Search Results

Search found 5137 results on 206 pages for 'i like traffic lights'.

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 38/206 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Too Much is Too Good - The Ultimate Rule For Website Traffic!

    The more number of visitors to your site, the more profit you make. There cannot be two ways about this. However, in this age of online business boom, there is always a fear of the public being divided, your customers seeking services elsewhere, people visiting your website but not really becoming your customers etc.

    Read the article

  • What Are the Best Ways to Get Traffic From Search Engine Optimization Consultant?

    Every internet based business needs to go through a well planned and thought out process before it actually gets established and achieving its purpose. Obviously, the process is totally different from how a brick-and-mortar business is started and established but the basics remain the same. One of the key ingredients of the process of establishing an Internet based business is getting your website search engine optimized. Depending upon the size and complexity of business, search engine optimization may turn out to be a very detailed process if you really want it to be effective and useful.

    Read the article

  • Do Search Engine Optimization Techniques Really Boost Your Network Traffic?

    As everyone knows internet has become the best place to get all the required information. With a simple search engine query you could get list of web pages where you could get the information you are looking out for. Also, it is a very common attitude of all of us that we would like to go with the websites which are listed in the top of the search results. So, it is very important for those websites involved in that business to get their web page listed in the top position of the search results so that they could make the users looking out for the related information to get into their website.

    Read the article

  • What is the ip range of EC2

    - by Nicolas Kassis
    I'd like to setup a rule to block ssh request from EC2 since I've been seeing a large amount of ssh based attack from there and was wondering if anyone knew what their IP ranges are. EDIT: Thank you for the answer, I went ahead and implemented the iptables rules as follow. I ignore all traffic for the moment. Logging it just to see if the rules are working and for stats on how much crap EC2 is sending out ;) #EC2 Blacklist $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 67.202.0.0/18 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 67.202.0.0/18 -j DROP $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 72.44.32.0/19 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 72.44.32.0/19 -j DROP $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 75.101.128.0/17 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 75.101.128.0/17 -j DROP $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 174.129.0.0/16 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 174.129.0.0/16 -j DROP $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 204.236.192.0/18 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 204.236.192.0/18 -j DROP $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 204.236.224.0/19 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 204.236.224.0/19 -j DROP $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 79.125.0.0/17 -j LOG --log-prefix "<firewall> EC2 traffic " $IPTBLS -A INPUT -s 79.125.0.0/17 -j DROP

    Read the article

  • Improving TCP performance over a gigabit network with lots of connections and high traffic of small packets

