Search Results

Search found 527 results on 22 pages for 'unlock'.

Page 5/22 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How can I use a keyfile on a removable USB drive for my encrypted root in Debian?

    - by naivem
    Recently set up root encryption with a couple of LVM volumes inside one LUKS volume, and I am just a little confused as to how I would go about getting it to automatically unlock using a keyfile stored on a USB flash drive, I presume I would have to put the drive in the fstab inside my initramfs (if there is one), and add a hook for USB device support. But I digress, essentially, I want to know what I have to do to enable my LUKS volume (containing all of my partitions sans /boot) to unlock using a keyfile stored on a USB flash drive, rather than a manually entered passphrase.

    Read the article

  • SQL Queries for Creating a rollback point and to rollback to that specific point

    - by Santhosha
    Hi, As per my project requirement i want to perform two operation Password Change Unlock Account(Only unlocking account, no password change!) I want return success only if both the transactions succeeds. Say if password change succeeds and unlock fails i cannot send success or failure. So i want to create a rollback point before password change, if both queries executes successfully i will commit the transaction. If one of the query fails i will discard the changes by rolling back to the rollback point. I am doing this in C++ using ADO. Is there any SQL Queries,using i can create the rollback point and reverting to rollback point and commiting the transaction I am using below commands for Password change ALTER LOGIN [username] WITH PASSWORD = N'password' for Unlock account ALTER LOGIN [%s] WITH CHECK_POLICY = OFF ALTER LOGIN [%s] WITH CHECK_POLICY = ON Thanks in advance!! Santhosh

    Read the article

  • iPhone + upgrade existing paid application on app store to free application with In App purchase + w

    - by pratik
    Hello, I have implemented In App purchase in my existing application. This application is currently available on app store as paid application, I want to update this paid application to free application with this In App purchase feature, where users can download it freely and have to pay for few features to unlock them. But the problem is that, if I update the existing paid application as free application (with few features locked and user has to buy it to unlock it), what about the users who have already purchased this application. Because when they will update to new free application, few features will be locked and they have to pay again to unlock them (why should they pay, if they have already purchased whole application previously). Regards, Pratik

    Read the article

  • Login failed for user 'sa' because the account is currently locked out. The system administrator can

    - by cabhilash
    Login failed for user 'sa' because the account is currently locked out. The system administrator can unlock it. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 18486) SQL server has local password policies. If policy is enabled which locks down the account after X number of failed attempts then the account is automatically locked down.This error with 'sa' account is very common. sa is default administartor login available with SQL server. So there are chances that an ousider has tried to bruteforce your system. (This can cause even if a legitimate tries to access the account with wrong password.Sometimes a user would have changed the password without informing others. So the other users would try to lo) You can unlock the account with the following options (use another admin account or connect via windows authentication) Alter account & unlock ALTER LOGIN sa WITH PASSWORD='password' UNLOCK Use another account Almost everyone is aware of the sa account. This can be the potential security risk. Even if you provide strong password hackers can lock the account by providing the wrong password. ( You can provide extra security by installing firewall or changing the default port but these measures are not always practical). As a best practice you can disable the sa account and use another account with same privileges.ALTER LOGIN sa DISABLE You can edit the lock-ot options using gpedit.msc( in command prompt type gpedit.msc and press enter). Navigate to Account Lokout policy as shown in the figure The Following options are available Account lockout threshold This security setting determines the number of failed logon attempts that causes a user account to be locked out. A locked-out account cannot be used until it is reset by an administrator or until the lockout duration for the account has expired. You can set a value between 0 and 999 failed logon attempts. If you set the value to 0, the account will never be locked out. Failed password attempts against workstations or member servers that have been locked using either CTRL+ALT+DELETE or password-protected screen savers count as failed logon attempts. Account lockout duration This security setting determines the number of minutes a locked-out account remains locked out before automatically becoming unlocked. The available range is from 0 minutes through 99,999 minutes. If you set the account lockout duration to 0, the account will be locked out until an administrator explicitly unlocks it. If an account lockout threshold is defined, the account lockout duration must be greater than or equal to the reset time. Default: None, because this policy setting only has meaning when an Account lockout threshold is specified. Reset account lockout counter after This security setting determines the number of minutes that must elapse after a failed logon attempt before the failed logon attempt counter is reset to 0 bad logon attempts. The available range is 1 minute to 99,999 minutes. If an account lockout threshold is defined, this reset time must be less than or equal to the Account lockout duration. Default: None, because this policy setting only has meaning when an Account lockout threshold is specified.When creating SQL user you can set CHECK_POLICY=on which will enforce the windows password policy on the account. The following policies will be applied Define the Enforce password history policy setting so that several previous passwords are remembered. With this policy setting, users cannot use the same password when their password expires.  Define the Maximum password age policy setting so that passwords expire as often as necessary for your environment, typically, every 30 to 90 days. With this policy setting, if an attacker cracks a password, the attacker only has access to the network until the password expires.  Define the Minimum password age policy setting so that passwords cannot be changed until they are more than a certain number of days old. This policy setting works in combination with the Enforce password historypolicy setting. If a minimum password age is defined, users cannot repeatedly change their passwords to get around the Enforce password history policy setting and then use their original password. Users must wait the specified number of days to change their passwords.  Define a Minimum password length policy setting so that passwords must consist of at least a specified number of characters. Long passwords--seven or more characters--are usually stronger than short ones. With this policy setting, users cannot use blank passwords, and they have to create passwords that are a certain number of characters long.  Enable the Password must meet complexity requirements policy setting. This policy setting checks all new passwords to ensure that they meet basic strong password requirements.  Password must meet the following complexity requirement, when they are changed or created: Not contain the user's entire Account Name or entire Full Name. The Account Name and Full Name are parsed for delimiters: commas, periods, dashes or hyphens, underscores, spaces, pound signs, and tabs. If any of these delimiters are found, the Account Name or Full Name are split and all sections are verified not to be included in the password. There is no check for any character or any three characters in succession. Contain characters from three of the following five categories:  English uppercase characters (A through Z) English lowercase characters (a through z) Base 10 digits (0 through 9) Non-alphabetic characters (for example, !, $, #, %) A catch-all category of any Unicode character that does not fall under the previous four categories. This fifth category can be regionally specific.

