Re: [techtalk] Limits of grep?
On 0, Julie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Subba Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I have a directory of 1+ text files and would like to search for > > some strings in these files. When I tried using "grep" command with an > > asterisk, I get the error message somthing to the effect, > > > > "File argument list too long" > > You're exceeding the longest argument list which can be passed > to a command via the exec() call. This is NCARGS_MAX. > > > What is the file argument limit for grep? I guess you need the grep source > > for this. I did not find any information in the man page. > > Nope, this is a kernel limit. > > > Are there any other recommended tools to search through such large list of > > files? > > find . -type f -print | xargs grep /dev/null > Julie, Thank you for replying. I tried the following solution and it works very fast. find -print | xargs -n 500 grep Using the "-type f" is a very good idea. Thanks to everyone who replied with some solution! -- Subba Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pws.prserv.net/truemax/ ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] Kernel params
Can someone point me to documentation on the available linux kernel params and how I go about querying and modifying them? It appears that I'm either hitting the system limit for open files or the user limit. "lsof | wc -l" tells me that I have 2843 open files at the moment. And another thing, what is udpd? It appears to be a udp version of tcpd but I can't find any documention or where it might be referenced. -- Kathryn Hogg ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] Best OS for NAT?
My school district is planning to switch from WinNT boxes running proxy software to Network Address Translation. I'm gonna try to convince the guy from the tech company who does our 'net stuff to use a Linux distro. Which one would be the best to use? I'm favorable towards Debian, what are your thoughts? Or would I be better off to use a BSD, like OpenBSD? - Kathy
Re: [techtalk] Does there exist...?
Le 28 septembre 2000 a 10:26, Lyta Alexander a écrit : > or maybe start an X session inside of screen > (can't say i've tried that though, just a guess) I just tried this solution, but it halts on this error: $ startx X: user not authorized to run the X server, aborting. xinit: unexpected signal 2 Anyway, I am not sure that screen would be able to restore such a context, it is just made to save some text sessions. In fact, the man page describes screen(1) like this: Screen is a full-screen window manager that multiplexes a physical terminal between several processes. We are thus on the tty level here. Screen has many advantages, however, but that was not the point of the question at first. olive -- Olivier Tharan, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fermez les yeux et pressez sur ESC trois fois. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Does there exist...?
Here's what we do: is the box you want to run the apps *from* and is the box you want to run apps *on* (i.e. where they should display) ssh export DISPLAY='server:0.0' on xhost +client then on run your x apps... they will display on your box :o) In your ssh setup you have to make sure you have X11Forwarding enabled. For OpenSSH this is in /etc/ssh/sshd_config ... I think in most distributions of OpenSSH it is disabled by default, and you should be able to specify exactly what hosts are able to connect instead of the whole universe (xhost does some regulating of this also). I've only done it through SSH, and only from my work machine as client and home machine as server (or vice versa)... my husband does it through SSH on his lab network at work. It seems a little slow, but that could be my hardware, it doesn't seem so slow on my husband's lab where the server is a big ol' SMP machine and the clients are decent :o) -nicole At 18:14 on Sep 29, Olivier Tharan combined all the right letters to say: > We are thus on the tty level here. Screen has many advantages, however, > but that was not the point of the question at first. > > olive ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Does there exist...?
> export DISPLAY='server:0.0' This, of course, is only for bash. In csh it would be setenv DISPLAY server:0.0 -nicole ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Does there exist...?
Excerpts from linuxchix: 30-Sep-100 Re: [techtalk] Does there e.. by Nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] [procedure snipped] > In your ssh setup you have to make sure you have X11Forwarding enabled. > For OpenSSH this is in /etc/ssh/sshd_config ... I think in most > distributions of OpenSSH it is disabled by default, and you should be able > to specify exactly what hosts are able to connect instead of the whole > universe (xhost does some regulating of this also). If I understand what you're doing, this actually doesn't do ssh forwarding. It's just plain remote X clients, and will work through any method of connecting to the X-client-running-machine. (Note that the above method will allow anyone on the remote machine to do anything to your X, so only do it if you trust everyone who can log in to the remote) If you want to do it through ssh, try: ssh -X -l The -X enables X11 forwarding. Done this way, it'll only allow you on the remote to access your X. (actually, only that particular ssh connection) ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Does there exist...?
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:57:10PM -0400, Laurel Fan wrote: > If I understand what you're doing, this actually doesn't do ssh > forwarding. It's just plain remote X clients, and will work through > any method of connecting to the X-client-running-machine. (Note that > the above method will allow anyone on the remote machine to do > anything to your X, so only do it if you trust everyone who can log in > to the remote) If you want to do it through ssh, try: > > ssh -X -l > > The -X enables X11 forwarding. > > Done this way, it'll only allow you on the remote to access your X. > (actually, only that particular ssh connection) This is correct. The method originally described completely defeats the purpose of ssh X11 forwarding. Note that for this to work, the sshd_config file on the remote machine must have a "X11Forwarding yes" line, and the "-X' directive can be eliminated by adding the line "ForwardX11 yes" for that host (or all hosts, if you'd like) in ssh_config on the client machine. If you get the message "Warning: remote host denied X11 forwarding" on connection, the remote machine likely has forwarding disabled. If you get no warning and want to make sure forwarding is enabled (before incurring the bandwidth overhead of actually running something), type: echo $DISPLAY if forwarding is enabled, you should see something like: aaron@raul ~ % echo $DISPLAY raul.munge.net:10.0 This display (:10.0) is a 'fake' server that forwards the X app back to your client machine. Note also that the display offset is configurable in sshd_config, it should default to 10, as seen above. -- Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) System Administrator "Some companies think of training as a Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc.cost rather than an investment." http://www.semo.net -- Paul Collins ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Best OS for NAT?
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:39:50AM -0400, Kath wrote: > My school district is planning to switch from WinNT boxes running proxy > software to Network Address Translation. I'm gonna try to convince the > guy from the tech company who does our 'net stuff to use a Linux distro. > Which one would be the best to use? I'm favorable towards Debian, what > are your thoughts? > > Or would I be better off to use a BSD, like OpenBSD? I've been playing with NAT (usually called IP Masquerading on linux) with Debian 2.2 recently, and find it eminently easy to set up and use with the 'ipmasq' package (apt-get install ipmasq) which will automatically recompute the masqerading rules for ipchains. As I haven't tried this on BSD, I can't really comment. Well, I can comment that I really like FreeBSD. :) -- Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) System Administrator"We learn from history that we learn Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc.nothing from history." http://www.semo.net -- George Bernard Shaw ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Does there exist...?
> This is correct. The method originally described completely defeats the > purpose of ssh X11 forwarding. Note that for this to work, the > sshd_config file on the remote machine must have a "X11Forwarding yes" > line, and the "-X' directive can be eliminated by adding the line > "ForwardX11 yes" for that host (or all hosts, if you'd like) in ssh_config > on the client machine. Honestly, my intent was not to securely do it, but just to get it working... like I said I've only done it over trusted networks. ssh is how I connect telnet-style by default... I apologise for not making that clear, and I guess I deserved the not so pleasant response I got for not doing so. > aaron@raul ~ % echo $DISPLAY > raul.munge.net:10.0 > > This display (:10.0) is a 'fake' server that forwards the X app back to > your client machine. Note also that the display offset is configurable in > sshd_config, it should default to 10, as seen above. This is the official SSH step we were missing in what I described... I never separated out the SSH x forwarding problem from just using xhost *shrug* (excuse my lameness there) -nicole ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