    - by MinimeDJ
    I’m trying to improve my TCP throughput over a “gigabit network with lots of connections and high traffic of small packets”. My server OS is Ubuntu 11.10 Server 64bit. There are about 50.000 (and growing) clients connected to my server through TCP Sockets (all on the same port). 95% of of my packets have size of 1-150 bytes (TCP header and payload). The rest 5% vary from 150 up to 4096+ bytes. With the config below my server can handle traffic up to 30 Mbps (full duplex). Can you please advice best practice to tune OS for my needs? My /etc/sysctl.cong looks like this: kernel.pid_max = 1000000 net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 2500 65000 fs.file-max = 1000000 # net.core.netdev_max_backlog=3000 net.ipv4.tcp_sack=0 # net.core.rmem_max = 16777216 net.core.wmem_max = 16777216 net.core.somaxconn = 2048 # net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 87380 16777216 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536 16777216 # net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries = 2 net.ipv4.tcp_syncookies = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_mem = 50576 64768 98152 # net.core.wmem_default = 65536 net.core.rmem_default = 65536 net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=1 # net.ipv4.tcp_mem= 98304 131072 196608 # net.ipv4.tcp_timestamps = 0 net.ipv4.tcp_rfc1337 = 1 net.ipv4.ip_forward = 0 net.ipv4.tcp_congestion_control=cubic net.ipv4.tcp_tw_recycle = 0 net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 0 # net.ipv4.tcp_orphan_retries = 1 net.ipv4.tcp_fin_timeout = 25 net.ipv4.tcp_max_orphans = 8192 Here are my limits: $ ulimit -a core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited scheduling priority (-e) 0 file size (blocks, -f) unlimited pending signals (-i) 193045 max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 64 max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited open files (-n) 1000000 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200 real-time priority (-r) 0 stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192 cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) 1000000 [ADDED] My NICs are the following: $ dmesg | grep Broad [ 2.473081] Broadcom NetXtreme II 5771x 10Gigabit Ethernet Driver bnx2x 1.62.12-0 (2011/03/20) [ 2.477808] bnx2x 0000:02:00.0: eth0: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM57711E XGb (A0) PCI-E x4 5GHz (Gen2) found at mem fb000000, IRQ 28, node addr d8:d3:85:bd:23:08 [ 2.482556] bnx2x 0000:02:00.1: eth1: Broadcom NetXtreme II BCM57711E XGb (A0) PCI-E x4 5GHz (Gen2) found at mem fa000000, IRQ 40, node addr d8:d3:85:bd:23:0c [ADDED 2] ethtool -k eth0 Offload parameters for eth0: rx-checksumming: on tx-checksumming: on scatter-gather: on tcp-segmentation-offload: on udp-fragmentation-offload: off generic-segmentation-offload: on generic-receive-offload: on large-receive-offload: on rx-vlan-offload: on tx-vlan-offload: on ntuple-filters: off receive-hashing: off [ADDED 3] sudo ethtool -S eth0|grep -vw 0 NIC statistics: [1]: rx_bytes: 17521104292 [1]: rx_ucast_packets: 118326392 [1]: tx_bytes: 35351475694 [1]: tx_ucast_packets: 191723897 [2]: rx_bytes: 16569945203 [2]: rx_ucast_packets: 114055437 [2]: tx_bytes: 36748975961 [2]: tx_ucast_packets: 194800859 [3]: rx_bytes: 16222309010 [3]: rx_ucast_packets: 109397802 [3]: tx_bytes: 36034786682 [3]: tx_ucast_packets: 198238209 [4]: rx_bytes: 14884911384 [4]: rx_ucast_packets: 104081414 [4]: rx_discards: 5828 [4]: rx_csum_offload_errors: 1 [4]: tx_bytes: 35663361789 [4]: tx_ucast_packets: 194024824 [5]: rx_bytes: 16465075461 [5]: rx_ucast_packets: 110637200 [5]: tx_bytes: 43720432434 [5]: tx_ucast_packets: 202041894 [6]: rx_bytes: 16788706505 [6]: rx_ucast_packets: 113123182 [6]: tx_bytes: 38443961940 [6]: tx_ucast_packets: 202415075 [7]: rx_bytes: 16287423304 [7]: rx_ucast_packets: 110369475 [7]: rx_csum_offload_errors: 1 [7]: tx_bytes: 35104168638 [7]: tx_ucast_packets: 184905201 [8]: rx_bytes: 12689721791 [8]: rx_ucast_packets: 87616037 [8]: rx_discards: 2638 [8]: tx_bytes: 36133395431 [8]: tx_ucast_packets: 196547264 [9]: rx_bytes: 15007548011 [9]: rx_ucast_packets: 98183525 [9]: rx_csum_offload_errors: 1 [9]: tx_bytes: 34871314517 [9]: tx_ucast_packets: 188532637 [9]: tx_mcast_packets: 12 [10]: rx_bytes: 12112044826 [10]: rx_ucast_packets: 84335465 [10]: rx_discards: 2494 [10]: tx_bytes: 36562151913 [10]: tx_ucast_packets: 195658548 [11]: rx_bytes: 12873153712 [11]: rx_ucast_packets: 89305791 [11]: rx_discards: 2990 [11]: tx_bytes: 36348541675 [11]: tx_ucast_packets: 194155226 [12]: rx_bytes: 12768100958 [12]: rx_ucast_packets: 89350917 [12]: rx_discards: 2667 [12]: tx_bytes: 35730240389 [12]: tx_ucast_packets: 192254480 [13]: rx_bytes: 14533227468 [13]: rx_ucast_packets: 98139795 [13]: tx_bytes: 35954232494 [13]: tx_ucast_packets: 194573612 [13]: tx_bcast_packets: 2 [14]: rx_bytes: 13258647069 [14]: rx_ucast_packets: 92856762 [14]: rx_discards: 3509 [14]: rx_csum_offload_errors: 1 [14]: tx_bytes: 35663586641 [14]: tx_ucast_packets: 189661305 rx_bytes: 226125043936 rx_ucast_packets: 1536428109 rx_bcast_packets: 351 rx_discards: 20126 rx_filtered_packets: 8694 rx_csum_offload_errors: 11 tx_bytes: 548442367057 tx_ucast_packets: 2915571846 tx_mcast_packets: 12 tx_bcast_packets: 2 tx_64_byte_packets: 35417154 tx_65_to_127_byte_packets: 2006984660 tx_128_to_255_byte_packets: 373733514 tx_256_to_511_byte_packets: 378121090 tx_512_to_1023_byte_packets: 77643490 tx_1024_to_1522_byte_packets: 43669214 tx_pause_frames: 228 Some info about SACK: When to turn TCP SACK off?

    Read the article

  • iptables - quick safety eval & limit max conns over time

    - by Peter Hanneman
    Working on locking down a *nix server box with some fancy iptable(v1.4.4) rules. I'm approaching the matter with a "paranoid, everyone's out to get me" style, not necessarily because I expect the box to be a hacker magnet but rather just for the sake of learning iptables and *nix security more throughly. Everything is well commented - so if anyone sees something I missed please let me know! The *nat table's "--to-ports" point to the only ports with actively listening services. (aside from pings) Layer 2 apps listen exclusively on chmod'ed sockets bridged by one of the layer 1 daemons. Layers 3+ inherit from layer 2 in a similar fashion. The two lines giving me grief are commented out at the very bottom of the *filter rules. The first line runs fine but it's all or nothing. :) Many thanks, Peter H. *nat #Flush previous rules, chains and counters for the 'nat' table -F -X -Z #Redirect traffic to alternate internal ports -I PREROUTING --src 0/0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8080 -I PREROUTING --src 0/0 -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8443 -I PREROUTING --src 0/0 -p udp --dport 53 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8053 -I PREROUTING --src 0/0 -p tcp --dport 9022 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 8022 COMMIT *filter #Flush previous settings, chains and counters for the 'filter' table -F -X -Z #Set default behavior for all connections and protocols -P INPUT DROP -P OUTPUT DROP -A FORWARD -j DROP #Only accept loopback traffic originating from the local NIC -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT ! -i lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j DROP #Accept all outgoing non-fragmented traffic having a valid state -A OUTPUT ! -f -m state --state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT #Drop fragmented incoming packets (Not always malicious - acceptable for use now) -A INPUT -f -j DROP #Allow ping requests rate limited to one per second (burst ensures reliable results for high latency connections) -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -m limit --limit 1/sec --limit-burst 2 -j ACCEPT #Declaration of custom chains -N INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -N INSPECT_STATE -N INSPECT #Drop incoming tcp connections with invalid tcp-flags -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL ALL -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL NONE -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ACK,FIN FIN -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ACK,PSH PSH -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ACK,URG URG -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,FIN SYN,FIN -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL FIN,PSH,URG -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags FIN,RST FIN,RST -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN,RST -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL SYN,FIN,PSH,URG -j DROP -A INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -p tcp --tcp-flags ALL SYN,RST,ACK,FIN,URG -j DROP #Accept incoming traffic having either an established or related state -A INSPECT_STATE -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT #Drop new incoming tcp connections if they aren't SYN packets -A INSPECT_STATE -m state --state NEW -p tcp ! --syn -j DROP #Drop incoming traffic with invalid states -A INSPECT_STATE -m state --state INVALID -j DROP #INSPECT chain definition -A INSPECT -p tcp -j INSPECT_TCP_FLAGS -A INSPECT -j INSPECT_STATE #Route incoming traffic through the INSPECT chain -A INPUT -j INSPECT #Accept redirected HTTP traffic via HA reverse proxy -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT #Accept redirected HTTPS traffic via STUNNEL SSH gateway (As well as tunneled HTTPS traffic destine for other services) -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 8443 -j ACCEPT #Accept redirected DNS traffic for NSD authoritative nameserver -A INPUT -p udp --dport 8053 -j ACCEPT #Accept redirected SSH traffic for OpenSSH server #Temp solution: -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 8022 -j ACCEPT #Ideal solution: #Limit new ssh connections to max 10 per 10 minutes while allowing an "unlimited" (or better reasonably limited?) number of established connections. #-A INPUT -p tcp --dport 8022 --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -m recent --set -j ACCEPT #-A INPUT -p tcp --dport 8022 --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 600 --hitcount 11 -j DROP COMMIT *mangle #Flush previous rules, chains and counters in the 'mangle' table -F -X -Z COMMIT

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Server, 2 Ethernet Devices, Same Gateway - Want to force internet traffic through 1 device (or at least allow it to work!)

    - by Chris Drumgoole
    I have a Ubuntu 10.04 Server with 2 ethernet devices, eth0 and eth1. eth0 has a static IP of 192.168.1.210 eth1 has a static IP if 192.168.1.211 The DHCP server (which also serves as the internet gateway) sits at 192.168.1.1. The issue I have right now is when I have both plugged in, I can connect to both IPs over SSH internally, but I can't connect to the internet from the server. If I unplug one of the devices (e.g. eth1), then it works, no problem. (Also, I get the same result when I run sudo ifconfig eth1 down). Question, how can I configure it so that I can have both devices eth0 and eth1 play nice on the same network, but allow internet access as well? (I am open to either enforcing all inet traffic going through a single device, or through both, I'm flexible). From my google searching, it seems I could have a unique (or not popular) problem, so haven't been able to find a solution. Is this something that people generally don't do? The reason I want to make use of both ethernet devices is because I want to run different local traffic services on on both to split the load, so to speak... Thanks in advance. UPDATE Contents of /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp # The secondary network interface #auto eth1 #iface eth1 inet dhcp (Note: above, I commented out the last 2 lines because I thought that was causing issues... but it didn't solve it) netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.1.0 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 UPDATE 2 I made a change to the /etc/network/interfaces file as suggested by Kevin. Before I display the file contents and the route table, when I am logged into the server (through SSH), I can not ping an external server, so this is the same issue I was experiencing that led to me posting this question. I ran a /etc/init.d/networking restart after making the file changes. Contents of /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp address 192.168.1.210 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.1 # The secondary network interface auto eth1 iface eth1 inet dhcp address 192.168.1.211 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig output eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 78:2b:cb:4c:02:7f inet addr:192.168.1.210 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::7a2b:cbff:fe4c:27f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:6397 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:683 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:538881 (538.8 KB) TX bytes:85597 (85.5 KB) Interrupt:36 Memory:da000000-da012800 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 78:2b:cb:4c:02:80 inet addr:192.168.1.211 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::7a2b:cbff:fe4c:280/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:5799 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:484436 (484.4 KB) TX bytes:1184 (1.1 KB) Interrupt:48 Memory:dc000000-dc012800 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:635 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:635 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:38154 (38.1 KB) TX bytes:38154 (38.1 KB) netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0

    Read the article

  • Does stunnel prevent non ssl traffic to "the" specified port?

    - by user432024
    So say I have an arbitrary tcp port 12345 and it's non ssl and I want to put stunnel to secure traffic to it. When stunnel is in front of it does it mean that this port is now tls/ssl only? Or can you still connect to it unencrypted? Basically I want to make sure that this port can only be accessed through ssl/tls and stunel and no other way. Clarification I want to make sure only stunnel port is open. Which is answered in the comments that the unsecured port should be fire-walled but preferably bound to localhost.

    Read the article

  • How to route traffic from a subnet 10.0.0.x to a network 200.208.88.17

    - by Guilherme Longo
    I have the following configuration Router : IP: 200.208.88.17 (Internet) MASK: 255.255.255.40 Server 2003 : IP: 10.0.0.1 (with dhcp server ativated) dhcp scope: 10.0.0.11 - 10.0.0.254 MASK: 255.255.255.0 clients : IP: 10.0.0.11 - 10.0.0.254 MASK: 255.255.255.0 At this point I have all computer set-up in one switch. All clients are receiving ip´s from the dhcp server. I need to enable the internet in every client. I am not sure how to route the traffic from the clients to the router that is providing internet access. Could you please point me to the right direction?

    Read the article

  • How not to send all traffic over SBS connection?

    - by Niels R.
    Hi, My girlfriend uses SBS Connection Manager to connect to her company's network. The problem is that the internet connection is überslow at work, so she wants to use the home internet connection to surf the web and use the SBS Connection to get to her work stuff. Normally with a VPN connection you just have to uncheck a box "Send all traffic over VPN connection" or "Use VPN as default gateway" or something like that. As I've never seen this SBS Connection Manager-thing before, I've no idea where to uncheck a similar box. (I've checked the properties of the connection in Network Connections, but it only has a few options about logging and firewall). Thanks for any help in advance! Kind regards, Niels R.

    Read the article

  • is there any Open Source solution for Failover of incoming Traffic?

    - by sahil
    Hi, We have two ISP... and both ISP's Ip Nat with same Webserver IP, i want failover for incoming traffic , is there any open source solution? can i do it by making two name server , one for each ISP? ... I am not sure but as per my knowledge primary and secondary name server will reply in round robin method till they are live , once any name server will be unreachable then only another will be reply...so if i am right then i think i can do incoming failover by making two name server in my office... Waiting for your valuable response... Thanking you, Sahil

    Read the article

  • is there any Open Soruce solution for Failover of incoming Traffic?

    - by sahil
    Hi, We have two ISP... and both ISP's Ip Nat with same Webserver IP, i want failover for incoming traffic , is there any open source solution? can i do it by making two name server , one for each ISP? ... I am not sure but as per my knowledge primary and secondary name server will reply in round robin method till they are live , once any name server will be unreachable then only another will be reply...so if i am right then i think i can do incoming failover by making two name server in my office... Waiting for your valuable response... Thanking you, Sahil

    Read the article

  • When using TCP load balancing with HAProxy, does all outbound traffic flow through the LB?

    - by user122875
    I am setting up an app to be hosted using VMs(probably amazon, but that is not set in stone) which will require both HTTP load balancing and load balancing a large number(50k or so if possible) of persistant TCP connections. The amount of data is not all that high, but updates are frequent. Right now I am evaluating load balancers and am a bit confused about the architecture of HAProxy. If I use HAProxy to balance the TCP connections, will all the resulting traffic have to flow through the load balancer? If so, would another solution(such as LVS or even nginx_tcp_proxy_module) be a better fit?

    Read the article

  • How to route traffic through a specific SOCKS proxy on a per-app basis?

    - by GJ.
    I'm running a certain desktop app (actually via AIR if it makes any difference) which doesn't have any built-in proxy configuration settings. I need to get all traffic just from this app directed through a secure SOCKS proxy. This implies I can't use the global network preferences, as these would affect many other apps. Is there any way to force all network communication through a given SOCKS proxy on a per-app basis? It would also be helpful to know if there's a way to perform such routing globally, based on specific IP addresses (as this could allow for some reasonable workaround).

    Read the article

  • How do I configure Shrewsoft's VPN client to only route traffic to a certain IP address through the VPN?

    - by dommer
    We're using Shrewsoft's VPN client to connect to a third party development server. However, it seems to be configured to send all or nothing through the VPN. The devs have to disconnect from the VPN to get email/internet access back. The server that needs to be accessed via the VPN is on a specific (local - 10.x.x.x) IP address and a specific ports. Can we configure the Shrewsoft client application to only route traffic to that one address and/or port through the VPN and to route anything else though the usual channels? If so, how is it done? I'm not a VPN specialist and the options are confusing. In the absence of any Shewsoft VPN client specific advice, what should I be search for? Split tunnels?

    Read the article

  • Any problems with using a 301 redirect to force https traffic in IIS?

    - by Jess
    Is there any problem with using a 301 redirect to force all traffic to go to a secure-only site? We originally had redirect rules, but enforcing SSL-only seemed more secure. Here is how we set it up: Site 1: https://example.com/ Require SSL set Bound to 443 only Site 2: http://example.com Bound to 80 only Empty folder - no actual html or other data 301 Redirects to https://example.com This seems to work beautifully, but are there any issues with doing this? Would any browsers not recognize the 301 redirect, or could there be security warnings during the redirect?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to have a very full hard drive on a high traffic database server?

    - by MikeN
    Running an Ubuntu server with MySQL for a high traffic production database server. Nothing else is running on the machine except the MySQL instance. We store daily database backups on the DB server, is there any performance hit or reason why we should keep the hard disk relatively empty? If the disk is filled up to 86%+ with the database and all of the backups, does it hurt performance at all? So would the DB server running with 86-90%+ full capacity perform less well in any way than the server running with only a 10% full disk? The total disk size on the server is over 1 TB so even 10% of the disk should be enough for basic O/S swapping and such.

    Read the article

  • How to route traffic from VM (Parallels) over an Open VPN connection on the host (OS X)

    - by withakay
    Scenario: I have a Mac running Lion that is connected to an OpenVPN server I have a Windows XP VM (running on parallels, but I don't think this is important) I want to be able to route traffic from the XP VM via the host Mac's OpenVPN connection so that I can log on to a domain. The remote network is 172.16.0.0/23 (255.255.254.0) Open VPN is configured to supply address in the 10.100.101.0/24 range and sets up the routing to 172.16.0.0 using the gateway 10.100.101.1/32 My local network is 192.16.1.0/24 NOTE: I do not want to install OpenVPN into the XP virtual machine as I would have to use a passwordless key in order for OpenVPN to connect before logon. Anyone got any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to forward http traffic through a specific network adapter.

    - by user18129
    i have the following scenario. Two laptops are connected via a router through the Ethernet ports. These two computers need to be able to communicate together. One computer also needs to access the internet through a different adapter (i.e. we will taking these two laptops two various sites where by the most common type of internet access will be wireless).In isolation all of the various adapters work fine (i.e. the internal network works fine, and the wireless connects to the internet). However,we try to turn on all of the adapters at the same time,the following occurs: If we bridge the two network connections together on the "Server" -The internet connection doesn't work through the wireless If we don't bridge the connections The internet connections don't work It seems like http traffic is trying to be sent through the Ethernet adapter (which of course is not connected to an internet connection). How can we solve this?

    Read the article

  • Can I pass HTTPS traffic from one port to another?

    - by Kit Sunde
    I'm doing a proxy_pass in nginx on port 80 to 8000 on my remote server, and then a port forward from 8000 to 80 from the remote to my localhost. This works great, but I'd also like to do it with https but it seems like nginx needs a valid cert to pass the traffic on. Is there a way for my remote server to simply forward the trafic from port 443 to say 8443 (and then I'll forward remote 8443 to local 443). Then terminate ssl on my development machine instead instead of needing to do it on the remote server? My remote runs ubuntu and my localhost runs osx.

    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 | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >