Given that I haven't implemented IPv6 in the least, I probably
shouldn't be wading into this discussion, but I've read a bit about it
a bit. That may not mean so much, though...
So anyway, as I understand it, IPv6 addresses are all about the
address prefix...and one of the prefixes is a link local
I suspect the answer at the moment is that there is no answer. AFAIK
IPv6 isn't really ready to auto-magically open firewalls, This is
generally something you you would only want to happen for consumers.
and not any business/enterprise network.
When the IPv6 has gotten enough traction that broadb
UNCLASSIFIED
Hi Patrick,
We've run into the same problem when copying from a V240 to a T2000 over
the network. The T2000's are *terrible* at this. The V240's are much
better. We will never buy the T2000's again.
Our solution was to run tar with a blocking factor. Even copying from 1
filesy
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Brian Mathis <
brian.mathis+lo...@betteradmin.com> wrote:
> Others seem to have fixated on using multiple rsyncs. The more I look
> at it the more I don't think rsync is the right tool for the initial
> copy. Use 'tar' and blast it out.
So, my very rudimentary
Ok, that other thread got kind of out of control. So let's try this
question again, in a different way:
Given: When using IPv6, some people will use NAT, others won't. Each
person can make their own decision. If you want to dispute that, please
start a new thread instead of this one. I've had
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Patrick Cable wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Brian
> Mathis wrote:
[...]
>> - How do you know it's not the external interface? It's possible on
>> your other write tests you were hitting local cache.
>
> My "test" was rsyncing a two different user's $H
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Brian Mathis <
brian.mathis+lo...@betteradmin.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not clear if you are rsyncing between 2 boxes over a network, or
> if you have all your devices "directly" mounted on the same system.
> However, here are some options:
>
The iSCSI arrays are on this
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Patrick Cable wrote:
> I just set up and installed my very first NetApp. I'm pretty happy about it.
> Unfortunately, my existing data is stored on four iSCSI devices chained off
> of a Sun T2000. I seem to be getting 6MB/sec on the rsync, which is painful
> when yo
integer processors? IIRC T2000 uses UltraSPARC
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 17:02, Brodie, Kent wrote:
> Not to mention the T2000 has a 4/8-core 1Ghz integer processor; it's not
> your NORMAL box. It's designed with high threading in mind and only
> certain application loads work well (REALLY WELL
Not to mention the T2000 has a 4/8-core 1Ghz integer processor; it's not
your NORMAL box. It's designed with high threading in mind and only
certain application loads work well (REALLY WELL) on this box.I'd
therefore echo the recommendation(s) for multiple rsyncs.
---
The pithy ruminations from "Singer X.J. Wang" on "Re:
[lopsa-tech] rsync from a Sun T2000" were:
=> My initial theory is that you're CPU bound ATM. The rsync program is a
=> single process which cannot use multiple CPUs. I recommend Patrick's idea of
=> multiple processes.
I'd recommend multipl
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:30:33PM -0400, Singer X.J. Wang wrote:
> My initial theory is that you're CPU bound ATM. The rsync program is a
> single process which cannot use multiple CPUs. I recommend Patrick's idea of
> multiple processes.
IIRC, rsync ends up with multiple processes per job:
>Fro
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 04:22:24PM -0400, Patrick Cable wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
> That could work - i have mulitple $HOME folders (home1, home2, home3...).
> But was your average speed still 6MB/sec? I transferred a couple hundred
> gigs to the NetApp from ano
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Singer X.J. Wang wrote:
> My initial theory is that you're CPU bound ATM. The rsync program is a
> single process which cannot use multiple CPUs. I recommend Patrick's idea of
> multiple processes.
>
You mean Jeff's idea :)
According to "sar," my system has gener
My initial theory is that you're CPU bound ATM. The rsync program is a
single process which cannot use multiple CPUs. I recommend Patrick's idea of
multiple processes.
Singer
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:22, Patrick Cable wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
>
>> I've m
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
> I've moved 15TB with rsync and I needed to split it up into multiple
> rsync processes based on top level directories.
>
That could work - i have mulitple $HOME folders (home1, home2, home3...).
But was your average speed still 6MB/sec? I tr
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:53:23PM -0400, Patrick Cable wrote:
> Unfortunately, my existing data is stored on four iSCSI devices chained off
> of a Sun T2000. I seem to be getting 6MB/sec on the rsync, which is painful
> when you're sitting on about 15TB of data.
I've moved 15TB with rsync and I n
I just set up and installed my very first NetApp. I'm pretty happy about it.
Unfortunately, my existing data is stored on four iSCSI devices chained off
of a Sun T2000. I seem to be getting 6MB/sec on the rsync, which is painful
when you're sitting on about 15TB of data.
The external interface is
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Dan Foster wrote:
> To summarize Derek's position: IPv4 NAT fails safe, IPv6 -- not so much.
It's also a defense in depth, the NAT and the firewall on IPV6 each
provide security.
I'm also concerned about how much information about my internal network
that could leak out ov
Hot Diggety! Dan Foster was rumored to have written:
>
> I'm still undecided, though with reasonable change control and cross
> verification procedures, I think I'd probably find it to be an
> acceptable risk for use of IPv6 NAT given needs.
*sigh*
I _meant_ to say: IPv6 sans NAT...
One of thes
On Mar 30, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Dan Foster wrote:
> To summarize Derek's position: IPv4 NAT fails safe, IPv6 -- not so much.
Exactly.
D
___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided
Hot Diggety! Derek J. Balling was rumored to have written:
>
> > answering the question: WOULD it have ever forwarded if you had
> > routable IPs behind it? Did RFC1918 ever really save you? And if
> > not, why hold onto it?
>
> If I never had a specific rule "forward a connection inward to
> $PR
On Mar 30, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Tracy Reed wrote:
> Never, not once in my 17 year career managing firewalls, have I found
> that a misconfigured firewall was accidentally forwarding. Have you?
Yes. I've found places where someone fat-fingered an ALLOW rule and had
accidentally allowed MUCH larger s
On Mar 30, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
> Also, you keep citing firewall misconfiguration as a reason to do
> other things the wrong way. Once you bring that up, your argument
> becomes invalid since you could say that about anything. "What do you
> mean I don't have backups, I was *def
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:08:22PM -0400, Derek J. Balling spake thusly:
> Unroutable addresses like RFC1918-space don't suddenly manage to be
> routable across the world to my servers. It takes a MUCH more heinous
> misconfiguration (static NATs, port-forwarding, etc.) for a
> misconfigured NAT to
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>>> I think plenty of people know the difference between NAT and a firewall.
>>> The issue is that if you're in some hacker-hellhole in southeast asia
>>> and my server's IP address
On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>> I think plenty of people know the difference between NAT and a firewall.
>> The issue is that if you're in some hacker-hellhole in southeast asia
>> and my server's IP address is "192.168.1.14", and I haven't
>> *specifically* enabled som
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 12:30 -0400, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> >> about security. People have come to rely on their IPv4 NAT as a form
> >> of inbound packet filter.
> > Incorrectly, yes. Because they don't know the difference between NAT
On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>> about security. People have come to rely on their IPv4 NAT as a form
>> of inbound packet filter.
>
> Incorrectly, yes. Because they don't know the difference between NAT
> and a firewall.
I think plenty of people know the difference
> "Yves" == Yves Dorfsman writes:
Yves> -half of the people thought it was important to hide the internal
Yves> network and wanted to carry on some form of NATing with IPv6
Yves> -the other half thought firewalling was sufficient and that the
Yves> advantages of each device using its own ip
On 11-03-30 08:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> One of the barriers to widespread deployment of IPv6 is fear about security.
> People have come to rely on their IPv4 NAT as a form of inbound packet filter.
> So moving forward, it seems only natural that (for people who agree with this
> policy) a
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 10:02 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> As I recall from previous discussion here and on other lists...
> One of the barriers to widespread deployment of IPv6 is fear
Yes, fear, much in relation to FURFI (fear and uncertainly resulting
from ignorance).
> about security. Pe
As I recall from previous discussion here and on other lists...
One of the barriers to widespread deployment of IPv6 is fear about security.
People have come to rely on their IPv4 NAT as a form of inbound packet
filter. So moving forward, it seems only natural that (for people who agree
with t
33 matches
Mail list logo