    Read the article

  • ultrasn0w Unlocks iOS 4.2.1

    - by Gopinath
    iPhone dev team who always succeeds in jailbreaking  iPhones and other iOS devices has done it again. They are able to unlock all iPhones running on iOS 4.2 except iPhone 4. MuscleNerd, a member of iPhone Dev team tweeted Finally got ultrasn0w working fully on 4.2.1. Apple inadvertently(!) broke ultrasn0w via aggressive compiler optimization The jailbreak tool for iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS will be released soon(may be tomorrow) even though they are still trying to figure out a way to unlock iPhone 4. Read more details on this at dev team blog. This article titled,ultrasn0w Unlocks iOS 4.2.1, was originally published at Tech Dreams. Grab our rss feed or fan us on Facebook to get updates from us.

    Read the article

  • Google Chrome wont start after changing hostname

    - by user254473
    I tried to start google chrome in terminal several times, and I keep receiving the following message: ... :ERROR:process_singleton_linux.cc(309)] The profile appears to be in use by another Google Chrome process (8629) on another computer ("previous name of the computer"). Chrome has locked the profile so that it doesn't get corrupted. If you are sure no other processes are using this profile, you can unlock the profile and relaunch Chrome. ... :ERROR:simple_message_box_views.cc(208)] Unable to show a dialog outside the UI thread message loop: Google Chrome - The profile appears to be in use by another Google Chrome process (8629) on another computer ("previous name of the computer"). Chrome has locked the profile so that it doesn't get corrupted. If you are sure no other processes are using this profile, you can unlock the profile and relaunch Chrome. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • USB keyboard does not load after 13.10 upgrade

    - by Paul
    Problem: Running kernel 3.11.0-12-generic after a Ubuntu upgrade from 13.04 to 13.10 my USB keyboard is not recognised, thus I am not able to unlock my encrypted disk. I suspect it might be related to a minimal/incorrect install of initrd. Question: How do I go about getting the newest kernel to recognise my generic USB keyboard, allowing me to unlock my encrypted disk? What I have tried: I have already re-installed the newest kernel: sudo apt-get install --reinstall linux-image-generic linux-image and I have also updated the initrd: update-initramfs -c -k 3.11.0-12-generic Back story: I just completed upgrading my Ubuntu system from 13.04 to 13.10. When I subsequently rebooted by system I was no longer able to enter my encryption password (passphrase) as the keyboard drivers did not load. Temporary workaround: Earlier in the boot process (before the keyboard stops working) I was able to enter GRUB menu were I choose to boot from an older kernel (3.8.0-31-generic) which did load the USB keyboard drivers. This is currently the kernel I am running. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Shared memory multiprocesses

    - by poly
    I'm building an multi processes application and I need to save session ID, the sessions ID is 32 bit, and of course it can't be used twice in its lifetime, I'm currently using DB that saves all the ID in a table, and I do the following, ID table is (int key, char used(1)) //1 is used, 0 is not 1. lock table 2. get one key for one sessions 3. update used field in it to used 4. unlock After the session is finished the process use below to free key, 1. lock table 2. update used field in it to not used 4. unlock I'm really wondering whether this is a good/fast implementation. and please note it's multi processes application.

    Read the article

  • Query on simple C++ threadpool implementation

    - by ticketman
    Stackoverflow has been a tremendous help to me and I'd to give something back to the community. I have been implementing a simple threadpool using the tinythread C++ portable thread library, using what I have learnt from Stackoverflow. I am new to thread programming, so not that comfortable with mutexes, etc. I have a question best asked after presenting the code (which runs quite well under Linux): // ThreadPool.h class ThreadPool { public: ThreadPool(); ~ThreadPool(); // Creates a pool of threads and gets them ready to be used void CreateThreads(int numOfThreads); // Assigns a job to a thread in the pool, but doesn't start the job // Each SubmitJob call will use up one thread of the pool. // This operation can only be undone by calling StartJobs and // then waiting for the jobs to complete. On completion, // new jobs may be submitted. void SubmitJob( void (*workFunc)(void *), void *workData ); // Begins execution of all the jobs in the pool. void StartJobs(); // Waits until all jobs have completed. // The wait will block the caller. // On completion, new jobs may be submitted. void WaitForJobsToComplete(); private: enum typeOfWorkEnum { e_work, e_quit }; class ThreadData { public: bool ready; // thread has been created and is ready for work bool haveWorkToDo; typeOfWorkEnum typeOfWork; // Pointer to the work function each thread has to call. void (*workFunc)(void *); // Pointer to work data void *workData; ThreadData() : ready(false), haveWorkToDo(false) { }; }; struct ThreadArgStruct { ThreadPool *threadPoolInstance; int threadId; }; // Data for each thread ThreadData *m_ThreadData; ThreadPool(ThreadPool const&); // copy ctor hidden ThreadPool& operator=(ThreadPool const&); // assign op. hidden // Static function that provides the function pointer that a thread can call // By including the ThreadPool instance in the void * parameter, // we can use it to access other data and methods in the ThreadPool instance. static void ThreadFuncWrapper(void *arg) { ThreadArgStruct *threadArg = static_cast<ThreadArgStruct *>(arg); threadArg->threadPoolInstance->ThreadFunc(threadArg->threadId); } // The function each thread calls void ThreadFunc( int threadId ); // Called by the thread pool destructor void DestroyThreadPool(); // Total number of threads available // (fixed on creation of thread pool) int m_numOfThreads; int m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork; int m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs; // List of threads std::vector<tthread::thread *> m_ThreadList; // Condition variable to signal each thread has been created and executing tthread::mutex m_ThreadReady_mutex; tthread::condition_variable m_ThreadReady_condvar; // Condition variable to signal each thread to start work tthread::mutex m_WorkToDo_mutex; tthread::condition_variable m_WorkToDo_condvar; // Condition variable to signal the main thread that // all threads in the pool have completed their work tthread::mutex m_WorkCompleted_mutex; tthread::condition_variable m_WorkCompleted_condvar; }; cpp file: // // ThreadPool.cpp // #include "ThreadPool.h" // This is the thread function for each thread. // All threads remain in this function until // they are asked to quit, which only happens // when terminating the thread pool. void ThreadPool::ThreadFunc( int threadId ) { ThreadData *myThreadData = &m_ThreadData[threadId]; std::cout << "Hello world: Thread " << threadId << std::endl; // Signal that this thread is ready m_ThreadReady_mutex.lock(); myThreadData->ready = true; m_ThreadReady_condvar.notify_one(); // notify the main thread m_ThreadReady_mutex.unlock(); while(true) { //tthread::lock_guard<tthread::mutex> guard(m); m_WorkToDo_mutex.lock(); while(!myThreadData->haveWorkToDo) // check for work to do m_WorkToDo_condvar.wait(m_WorkToDo_mutex); // if no work, wait here myThreadData->haveWorkToDo = false; // need to do this before unlocking the mutex m_WorkToDo_mutex.unlock(); // Do the work switch(myThreadData->typeOfWork) { case e_work: std::cout << "Thread " << threadId << ": Woken with work to do\n"; // Do work myThreadData->workFunc(myThreadData->workData); std::cout << "#Thread " << threadId << ": Work is completed\n"; break; case e_quit: std::cout << "Thread " << threadId << ": Asked to quit\n"; return; // ends the thread } // Now to signal the main thread that my work is completed m_WorkCompleted_mutex.lock(); m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork--; // Unsure if this 'if' would make the program more efficient // if(NumOfThreadsDoingWork == 0) m_WorkCompleted_condvar.notify_one(); // notify the main thread m_WorkCompleted_mutex.unlock(); } } ThreadPool::ThreadPool() { m_numOfThreads = 0; m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork = 0; m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs = 0; } ThreadPool::~ThreadPool() { if(m_numOfThreads) { DestroyThreadPool(); delete [] m_ThreadData; } } void ThreadPool::CreateThreads(int numOfThreads) { // Check a thread pool has already been created if(m_numOfThreads > 0) return; m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs = 0; m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork = 0; m_numOfThreads = numOfThreads; m_ThreadData = new ThreadData[m_numOfThreads]; ThreadArgStruct threadArg; for(int i=0; i<m_numOfThreads; ++i) { threadArg.threadId = i; threadArg.threadPoolInstance = this; // Creates the thread and save in a list so we can destroy it later m_ThreadList.push_back( new tthread::thread( ThreadFuncWrapper, (void *)&threadArg ) ); // It takes a little time for a thread to get established. // Best wait until it gets established before creating the next thread. m_ThreadReady_mutex.lock(); while(!m_ThreadData[i].ready) // Check if thread is ready m_ThreadReady_condvar.wait(m_ThreadReady_mutex); // If not, wait here m_ThreadReady_mutex.unlock(); } } // Adds a job to the batch, but doesn't start the job void ThreadPool::SubmitJob(void (*workFunc)(void *), void *workData) { // Check that the thread pool has been created if(!m_numOfThreads) return; if(m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs >= m_numOfThreads) return; m_ThreadData[m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs].workFunc = workFunc; m_ThreadData[m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs].workData = workData; std::cout << "Submitted job " << m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs << std::endl; m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs++; } void ThreadPool::StartJobs() { // Check that the thread pool has been created // and some jobs have been assigned if(!m_numOfThreads || !m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs) return; // Set 'haveworkToDo' flag for all threads m_WorkToDo_mutex.lock(); for(int i=0; i<m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs; ++i) m_ThreadData[i].haveWorkToDo = true; m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork = m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs; // Reset this counter so we can resubmit jobs later m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs = 0; // Notify all threads they have work to do m_WorkToDo_condvar.notify_all(); m_WorkToDo_mutex.unlock(); } void ThreadPool::WaitForJobsToComplete() { // Check that a thread pool has been created if(!m_numOfThreads) return; m_WorkCompleted_mutex.lock(); while(m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork > 0) // Check if all threads have completed their work m_WorkCompleted_condvar.wait(m_WorkCompleted_mutex); // If not, wait here m_WorkCompleted_mutex.unlock(); } void ThreadPool::DestroyThreadPool() { std::cout << "Ask threads to quit\n"; m_WorkToDo_mutex.lock(); for(int i=0; i<m_numOfThreads; ++i) { m_ThreadData[i].haveWorkToDo = true; m_ThreadData[i].typeOfWork = e_quit; } m_WorkToDo_condvar.notify_all(); m_WorkToDo_mutex.unlock(); // As each thread terminates, catch them here for(int i=0; i<m_numOfThreads; ++i) { tthread::thread *t = m_ThreadList[i]; // Wait for thread to complete t->join(); } m_numOfThreads = 0; } Example of usage: (this calculates pi-squared/6) struct CalculationDataStruct { int inputVal; double outputVal; }; void LongCalculation( void *theSums ) { CalculationDataStruct *sums = (CalculationDataStruct *)theSums; int terms = sums->inputVal; double sum; for(int i=1; i<terms; i++) sum += 1.0/( double(i)*double(i) ); sums->outputVal = sum; } int main(int argc, char** argv) { int numThreads = 10; // Create pool ThreadPool threadPool; threadPool.CreateThreads(numThreads); // Create thread workspace CalculationDataStruct sums[numThreads]; // Set up jobs for(int i=0; i<numThreads; i++) { sums[i].inputVal = 3000*(i+1); threadPool.SubmitJob(LongCalculation, &sums[i]); } // Run the jobs threadPool.StartJobs(); threadPool.WaitForJobsToComplete(); // Print results for(int i=0; i<numThreads; i++) std::cout << "Sum of " << sums[i].inputVal << " terms is " << sums[i].outputVal << std::endl; return 0; } Question: In the ThreadPool::ThreadFunc method, would better performance be obtained if the following if statement if(NumOfThreadsDoingWork == 0) was included? Also, I'd be grateful of criticisms and ways to improve the code. At the same time, I hope the code is of use to others.

    Read the article

  • The best way to hide data Encryption,Connection,Hardware

    - by Tico Raaphorst
    So to say, if i have a VPS which i own now, and i wanted to make the most secure and stable system that i can make. How would i do that? Just to try: I installed debian 7 with LVM Encryption via installation: You get the 2 partitions a /boot and a encrypted partition. When booting you will be prompted to fill in the password to unlock the encryption of the encrypted partition, Which then will have more partitions like /home /usr and swapspace which will automatically mount. Now, i do need to fill in the password over a VNC-SSL connection via the control panel website of the VPS hoster, so they can see my disk encryption password if they wanted to, they have the option if they wanted to look at what i have as data right? Data encryption on VPS , Is it possible to have a 100% secure virtual private server? So lets say i have my server and it is sitting well locked next to me, with the following examples covered bios (you have to replace bios) raid (you have to unlock raid-config) disk (you have to unlock disk encryption) filelike-zip-tar (files are stored in encrypted archives) which are in some other crypted file mounted as partition (archives mounted as partitions) all on the same system So it will be slow but it would be extremely difficult to crack the encryption. So to say if you stole the server. Then i only need to make the connection like ssh safer with single use passwords, block all incoming and outgoing connections but give one "exception" for myself. And maybe one for if i somehow lose my identity for the "exeption" What other overkill but realistic security options are available, i have heard about SElinux?

