On Thursday 06 January 2005 22:48, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is mostly relevant for systems that don't take regular backups. If
> you do (and for the sake of your customers, I hope that is the case),
> the extra precaution isn't really necessary, and probably a bad idea if
>
On Friday 10 December 2004 21:31, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >As has already been suggested it would be good to be able to configure
> > > the number of messages that come through before the client IP is
> > > white-listed.
> >
> > But I think the
> > problem of this would be
On Friday 10 December 2004 00:39, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've recently turned on EHLO/HELO validation and am encouraged by how
> effective it is. WIth RBL's (spamcop and dnsbl) and SpamAssassin 3, only
> 88% of spam was stopped. So far, it's 100%. (This is a _very_ small
On Thursday 09 December 2004 01:12, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the log file noise issue is important to me - i've recently started
> monitoring mail.log and adding iptables rules to block smtp connections
> from client IPs that commit various spammish-looking crimes against my
> sys
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:16, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Craig, why do you think it's undesirable to do so?
>
> because i dont want the extra retry traffic. i want spammers to take FOAD
> as an answer, and i dont want to welcome them with a pleasant "please try
> again lat
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 20:32, daniele becchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Odd, since we don't see this. And when it does happen to 'big' mail
> > senders it's never AOL for one (they're on the whitelist). And it's
> > totally automatic so if they do end up on it's usually for less than
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 09:55, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I have to agree with that statement. For us it suits our needs very well.
> I don't mind handling the extra retry traffic if it means legitimate mail
> on a 'grey/pink' host is just temporarily rejected or delayed wh
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 19:18, "W.D.McKinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Qmail is not in Debian. Even the qmail-src package is no longer in
> > Debian. This makes it significantly more difficult to manage Qmail Debian
> > servers.
>
> Well if you don't like compiling from src, then head
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 14:35, "W.D.McKinney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm, meaning Hotmail, Yahoo and others run three legged mules ? :-)
It's just a pity that hotmail and yahoo have so many users that it's
inconvenient to block them entirely.
> No worries, this list is about Debian
On Monday 06 December 2004 19:34, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Various AOL mailservers, the Debian mailservers, and other servers sending
> out lots of regular mail get listed in spamcop regularly, so my
> recommendation (and that of spamcop.net themselves, btw
On Friday 03 December 2004 20:07, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (And - this to Stephen Frost, I believe - there is a patch to postgrey
> which I will include in the next version, and I believe which will also be
> included in the next upstream, to whitelist a cl
On Friday 03 December 2004 19:10, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > A delay of transmission means more time for the spamming IP address to be
> > added to black-lists. So during the gray-list interval (currently 5
> > minutes
>
> True. But in that case, we also need the
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/debian-security/msg14351.html
Henrique recently stated the belief that gray-listing is a one-shot measure
against spam (see the above URL) and that spammers would just re-write their
bots to do two transmission runs with a delay in between.
I have been conside
On Wednesday 10 November 2004 21:49, "Ben Hutchings"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I feel the need to learn something new today. How could the user replace
> > the root owned files in a directory that they own?
>
> By renaming or unlinking them. Linux treats this as an operation on the
> directo
On Friday 05 November 2004 19:47, "Francesco P. Lovergine"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 01:35:28AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > My clftools package allows you to split and mangle the log files if you
> > have Apache configured for a single
On Thursday 04 November 2004 09:11, Marek Podmaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have apache 1.3 webserver hosting about 150 domains (more than 400
> virtual hosts). Now I have separate error log for each domain
My clftools package allows you to split and mangle the log files if you have
Apac
I want to have Postfix route mail to two relays based on the sender. If the
sender is from domain1 then I want to use the relay that is authorised with
SPF for domain1, if the sender is from domain2 then I want to use the relay
that has SPF records for domain2.
Any ideas on how to do this?
Be
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:12, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.30.1106 +0200]:
> > If you block with tcp-reset then not only will the person
> > connecting get a fast response, but someone who port scans you
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:16, Leonardo Boselli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On some machine for which i can edvice but do not have final decision
> there sare some non-exixtent services.
If you block with tcp-reset then not only will the person connecting get a
fast response, but someone who port sc
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:47, "Donovan Baarda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, does nscd really not correctly handle dns caching/expiry
> properly? I thought the dns caching stuff was well thought out and
> defined... not implementing it properly would be dumb.
It's what I've been told. I ha
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:56, "Donovan Baarda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually run pdnsd. I find it leaner and simpler than named. However, is
> "run named on all hosts" really better than "run nscd on all hosts"?
That's debatable. Some people will say that DNS servers are too much of a
sec
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:07, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to subvert a thread like this, but has anyone else decided that
> nscd is pretty much essential for all systems, regardless of nss, or
> local nameservers?
No.
> It seems without it there is _no_ dns caching of any kind
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:15, Ian Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is ext3 faster or slower than ext2?
If you use an external journal on a fast device then ext3 should be much
faster.
> What mount options give the best performance, "noatime" "data=journal" ?
noatime is (IMHO) mandatory for a Ma
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:55, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand your guys' point, and I appreciate it.What you describe
> here sounds nearly identicaly to my auto-responder. But, that may be my
> lack of knowledge of how the mail system works in general. Something about
Be
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:11, Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam does not justify spam. I have come to this realization myself only
> recently (I am, unfortunately still, a TMDA user). I can understand that
You should cease using TMDA. For reference I never respond to TMDA type
mes
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:29, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John C has requested that
> > the following message be removed from the archives.
>
> My apologies that my autoresponder spammed the list. I've never posted to
> the debian-isp list. Apparently someone's machine is infected w
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:58, "John Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...spammers drown you in water?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor
>
> >..you want respect? Earn it.
>
> If earning respect in this crowd requires being disrespectful, then I'm not
> interested.
Earning res
using problems.
Requests to have list archives altered to hide the evidence of your mis-deeds
doesn't work either. It just gets you more copies of the message.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:27, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Due to the unprecedented amount of spam I've been receiving, I'm forced to
> change my email address yet again. My new address is johnc at planetz.com.
Please don't be stupid. Such auto-responders will get you added to all the
spam lists aga
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:17, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:41:43PM +1000,
> a message of 39 lines which said:
> > Getting servers that each have 200G or 300G of storage is easy.
>
> For a mail server, it means either 1G per user (like gmail gives you)
>
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:00, Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If one machine has a probability of failure of 0.1 over a particular time
> > period then the probability of at least one machine failing if there are
> > two servers in the cluster over that same time period is 1-0.9*0.9 ==
>
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:08, Paul Dwerryhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:56:21PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The machines were all running 2.4.2x last time I was there, but they
> > may be moving to 2.6.x now.
>
> All the stores, relays and
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:02, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ## Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > So, now we would like Russel to explain why he does not like SAN.
> >
> > He probably doesn't advocate using SAN instead of local disks if you do
> > not have
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:33, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:19, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Increasing the number of machines increases the probability of one
> > > > machine failing for any given time period. Also it makes it more
> > > > diff
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:18, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently writing a proposal for a webmail service for, say, 50
> 000 to 500 000 users. I'm looking for description of existing "big
50K isn't big by today's standards.
An ISP I used to work for has something like 1,3
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:19, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Increasing the number of machines increases the probability of one
> > machine failing for any given time period. Also it makes it more
> > difficult to debug problems as you can't always be certain of which
> > machine was inv
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.14.1525
+0200]:
> > Or we can do it in two, with capacity to spare AND no downtime.
>
> I would definitely vote for two systems, but for high-availability,
>
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:35, "Lucas Albers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As long as the machine is fixed within four days of a problem we don't
> > need
> > more than one. Email can be delayed, it's something you have to get used
> > to.
>
> Machines are cheap enough, wouldn't it be reasonable to
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a lot of resources, why can't we invest some of them into a small
> three or four machine cluster to handle all debian email (MLs included),
A four machine cluster can be used for the entire email needs of
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:26, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:05:26PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > The third is to not use LDAP for lookups
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:25, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Debian email isn't that big. We can do it all on a single machine
> > (including spamassasin etc) with capacity to spare.
>
> Or we can do it in two, with capacity to spare AND no downtime.
Increasing the nu
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:47, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > We have a lot of resources, why can't we inv
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:23, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is not the case for Debian; and yes, we already do have local fast
> > > DB caches (using libnss-db).
> >
> > That's an entirely different issue.
>
> No, it's not, not in this case anyway.
>
> > libnss-db is just for f
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:42, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:05:26PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > http://www.umem.com/16GB_Battery_Backed_PCI_NVRAM.html
> >
> > If you want to use external journals then use a u
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:37, Josh Bonnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Do you have benchmark results to support this assertion? Last time I
> > tested the performance of software RAID-1 on Linux I was unable to get
> > anywhere near 2x disk speed for writing.
>
> Not to be a stickler but i hope you
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:59, "shift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea seems still interesting to me 2 days after the week-end! ( Did
> some definitive dammage happen? :)
> I imagine an install, giving possibilities of Raid, backup, replication,
> networking etc from the start, all necessary too
Please write your text after the quoted text and don't quote excessively.
This is not AOL.
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:48, "shift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, about the week-end, you're welcome for another one (...)
>
> About the install, I do almost the same. the second part is the
> optimiza
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:54, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any up-to-date "State of the RAID Nation" statement? I'd hate
> to start digging into RAID code only to find that RAID Mk.2 was going to
> replace everything I'd been looking at.
Not that I'm aware of. The only change
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:32, "Donovan Baarda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ummm... Bit confused here, but RAID 1 is not faster, than a single disk.
> > RAID one is just for 'safety' purposes. Yes, you do have 2 disks, but
> > in an
> > ideal world, they will both be synced with one another, and bot
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:39, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I really substantiate my assumtption, Russel's right, in theory: in
> RAID1, you *do* have 2 disks, so reading 2 independent files *should* be
> possible without too much seeking.
>
> But OTOH you mi
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 05:20, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Machines that can handle such an IO load have faster CPUs. So for any
> > but the very biggest machines there is no chance of CPU performance being
> > a problem for RAID-5.
>
> You certainly have more
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:55, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have benchmark results to support this assertion? Last time I
> > tested the performance of software RAID-1 on Linux I was unable to get
> > anywhere near 2x disk speed for writing. I did tests by reading two
> > file
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:39, Andrew Miehs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ummm... Bit confused here, but RAID 1 is not faster, than a single disk.
RAID-1 in the strict definition has two disks with the same data. In the
modern loose definition it means two or more disks with the same data (maybe
3 d
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:35, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RAID5 does need more computation than RAID1, so if you have a CPU
> bottleneck RAID5 will always be slower (assuming RAID5 is computed on the
> main CPU.)
raid5: automatically using best checksumming funct
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:59, Theodore Knab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RAM is always not the answer with 32Bit machines. You can cause bounce
> buffers with too much RAM. The sweet spot for Linux on a 32Bit platform
> seems to be 4GB of RAM. I had 10GB of RAM in a Courier IMAP server and the
> serve
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:44, Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:03:20AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > You have to either be doing something very intensive or very wrong to
> > need more than one server for 20K users. Last time I did this I g
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:48, Theo Hoogerheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try looking for a netapp or something else for central datastorage and a
> loadbalancer..
If you have a Netapp then you have to deal with Linux NFS issues which aren't
fun.
If you have a cluster of storage machines and front
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0907opensourc.html?net
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ M
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:39, "R.M. Evers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pci, the speeds are fairly good (surely not top of the bill though). the
> configuration is 3-disk raid5. fyi, here's the hdparm test:
>
> /dev/sda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.43 seconds = 44.76 MB/sec
That read
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:56, Jan Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Upgrading from php3 to php4 while upgrading from Apache 1.x to Apache 2.x
> > seemed to have missed those extension lines. I now have IMP working
> > again.
>
> I did ran into this issue 1 week ago. It happened when I was updatin
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:28, Jan Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # grep imap /etc/php4/apache2/php.ini
> extension=imap.so
> # grep imap /etc/php4/apache/php.ini
> extension=imap.so
Thanks for that!
Upgrading from php3 to php4 while upgrading from Apache 1.x to Apache 2.x
seemed to have missed
I get the above error from imp3 running with PHP4 and Apache2. Any idea what
the cause might be?
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benc
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:02, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 August 2004 10:52, Dale E Martin wrote:
> > Anyways, I would like to disable password logins for root on several of
> > my boxes but allow root to come in from known IPs and with known ssh
> > keys. Is there a w
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:52, Dale E Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed a fair number of attempted root logins on my various boxes
Same here. Also attempted logins to "test", "admin", and some other accounts.
> over the last few weeks. I don't know if there is a new ssh vulnerability
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:38, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 2004-08-08 15:32:51, schrieb Russell Coker:
> > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:56, "Shannon R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is there a debian package wherein the app recognizes
> >
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 09:52, Steven Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We seem to be, being hit with in excess of 12,000 spam emails per day
> from adsl and cable modems in the US alone. Then we get brute force
> attackedthe server at times gets somewhat stretched...
>
> What would ppl suggest it
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:56, "Shannon R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a debian package wherein the app recognizes
> IIS worm attacks? Then blocks these IPs in real time?
Why bother? They can't do any harm, and the bandwidth that they take is
usually a small portion of the total bandwidth.
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:17, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there some clever way I can recreate the /etc dir? (A dpkg-reconfigure
> trick?) Or can I just copy the symbolic links from the working box over
> to the non-working box?
How about the following:
tar cf /tmp/foo.tar `fin
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:27, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since you're running postfix... you may want to have a look at
> greylisting - the postgrey package provides this
>
> Unfortunately, postfix 2.1 is required, so woody users will have to
> wait. Greylistin
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 05:47, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It won't work forever eventually spambots and virusbots will catch on
> and start retrying after being 4xx-ed but implementing it now makes you
> just harder than your neighbor to break into so for the time being they'll
> m
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:51, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it requires postfix' policy server which is only available in
> postfix 2.1.
I think I'll give up on back-porting it. Back-porting Postfix 2.0.16 was
enough pain. I guess I'll just have to move u
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:28, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 14.06, Russell Coker wrote:
> > [...] Greylisted for 300 seconds... [...]
> > [..] mail server is broken.
>
> Russel, if there are arguments
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:48, Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 Russell Coker wrote:
> > (host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to >
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05, Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (create large file)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024
> > count=5 5+0 records in
> > 5+0 records out
> >
> > (get large file)
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/
(host mail3av.westend.com[212.117.79.67] said: 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds... (in reply to RCPT
TO command)) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christian's mail server is broken.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
h
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:15, "Shannon R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the machine will be hosting 1 website only. with about 3,000 static html
> files and about 5,000 image files (from 3kb to 100kb. and no, it's not a
> pornsite, but a bike enthusiast site)
>
> so what do you guys think? any ballpar
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:25, Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shared storage would be neat as we could do real load balancing on
> POP3/IMAP servers as well but has anybody a recommendation for a
In my experience neither POP3 nor IMAP uses any significant amount of CPU
time. Therefor
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:39, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Other people get >10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s.
>
> I do not belive it !
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9704.1/0257.html
See the above message from David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a
> >theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ?
>
> With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec
What makes you think so?
Oth
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:29, "monta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fuck you
Silly newbie, the debian-isp list did not send a message to you, a virus did.
Don't complain to the list, blame someone who is responsible for the problem.
You could blame the author of the virus, but it's probably impossi
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:09, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other good ways to do this include a shared RAID'ed network filesystem
> on a central box and two front-end boxes that are load-balanced with a
> hardware load-balancer. That gets into the "must be up 24/7" realm, or
> close to it.
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:39, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Markus Oswald wrote:
> > Summary: Don't bother with tuning the server and don't even think about
> > setting up a cluster for something like this - definitely overkill. ;o)
>
> Unless there's a business
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:42, Skylar Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as we're not talking about 486-class machines, the processor is not
> going to be the bottleneck; the bandwidth is. Multiplying 150 peak users by
> 50kB/s gives 7.5MB/s, so your disks should be able to spit out at least
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 05:09, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, as I need more disk space and CPU than disk IO, I went for
> RAID 5. If level 0 or 1 fits your application better, software RAID
> might be an option. But why burn CPU on RAID when your controller
> brings it
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:22, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you have a hot-spare disk in the machine then you can have it take the
> > place of a disk that dies while the machine is running and then replace
> > the defective hardware during a scheduled maintenance time.
>
> Except t
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 05:09, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seriously, as I need more disk space and CPU than disk IO, I went for
> RAID 5. If level 0 or 1 fits your application better, software RAID
> might be an option. But why burn CPU on RAID when your controller
> brings it
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 16:22, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you have a hot-spare disk in the machine then you can have it take the
> > place of a disk that dies while the machine is running and then replace
> > the defective hardware during a scheduled maintenance time.
>
> Except t
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 00:40, "Marek Isalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > Having the OS on one disk means that a single disk failure will kill the
> > machine. While you may have good backups it's always more convenient
> > if you
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 00:40, "Marek Isalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > Having the OS on one disk means that a single disk failure will kill the
> > machine. While you may have good backups it's always more convenient
> > if you
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:37, Jogi Hofmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Gustavo Polillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-30 17:22]:
> > Is it possible to make lvm with raid ?? Is there anyone here that make
> > it? thanks.
>
> We just recently started tests with adaptecs zcr cards (2010S) and
> aic-7
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:37, Jogi Hofmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Gustavo Polillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-30 17:22]:
> > Is it possible to make lvm with raid ?? Is there anyone here that make
> > it? thanks.
>
> We just recently started tests with adaptecs zcr cards (2010S) and
> aic-7
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:43, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ## Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > ## Gustavo Polillo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > Is it possible to make lvm with raid ?? Is there anyone here that
> > > > ma
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:43, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ## Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > ## Gustavo Polillo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > Is it possible to make lvm with raid ?? Is there anyone here that
> > > > ma
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 03:33, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ## Gustavo Polillo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Is it possible to make lvm with raid ?? Is there anyone here that make
> > it?
>
> Works as expected. RAID appears as a simple SCSI drive.
Only for hardware RAID. Software
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 03:33, Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ## Gustavo Polillo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Is it possible to make lvm with raid ?? Is there anyone here that make
> > it?
>
> Works as expected. RAID appears as a simple SCSI drive.
Only for hardware RAID. Software
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:49, Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just create the LVM volume on the RAID device, and that should be it,
> keeping /boot out of the LVM is a requirement fwict, otherwise the
> bootloader can't get access to the initrd or kernel image.
LILO is supposed to work on LV
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:34, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that false positives are extremely annoying, so an ISP/corporate
> anti-spam policy will have to be more conservative than what some here
> use for their own email.
The correct solution to false po
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:43, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I do not remember ever seeing on the evening news or morning news
> paper that somebody was hurt or worst killed from a Spam attack! Have you
I know many people who have a stated intention of killing a spammer if given a
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:54, "Robert Cates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spam Black ("Block") Lists? Not a good thing in my opinion!! I mean,
> e-mail servers can be configured NOT to relay for unauthorized domains
> anyway. I'm not an advocate of e-mail Spamming. I just feel that the
> control o
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:23, Dave Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas John wrote:
> >> Best to use 2U machines with the maximum number of disks IMHO. A 2U
> >> machine should be able to have 5 disks.
> >
> > I say: 9 Disks without problems. e.g. pcicase
> > http://www.pcicase.de/catalog/pr
1 - 100 of 1180 matches
Mail list logo
