Re: FW: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:59:27 -0400, Andy Davidoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Under Linux, multiple swap partitions are automagically striped, This is not true, at least not under 2.2.12: [kelly@poverty ca]$ cat /proc/swaps FilenameTypeSizeUsedPriority /dev/hda4 partition 189496 95732 -1 /dev/hdc5 partition 25952 0 -2 Kelly ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: FW: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
You are correct, of course, my fault. :-) This is apparently distribution-specific. See 'priority' in the swapon([28]) pages: Swap pages are allocated from areas in priority order, highest priority first. For areas with different priori- ties, a higher-priority area is exhausted before using a lower-priority area. If two or more areas have the same priority, and it is the highest priority available, pages are allocated on a round-robin basis between them. Here's a demonstration of round-robin (striped versus concatenated) swap: $ cat /proc/swaps FilenameTypeSizeUsedPriority /dev/sda4 partition 546200 816 1 /dev/sdb4 partition 546200 808 1 #if Kelly Lynn Martin /* Apr 18, 14:38 */ > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:59:27 -0400, Andy Davidoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >Under Linux, multiple swap partitions are automagically striped, > > This is not true, at least not under 2.2.12: > [kelly@poverty ca]$ cat /proc/swaps > FilenameTypeSizeUsedPriority > /dev/hda4 partition 189496 95732 -1 > /dev/hdc5 partition 25952 0 -2 #endif /* kelly */ -- Andy Davidoff Sen. Unix SA, EECS Tufts University ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] ftp_masq stopped working...?
Sent a reply to the original message, but apparently it didn't get there, so here it is: Excerpts from mail: 8-Apr-100 Re: [techtalk] ftp_masq sto.. by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > well, I'm not completely sure how to tell, > but if I insmod ip_masq_ftp, it tells me > it's already existing. The command to list modules is 'lsmod' (and incidentally, the command to remove modules is rmmod. sometimes unloading and reloading a module helps). It does looks like it's still there. > I haven't rebooted in 21 days (yeah yeah, I know > this isn't windows, but might that help if I did? > I'm still getting used to the concept of 'stability') > > and no, btw, it behaves identically in passive or > active mode, just barely gets a few K uploaded and > then bogs down and stops. If passive mode doesn't work, then it's probably not a problem with ip_masq_ftp module. Detailed explanation below, if you're interested. It could be a problem with the server, net connection from the masqer to the outside, ipmasq, or the windows box. To see which it is, you could: [upload|download] from [the masqer|the windows box|another machine behind ipmasq (if you have one)] to [the server|somewhere else] with [ftp|something else]. Finding out which of these work and which don't could give you clues about what's breaking and how. It could just be some strange transient bug that'll mysteriously never happen again if you reboot... I know it's a windows-y answer, but if you don't feel like debugging, you could try that first. btw, what kernel are you using? The ipmasq in 2.0.x kernels is a bit less stable than in 2.2.x kernels. The reason why you need a special module for active/port ftp is that in this case, a separate connection is opened from the server to the client (the PORT request). When doing ipmasq, the connection is between the server and the ipmasqer, rather than the actual client. The special module is needed so the ipmasqer knows to forward the connection from the server to the client. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: FW: [techtalk] Installing Linux on a second hard drive.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:16:07 -0400, Andy Davidoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >You are correct, of course, my fault. :-) This is apparently >distribution-specific. More accurately, it's dependent on being properly configured. I've reconfigured my swaps to both have priority 1, and the kernel does in fact balance them now. :) Kelly ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