    Read the article

  • iPhone App Shows a white light dot when the iphone is woke up from sleep mode

    - by Futur
    Hi All, I am not sure whether this is a strange case,but this is the scenario. I open my iPhone app in my iPhone device and i work on the app I Lock my iPhone device and I try to unlock the phone from sleep mode When the unlock is successful, I see a white light of size 3 to 4 pixels in the center of the screen and from that point the app resumes. What would be the reason for this error, kindly help.

    Read the article

  • Java ReentrantReadWriteLocks - how to safely acquire write lock?

    - by Andrzej Doyle
    I am using in my code at the moment a ReentrantReadWriteLock to synchronize access over a tree-like structure. This structure is large, and read by many threads at once with occasional modifications to small parts of it - so it seems to fit the read-write idiom well. I understand that with this particular class, one cannot elevate a read lock to a write lock, so as per the Javadocs one must release the read lock before obtaining the write lock. I've used this pattern successfully in non-reentrant contexts before. What I'm finding however is that I cannot reliably acquire the write lock without blocking forever. Since the read lock is reentrant and I am actually using it as such, the simple code lock.getReadLock().unlock(); lock.getWriteLock().lock() can block if I have acquired the readlock reentrantly. Each call to unlock just reduces the hold count, and the lock is only actually released when the hold count hits zero. EDIT to clarify this, as I don't think I explained it too well initially - I am aware that there is no built-in lock escalation in this class, and that I have to simply release the read lock and obtain the write lock. My problem is/was that regardless of what other threads are doing, calling getReadLock().unlock() may not actually release this thread's hold on the lock if it acquired it reentrantly, in which case the call to getWriteLock().lock() will block forever as this thread still has a hold on the read lock and thus blocks itself. For example, this code snippet will never reach the println statement, even when run singlethreaded with no other threads accessing the lock: final ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(); lock.getReadLock().lock(); // In real code we would go call other methods that end up calling back and // thus locking again lock.getReadLock().lock(); // Now we do some stuff and realise we need to write so try to escalate the // lock as per the Javadocs and the above description lock.getReadLock().unlock(); // Does not actually release the lock lock.getWriteLock().lock(); // Blocks as some thread (this one!) holds read lock System.out.println("Will never get here"); So I ask, is there a nice idiom to handle this situation? Specifically, when a thread that holds a read lock (possibly reentrantly) discovers that it needs to do some writing, and thus wants to "suspend" its own read lock in order to pick up the write lock (blocking as required on other threads to release their holds on the read lock), and then "pick up" its hold on the read lock in the same state afterwards? Since this ReadWriteLock implementation was specifically designed to be reentrant, surely there is some sensible way to elevate a read lock to a write lock when the locks may be acquired reentrantly? This is the critical part that means the naive approach does not work.

    Read the article

  • C++ Unlocking a std::mutex before calling std::unique_lock wait

    - by Sant Kadog
    I have a multithreaded application (using std::thread) with a manager (class Tree) that executes some piece of code on different subtrees (embedded struct SubTree) in parallel. The basic idea is that each instance of SubTree has a deque that store objects. If the deque is empty, the thread waits until a new element is inserted in the deque or the termination criteria is reached. One subtree can generate objects and push them in the deque of another subtree. For convenience, all my std::mutex, std::locks and std::variable_condition are stored in a struct called "locks". The class Tree creates some threads that run the following method (first attempt) : void Tree::launch(SubTree & st, Locks & locks ) { /* some code */ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> deque_lock(locks.deque_mutex_[st.id_]) ; // lock the access to the deque of subtree st if (st.deque_.empty()) // check that the deque is still empty { // some threads are still running, wait for them to terminate std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wait_lock(locks.restart_mutex_[st.id_]) ; locks.restart_condition_[st.id_].wait(wait_lock) ; } /* some code */ } The problem is that "deque_lock" is still locked while the thread is waiting. Hence no object can be added in the deque of the current thread by a concurrent one. So I turned the lock_guard into a unique_lock and managed the lock/unlock manually : void launch(SubTree & st, Locks & locks ) { /* some code */ std::unique_lock<std::mutex> deque_lock(locks.deque_mutex_[st.id_]) ; // lock the access to the deque of subtree st if (st.deque_.empty()) // check that the deque is still empty { deque_lock.unlock() ; // unlock the access to the deque to enable the other threads to add objects // DATA RACE : nothing must happen to the unprotected deque here !!!!!! // some threads are still running, wait for them to terminate std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wait_lock(locks.restart_mutex_[st.id_]) ; locks.restart_condition_[st.id_].wait(wait_lock) ; } /* some code */ } The problem now, is that there is a data race, and I would like to make sure that the "wait" instruction is performed directly after the "deque_lock.unlock()" one. Would anyone know a way to create such a critical instruction sequence with the standard library ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Calling pthread_cond_signal without locking mutex

    - by Maysam
    Hi, I read somewhere that we should lock the mutex before calling pthread_cond_signal and unlock the mutext after calling it: The pthread_cond_signal() routine is used to signal (or wake up) another thread which is waiting on the condition variable. It should be called after mutex is locked, and must unlock mutex in order for pthread_cond_wait() routine to complete. My question is: isn't it OK to call pthread_cond_signal or pthread_cond_broadcast methods without locking the mutex?

    Read the article

  • Make a final call to the Database when user leaves website (ASPX)?

    - by Jisaak
    I have a system set up to lock certain content in a database table so only one user can edit that content at a time. Easy enough and that part is working fine. But now I'm at a road block of how to send a request to "unlock" the content. I have the stored procedure to unlock the content, but how/where would I call it when the user just closes their browser?

    Read the article

  • Graphics trouble after resuming from hibernate or suspend

    - by Voyagerfan5761
    I have a Dell Inspiron 2650 (with NVidia graphics, using nouveau drivers) that I'm using to try out Ubuntu. It's all great, except that Hibernate and Suspend aren't usable. Yes, I know that questions about power-save issues are rampant in the Linux support universe, but it seems that every time I find a solution it's for a very specific hardware combination and doesn't apply to me. So anyway, here goes. When I resume from either power-saving mode, I'll get graphics problems anywhere on the range from a few scattered random-colored pixels that won't change; all the way to full-screen patterns that don't change as I move the mouse, hit keys on the keyboard, or even bring up the shutdown dialog using the power button. Those full-screen issues (which may involve stripes with random pixels, partial black screen, or both) always end in me forcing the machine to shut down by holding the power button. I haven't done much testing yet to determine what severity level is most commonly associated with each mode, but I do avoid using either power-save option because of these issues. I'll add info on my hardware as I can gather it (no home internet connection, and this laptop is tethered to my desk by a dead battery and casing degradation). Please feel free to request something specific in the question comments. Hardware Info See this hardinfo report for my system's hardware configuration. (No, my username is not "myuser"; I sanitized hardinfo's output before publishing it.) Screenshots These screenshots are from a relatively mild occurrence, which happened after the second hibernation I took that session. The first one worked great, though I used the wireless card and Firefox heavily between the two hibernation attempts. Take a look at what happened when I opened my home directory in Nautilus and scrolled it: See below for the situations I've tested so far. The real trouble comes when the machine resumes to an unusable state; in such cases I can't even unlock the screen or properly reboot, much less take a screenshot. I have a hunch that putting a CD in the drive will cause such major failures, and I will try that at some point; see related question. Situations Tested Maverick (10.10) Suspend Seems to suspend nicely with nothing running Seems to suspend nicely with flash drive plugged in On resume from suspend with no flash drive, Terminal and gedit running: Funky graphics on top of log output, then blank screen with pixelated cursor; no response to power button (normally will shutdown 60 seconds later) Hibernate Seems to hibernate nicely with nothing running Seems to hibernate nicely with a few apps (Terminal, Mouse preferences) running Seems to not hibernate when flash drive plugged in Seems to not hibernate when System Monitor is running Have encountered failed hibernation (after several hours and one successful hibernate/thaw cycle) with no external media connected and no programs running except normal background stuff Natty LiveCD (11.04_2010-12-22) When I tested it, Natty wouldn't stay logged in. It played part of the login sound and then [ OK ] appeared in the top right corner (white-on-black terminal text) for a few seconds. Then it kicked me back to the Unlock screen. It did that four times before I gave up and just tested suspend from the Unlock screen. Suspend Resumed to vertical gray and black lines 2px (?) wide, then shifted to vertical "jail bars" of black over a black screen with above-described random pixels and mouse pointer. No apparent response to input from mouse (clicking randomly). Keyboard and touchpad unrecognized.

    Read the article

  • What off-the-shelf licensing system will meet my needs?

    - by Anders Pedersen
    I'm looking for an off-the-shelf license system for desktop software. After some research on the net -- and of course here on StackOverflow -- I haven't found one the suits our needs. I have a couple of must-have features and some would-be-nice features: Must have: Encrypted unlock key Possibility to automate the unlock key generation on my website User info in key so that I can show name and company in an about box and perhaps in reports Nice to have: License managing tools Online activation Nice upgrade possibilities to a version with concurrent license model and subscription model I have looked at Manco, but I find them difficult to work with and the documentation is minimal. Further, I couldn't get the name in the key. Also, the automatic generation of a key on my website has to be done with an application web service, but I would rather program against a DLL. Next I looked at xheo. It is easier to use and the documentation is better, but the price is substantially higher and here you can only get the user name in the license file that you then have to provide together with the unlock key. Could anyone share their experiences on what you are using and how it is working for you?

    Read the article

  • Documentation for java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock

    - by Andrei Taptunov
    Disclaimer: I'm not very good at Java and just comparing read/writer locks between C# and Java to understand this topic better & decisions behind both implementations. There is JavaDoc about ReentrantReadWriteLock. It states the following about upgrade/downgrade for locks: Lock downgrading ... However, upgrading from a read lock to the write lock is not possible. It also has the following example that shows manual upgrade from read lock to write lock: // Here is a code sketch showing how to exploit reentrancy // to perform lock downgrading after updating a cache void processCachedData() { rwl.readLock().lock(); if (!cacheValid) { // upgrade lock manually #1: rwl.readLock().unlock(); // must unlock first to obtain writelock #2: rwl.writeLock().lock(); if (!cacheValid) { // recheck ... } ... } use(data); rwl.readLock().unlock(); Does it mean that actually the sample from above may not behave correctly in some cases - I mean there is no lock between lines #1 & #2 and underlying structure is exposed to changes from other threads. So it can not be considered as the correct way to upgrade the lock or do I miss something here?

    Read the article

  • How to program critical section for reader-writer systems?

    - by Srinivas Nayak
    Hi, Lets say, I have a reader-writer system where reader and writer are concurrently running. 'a' and 'b' are two shared variables, which are related to each other, so modification to them needs to be an atomic operation. A reader-writer system can be of the following types: rr ww r-w r-ww rr-w rr-ww where [ r : single reader rr: multiple reader w : single writer ww: multiple writer ] Now, We can have a read method for a reader and a write method for a writer as follows. I have written them system type wise. rr read_method { read a; read b; } ww write_method { lock(m); write a; write b; unlock(m); } r-w r-ww rr-w rr-ww read_method { lock(m); read a; read b; unlock(m); } write_method { lock(m); write a; write b; unlock(m); } For multiple reader system, shared variable access doesn't need to be atomic. For multiple writer system, shared variable access need to be atomic, so locked with 'm'. But, for system types 3 to 6, is my read_method and write_method correct? How can I improve? Sincerely, Srinivas Nayak

    Read the article

  • How can I get the main thread to sleep while waiting for a delgate to be called?

    - by Erik B
    Consider a class with these methods: - (id) initWithFrame: (CGRect) frame { if (!(self = [super init])) return nil; webView = [[UIWebView alloc] initWithFrame:frame]; [webView setDelegate:self]; lock = [[NSConditionLock alloc] initWithCondition:LOCK_WAIT]; return self; } - (void) setHTML: (NSString *) html { [lock lockWhenCondition:LOCK_WAIT]; [webView loadHTMLString:html baseURL:nil]; [lock unlock]; } - (void)webViewDidFinishLoad:(UIWebView *)aWebView { [lock lockWhenCondition:LOCK_WAIT]; // Locking to be able to unlock and change the condition. [lock unlockWithCondition:LOCK_GO]; } - (NSString *) stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString: (NSString *) jsCommand { [lock lockWhenCondition:LOCK_GO]; return [webView stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString:jsCommand]; [lock unlock]; } Let's call this class SynchronousUIWebView. From the main thread I execute: webView = [[SynchronousUIWebView alloc] initWithFrame:frame]; [webView setHTML:html]; [webView stringByEvaluatingJavaScriptFromString:jsCommand]; The problem seems to be that the delegate is not called until I leave the current call stack, which I don't since I'm waiting for the delegate call to happen, aka deadlock. To me it seems like the delegate call is pushed to a queue that is called when the current call is done. So the question is can I modify this behavior? Note: The reason this is needed is that I can't execute the JavaScript until the HTML has loaded.

    Read the article

  • Returning pointers in a thread-safe way.

    - by Roddy
    Assume I have a thread-safe collection of Things (call it a ThingList), and I want to add the following function. Thing * ThingList::findByName(string name) { return &item[name]; // or something similar.. } But by doing this, I've delegated the responsibility for thread safety to the calling code, which would have to do something like this: try { list.lock(); // NEEDED FOR THREAD SAFETY Thing *foo = list.findByName("wibble"); foo->Bar = 123; list.unlock(); } catch (...) { list.unlock(); throw; } Obviously a RAII lock/unlock object would simplify/remove the try/catch/unlocks, but it's still easy for the caller to forget. There are a few alternatives I've looked at: Return Thing by value, instead of a pointer - fine unless you need to modify the Thing Add function ThingList::setItemBar(string name, int value) - fine, but these tend to proliferate Return a pointerlike object which locks the list on creation and unlocks it again on destruction. Not sure if this is good/bad practice... What's the right approach to dealing with this?

    Read the article

  • PTLQueue : a scalable bounded-capacity MPMC queue

    - by Dave
    Title: Fast concurrent MPMC queue -- I've used the following concurrent queue algorithm enough that it warrants a blog entry. I'll sketch out the design of a fast and scalable multiple-producer multiple-consumer (MPSC) concurrent queue called PTLQueue. The queue has bounded capacity and is implemented via a circular array. Bounded capacity can be a useful property if there's a mismatch between producer rates and consumer rates where an unbounded queue might otherwise result in excessive memory consumption by virtue of the container nodes that -- in some queue implementations -- are used to hold values. A bounded-capacity queue can provide flow control between components. Beware, however, that bounded collections can also result in resource deadlock if abused. The put() and take() operators are partial and wait for the collection to become non-full or non-empty, respectively. Put() and take() do not allocate memory, and are not vulnerable to the ABA pathologies. The PTLQueue algorithm can be implemented equally well in C/C++ and Java. Partial operators are often more convenient than total methods. In many use cases if the preconditions aren't met, there's nothing else useful the thread can do, so it may as well wait via a partial method. An exception is in the case of work-stealing queues where a thief might scan a set of queues from which it could potentially steal. Total methods return ASAP with a success-failure indication. (It's tempting to describe a queue or API as blocking or non-blocking instead of partial or total, but non-blocking is already an overloaded concurrency term. Perhaps waiting/non-waiting or patient/impatient might be better terms). It's also trivial to construct partial operators by busy-waiting via total operators, but such constructs may be less efficient than an operator explicitly and intentionally designed to wait. A PTLQueue instance contains an array of slots, where each slot has volatile Turn and MailBox fields. The array has power-of-two length allowing mod/div operations to be replaced by masking. We assume sensible padding and alignment to reduce the impact of false sharing. (On x86 I recommend 128-byte alignment and padding because of the adjacent-sector prefetch facility). Each queue also has PutCursor and TakeCursor cursor variables, each of which should be sequestered as the sole occupant of a cache line or sector. You can opt to use 64-bit integers if concerned about wrap-around aliasing in the cursor variables. Put(null) is considered illegal, but the caller or implementation can easily check for and convert null to a distinguished non-null proxy value if null happens to be a value you'd like to pass. Take() will accordingly convert the proxy value back to null. An advantage of PTLQueue is that you can use atomic fetch-and-increment for the partial methods. We initialize each slot at index I with (Turn=I, MailBox=null). Both cursors are initially 0. All shared variables are considered "volatile" and atomics such as CAS and AtomicFetchAndIncrement are presumed to have bidirectional fence semantics. Finally T is the templated type. I've sketched out a total tryTake() method below that allows the caller to poll the queue. tryPut() has an analogous construction. Zebra stripping : alternating row colors for nice-looking code listings. See also google code "prettify" : https://code.google.com/p/google-code-prettify/ Prettify is a javascript module that yields the HTML/CSS/JS equivalent of pretty-print. -- pre:nth-child(odd) { background-color:#ff0000; } pre:nth-child(even) { background-color:#0000ff; } border-left: 11px solid #ccc; margin: 1.7em 0 1.7em 0.3em; background-color:#BFB; font-size:12px; line-height:65%; " // PTLQueue : Put(v) : // producer : partial method - waits as necessary assert v != null assert Mask = 1 && (Mask & (Mask+1)) == 0 // Document invariants // doorway step // Obtain a sequence number -- ticket // As a practical concern the ticket value is temporally unique // The ticket also identifies and selects a slot auto tkt = AtomicFetchIncrement (&PutCursor, 1) slot * s = &Slots[tkt & Mask] // waiting phase : // wait for slot's generation to match the tkt value assigned to this put() invocation. // The "generation" is implicitly encoded as the upper bits in the cursor // above those used to specify the index : tkt div (Mask+1) // The generation serves as an epoch number to identify a cohort of threads // accessing disjoint slots while s-Turn != tkt : Pause assert s-MailBox == null s-MailBox = v // deposit and pass message Take() : // consumer : partial method - waits as necessary auto tkt = AtomicFetchIncrement (&TakeCursor,1) slot * s = &Slots[tkt & Mask] // 2-stage waiting : // First wait for turn for our generation // Acquire exclusive "take" access to slot's MailBox field // Then wait for the slot to become occupied while s-Turn != tkt : Pause // Concurrency in this section of code is now reduced to just 1 producer thread // vs 1 consumer thread. // For a given queue and slot, there will be most one Take() operation running // in this section. // Consumer waits for producer to arrive and make slot non-empty // Extract message; clear mailbox; advance Turn indicator // We have an obvious happens-before relation : // Put(m) happens-before corresponding Take() that returns that same "m" for T v = s-MailBox if v != null : s-MailBox = null ST-ST barrier s-Turn = tkt + Mask + 1 // unlock slot to admit next producer and consumer return v Pause tryTake() : // total method - returns ASAP with failure indication for auto tkt = TakeCursor slot * s = &Slots[tkt & Mask] if s-Turn != tkt : return null T v = s-MailBox // presumptive return value if v == null : return