Search Results

Search found 5021 results on 201 pages for 'limit'.

Page 27/201 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • proftpd initial directory for each user

    - by Dels
    After successfully setting up proftpd server, i want to add initial directory for each users, i have 2 user, webadmin that can access all folder and upload that can only access upload folder ... # Added config DefaultRoot ~ RequireValidShell off AuthUserFile /etc/proftpd/passwd # VALID LOGINS <Limit LOGIN> AllowUser webadmin, upload DenyALL </Limit> <Directory /home/webadmin> <Limit ALL> DenyAll </Limit> <Limit DIRS READ WRITE> AllowUser webadmin </Limit> </Directory> <Directory /home/webadmin/upload> <Limit ALL> DenyAll </Limit> <Limit DIRS READ WRITE> AllowUser upload </Limit> </Directory> All set ok, but i need to tell my ftp client initial directory for each user (otherwise it keep fail to retrieve directory), which i think it should be automatically set for each user (no need to type initial directory in ftp client)

    Read the article

  • Best way to indicate more results available

    - by Alex Stangl
    We have a service to return messages. We want to limit the number returned, either allowing the caller to specify the max number to return, or else to use an internal hard limit. We also have thought it would be nice to include in the response whether more messages are available. The "best" way to go about this is not clear. Here are some ideas so far: Only set the "more messages" indicator if the user did not specify a max limit, and the internal max limit was hit. Same as #1 except that "more messages" indicator set regardless of whether the internal hard limit is hit, or the user-specified limit is hit. Same as #1 (or #2) except that we internally read limit + 1 records, but only return limit records, so we know "for sure" there is at least one additional message rather than "maybe" there are additional messages. Do away with the "more messages" flag, as it is confusing and unnecessary. Instead force the user to keep calling the API until it returns no messages. Change "more messages" indicator to something more akin to an EOF indicator, only set when the last message is known to have been retrieved and returned. What do you think is the best solution? (Doesn't have to be one of the above choices.) I searched and couldn't find a similar question already asked. Hopefully this is not "too subjective".

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 LXC nat prerouting not working

    - by petermolnar
    I have a running Debian Wheezy setup I copied exactly to an Ubuntu 12.04 ( elementary OS, used as desktop as well ) While the Debian setup runs flawlessly, the Ubuntu version dies on the prerouting to containers ( or so it seems ) In short: lxc works containers work and run connecting to container from host OK ( including mixed ports & services ) connecting to outside world from container is fine What does not work is connecting from another box to the host on a port that should be NATed to a container. The setups: /etc/rc.local CMD_BRCTL=/sbin/brctl CMD_IFCONFIG=/sbin/ifconfig CMD_IPTABLES=/sbin/iptables CMD_ROUTE=/sbin/route NETWORK_BRIDGE_DEVICE_NAT=lxc-bridge HOST_NETDEVICE=eth0 PRIVATE_GW_NAT=192.168.42.1 PRIVATE_NETMASK=255.255.255.0 PUBLIC_IP=192.168.13.100 ${CMD_BRCTL} addbr ${NETWORK_BRIDGE_DEVICE_NAT} ${CMD_BRCTL} setfd ${NETWORK_BRIDGE_DEVICE_NAT} 0 ${CMD_IFCONFIG} ${NETWORK_BRIDGE_DEVICE_NAT} ${PRIVATE_GW_NAT} netmask ${PRIVATE_NETMASK} promisc up Therefore lxc network is 192.168.42.0/24 and the host eth0 ip is 192.168.13.100; setup via network manager as static address. iptables: *mangle :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] COMMIT *filter :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :INPUT DROP [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] # Accept traffic from internal interfaces -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT # accept traffic from lxc network -A INPUT -d 192.168.42.1 -s 192.168.42.0/24 -j ACCEPT # Accept internal traffic Make sure NEW incoming tcp connections are SYN # packets; otherwise we need to drop them: -A INPUT -p tcp ! --syn -m state --state NEW -j DROP # Packets with incoming fragments drop them. This attack result into Linux server panic such data loss. -A INPUT -f -j DROP # Incoming malformed XMAS packets drop them: -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL ALL -j DROP # Incoming malformed NULL packets: -A INPUT -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL NONE -j DROP # Accept traffic with the ACK flag set -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags ACK ACK -j ACCEPT # Allow incoming data that is part of a connection we established -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow data that is related to existing connections -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED -j ACCEPT # Accept responses to DNS queries -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 1024:65535 --sport 53 -j ACCEPT # Accept responses to our pings -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type echo-reply -j ACCEPT # Accept notifications of unreachable hosts -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type destination-unreachable -j ACCEPT # Accept notifications to reduce sending speed -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type source-quench -j ACCEPT # Accept notifications of lost packets -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type time-exceeded -j ACCEPT # Accept notifications of protocol problems -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type parameter-problem -j ACCEPT # Respond to pings, but limit -A INPUT -m icmp -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -m state --state NEW -m limit --limit 6/s -j ACCEPT # Allow connections to SSH server -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m limit --limit 12/s -j ACCEPT COMMIT *nat :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] -A PREROUTING -d 192.168.13.100 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 2221 -m state --state NEW -m limit --limit 12/s -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.42.11:22 -A PREROUTING -d 192.168.13.100 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW -m limit --limit 512/s -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.42.11:80 -A PREROUTING -d 192.168.13.100 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -m state --state NEW -m limit --limit 512/s -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.42.11:443 -A POSTROUTING -d 192.168.42.0/24 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.13.100 -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT sysctl: net.ipv4.conf.all.forwarding = 1 net.ipv4.conf.all.mc_forwarding = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.forwarding = 1 net.ipv4.conf.default.mc_forwarding = 0 net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 I've set up full iptables log on the container; none of the packets addressed to 192.168.13.100, port 80 is reaching the container. I've even tried different kernels ( server kernel, raring lts kernel, etc ), modprobe everything iptables & nat related, nothing. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How can I limit my data usage over tethering on Windows?

    - by Casebash
    The excess data charges if I go over my tethering data limit are ridiculously. Fennec already stated the question well. Because of this, and on general principle, I'd like to have some tools which permit me to do things like: Monitor the amount of bandwidth that I've used I think I can do this from Sprint too, but on-the-computer is nice too on-the-computer gives me a possibility of breaking it down by application See what sort of programs are using the Internet connection I could use, like, Wireshark, but that's a bit too micro-level to be practical Keep those programs, and the operating system, from doing things like "downloading an operating system update" while on the mobile hotspot Related I want to monitor and limit OS X's data transfer while I'm tethering via my iPhone

    Read the article

  • How do I rate limit google's crawl of my class C IP block?

    - by Zak
    I have several sites in a class C network that all get crawled by google on a pretty regular basis. Normally this is fine. However, when google starts crawling all the sites at the same time, the small set of servers that back this IP block can take a pretty big hit on load. With google webmaster tools, you can rate limit the googlebot on a given domain, but I haven't found a way to limit the bot across an IP network yet. Anyone have experience with this? How did you fix it?

    Read the article

  • kvm and qemu host: Is there a limit for max CPUs (Ubuntu 10.04)?

    - by Valentin
    Today we encountered a really strange behaviour on two identical kvm and qemu hosts. The host systems each have 4 x 10 Cores, which means that 40 physical cores are displayed as 80 within the operating system (Ubuntu Linux 10.04 64 Bit). We started a Windows 2003 32 Bit VM (1 CPU, 1 GB RAM, we changed those values multiple times) on one of the nodes and noticed that it took 15 minutes until the boot process began. During those 15 minutes, a black screen is shown and nothing happens. libvirt and the host system show that the qemu-kvm process for the guest is almost idling. stracing this process only shows some FUTEX entries, but nothing special. After those 15 minutes, the Windows VM suddenly starts booting and the Windows logo occurs. After a few seconds, the VM is ready to be used. The VM itself is very performant, so this is no performance issue. We tried to pin the CPUs with the virsh and taskset tools, but this only made things worse. When we boot the Windows VM with a Linux Live CD there is also a black screen for several minutes, but not as long as 15. When booting another VM on this host (Ubuntu 10.04) it also has the black screen problem, and also here the black screen is only shown for 2-3 minutes (instead of 15). So, summerinzing this: Each guest on each of those identical nodes suffers from idling a few minutes after being started. After a few minutes, the boot process suddenly starts. We have observed that the idling time happens right after the bios of the guest was initialized. One of our employees had the idea to limit the amount of CPUs with maxcpus=40 (because of 40 physical cores existing) within Grub (kernel parameter) and suddenly the "black-screen-idling"-behaviour disappeared. Searching the KVM and Qemu mailing lists, the internet, forums, serverfault and other various sites for known bugs etc. showed no useful results. Even asking in the dev IRC channels brought no new ideas. The people there recommend us to use CPU pinning, but as stated before it didn't help. My question is now: Is there a sort of limit of CPUs for a qemu or kvm host system? Browsing the source code of those two tools showed that KVM would send a warning if your host has more than 255 CPUs. But we are not even scratching on that limit. Some stuff about the host system: 3.0.0-20-server kvm 1:84+dfsg-0ubuntu16+0.14.0+noroms+0ubuntu4 kvm-pxe 5.4.4-7ubuntu2 qemu-kvm 0.14.0+noroms-0ubuntu4 qemu-common 0.14.0+noroms-0ubuntu4 libvirt 0.8.8-1ubuntu6 4 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-4870 @ 2.40GHz, 10 Cores

    Read the article

  • How can I set a time-limit on a batch file?

    - by drknexus
    I have a batch file that calls an external program that periodically hangs. What I would like to do is set a time limit on the batch file / CMD prompt such that it automatically closes after a certain period of time. One catch is that the external program that hangs may have one or more instances running at a given time, and I only want the batch file hitting its time limit to close the instance of the program triggered by the batch. How can I accomplish this? Ideally a solution would work on Windows XP, Vista, and 7.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008R2 Express: which is the users limit in a real case scenario?

    - by PressPlayOnTape
    I know that sql server express has not a user limit, and every application has a different way to load/stress the server. But let's take "a typical accounting software", where users input some record, retrieve some data and from time to time they make some custom big queries. May someone share its own experience and tell me which is the limit of users that can realistically use a sql server express instance in this scenario? I am looking for an indicative idea, like (as an example): "I had a company with an average of 40 users logged in and the application was working ok on sql server express, but when the users become 60 the application started to seem non repsonsive" (please note this sentence is pure imagination, I just wrote it as an example).

    Read the article

  • how limit the number of open TCP streams from same IP to a local port?

    - by JMW
    Hi, i would like to limit the number of concurrent open TCP streams from the the same IP to the server's (local) port. Let's say 4 concurrent conncetions. How can this be done with ip tables? the closest thing, that i've found was: In Apache, is there a way to limit the number of new connections per second/hour/day? iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -i eth0 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -i eth0 -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 86400 --hitcount 100 -j REJECT But this limitation just messures the number of new connections over the time. This might be good for controlling HTTP traffic. But this is not a good solution for me, since my TCP streams usually have a lifetime between 5 minutes and 2 hours. thanks a lot in advance for any reply :)

    Read the article

  • What is the email limit on Google Apps Script?

    - by jmvidal
    Can someone tell me if there is a webpage that lists the official Google limit on emails sent from a Google Apps Script? In testing my little script I got a Service invoked too many times: email (# 59) and now I can't send any more emails. The obvious place for this information would be in the MailApp.sendEmail documentation. But, that does not say anything about a limit. I found this discussion on the google forum from 2/11/10 where users discuss about a 100 or 500 emails/day limit, with a 24 hour ban, but no one from Google provided an official answer. Note that this is for google apps script, which is different from the google app engine, which does have well published limits.

    Read the article

  • Is there a limit on the number of mutex objects that can be created in a Windows process?

    - by young-phillip
    I'm writing a c# application that can create a series of request messages. Each message could have a response, that needs to be waited on by a consumer. Where the number of outstanding request messages is constrained, I have used the windows EVENT to solve this problem. However, I know there is a limit on how many EVENT objects can be created in a single process, and in this instance, its possible I might exceed that limit. Does anyone know if there is a similar limit on creation of mutex objects or semaphores? I know this can be solved by some sort of pool of shared resources, that are grabbed by consumers when they need to wait, but it would be more convenient if each request message could have its own sync object.

    Read the article

  • HOw do I limit array to a certain number??

    - by mathew
    I do have an array which queries database..what I need to do is control this array to a certain number say 10. but I dont want to set LIMIT in mysql query I need to leave that as it is... $result = mysql_query("SELECT * FROM query ORDER BY regtime DESC"); while($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)) { echo "<img src='bullet.gif' align='absmiddle' class='col1ab'><a class='col1ab' href=".$row['web']." >www.".$row['web']."</a><br>"; } How do I limit this array to certain limit??

    Read the article

  • iptables : how to correctly allow incoming and outgoing traffic for certain ports?

    - by Rubytastic
    Im trying to get incoming and outgoing traffic to be enabled on specific ports, because I block everything at the end of the iptables rules. INPUT and FORWARD reject. What would be the appropiate way to open certain ports for all traffic incoming and outgoing? From docs I found below but one has to really define both lines? iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 22 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT I try to open ports for xmpp service and some other deamons running on server. Rules: *filter # Allow all loopback (lo0) traffic and drop all traffic to 127/8 that doesn't use lo0 -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT # Accept all established inbound connections -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow all outbound traffic - you can modify this to only allow certain traffic -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT # Allow HTTP # Prevent DDOS attacks (http://blog.bodhizazen.net/linux/prevent-dos-with-iptables/) # Disallow HTTPS -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -m state --state NEW -m limit --limit 50/minute --limit-burst 200 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -m limit --limit 50/second --limit-burst 50 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j DROP # Allow SSH connections # The -dport number should be the same port number you set in sshd_config -A INPUT -p tcp -s <myip> --dport ssh -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp -s <myip> --dport 5984 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport ssh -j REJECT # Attempt to block portscans # Anyone who tried to portscan us is locked out for an entire day. -A INPUT -m recent --name portscan --rcheck --seconds 86400 -j DROP -A FORWARD -m recent --name portscan --rcheck --seconds 86400 -j DROP # Once the day has passed, remove them from the portscan list -A INPUT -m recent --name portscan --remove -A FORWARD -m recent --name portscan --remove # These rules add scanners to the portscan list, and log the attempt. -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -m recent --name portscan --set -j LOG --log-prefix "Portscan:" -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -m recent --name portscan --set -j DROP -A FORWARD -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -m recent --name portscan --set -j LOG --log-prefix "Portscan:" -A FORWARD -p tcp -m tcp --dport 139 -m recent --name portscan --set -j DROP # Stop smurf attacks -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type address-mask-request -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type timestamp-request -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp -j DROP # Drop excessive RST packets to avoid smurf attacks -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags RST RST -m limit --limit 2/second --limit-burst 2 -j ACCEPT # Don't allow pings through -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j DROP # Log iptables denied calls -A INPUT -m limit --limit 5/min -j LOG --log-prefix "iptables denied: " --log-level 7 # Reject all other inbound - default deny unless explicitly allowed policy -A INPUT -j REJECT -A FORWARD -j REJECT COMMIT

    Read the article

  • Is there a limit on number of OLE objects that can be embedded in an excel sheet?

    - by Varun Mahajan
    I am adding OLE objects to an excel sheet through .net interop. However, after some calls, excel is not allowing adding more objects through code. Is there a limit? or am I doing something wrong. Dim Htmlshape As Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel.Shape Htmlshape = xlWorkSheet.Shapes.AddOLEObject(, tmpFile, , True, strExplorerPath, 1, "") Running this code gives an error after say 1000 calls. So, am I crossing some limit here?

    Read the article

  • Extending Zend DB Table to include BETWEEN and LIMIT.

    - by davykiash
    Am looking for how I can extend the Zend_DB_Table below to accomodate a BETWEEN two dates syntax and LIMIT syntax My current construct is class Model_DbTable_Tablelist extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract { protected $_name = 'mytable'; $select = $this->select() ->setIntegrityCheck(false) ->from('mytable', array('MyCol1', 'MyDate')); } I want it extended to be equivalent to the query below SELECT MyCol1,MyDate FROM mytable WHERE MyDate BETWEEN '2008-04-03' AND '2009-01-02' LIMIT 0,20 Any ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >