On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Jason Healy wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
>
>> Try rsync again, adding these options to your invocation:
>> --bwlimit=0 --whole-file
>
> Also consider --sockopts, as your network stack may limit the amount of data
> you can have i
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 09:56:11AM -0400, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
>
> On 3/31/11 9:20 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
Apparently when I unwisely omitted the attribution, you
picked up what I /quoted/ as what I /said/. I didn't say that.
What I did say was:
Try rsync again, adding thes
On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
> Try rsync again, adding these options to your invocation:
> --bwlimit=0 --whole-file
Also consider --sockopts, as your network stack may limit the amount of data
you can have in flight:
rsync --sockopts=SO_SNDBUF=400,SO_RCVBUF=4
Interesting. We've been working on Drupal development, and while the
T2000 is great for user loads, the developers hate the T2000s. They
want fast responses to their changes, and the T2000s just lag a bit on
every change. Ideally we'd have amd64 for development then move to
T2000 for product
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2011-03-30 at 14:08 -0400, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>> Not at all. Firewalls get misconfigured by accident. It happens, we're all
>> human. And then you *think* you've got security, because you're trusting
>> your broken firewall, but you
On 3/31/11 9:20 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
>> 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.
Apples and Oranges. Use the appropriate server for the
> 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
> filesystem to another
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 03:59 -0400, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2011-03-30 at 14:34 -0500, Matt Lawrence wrote:
> > 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 ea
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:07:28PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Therefore, a stateful firewall packet filter at the perimeter is necessary
> to block inbound unsolicited traffic.
>
> Therefore, p2p in general is broken. Unless
>
Having nodes as peers implies that they can participate i
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2011-03-30 at 14:08 -0400, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>> Not at all. Firewalls get misconfigured by accident. It happens, we're all
>> human. And then you *think* you've got security, because you're trusting
>> your broken firewall, but you don't.
>>
>>
On 2011-03-30 at 14:34 -0500, Matt Lawrence wrote:
> 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.
No. The firewall is what drops the
On 2011-03-30 at 14:08 -0400, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> Not at all. Firewalls get misconfigured by accident. It happens, we're all
> human. And then you *think* you've got security, because you're trusting your
> broken firewall, but you don't.
>
> Unroutable addresses like RFC1918-space don't s
12 matches
Mail list logo