null // ratify tkt and v values and commit by advancing cursor if CAS (&TakeCursor, tkt, tkt+1) != tkt : continue s-MailBox = null ST-ST barrier s-Turn = tkt + Mask + 1 return v The basic idea derives from the Partitioned Ticket Lock "PTL" (US20120240126-A1) and the MultiLane Concurrent Bag (US8689237). The latter is essentially a circular ring-buffer where the elements themselves are queues or concurrent collections. You can think of the PTLQueue as a partitioned ticket lock "PTL" augmented to pass values from lock to unlock via the slots. Alternatively, you could conceptualize of PTLQueue as a degenerate MultiLane bag where each slot or "lane" consists of a simple single-word MailBox instead of a general queue. Each lane in PTLQueue also has a private Turn field which acts like the Turn (Grant) variables found in PTL. Turn enforces strict FIFO ordering and restricts concurrency on the slot mailbox field to at most one simultaneous put() and take() operation. PTL uses a single "ticket" variable and per-slot Turn (grant) fields while MultiLane has distinct PutCursor and TakeCursor cursors and abstract per-slot sub-queues. Both PTL and MultiLane advance their cursor and ticket variables with atomic fetch-and-increment. PTLQueue borrows from both PTL and MultiLane and has distinct put and take cursors and per-slot Turn fields. Instead of a per-slot queues, PTLQueue uses a simple single-word MailBox field. PutCursor and TakeCursor act like a pair of ticket locks, conferring "put" and "take" access to a given slot. PutCursor, for instance, assigns an incoming put() request to a slot and serves as a PTL "Ticket" to acquire "put" permission to that slot's MailBox field. To better explain the operation of PTLQueue we deconstruct the operation of put() and take() as follows. Put() first increments PutCursor obtaining a new unique ticket. That ticket value also identifies a slot. Put() next waits for that slot's Turn field to match that ticket value. This is tantamount to using a PTL to acquire "put" permission on the slot's MailBox field. Finally, having obtained exclusive "put" permission on the slot, put() stores the message value into the slot's MailBox. Take() similarly advances TakeCursor, identifying a slot, and then acquires and secures "take" permission on a slot by waiting for Turn. Take() then waits for the slot's MailBox to become non-empty, extracts the message, and clears MailBox. Finally, take() advances the slot's Turn field, which releases both "put" and "take" access to the slot's MailBox. Note the asymmetry : put() acquires "put" access to the slot, but take() releases that lock. At any given time, for a given slot in a PTLQueue, at most one thread has "put" access and at most one thread has "take" access. This restricts concurrency from general MPMC to 1-vs-1. We have 2 ticket locks -- one for put() and one for take() -- each with its own "ticket" variable in the form of the corresponding cursor, but they share a single "Grant" egress variable in the form of the slot's Turn variable. Advancing the PutCursor, for instance, serves two purposes. First, we obtain a unique ticket which identifies a slot. Second, incrementing the cursor is the doorway protocol step to acquire the per-slot mutual exclusion "put" lock. The cursors and operations to increment those cursors serve double-duty : slot-selection and ticket assignment for locking the slot's MailBox field. At any given time a slot MailBox field can be in one of the following states: empty with no pending operations -- neutral state; empty with one or more waiting take() operations pending -- deficit; occupied with no pending operations; occupied with one or more waiting put() operations -- surplus; empty with a pending put() or pending put() and take() operations -- transitional; or occupied with a pending take() or pending put() and take() operations -- transitional. The partial put() and take() operators can be implemented with an atomic fetch-and-increment operation, which may confer a performance advantage over a CAS-based loop. In addition we have independent PutCursor and TakeCursor cursors. Critically, a put() operation modifies PutCursor but does not access the TakeCursor and a take() operation modifies the TakeCursor cursor but does not access the PutCursor. This acts to reduce coherence traffic relative to some other queue designs. It's worth noting that slow threads or obstruction in one slot (or "lane") does not impede or obstruct operations in other slots -- this gives us some degree of obstruction isolation. PTLQueue is not lock-free, however. The implementation above is expressed with polite busy-waiting (Pause) but it's trivial to implement per-slot parking and unparking to deschedule waiting threads. It's also easy to convert the queue to a more general deque by replacing the PutCursor and TakeCursor cursors with Left/Front and Right/Back cursors that can move either direction. Specifically, to push and pop from the "left" side of the deque we would decrement and increment the Left cursor, respectively, and to push and pop from the "right" side of the deque we would increment and decrement the Right cursor, respectively. We used a variation of PTLQueue for message passing in our recent OPODIS 2013 paper. ul { list-style:none; padding-left:0; padding:0; margin:0; margin-left:0; } ul#myTagID { padding: 0px; margin: 0px; list-style:none; margin-left:0;} -- -- There's quite a bit of related literature in this area. I'll call out a few relevant references: Wilson's NYU Courant Institute UltraComputer dissertation from 1988 is classic and the canonical starting point : Operating System Data Structures for Shared-Memory MIMD Machines with Fetch-and-Add. Regarding provenance and priority, I think PTLQueue or queues effectively equivalent to PTLQueue have been independently rediscovered a number of times. See CB-Queue and BNPBV, below, for instance. But Wilson's dissertation anticipates the basic idea and seems to predate all the others. Gottlieb et al : Basic Techniques for the Efficient Coordination of Very Large Numbers of Cooperating Sequential Processors Orozco et al : CB-Queue in Toward high-throughput algorithms on many-core architectures which appeared in TACO 2012. Meneghin et al : BNPVB family in Performance evaluation of inter-thread communication mechanisms on multicore/multithreaded architecture Dmitry Vyukov : bounded MPMC queue (highly recommended) Alex Otenko : US8607249 (highly related). John Mellor-Crummey : Concurrent queues: Practical fetch-and-phi algorithms. Technical Report 229, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester Thomasson : FIFO Distributed Bakery Algorithm (very similar to PTLQueue). Scott and Scherer : Dual Data Structures I'll propose an optimization left as an exercise for the reader. Say we wanted to reduce memory usage by eliminating inter-slot padding. Such padding is usually "dark" memory and otherwise unused and wasted. But eliminating the padding leaves us at risk of increased false sharing. Furthermore lets say it was usually the case that the PutCursor and TakeCursor were numerically close to each other. (That's true in some use cases). We might still reduce false sharing by incrementing the cursors by some value other than 1 that is not trivially small and is coprime with the number of slots. Alternatively, we might increment the cursor by one and mask as usual, resulting in a logical index. We then use that logical index value to index into a permutation table, yielding an effective index for use in the slot array. The permutation table would be constructed so that nearby logical indices would map to more distant effective indices. (Open question: what should that permutation look like? Possibly some perversion of a Gray code or De Bruijn sequence might be suitable). As an aside, say we need to busy-wait for some condition as follows : "while C == 0 : Pause". Lets say that C is usually non-zero, so we typically don't wait. But when C happens to be 0 we'll have to spin for some period, possibly brief. We can arrange for the code to be more machine-friendly with respect to the branch predictors by transforming the loop into : "if C == 0 : for { Pause; if C != 0 : break; }". Critically, we want to restructure the loop so there's one branch that controls entry and another that controls loop exit. A concern is that your compiler or JIT might be clever enough to transform this back to "while C == 0 : Pause". You can sometimes avoid this by inserting a call to a some type of very cheap "opaque" method that the compiler can't elide or reorder. On Solaris, for instance, you could use :"if C == 0 : { gethrtime(); for { Pause; if C != 0 : break; }}". It's worth noting the obvious duality between locks and queues. If you have strict FIFO lock implementation with local spinning and succession by direct handoff such as MCS or CLH,then you can usually transform that lock into a queue. Hidden commentary and annotations - invisible : * And of course there's a well-known duality between queues and locks, but I'll leave that topic for another blog post. * Compare and contrast : PTLQ vs PTL and MultiLane * Equivalent : Turn; seq; sequence; pos; position; ticket * Put = Lock; Deposit Take = identify and reserve slot; wait; extract & clear; unlock * conceptualize : Distinct PutLock and TakeLock implemented as ticket lock or PTL Distinct arrival cursors but share per-slot "Turn" variable provides exclusive role-based access to slot's mailbox field put() acquires exclusive access to a slot for purposes of "deposit" assigns slot round-robin and then acquires deposit access rights/perms to that slot take() acquires exclusive access to slot for purposes of "withdrawal" assigns slot round-robin and then acquires withdrawal access rights/perms to that slot At any given time, only one thread can have withdrawal access to a slot at any given time, only one thread can have deposit access to a slot Permissible for T1 to have deposit access and T2 to simultaneously have withdrawal access * round-robin for the purposes of; role-based; access mode; access role mailslot; mailbox; allocate/assign/identify slot rights; permission; license; access permission; * PTL/Ticket hybrid Asymmetric usage ; owner oblivious lock-unlock pairing K-exclusion add Grant cursor pass message m from lock to unlock via Slots[] array Cursor performs 2 functions : + PTL ticket + Assigns request to slot in round-robin fashion Deconstruct protocol : explication put() : allocate slot in round-robin fashion acquire PTL for "put" access store message into slot associated with PTL index take() : Acquire PTL for "take" access // doorway step seq = fetchAdd (&Grant, 1) s = &Slots[seq & Mask] // waiting phase while s-Turn != seq : pause Extract : wait for s-mailbox to be full v = s-mailbox s-mailbox = null Release PTL for both "put" and "take" access s-Turn = seq + Mask + 1 * Slot round-robin assignment and lock "doorway" protocol leverage the same cursor and FetchAdd operation on that cursor FetchAdd (&Cursor,1) + round-robin slot assignment and dispersal + PTL/ticket lock "doorway" step waiting phase is via "Turn" field in slot * PTLQueue uses 2 cursors -- put and take. Acquire "put" access to slot via PTL-like lock Acquire "take" access to slot via PTL-like lock 2 locks : put and take -- at most one thread can access slot's mailbox Both locks use same "turn" field Like multilane : 2 cursors : put and take slot is simple 1-capacity mailbox instead of queue Borrow per-slot turn/grant from PTL Provides strict FIFO Lock slot : put-vs-put take-vs-take at most one put accesses slot at any one time at most one put accesses take at any one time reduction to 1-vs-1 instead of N-vs-M concurrency Per slot locks for put/take Release put/take by advancing turn * is instrumental in ... * P-V Semaphore vs lock vs K-exclusion * See also : FastQueues-excerpt.java dice-etc/queue-mpmc-bounded-blocking-circular-xadd/ * PTLQueue is the same as PTLQB - identical * Expedient return; ASAP; prompt; immediately * Lamport's Bakery algorithm : doorway step then waiting phase Threads arriving at doorway obtain a unique ticket number Threads enter in ticket order * In the terminology of Reed and Kanodia a ticket lock corresponds to the busy-wait implementation of a semaphore using an eventcount and a sequencer It can also be thought of as an optimization of Lamport's bakery lock was designed for fault-tolerance rather than performance Instead of spinning on the release counter, processors using a bakery lock repeatedly examine the tickets of their peers --

    Read the article

  • Making Windows Explorer to Search WebDAV Server using DASL

    - by user124209
    I am trying to setup search in a WebDAV repository in IIS 6 on Windows Server 2003 R2. I successfully configured WebDAV in IIS and enabled my repository indexing as described in Searching WebDAV Directories (IIS 6.0) I have verified that search is now supported by my WebDAV server, in OPTIONS request I can see DASL support: DASL: <DAV:sql> DAV: 1, 2 Public: OPTIONS, TRACE, GET, HEAD, DELETE, PUT, POST, COPY, MOVE, MKCOL, PROPFIND, PROPPATCH, LOCK, UNLOCK, SEARCH Allow: OPTIONS, TRACE, GET, HEAD, DELETE, COPY, MOVE, PROPFIND, PROPPATCH, SEARCH, MKCOL, LOCK, UNLOCK I connected to my WebDAV server from a client computer, which is Windows 8.1 and WebDAV is working well. I mounted a drive and connected using \\server@port\DawWWWRoot as described here. However my client computer, which is Windows 7, does not generate any search request. I have captured requests using Fiddler tool and found that Windows Explorer is not sending any search requests, instead it is sending a PROPFIND and downloading files. How do I make Windows Explorer to send SEARCH request to my WebDAV server?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >