.9, hostname or hostname.domainname, nor if it uses its Linux hostkey or its OSX hostkey. However, I still want to receive a warning if there is a real man-in-the middle attack, i.e. if another key than these two is used.

    Read the article

  • Managing disk in a VM

    - by dst
    I'm replacing my two old rack servers with a new one that has plenty of power to take over the functionality my current servers. The server is a 4U rack mount with 16 3.5" SAS drive bays, two 2.5" bays, a Xeon E3-1230v2 CPU and 32GB of ECC RAM. My issue is the following. I would like to have a FreeBSD file server with ZFS managing disks. However, I need other VMs for e.g. a shell/git server, mail server etc. I'm wondering how to deal with the following issues: I want ZFS to fully manage the disks, so I'm not using any hardware RAID. Should I pass the SAS controller directly to the FreeBSD system as passthrough PCI? I want to maximize the reliability of the setup. On what disks should I install the hypervsor and keep server system disks? For (2) I have the option of having a RAID setup on the SAS controller and using that as system disk to store the hypervisor as well as VM images. However, this makes PCI passthrough to the file server impossible. Another option is using the two 2.5" bays. In terms of reliability how are SSDs compared to e.g. WD RE4 disks? Would it make sense to have two SSDs in software RAID as boot disks for the hypervisor or should I just go with e.g. WD RE4 disks in a software RAID setup. I also need to think about where to store the mails for the mail server, but this could be done over NFS between the VMs. BTW, this is for home use, so the load is not really that big. What I'm looking for is best practices for splitting up a server.

    Read the article

  • Can a pool of memcache daemons be used to share sessions more efficiently?

    - by Tom
    We are moving from a 1 webserver setup to a two webserver setup and I need to start sharing PHP sessions between the two load balanced machines. We already have memcached installed (and started) and so I was pleasantly surprized that I could accomplish sharing sessions between the new servers by changing only 3 lines in the php.ini file (the session.save_handler and session.save_path): I replaced: session.save_handler = files with: session.save_handler = memcache Then on the master webserver I set the session.save_path to point to localhost: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211" and on the slave webserver I set the session.save_path to point to the master: session.save_path="tcp://192.168.0.1:11211" Job done, I tested it and it works. But... Obviously using memcache means the sessions are in RAM and will be lost if a machine is rebooted or the memcache daemon crashes - I'm a little concerned by this but I am a bit more worried about the network traffic between the two webservers (especially as we scale up) because whenever someone is load balanced to the slave webserver their sessions will be fetched across the network from the master webserver. I was wondering if I could define two save_paths so the machines look in their own session storage before using the network. For example: Master: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211, tcp://192.168.0.2:11211" Slave: session.save_path="tcp://localhost:11211, tcp://192.168.0.1:11211" Would this successfully share sessions across the servers AND help performance? i.e save network traffic 50% of the time. Or is this technique only for failovers (e.g. when one memcache daemon is unreachable)? Note: I'm not really asking specifically about memcache replication - more about whether the PHP memcache client can peak inside each memcache daemon in a pool, return a session if it finds one and only create a new session if it doesn't find one in all the stores. As I'm writing this I'm thinking I'm asking a bit much from PHP, lol... Assume: no sticky-sessions, round-robin load balancing, LAMP servers.

    Read the article

  • Cluster Core Resource state of Exchange 2010 DAG

    - by Christoph
    I have two Exchange 2010 servers in a DAG and a witness server to implement mailbox resiliency. The two Exchange servers are in two subnets and the Windows failover cluster therefore has two IP address resources. I now that Exchange uses "core functionality" of Windows Server failover clustering, but it does not use all features. My setup also seems to work, but if I run the validation in the Windows Failover Cluster Manager, it complains about one of the IP address resources being offline. However, I cannot bring this resource online, because the server complains that "the specified cluster node is not the owner of the resource, or the node is not a possible owner of the resource". If I "Simulate failure of this resource", it becomes offline and the other IP becomes online. I have the vague idea that Exchange might use the state of the IP resource to identify the Primary Active Manager, but I am not sure. As it is obviously important that failover really works, I would like to be sure. Therefore, my question is: Is it normal that only one IP address resource in a Exchange 2010 DAG failover cluster is active at a time? If not, how do I bring both resources online at the same time given the error described above?

    Read the article

  • Cross-forest universal groups on Windows Server?

    - by DotGeorge
    I would like to create a Universal Group whose members are a mix of cross-forests users and groups. In the following example, two forests are mentioned (US and UK) and two domains in each forest (GeneralStaff and Java): For example, the universalDevelopers group may comprise of members from UK.Java.Developers and US.Java.Developers. Then, for example, there may be a group of universalSales which contains the users UK.GeneralStaff.John and US.GeneralStaff.Dave. In UK forest at the minute, I can freely add members and groups from the UK. But there is no way to add members from the US forest, despite having a two-way trust in place... e.g. I can login with US members into UK and vice-versa. A further complication is that, with a Universal group in the UK (which contains three domains), I can only add two of the three. It can't see the third. Could people please provide some thoughts on why cross-forest groups can't be created and ways of 'seeing' all domains within a forest. EDIT: This is on a combination of Windows 2003 and 2008 server. Answers can be regarding either. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • VMWare Setup with 2 Servers and a DAS (DELL MD3220)

    - by Kumala
    I am planning to use a VMWare based setup consisting of two VMWare servers (2 CPU, 256GB Memory) and a DAS (DELL MD3220 with 24x900GB disks). The virtual machines will be half running MS SQL databases (Application, Sharepoint, BI) and the other half of the VM will be file services, IIS. To enhance the capacity of the storage, we'll be adding a MD1220 enclosure with another 24x900GB to the MD3220. Both DAS will have 2 controllers. Our current measured IOPS is 1000 IOPS average, 7000 IOPS peak (those happen maybe twice per hour). We are in the planning phase now and are looking at the proper setup of the disks. The intention is to setup up both DAS one of the DAS with RAID 10 only and the other DAS with RAID 5. That will allow us to put the applications on the DAS that supports the application performance needs best. Question is how best to partition the two DASs to get best possible IOPS/MBps, each DAS will have to have 2 hot spares? For the RAID 5 Setup: Generally speaking, would it be better to have one single disk group across all 22 disks (24 - 2 hot spares) with both controllers assigned to the one disk group or is it better to have 2 disk groups each 11 disks, assigned to one of the two controllers? Same question for the RAID 10 setup: The plan is: 2 disks for logs (Raid 1), 2 Hotspare and 20 disks for RAID 10. Option 1: 5 * 4 disks (RAID 10), with two groups assigned to 1 controller and 3 groups to the other controller Option 2: One large RAID 10 across all the disks and have both controllers assigned to the same group? I would assume that there is no right or wrong, but it all depends very much on the specific application behaviour, so I am looking for some general ideas what the pros and cons are of the different options. IF there are other meaningful options, feel free to propose them.

    Read the article

  • Any program to help me check whether an ethernet channel can support full-length VLAN packet?

    - by Jimm Chen
    Sometimes, I have to face such a situation that I need to quickly and explicitly know whether a full length VLAN packet can traverse between two RJ45 ports. Yes, I mean 802.1Q ethernet frame with Etype=81 00 (diagram below). What I can do now is: Get two Windows PCs, for each PC, intall Intel Gigabit NIC and Intel specific driver to create a virtual NIC, with VLAN ID=3 assigned. Then connect the two PCs to each of the two RJ45 port. Finally execute ping to generate a full-length ethernet packet. ping -f -l 1472 <dest-IP> This way, I can be sure that the sent packet has the maximum "IP data payload" of 1500 bytes(8 bytes of ICMP header and 1472 bytes of ICMP data). If the ping gets reply, I know that the ethernet channel support full-length VLAN packet. From my experiment, some home switch or broad band routers(e.g. Linksys WRT54G) does not support full-length VLAN packet switching, so only ping -f -l 1468 succeeds. You see, I have to use an expensive Intel NIC to carry on that test, quite inconvenient. You know, for most laptop today, they do not equip an Intel NIC, and, even it is an Intel NIC, Intel VLAN driver, Intel has limitations on the models on which VLAN driver can be installed. So, my question is: Is there a small program that can let me send a full-length VLAN packet without installing a dedicated VLAN driver? Or better, the program has a stock feature that does the very job for my situation. Windows programs preferred, Linux solution welcome. Simpler the program, the better. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Running multiple copies of openssh-server (sshd) on Ubuntu

    - by cecilkorik
    I may be attacking this problem the wrong way, if so let me know. I have a server which is available through SSH from both the public internet and the local LAN. I would like to have two very different security policies for each, by running two copies of sshd with two different sshd_config files each on a different port. Some of the things I'd like to change is to allow password or public-key authentication on the LAN, but public-key only from the internet. All (real) users could login from the LAN side, but only certain authorized users would be individually whitelisted to login through the internet. As far as I can tell this requires having two different SSH daemons running on different ports with different sshd_configs. I am fine with the different ports part, I can easily forward port 22 to any port I want through my firewall. So my question is what is the best way to actually START the second sshd under Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. Is there a recommended way to do something like this? Surely I am not the first person with this sort of need. I have a bit of experience with upstart, and I can manually hack the second sshd into /etc/init/ssh.conf I suppose but I'm not sure if that will get overwritten by the package. However I do it, It's important to ensure both sshd processes always get restarted after any automatic or manual upgrade of the openssh-server package. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How far should we take the N+N redundancy craziness ?

    - by Brann
    The industry standard when it comes from redundancy is quite high, to say the least. To illustrate my point, here is my current setup (I'm running a financial service). Each server has a RAID array in case something goes wrong on one hard drive .... and in case something goes wrong on the server, it's mirrored by another spare identical server ... and both server cannot go down at the same time, because I've got redundant power, and redundant network connectivity, etc ... and my hosting center itself has dual electricity connections to two different energy providers, and redundant network connectivity, and redundant toilets in case the two security guards (sorry, four) needs to use it at the same time ... and in case something goes wrong anyway (a nuclear nuke? can't think of anything else), I've got another identical hosting facility in another country with the exact same setup. Cost of reputational damage if down = very high Probability of a hardware failure with my setup : <<1% Probability of a hardware failure with a less paranoiac setup : <<1% ASWELL Probability of a software failure in our application code : 1% (if your software is never down because of bugs, then I suggest you doublecheck your reporting/monitoring system is not down. Even SQLServer - which is arguably developed and tested by clever people with a strong methodology - is sometimes down) In other words, I feel like I could host a cheap laptop in my mother's flat, and the human/software problems would still be my higher risk. Of course, there are other things to take into consideration such as : scalability data security the clients expectations that you meet the industry standard But still, hosting two servers in two different data centers (without extra spare servers, nor doubled network equipment apart from the one provided by my hosting facility) would provide me with the scalability and the physical security I need. I feel like we're reaching a point where redundancy is just a communcation tool. Honestly, what's the difference between a 99.999% uptime and a 99.9999% uptime when you know you'll be down 1% of the time because of software bugs ? How far do you push your redundancy crazyness ?

    Read the article

  • Downmix surround to Dolby Pro-Logic at the OS/driver level in Windows 7?

    - by davr
    First off, I'm talking about Dolby Pro-Logic, a really old tech for encoding 4 audio channels (L/R/C/SR) into two analog outputs, and then extracting them again. It was used in surround sound systems in the last century. I have a modern PC that can output 5.1 analog audio (Three outputs on the back carry six channels of audio). But I have a really old surround sound reciever that only has a two-channel, L/R input, which it extracts 4 channels of audio from, and outputs to 5.1 speakers. What I want is some way for the OS, Windows 7, to act as if I really had 5.1 audio channels available, so applications produce surround audio, but before outputting it out of the back of my PC, apply Dolby Pro-Logic matrix encoding so that it outputs over only two channels. These two channels would then get sent to my receiver via a RCA cable, which would decode it again and drive the surround speakers. Is anything like this possible? I'm pretty sure I could do it at an application / codec level, but I'm looking for something that I just have to set once.

    Read the article

  • Is 2 GB of RAM better than 2.5 GB?

    - by pibboater
    My laptop has two slots for RAM, and currently has two 512 MB chips, for 1 GB. Windows XP is running terribly slow on it, so I want to upgrade the RAM. I could buy two 1 GB chips to replace both of the current 512 MB chips, to give me 2 GB of RAM. Or, the price is the same to buy one 2 GB chip, to replace just one of the 512 MB chips, and give me 2.5 GB total. The RAM it takes is PC2-4200 533MHz DDR2. What do you think would be better: buying two 1 GB chips so it can take advantage of dual-channel operation, or buying one 2 GB chip to end up with more total RAM but not dual-channel operation? Like I said, price is the same, so performance is the only consideration. I'm not doing anything especially intensive like video or photo editing -- just having multiple Office programs open, playing music, browsers, etc., but currently even opening the first application takes forever. If it matters, the laptop is a Toshiba Qosmio G25-AV513 running Windows XP Media Center SP3. Thanks! Kevin

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >