Search Results

Search found 4468 results on 179 pages for 'zone transfer'.

Page 67/179 | < Previous Page | 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74  | Next Page >

• Domain registrar transfering

  - by Mike Weerasinghe

  In 2004 I registered a domain name when I opened an account with DiscountASP.NET. I presume my domain registration was handled by a reseller. A domain tools who is search shows that registration services are provided by Znode LLC. I changed hosting companies and need to change DNS servers to point to my new hosting company but I have no idea how to do that. There is no control panel I can access. Ideally I would like to transfer registrar's. I emailed Znode support but I have not received any response. I called and left a message and they have not called back. My new hosting company wants an EPP authorization code in order to transfer my domain. I guess I need to get it from Znode LLC. Anyone have any ideas on how I might go about transferring my domain over to a new registrar? The domain name has not expired and is currently active. Thanks in advance for your help.

  Read the article

• Problem importing pictures from a digital camera with Windows 7

  - by snark

  Hi, Since I'm using Windows 7 (Beta, then RC, now RTM), I have issues when I download pictures from my digital cameras. It happens with my 2 cameras: a Canon Powershot S2 IS and a Canon Ixus 80 IS. When I plug a camera (any of them) to a USB port and switch it on in Play mode, the Autoplay function of Windows 7 starts with this screen: I select "Import pictures and videos" to call the native Windows 7 tool. It searches a bit for pictures to download from the camera and starts the transfer. However, during the transfer, I often get errors like this one: If I use "Try again", it works fine the second time and the picture is retrieved correctly. It's very annoying when it happens 20 or 30 times in a 500-picture download. I cannot leave it running standalone, as I have to watch for the errors and click on "Try again". Any idea what is causing these errors? I tried changing the USB port (normally the cameras are connected via a USB hub but it happens also when I connect them directly to a MB USB port) and the USB cable, but no success. I also checked the SD card by connecting them with a card reader and running a ChkDsk on them but it found no errors on the cards. Update: No problem when I copy the pictures manually with the Windows Explorer. And no problem either when I access the card with a reader. The builtin import tool of Windows is convenient as it sorts the pictures automatically by date (1 folder per day). And this is the way I sort my pictures

  Read the article

• Different versions of iperf for windows give totally different results

  - by Albert Mata

  Measuring TCP output from a Windows client to Solaris server: WXP SP3 with iperf 1.7.0 -- returns an average around 90Mbit Same client, same server but iperf 2.0.5 for windows -- returns an average of 8.5 Mbit Similar discrepancies have been observed connecting to other servers (W2008, W2003) It's difficult to get to some conclusions when different versions of the same tool provide vastly different results. Example below: C:\tempiperf -v (from iperf.fr) iperf version 2.0.5 (08 Jul 2010) pthreads C:\tempiperf -c solaris10 Client connecting to solaris10, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default) [ 3] local 10.172.181.159 port 2124 connected with 10.172.180.209 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.2 sec 10.6 MBytes 8.74 Mbits/sec Abysmal perfomance, but now I test from the same host (Windows XP SP3 32bit and 100Mbit) to the same server (Solaris 10/sparc 64bit and 1Gbit running iperf 2.0.5 with default window of 48k) with the old iperf C:\temp1iperf -v iperf version 1.7.0 (13 Mar 2003) win32 threads C:\temp1iperf.exe -c solaris10 -w64k Client connecting to solaris10, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte [1208] local 10.172.181.159 port 2128 connected with 10.172.180.209 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [1208] 0.0-10.0 sec 112 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec So one iperf with a 64k window says 8.75Mbit and the old iperf with the same window size says 94.0Mbit. These results are constant through repeated tests. From my testing launching iperf(old) with window size "x" and iperf(new) with window size "x" instead of producing the same or very close results produce totally different results. The only difference I see is the old compiled as win32 threads vs. pthreads but parallelism (-P 10) appears to work in both. Anyone has a clue or can recommend a tool that gives results I can trust?? EDIT: Looking at traces from (old) iperf it sets the TCP Window Scale flag to 3 in the SYN packet, when I run the (new) iperf this is set to 0 in the initial packet. A quick analysis of the window size through the exchange shows the (old) iperf moving back and forth but mostly at 32k while the (new) iperf mostly keeps at 64k. Maybe it will help somebody to connect the dots.

  Read the article

• Comparing Nginx+PHP-FPM to Apache-mod_php

  - by Rushi

  I'm running Drupal and trying to figure out the best stack to serve it. Apache + mod_php or Nginx + PHP-FPM I used ApacheBench (ab) and Siege to test both setups and I'm seeing Apache performing better. This surprises me a little bit since I've heard a lot of good things about Nginx + PHP-FPM. My current Nginx setup is something that is a bit out of the box, and the same goes for PHP-FPM What optimizations I can make to speed up the Nginx + PHP-FPM combo over Apache and mo_php ? In my tests using ab, Apache is outperforming Nginx significantly (higher requets/second and finishing tests much faster) I've googled around a bit, but since I've never using Nginx, PHP-FPM or FastCGI, I don't exactly know where to start PHP v5.2.13, Drupal v6, latest PHP-FPM and Nginx compiled from source. Apache v2.0.63 ApacheBench Nginx + PHP-FPM Server Software: nginx/0.7.67 Server Hostname: test2.com Server Port: 80 Concurrency Level: 25 ---> Time taken for tests: 158.510008 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 ---> Requests per second: 6.31 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 3962.750 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 158.510 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 181.38 [Kbytes/sec] received ApacheBench Apache using mod_php Server Software: Apache/2.0.63 Server Hostname: test1.com Server Port: 80 Concurrency Level: 25 --> Time taken for tests: 63.556663 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 --> Requests per second: 15.73 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1588.917 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 63.557 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 103.94 [Kbytes/sec] received

  Read the article

• How to achieve the following RTO & RPO with logshipping only using SQL Server?

  - by Jimmy Chandra

  Trying to come up with viable backup restore & logshipping solution for achieving the following: 15 minutes Recovery Point Objective (no more than 15 minutes data loss at any time) 5 minutes Recovery Time Objective (must be able to get the db up and running back by 5 minutes) Considering using logshipping only (which I think is kind of pushing it, but I want to know if anyone else know how to achieve this). Some other info for consideration: Using 40 Gbit / sec fiber channel between the primary and disaster recovery (DRC) sites The sites are about 600 km apart. At close of business, the amount of data generated is predicted to be about 150 MB/sec. Log backup is planned for every 5 min. Doing some rough calculation I came up w/ the following numbers: 40 Gbit / sec = 5 MB / sec @ 100% network efficiency. 5 MB / sec = 300 MB / min. @ 300 MB / min, the total amount of data that can be transfer considering the 5min RTO is about 1.5GB, but that will left no time for the actual backup and restore, so if we cut it down to 3min logshipping time, which equals to ~900 MB over 3 minutes at 100% network efficiency, that will left about 1 min backup time and 1 minute restore time. Currently don't have any information if the system being used is capable of restoring 900 MB in 1 min, but assume it can. for COB scenario... 150 MB/sec, and considering the 3 min logshipping time, which should equal to about 27 GB of data over 3 mins...??? I think this is where the SLA will break... since there is no way to transfer 27 GB of data over a 40Gbit/sec line in 3 min. Can I get someone else opinion? I am thinking database mirroring might be a better answer for this...

  Read the article

• Can I have 2Gbit over 1Gbit Nics

  - by Daniel

  So this really baffles me. Apparently because 1Gbit can transmit data in both directions simultaneously it should be possible to get 2Gbit of data transfer on a single NIC (1Gbit flow seend and 1Gbit receive). People claim that because 1Gbit is full-duplex (almost always) it is exactly 2Gbit in total. My intuition and electrical background tells me that something is not right here 4 twisted pairs 250Mbit capacity each gives 1Gbit. Unless it is really possible to transfer data in both directions simultaneously. I did a test with iperf. Ubuntu server 12.04 <-- MacBook Pro. Both with decent CPU speed. Tested speed of connection individually and on Mac I can see 112MB/s regardless which direction data is going. On Ubuntu with vnstat and ifstat I got 970Mbit speeds. Now, launching iperf in server mode on both machines at the same time and sending data using 2 iperf clients shows that I'm for example on Ubuntu box sending at 600Mbit, and receiving 350Mbit. which adds up to pretty much 1Gbit link. So to me there is no magical 2Gbit. Can someone confirm that or tell why I'm wrong? Another thing that confuses me i the fact that e.g. 24-port switch has for example: Throughput»up»to:»50.6Mpps Switching»capacity:»68Gbps Switch»fabric»speed:»88Gbps Which would suggest thay can handle 2GBit per port.

  Read the article

• How to get gigabit network speeds on Windows XP?

  - by JB

  We've just installed gigabit switches at work, and things on the Linux side are going well. Our linux boxes, which use a Intel Corporation 82566DM-2 Gigabit nic (according to lspci), consistently get over 900 mbits/sec: iperf -c ipserver ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to ipserver, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.40.9 port 39823 connected with 192.168.1.115 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.08 GBytes 929 Mbits/sec We have a bunch of Windows XP 64-bit machines that use Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx cards. I spent around a day trying to get equivalent speeds on them, but couldn't get above 200 Mbits/sec. I noticed the Windows iperf tests said that the TCP window size was 8 Kb by default (as opposed to 16 Kb on Linux, so I modified my test to reflect that. Still no love. I went to Broadcom's site, downloaded the latest drivers for the card and installed. Still no love. However, finally, I tried a 64 Kb window size with the new drivers, and finally an improvement! $ iperf -c ipserver -w64k ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to ipserver, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.40.214 port 1848 connected with 192.168.1.115 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 933 MBytes 782 Mbits/sec Much better, but still not really taking advantage of the full capabilities of the network. If the Linux box can reach 950 Mbits/sec consistently, this box should be able to as well. Also, if you're wondering about the medium, this is over the same cable...I'm switching back and forth. Any suggestion or ideas would be really welcome. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Nginx Slower than Apache??

  - by ichilton

  Hi, I've just setup 2x identical Rackspace Cloud instances and am doing some comparisons and benchmarks to compare Apache and Nginx. I'm testing with a 3.4k png file and initially 512MB server instances but have now moved to 1024MB server instances. I'm very surprised to see that whatever I try, Apache seems to consistently outperform Nginx....what am I doing wrong? Nginx: Server Software: nginx/0.8.54 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 2.320 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3612000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 431.01 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 232.014 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 2.320 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1520.31 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 11 15.7 3 120 Processing: 1 35 76.9 20 1674 Waiting: 1 31 73.0 19 1674 Total: 1 46 79.1 21 1693 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 21 66% 39 75% 40 80% 40 90% 98 95% 136 98% 269 99% 334 100% 1693 (longest request) And Apache: Server Software: Apache/2.2.16 Server Port: 80 Document Length: 3400 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 1.346 seconds Complete requests: 1000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 3647000 bytes HTML transferred: 3400000 bytes Requests per second: 742.90 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 134.608 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.346 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 2645.85 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 1 3.7 0 27 Processing: 0 3 6.2 1 29 Waiting: 0 2 5.0 1 29 Total: 1 4 7.0 1 29 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 1 66% 1 75% 1 80% 1 90% 17 95% 19 98% 26 99% 27 100% 29 (longest request) I'm currently using worker_processes 4; and worker_connections 1024; but i've tried and benchmarked different values and see the same behaviour on all - I just can't get it to perform as well as Apache and from what i've read previously, i'm shocked about this! Can anyone give any advice? Thanks, Ian

  Read the article

• Passive FTP Server Port Configuration Troubles Win2003

  - by Chris

  Win2003 Ports 20 & 21 are open IIS6 - Direct Metabase Edit enabled Configured FTP service passive range to 5500-5550 5500-5550 added to windows firewall iisreset and double checked by restarting ftp service nothing has changed, when I connect and enter passive, it still hangs when ever I try to LIST or transfer files. Active is just as useless. Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. C:\Users\user>ftp ftp> open x.x.x.x Connected to x.x.x.x. 220-Microsoft FTP Service xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 220 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx User (x.x.x.x:(none)): user 331 Password required for user. Password: 230-YOUR ACTIVITY IS BEING RECORDED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT 230 User user logged in. ftp> QUOTE PASV 227 Entering Passive Mode (82,19,25,134,21,124) ftp> ls 200 PORT command successful. 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for file list. and it hangs.. Now I can see from microsooft documentation that on newer windows releases, additional steps such as these are suggested, but they dont work on 2003... netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=”FTP Service” action=allow service=ftpsvc protocol=TCP dir=in netsh advfirewall set global StatefulFTP disable is there anything I am missing, what is this StatefulFTP malarkey at the end EDIT I can connect and transfer binary files using WinSCP client - Therefore the problem must be with my ftp commands no? Can anyone see anything wrong with my windows ftp client example? why would it hang on ls, i tried QUOTE LIST as well, and that just hangs, and the windows ftp client doesnt work in active, it hangs if I try to go "binary" then put - This worked before I added 5500-5550 on the router. I have since added this range to the router but no difference to the windows ftp client.

  Read the article

• Very slow connection to xserve via afp or smb

  - by Mhoffman13

  Help. File transfer and connection speed to our Xserve are painfully slow from newly purchased iMacs. The Xserve is only used as a file server, its running 10.4.11. The problem seems to be only happening on brand new iMacs running 10.6.3. When connected either over afp or smb copying files is many times slower than usual. Other machines on the network running either 10.4 or 10.5 have a normal connection speed. To try to rule out OS incompatibility I connected the new iMac running 10.6 to another computer running 10.4 over the network. The file transfer speed was fast as normal. So it seems the problems lies with the X serve (maybe). The afp logs either access or error don't show anything unusual. One thing that did look different was when the imac was connected to the Xserve the user had its id listed as its IP address. The other machines connected, had the id of broadcasthost. I also noticed that when connected from the new iMac I can only see one of the mirrors. When any other computer connects both mirrors are shown. Tried a restart of the Xserve but the problem persists. Thanks in advance for any advice

  Read the article

• ASA Slow IPSec Performance with Inconsistent Window Size

  - by Brent

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

  Read the article

• Samba PDC share slow with LDAP backend

  - by hmart

  The scenario I have a SUSE SLES 11.1 SP1 machine as Samba master PDC with LDAP backend. In one share there are Database files for a Client-Server application. I log XP and Windows 7 machines to the local domain (example.local), the login is a little slow but works. In the client computers have an executable which opens, reads and writes the database files from the server share. The Problem When running Samba with LDAP password backend the client application runs VERY SLOW with a maximum transfer rate of 2500 MBit per second. If disable LDAP the client app speed increases 20x, with transfer rate of 50Mbit/sec and running smoothly. I'm doing test with just two users and two machines, so concurrency, or LDAP size shouldn't be the problem here. The suspect LDAP, Smb.conf [global] section configuration. The Question What can I do? I've googled a lot, but still have no answer. Slow smb.conf WITH LDAP [global] workgroup = zmartsoft.local passdb backend = ldapsam:ldap://127.0.0.1 printing = cups printcap name = cups printcap cache time = 750 cups options = raw map to guest = Bad User logon path = \\%L\profiles\.msprofile logon home = \\%L\%U\.9xprofile logon drive = P: usershare allow guests = Yes add machine script = /usr/sbin/useradd -c Machine -d /var/lib/nobody -s /bin/false %m$ domain logons = Yes domain master = Yes local master = Yes netbios name = server os level = 65 preferred master = Yes security = user wins support = Yes idmap backend = ldap:ldap://127.0.0.1 ldap admin dn = cn=Administrator,dc=zmartsoft,dc=local ldap group suffix = ou=Groups ldap idmap suffix = ou=Idmap ldap machine suffix = ou=Machines ldap passwd sync = Yes ldap ssl = Off ldap suffix = dc=zmartsoft,dc=local ldap user suffix = ou=Users

  Read the article

• How do I format a text file for IIS Mailroot Pickup so that it sends an e-mail with attachments?

  - by Ben McCormack

  How do I need to format a text file so that it can be read by an SMTP service to send an e-mail that has an attachment? We have a server where we are using II6 SMTP to send mail from a Pickup folder. The goal is to drop a properly formatted text file into Mailroot\Pickup and then the file will be automatically processed and sent to the correct SMTP recipient. For simple files, this works correctly. Here's an example of a simple file that works (domain names changed): From:[email protected] To:[email protected] Subject:Hello World! Test Body Of The E-mail When I drop a text file containing the above contents into the Mailroot\Pickup folder, it sends correctly. However, I haven't been able to figure out how to get an attachment to work. I found some material that explained how to encode an SMTP attachment and another tool for simple base64 encoding conversion. Using the information on those pages, I came up with the following text: From:[email protected] To:[email protected] Subject:Hello World! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; boundary="Attached" Content-Disposition: inline; --Attached Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; name="attachment.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filenamename="attachment.txt" VGhpcyBpcyBhIHRlc3Qgb2Ygc29tZXRoaW5nIHRvIGVuY29kZS4NCk5ldyBsaW5lDQpOZXcgTGlu ZQ0KIkhlbGxvdyIgISEhDQo9PT09ICcgZnNkZnNkZiAxMjM1NDU2MzQzNA== --Attached-- However, when I place the above text in a file and drop it into Mailroot\Pickup, it doesn't send an attachment correctly. Instead, an e-mail shows up with the following in the body of the e-mail: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; boundary="Attached" Content-Disposition: inline; --Attached Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; name="attachment.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filenamename="attachment.txt" VGhpcyBpcyBhIHRlc3Qgb2Ygc29tZXRoaW5nIHRvIGVuY29kZS4NCk5ldyBsaW5lDQpOZXcgTGlu ZQ0KIkhlbGxvdyIgISEhDQo9PT09ICcgZnNkZnNkZiAxMjM1NDU2MzQzNA== --Attached-- I can't figure out what I need to do to format the text file so that the SMTP service correctly sends attachments.

  Read the article

• SATA Windows 7 Problems

  - by Isaacs

  Scenario: Core 2 Duo processor, Gigabyte MB, 4 SATA Western digital 500 GB hard drives, windows 7 64 bit. Problem: Copying data from USB or among SATA hard drives is faulty. When trying to copy 20GB from one HD to another it starts off with normal ~14-15 MB/s transfer rates and eventually bogs down to < 120KB/s transfer rates. If I leave it alone over night I come back with my computer crashed and setting at BIOS detecting hard drives. Troubleshooting: Removed all but 1 HD with OS on it, everything seems to be happy. I can copy large files from USB HD to main/single HD. Ran SpinRite on all hard drives, no errors found. Tried adding one HD to machine and problem exists, tried switching SATA cables, and SATA ports on MB. Reinstalled windows 7 x2 (from different disks..). Oddly enough if I boot to a ubuntu everything works fine. Getting ready to purchase a new MB, but wanted to see if anyone had suggestions. Thanks!

  Read the article

• VSFTPD - FTP over TLS - Upload stops after exactly 82k?

  - by Redsandro

  I installed a VSFTP daemon on a CentOS server, using a RSA certificate for logging in using explicit TLS. Now, I cannot upload more than 82k. With files under that limit, there is no problem. The FTP works like a charm. But as soon as a file reaches 82k with FileZilla (81,952 bytes to be exact), the transfer will stop, and the FTP client hangs until time out is reached. FTP client console: 15:10:21 Command: STOR jquery-1.7.2.min.js 15:10:21 Response: 150 Ok to send data. 15:11:21 Error: Connection timed out 15:11:21 Error: File transfer failed after transferring 82 KB in 60 seconds /var/log/vsftpd.log FTP command: Client "x.x.x.x", "STOR jquery-1.7.2.min.js" FTP response: Client "x.x.x.x", "150 Ok to send data." OK UPLOAD: Client "x.x.x.x", "jquery-1.7.2.min.js", 81952 bytes, 1.32Kbyte/sec FTP response: Client "x.x.x.x", "226 File receive OK." // NOT okay, file is bigger // No mention of error here I cannot find relevant info about this problem, apart from a possible problem with trans_chunk_size (not mentioned in default config), but I tried different sizes and it has no impact on the problem. trans_chunk_size=4096 trans_chunk_size=8192 trans_chunk_size=9999 Ofcourse, after every configuration change, I restarted the server: /etc/init.d/vsftpd restart What else can cause this? It's not the latest version, but it's the latest update within the repositories that has been deemed fit for enterprise usage: Package info: $ yum info vsftpd Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Installed Packages Name : vsftpd Arch : x86_64 Version : 2.0.5 Release : 24.el5_8.1 Size : 286 k Repo : installed Summary : vsftpd - Very Secure Ftp Daemon URL : http://vsftpd.beasts.org/ License : GPL Description: vsftpd is a Very Secure FTP daemon. It was written completely from scratch.

  Read the article

• rsync general question

  - by CaptnLenz

  I'm trying to use rsync. At first, everything looks very good: rsync -Pniahv -e ssh /home/xxx/Videos/ [email protected]:"/shares/Public/Shared\ Videos/" --stats ... <f+++++++++ Serien/blah.avi <f+++++++++ Serien/blah S01E01 <f+++++++++ Serien/blah - S01E02 <f+++++++++ Serien/blah - S01E03 <f+++++++++ Serien/blah - S01E04 <f+++++++++ Serien/blah - S01E05 <f+++++++++ Serien/blah - S01E06 <f+++++++++ Serien/blah - S01E07 ... Number of files: 232 Number of files transferred: 223 Total file size: 118.24G bytes Total transferred file size: 117.51G bytes Literal data: 0 bytes Matched data: 0 bytes File list size: 9.46K File list generation time: 0.001 seconds File list transfer time: 0.000 seconds Total bytes sent: 10.18K Total bytes received: 712 After that, i copied some of the files manually and runned rsync again in dry mode: rsync -Pniahv -e ssh /home/xxx/Videos/ [email protected]:"/shares/Public/Shared\ Videos/" --stats ... <f..tpo.... Serien/blah.avi <f..tpo.... Serien/blah S01E01 <f..tpo.... Serien/blah - S01E02 <f..tpo.... Serien/blah - S01E03 <f..tpo.... Serien/blah - S01E04 <f..tpo.... Serien/blah - S01E05 <f..tpo.... Serien/blah - S01E06 <f..tpo.... Serien/blah - S01E07 ... Number of files: 232 Number of files transferred: 223 Total file size: 118.24G bytes Total transferred file size: 117.51G bytes Literal data: 0 bytes Matched data: 0 bytes File list size: 9.46K File list generation time: 0.001 seconds File list transfer time: 0.000 seconds Total bytes sent: 10.18K Total bytes received: 712 Why hasn't changed something in the --stats, although only the permissions and the timestamp have to be updated and not the full files need to be copied?

  Read the article

• Feasibility of Windows Server 2008 DFS replication over WAN link

  - by CesarGon

  We have just set up a WAN link that connects two buildings in our organisation. The link is provided by a 100-Mbps point to point line. We have a Windows Server 2008 R2 domain controller on each side of the link. Now we are planning to set up DFS for file services across the organisation. The estimated data volume is over 2 TB, and will grow at approximately 20% annually. My idea is to set up a file server in each building and install DFS so that all the contents stay replicated over the 100-Mbps link. I hope that this will ensure that any user will be directed to the closest (and fastest) server when requesting a file from the DFS folders. My concern is whether a 100-Mbps WAN link is good enough to guarantee DFS replication. I've no experience with DFS, so any solid advice is welcome. The line is reliable (i.e. it doesn't crash often) and our data transfer tests show that a 5 MB/sec transfer rate is easily achieved. This is approximately 40% of the nominal bandwidth. I am also concerned about the latency. I mean, how long will users need to wait to see one change on one side of the link after the change has been made on the other side. My questions are: Is this link between networks a reliable infrastructure on which to set up DFS replication? What latency times would be typical (seconds, minutes, hours, days)? Would you recommend that we go for DFS in this scenario, or is there a better alternative? Many thanks.

  Read the article

• Network card very slow, only on Windows

  - by J Penguin

  This only happens to 1 of my machine, and only when booting into Windows 7. No matter what network card I put in, Windows would default its mode to 10Mbps full duplex. Transfer speed is approximately 1 MB/s. If I set it to 100Mbps, the transfer drops to 100-200K/s. If I set it to 1000Mbps, the connection is lost completely. I've tried swapping in different cards, both PCI-E and PCI. I'v etried update the windows, I've tried reinstalling the drivers... On this very same machine, if I boot into Fedora, it can use the card at its full capacity 1000Mbps transfering 80+ MB/s And all the cards work just fine when plugging into other machines on the same network. I'm very curious. What could be the reason for this? The only different software that this machine has is virtual box with a VPN emulator, but disabling that VPN doesn't seem to do anything. I would like to get this fixed, hopefully, without reinstalling windows _< Will that be possible?

  Read the article

• iperf max udp multicast performance peaking at 10Mbit/s?

  - by Tom Frey

  I'm trying to test UDP multicast throughput via iperf but it seems like it's not sending more than 10Mbit/s from my dev machine: C:\> iperf -c 224.0.166.111 -u -T 1 -t 100 -i 1 -b 1000000000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 224.0.166.111, UDP port 5001 Sending 1470 byte datagrams Setting multicast TTL to 1 UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [156] local 192.168.1.99 port 49693 connected with 224.0.166.111 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [156] 0.0- 1.0 sec 1.22 MBytes 10.2 Mbits/sec [156] 1.0- 2.0 sec 1.14 MBytes 9.57 Mbits/sec [156] 2.0- 3.0 sec 1.14 MBytes 9.55 Mbits/sec [156] 3.0- 4.0 sec 1.14 MBytes 9.56 Mbits/sec [156] 4.0- 5.0 sec 1.14 MBytes 9.56 Mbits/sec [156] 5.0- 6.0 sec 1.15 MBytes 9.62 Mbits/sec [156] 6.0- 7.0 sec 1.14 MBytes 9.53 Mbits/sec When I run it on another server, I'm getting ~80Mbit/s which is quite a bit better but still not anywhere near the 1Gbps limits that I should be getting? C:\> iperf -c 224.0.166.111 -u -T 1 -t 100 -i 1 -b 1000000000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 224.0.166.111, UDP port 5001 Sending 1470 byte datagrams Setting multicast TTL to 1 UDP buffer size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [180] local 10.0.101.102 port 51559 connected with 224.0.166.111 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [180] 0.0- 1.0 sec 8.60 MBytes 72.1 Mbits/sec [180] 1.0- 2.0 sec 8.73 MBytes 73.2 Mbits/sec [180] 2.0- 3.0 sec 8.76 MBytes 73.5 Mbits/sec [180] 3.0- 4.0 sec 9.58 MBytes 80.3 Mbits/sec [180] 4.0- 5.0 sec 9.95 MBytes 83.4 Mbits/sec [180] 5.0- 6.0 sec 10.5 MBytes 87.9 Mbits/sec [180] 6.0- 7.0 sec 10.9 MBytes 91.1 Mbits/sec [180] 7.0- 8.0 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec Anybody has any idea why this is not achieving close to link limits (1Gbps)? Thanks, Tom

  Read the article

• AWS elastic load balancer basic issues

  - by Jones

  I have an array of EC2 t1.micro instances behind a load balancer and each node can manage ~100 concurrent users before it starts to get wonky. i would THINK if i have 2 such instances it would allow my network to manage 200 concurrent users... apparently not. When i really slam the server (blitz.io) with a full 275 concurrents, it behaves the same as if there is just one node. it goes from 400ms response time to 1.6 seconds (which for a single t1.micro is expected, but not 6). So the question is, am i simply not doing something right or is ELB effectively worthless? Anyone have some wisdom on this? AB logs: Loadbalancer (3x m1.medium) Document Path: /ping/index.html Document Length: 185 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 11.668 seconds Complete requests: 50000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 50001 Total transferred: 19850397 bytes HTML transferred: 9250185 bytes Requests per second: 4285.10 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 23.337 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.233 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1661.35 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 1 2 4.3 2 63 Processing: 2 21 15.1 19 302 Waiting: 2 21 15.0 19 261 Total: 3 23 15.7 21 304 Single instance (1x m1.medium direct connection) Document Path: /ping/index.html Document Length: 185 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 9.597 seconds Complete requests: 50000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 50001 Total transferred: 19850397 bytes HTML transferred: 9250185 bytes Requests per second: 5210.19 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 19.193 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.192 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 2020.01 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 1 9 128.9 3 3010 Processing: 1 10 8.7 9 141 Waiting: 1 9 8.7 8 140 Total: 2 19 129.0 12 3020

  Read the article

• TFTP Timing Out on Ubuntu VM

  - by valsidalv

  I'm running a Windows 7 PC with VMware installed which has my Ubuntu (10.04 Lucid Lynx). I recently installed a DHCP server and TFTP (Xinet tftpd) using these instructions. I've mapped a network drive so that my Windows has access to all the files in my VM through a 192.x.x.x IP address. I'm trying to throw some custom firmware onto a router. The router has its own built-in TFTP utility that will download the image. It successfully manages to do everything but it is slow because it writes it to flash memory. There is another method that is much quicker because it writes to RAM directly but it must use the TFTP server in Ubuntu. The issue I'm facing is that the Ubuntu TFTP transfer seems to be timing out. The transfer starts but never goes past ~60%. Here's my /etc/xinetd.d/tftp file (similar to a known working config): service tftp { protocol = udp port = 69 socket_type = dgram wait = yes user = nobody server = /usr/sbin/in.tftpd server_args = -s /home/user/tftp/ disable = no cps = 300 2 per_source = 60 } I've done some searching but can't find any parameters for this file to control timeout time or number of retries. The last two arguments (cps, per_source) and completely alien to me (can anyone explain). I have a few possible solutions but the easiest would be to get this TFTP server working. Can anyone help? Either with a timeout configuration or maybe even recommend a different TFTP server? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Small TCP Window on WAN between 2 Locations

  - by Brent

  Site A: Denver datacenter. 60MBPS. Site B: Chicago. 100MBPS. ICMP pings: Packets: Sent = 176, Received = 176, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 74ms, Maximum = 94ms, Average = 75ms File transfer between sites that never goes past ~7MBPS: Windows Update download at 60MBPS+: Site to site: IPSec VPN using two Cisco 5520's. CPU at 3-4% and lots of memory to spare. The latency between to two sites is very acceptable so I can't see an issue why it is performing so slow when transferring between the two sites. I have found that any type of transfer (FTP, HTTP, Windows file shares) will never go above ~7MBPS. When the WAN was first setup, I was able to get transfers at 50-60MBPS, which is what is expected due to the WAN connection at the Site A at 60MBPS. Then a few days later, I was not able to get anything going faster than ~7MBPS. Is there a upstream router between Denver and Chicago causing this? I want to take the blame away from our setup as downloads from Windows Update go blazing fast and for the first few days after the site to site VPN came up, I was transferring VM images at 50-60MBPS. Our stack: HP P2000 MSA - HP C7000 Chassis - HP Flex-10 - Cisco Gigabit switch - Cisco ASA - WAN

  Read the article

• Extract and view Outlook contacts attachment sent to Gmail

  - by matt wilkie

  A friend forwarded a contact list to my gmail account from Outlook (2007 or 2010, not sure which). I can see there is an attachment in gmail but when I save it to my local drive it's just a plain text file containing the text This attachment is a MAPI 1.0 embedded message and is not supported by this mail system. If I use gmail's "show original message" it contains in part: This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC6656.CE12F030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC6656.CE12F030 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+Ih0VAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQgABQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAQkABAACAAAAAAAAAAEDkAYASAgAACgA --8<---snip---8<-- GUC/9NKH95rABgMA/g8HAAAAAwANNP0/pQ4DAA80/T+lDvAm ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CC6656.CE12F030-- How do I save the attached winmail.dat properly, and open the winmail.dat and extract the contact list? I'm running Windows 7 x64, but have access to an ubuntu linux vmware appliance if needed. I have Outlook 2010, but can't use it to connect directly to gmail as pop3 and imap are blocked by the corporate firewall.

  Read the article

• Content not being compressed even though I'm using zlib in php.ini

  - by Tola Odejayi

  I've edited my php.ini file so that it has these two entries: zlib.output_compression = On zlib.output_compression_level = 4 However, after restarting apache, when I request php pages, the headers returned in the response indicate that my server is still NOT serving compressed pages (here are selected headers as viewed using Chrome's Network feature): Cache-Control:no-cache, must-revalidate, max-age=0 Connection:Keep-Alive Content-Type:text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date:Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:46:13 GMT Expires:Wed, 11 Jan 1984 05:00:00 GMT Last-Modified:Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:46:13 GMT Pragma:no-cache Proxy-Connection:Keep-Alive Server:Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 PHP/5.2.17 Transfer-Encoding:chunked Via:1.1 XXX-PRXY-07 X-Powered-By:PHP/5.2.17 What might I be doing wrong? Is there any other setting that I need to change? EDIT Here is another set of headers returned to another computer: Cache-Control:no-cache, must-revalidate, max-age=0 Connection:close Content-Type:text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date:Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:45:26 GMT Expires:Wed, 11 Jan 1984 05:00:00 GMT Last-Modified:Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:45:26 GMT Pragma:no-cache Server:Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 PHP/5.2.17 Transfer-Encoding:chunked Vary:Cookie X-Powered-By:PHP/5.2.17

  Read the article

• Very slow connection to xserve via afp or smb

  - by Mhoffman13

  Help. File transfer and connection speed to our Xserve are painfully slow from newly purchased iMacs. The Xserve is only used as a file server, its running 10.4.11. The problem seems to be only happening on brand new iMacs running 10.6.3. When connected either over afp or smb copying files is many times slower than usual. Other machines on the network running either 10.4 or 10.5 have a normal connection speed. To try to rule out OS incompatibility I connected the new iMac running 10.6 to another computer running 10.4 over the network. The file transfer speed was fast as normal. So it seems the problems lies with the X serve (maybe). The afp logs either access or error don't show anything unusual. One thing that did look different was when the imac was connected to the Xserve the user had its id listed as its IP address. The other machines connected, had the id of broadcasthost. I also noticed that when connected from the new iMac I can only see one of the mirrors. When any other computer connects both mirrors are shown. Tried a restart of the Xserve but the problem persists. Thanks in advance for any advice

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74  | Next Page >