Search Results

Search found 40420 results on 1617 pages for 'power line networking'.

Page 266/1617 | < Previous Page | 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273  | Next Page >

  • Hard Disk based storage library

    - by Ryan M.
    We have a Tandberg T24 tape device to handle all of our long term backups right now. We decided that we're not backing up nearly everything that we would like to and that we still have a lot of vulnerabilities. To get to where we want to be, we're going to have to back up a lot more servers than we're currently doing. All of our internal servers have some sort of directly attached drive (I.e. LaCie Raid box or a simple portable hard drive) doing backups, but what we want to do is get those backups off-site. The current tape drive is directly attached via SCSI to a Windows Server 2008 File Server. So to back up anything to tape, it has to be funneled through the File Server. With the current increase that we have planned, I don't think that funneling everything through the File Server is the right course of action and I'm thinking that maybe a second backup device would be more appropriate. I would like your input on a couple of ideas. 1) Doing HDD instead of tape. Tape is hard to deal with. We have a regular rotation cycle, so they don't need years and years of shelf life, so I'm wondering if something HDD-based would be better. 2) Something accessible over the network. Instead of having the device directly attached to one specific machine, have it available to all the servers over the network. Our File Server is a 12-disk raid 6 set up.. I was thinking something like that, but with no raid involved, all disks are stand alone so they can be used/installed/removed on an individual basis. Does any such thing exist? Thanks for your ideas. I'm really interested to hear about some of the solutions you guys are using..

    Read the article

  • KVM virtual machine unable to access internet

    - by peachykeen
    I have KVM set up to run a virtual machine (Windows Home Server 2011 acting as a build agent) on a dedicated server (CentOS 6.3). Recently, I ran updates on the host, and the virtual machine is now unable to connect to the internet. The virtual network is running through NAT, the host has an interface (eth0:0) set up with a static IP (virt-manager shows the network and its IP correctly), and all connections to that IP should be sent to the guest. The host and guest can ping one another, but the guest cannot ping anything above the host, nor can I ping the guest from anywhere else (I can ping the host). Results from the guest to another server under my control and from an external system to the guest both return "Destination port unreachable". Running tcpdump on the host and destination shows the host replying to the ping, but the destination never sees it (it doesn't even look like the host is bothering to send it on at all, which leads me to suspect iptables). The ping output matches that, listing replies from 192.168.100.1. The guest can resolve DNS, however, which I find rather odd. The guest's network settings (connection TCP/IPv4 properties) are set up with a static local IP (192.168.100.128), mask of 255.255.255.0, and gateway and DNS at 192.168.100.1. When originally setting up the vm/net, I had set up some iptables rules to enable bridging, but after my hosting company complained about the bridge, I set up a new virtual net using NAT and believe I removed all the rules. The VM's network was working perfectly fine for the last few months, until yesterday. I haven't heard anything from the hosting company, didn't change anything on the guest, so as far as I know, nothing else has changed (unfortunately the list of packages updated has since fallen off scrollback and I didn't note it down).

    Read the article

  • Repeated requests on our server?

    - by pitty.platsch
    I encountered something strange in the access log of our Apache server which I cannot explain. Requests for webpages that I or my colleagues do from the office's Windows network get repeated by another IP (that we don't know) a couple of seconds later. The user agent repeating our requests is Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2) Has anyone an idea? Update: I've got some more information now. The referrer of the replicate is set to the URL I requested before and it's not the exact same request as the protocol version is changed from 'HTTP/1.1' to 'HTTP/1.0'. The IP is not just one, it's just one of a subnet (80.40.134.*). It's just the first request to a resource that's get repeated, so it seems the "spy" is building up some kind of cache of visited places. The repeater is also picky. I tried randomly URLs with different HTTP status codes and different file patterns. 301s and 200s are redone, 404s not. Image extensions seem to be ignored. While doing my tests I discovered that this behavior seems to be common as I found other clients visiting just after the first requests: 66.249.73.184 - - [25/Oct/2012:10:51:33 +0100] "GET /foobar/ HTTP/1.1" 200 10952 "-" "Mediapartners-Google" 50.17.125.180 - - [25/Oct/2012:10:51:33 +0100] "GET /foobar/ HTTP/1.1" 200 41312 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; proximic; +http://www.proximic.com/info/spider.php)" I wasn't aware about this practice, so I don't see it that much as a threat anymore. I still want to find out who this is, so any further help is appreciated. I'll try later if this also happens if I query some other server where I have access to the access logs and will update here then.

    Read the article

  • Why my router alows to connect to the internet only after plugging the cord to laptop?

    - by gennad
    Hi all! I'm using Ubuntu 10.10. I have D-link dir-320 wireless router. When I turn on my laptop Lenovo G555, I'm trying to connect to router by it's usually unsuccessful. But if I'll pull the ethernet cord from the router and insert it into my laptop, everything will work well. And if after that I'll pull the ethernet cord from the laptop and insert it into the router, my laptop connects to the router and it will have Internet access via wifi. How to make the laptop directly connects to the Internet after booting without switching the cord?

    Read the article

  • Trying to communicate between virtual servers on the same host through ipv6

    - by Daniele Testa
    I am running KVM on a host with 2 virtual servers. Each virtual server has a own bridge interface on the host VPS1 has br1 VPS2 has br2 Each virtual server has a own ipv4 and a ipv6. The virtual servers has no problem communicating with internet or with eachother through ipv4. However, with ipv6, they can only communicate with internet and NOT with eachother. The host can ping the 2 virtual servers without any problems, but they cannot ping eachother. iptables has been set to ACCEPT on all chains, so it is not the problem. VPS1 has ipv6 = 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 VPS2 has ipv6 = 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5 the host has the following routes set: ip route add 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 dev br1 ip route add 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5 dev br2 When I do a ping from VPS2 to VPS1, I see the following on the host: tcpdump -i br1 15:32:27.704404 IP6 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 > ff02::1:ff00:5: ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, who has 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5, length 32 So it seems like the host is seeing the request coming from VPS1 on br1. But for some reason, it does not forward it to br2. Instead it is asking where the destination IP is through ipv6 multicast. Anyone has a clue what is going on? I find this very strange, as it is working fine with ipv4 with the exact same settings and routes.

    Read the article

  • Route web browsing through a separate iterface

    - by tkane
    I'd like to route web browsing through the wlan0 interface and the rest through eth1. Can you please help me with the iptables commands to achieve this. Below is my configuration. Thank you :) Edit: This is about desktop configuration not a web server set up. Basically I want to use one of my connections to browse the web and the other one for everything else. ifconfig: eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1d:09:59:80:70 inet addr:192.168.2.164 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21d:9ff:fe59:8070/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:33 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:4771 (4.7 KB) TX bytes:7081 (7.0 KB) Interrupt:17 wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1c:bf:90:8a:6d inet addr:192.168.1.70 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21c:bfff:fe90:8a6d/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:77 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:102 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:14256 (14.2 KB) TX bytes:14764 (14.7 KB) route: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 2 0 0 wlan0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 wlan0 default adsl 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1

    Read the article

  • linux shutdown hang with wifi cifs mounts

    - by Sirex
    Since fedora 15 (and now with 16) it seems that wireless clients take a long while to shutdown when they have network filesystems mounted at shutdown time. I've pushed out a cifs mount via puppet, and all clients have it, including those on wireless. If say a laptop is on a wired connection it shuts down just fine, but if its on the wifi at the time (and no wired connection) it'll hang at the fedora f logo. I'm not sure if its indefinite or just a really long while, but ill give it a test when i shut this machine down in a second. Needless to say its pretty annoying, so is there a way of causing the machine to shutdown even if network connectivity has been lost at unmount time, -- or an official way to reorder events so the wireless card is kept up until after the unmount happens during the shut down process (short of writing a custom script for shutdowns which is a bit of a kludge) ? It does this on multiple machines, and all started doing it when we went from fedora 14 to 15. It was such an obvious issue i'd kind of assumed someone must have reported it or there was an easy fix, but i've not discovered anything yet. Additional info: I can confirm that manually unmounting the mounts then shutting down (sudo shutdown or the xfce shutdown button) will shutdown just fine, it only hangs if the mounts are still mounted The puppet config that sets the mount looks like this (now with the _netdev entry that is indeed pushed to clients successfully, but makes no difference): file { "/mnt/share": ensure = directory,} mount { "/mnt/share": atboot = true, ensure = mounted, remounts = false, fstype = cifs, device = "//srv/share", options = "user,gid=shareusers,uid=${user},file_mode=0700,dir_mode=0700,credentials=/root/.smbcreds,_netdev", require = [ File["/mnt/share"], Group["shareusers"] ], } }

    Read the article

  • WIFI connection not working

    - by chris verwey
    We have a wireless network that is set to secure, it does show as unsecure on my laptop, and desktop connect to router but no internet access. other computers on the network require password to connect to router and get internet access. Iphone and Ipads connect using password and also have internet access, what can I do to fix it. Laptop = dell e6410 Router = netgear The laptop work on other wireless networks without any problem

    Read the article

  • Window 7 image in vmware will allow network connection out but not http

    - by Ormis
    I am currently trying to create a set of images to deploy on my network, but I've run in to a snag. When I create my own Windows 7 image I can successfully use NAT for connecting to the network but whenever I try to access a webpage I get nothing. To be more specific, All firewalls/iptables are disabled on my host machine, my virtual machine, and my network. I can do lookups and all addresses respond correctly (i'm even using Google's DNS). On the host OS i have full connectivity. On the virtual machine I can ping any device I want and all addresses resolve correctly. Within a browser I cannot reach any page via hostname or IP. I feel almost like port 80 is being blocked but i can't find any reason this would be the case. If anyone has had this occur before, I would love some insight to the problem. I initially asked this on stackoverflow and now my eyes are now opened up to superuser. Thank you for any help you can provide.

    Read the article

  • WinXP workgroup, 3 routers 3 computers

    - by Silvera
    I have 3 computers with WinXP x86, and 3 Cisco 1800 series routers. I'm trying to create a workgroup so that the 3 computers can share files with eachother. They can ping eachother (without any internet connection), and the routers setup is correctly configured (with interfaces, ip adresses, and ports). But none of the computers can see eachother, even though they are on the same network. My first question would be - can it be done the way it is currently configured - and, if yes, how, or can anyone point me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Server not resolving after restart

    - by DomainSoil
    I restarted our server today, and now cannot for the life of me get anything to resolve... I suspect it has something to do with our routes. I've tried numerous Google results to no avail. Here is as far as I've gotten: [root@www ~]# route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.101 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.101 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 Things you need to know: Our server (CentOS 6.3) runs two virtual machines, one live, and one development. They mirror each other as much as possible, but I can't find where I've went wrong with the live server. The dev server works fine. [root@www ~]# ifconfig eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx inet6 addr: xxxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:118206 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:165 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:7825749 (7.4 Mib) TX bytes:7146 (69.2 KiB) Interrupt:28 [root@www ~]# /etc/init.d/network status Configured devices: lo Auto eth0 Currently active devices: lo eth1 If there is any other information you need, please don't hesitate to ask!

    Read the article

  • why would resetting the Netgear N300 router fix my Win 7 laptop's slow wifi?

    - by rjnagle
    In the past day the wifi download speeds of my Win 7 HP 64 bit laptop have slowed considerably. I am trying to troubleshoot the problem and to figure out whether it's hardware related (i.e., is the Intel(R) Centrino(R) Wireless-N 2230 the problem?) or router related. I have a Netgear N300 router connected to my modem. I'm using Speedtest to measure my speed. First, during my problem state, my ipad can download and upload at normal speeds. It's only my Win 7 laptop which is having problems. Because my ipad downloads at normal speeds, that would tell me that the problem is specific to the laptop (either HW or SW). But when I restarted my Netgear router, the laptop wifi problems disappeared. That just doesn't make sense. If we know that one device can connect properly to the router, why would a laptop have problems? What are some possible reasons why this might happen? Also, during my problem state, I noticed that on my laptop upload speeds were faster than my download speeds. Anybody have a guess about what might cause upload speeds on one device to be faster than another? Is there any actions i could take (or options to enable) so this problem won't occur. (I initially thought my problem might be software related or memory related -- Norton AV or browser plugins. But even after I disabled everything and made sure memory footprint was minimal, the slowdown was still occurring -- and it solved itself altogether when the router was reset).

    Read the article

  • Lots of dropped packages when tcpdumping on busy interface

    - by Frands Hansen
    My challenge I need to do tcpdumping of a lot of data - actually from 2 interfaces left in promiscuous mode that are able to see a lot of traffic. To sum it up Log all traffic in promiscuous mode from 2 interfaces Those interfaces are not assigned an IP address pcap files must be rotated per ~1G When 10 TB of files are stored, start truncating the oldest What I currently do Right now I use tcpdump like this: tcpdump -n -C 1000 -z /data/compress.sh -i any -w /data/livedump/capture.pcap $FILTER The $FILTER contains src/dst filters so that I can use -i any. The reason for this is, that I have two interfaces and I would like to run the dump in a single thread rather than two. compress.sh takes care of assigning tar to another CPU core, compress the data, give it a reasonable filename and move it to an archive location. I cannot specify two interfaces, thus I have chosen to use filters and dump from any interface. Right now, I do not do any housekeeping, but I plan on monitoring disk and when I have 100G left I will start wiping the oldest files - this should be fine. And now; my problem I see dropped packets. This is from a dump that has been running for a few hours and collected roughly 250 gigs of pcap files: 430083369 packets captured 430115470 packets received by filter 32057 packets dropped by kernel <-- This is my concern How can I avoid so many packets being dropped? These things I did already try or look at Changed the value of /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max and /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_default which did indeed help - actually it took care of just around half of the dropped packets. I have also looked at gulp - the problem with gulp is, that it does not support multiple interfaces in one process and it gets angry if the interface does not have an IP address. Unfortunately, that is a deal breaker in my case. Next problem is, that when the traffic flows though a pipe, I cannot get the automatic rotation going. Getting one huge 10 TB file is not very efficient and I don't have a machine with 10TB+ RAM that I can run wireshark on, so that's out. Do you have any suggestions? Maybe even a better way of doing my traffic dump altogether.

    Read the article

  • 8 Character Device names

    - by Lee Harrison
    Is there any reason to still use only 8 characters in a device name? My boss still uses this rule for printers, computers, routers, servers... basicly any device connected to our network. This leads to massive confusion among users, especially when it comes to printer. It also leads to confusion from an administration standpoint because every device is named vaguely, and similarly(its only 8 characters!). I understand the history behind this and compatibility with older systems, but none of our legacy systems will ever make use of PS-printers and Wifi networks. Is there any reason to still do this, and what is everyone else doing when it comes to naming network devices at an enterprise level?

    Read the article

  • Router won't connect to computer over cable

    - by yyy
    I have a Thompson 784 router that connects to the Internet. It works nicely enough. What is wrong is that I have a shielded Cat 5e cable that goes from my room to the router that's in a another room (~30 metres). Both ends are the same; both ends are done nicely; I've tested it with a cable tester and every wire connects. However, when i connect my computer to my router neither one will find the other. So would anyone be nice and please explain what is wrong. p.s.: I have tried many different cable ends (currently it on standard/A), the cable is tested both ways (as it should be) and yes I'm at my wit's end =(

    Read the article

  • pfSense routing between two routers with shared network

    - by JohnCC
    I have a network set-up using two pfSense routers arranged like this:- DMZ1 WAN1 WAN2 DMZ2 | | | | | | | | \___ PF1 PF2___/ | | | | \___TRUSTED___/ Each pfSense router has its own separate WAN connection, and a separate DMZ network attached to it. They share a common TRUSTED LAN between them. The machines on the trusted network have PF1 as their default gateway. PF1 has a static route defined to DMZ2 via PF2, and PF2 has a static route to DMZ1 via PF1. There is NAT to the WAN but internal networks (DMZ1/2 and TRUSTED) use different RFC1918 subnets. I inherited this arrangement, and all used to work fine. I made a config change to PF1 (relating to multicast), and machines on DMZ2 suddenly could not talk to TRUSTED. I rolled the change back, but the problem persisted. What I guess you'd hope would happen is that TCP packets would go DMZ2 - PF2 - TRUSTED and on return TRUSTED - PF1 - PF2 - DMZ2. That's the only way I can see it would have worked. However, PF1 drops the returning packets. I've verified this using tcpdump. I've worked around this by adding static routes to DMZ2 via PF2 to the servers on TRUSTED, but some devices on there do not support static routes so this is not ideal. Is there way to make this arrangement work decently, or is the design inherently flawed? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to map static IP to computer name instead of MAC address?

    - by xenon
    I have a number of computers with different hostnames connected to the network. They currently hold a static IP address based on their MAC address. In other words, the static IP address is mapped to their MAC address. This gives rise to a problem and that's when we swap the harddrive from one computer to another, the MAC address becomes different and the application we are running on the harddrive has problem getting the right static IP for it to work. We can't configure the IP address in the application all the time. And changing the static IP addresses to re-map to the computer's new MAC address can be quite a pain. Since all the computers have a unique computer name as their hostname, is it possible to configure such that when these computers grab IP addresses from the DHCP server, DHCP will learn about their hostname and assign the correct IP address? This is to say, the static IP is mapped to the computers' hostname instead of their MAC address. All the computers are running on Windows 7. Would this be possible? If so how should I go about do this?

    Read the article

  • Internet connection sharing windows server 2008 R2

    - by This is it
    I have one windows server 2008 r2, and that server has 4 network interfaces (3 private, 1 internet connection). I would like to share internet connection with other 3 networks. Windows server firewall should make logs of data that is transfered. It should not be possible to connect directly to private networks from internet. How could I do it? Edit: I tried with NAT in RRAS, but it doesn't work. Here is the configuration: Server: IP private:192.168.0.1 IP public: xx.xx.xx.xx client IP:192.168.0.2 Default gateway: 192.168.0.1 Public and private interface added in NAT section of RRAS.

    Read the article

  • TCP/IP communication between Hyper-V host and guests

    - by Tedd Hansen
    This may be a simple one. :) I have a simple Hyper-V setup with a few guest os running. The host has 1 physical network adapter with a static IP assigned to it. The guests have network adapters assigned to "Internet" (Hyper-V network) which is bound to the physical host network adapter (Hyper-V "External" connection type). I am not able to communicate (ping or anything else) between guests and host. I've checked firewall and it seems fine (ports open from anywhere still don't work). I'm trying to communicate with the hosts IP assigned to the same physical interface that the guests are sharing. Guests can communicate between them just fine. I can't seem to find any relevant setting (I might just be missing it). So my questions: How do I fix it so host and guests can communicate?

    Read the article

  • Cant ping ip on LAN. Port forward works fine though.

    - by Anoop
    I have a Solaris 11 machine running inside the LAN. It is a default install. I can access the machine and ping it if I ssh into my router (if it matters, it is running dd-wrt). I cannot ping the Solaris machine using ip address from any other machine inside the LAN. But if I setup port forwarding everything works perfectly fine. I can also use the port forward from outside the LAN (from my office) - which is good and how I want it to be. I can SSH and ping and do pretty much everything else from outside as well as inside but only as long as I have the port forwarded from my router. Why would I not be able to ping or ssh or even access the Solaris 11 machine from within the LAN - I have checked and couldn't find any firewall running on the Solaris 11 box. I even tried disabling every known firewall on the router (dd-wrt, it had something like SPI firewall running). I even tried setting a static IP for my Solaris box but all in vain! Please help me understand how and why this happens!! Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Switches with large MAC address table?

    - by user1290200
    Does anyone know which switches have a large MAC address table ? I see most switches having only 8K, but we need to store way, way more than that (hundreds of K). I know this may seem odd, but trust me, there's no other way we can make our setup work. The only thing we seem to be able to do is install Juniper routers that store up to 1M addresses, but that will get quite costly and we'd rather avoid doing that.

    Read the article

  • Kill UDP port that has no process?

    - by Chocohound
    I can't bind to UDP port 500 from my code (yes I'm running w/ sudo). The port is reported as "already in use" (Mac os X), but doesn't have an associated process: $ sudo netstat -na | grep "udp.*\.500\>" udp4 0 0 192.168.50.181.500 *.* udp4 0 0 192.168.29.166.500 *.* But sudo lsof doesn't show a process on port 500 (ie sudo lsof -i:500 -P reports nothing). How can I unbind port 500 so I can use it again? I believe I have a bad VPN client that isn't cleaning up after itself, but I can't get rid of this without rebooting the machine.

    Read the article

  • Prevent Linux from processing incoming ICMP Host unreachable packets

    - by bbc
    I have a test setup with one host on a network (10.1.0.0/16) talking via TCP to another one on another network (10.2.0.0/16) and a gateway in the middle. Sometimes, the TCP connection is lost and while scanning the trace (pcap), I looks like it's because of just one ICMP Host unreachable message sent by the gateway to 10.1.0.1 at some point. 10.1.0.1 then sends a TCP RST to 10.2.0.1. In my opinion, the gateway (pfSense) is broken or not configured correctly but anyway, for testing purposes, I'd like to block this kind of ICMP on the host (10.1.0.1) before it has an influence on my TCP connection (or does it? I'm not even sure). I've tried iptables: iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p icmp --icmp-type host-unreachable -j DROP but while it does a good job at preventing userpace applications like ping from receiving these ICMP messages, my TCP connection still comes to an end when the alleged "killer ICMP packet" is sent by the gateway. Am I right about how it is processed? If yes, then what can I do to achieve my goal?

    Read the article

  • Connecting guest OS to host os internet connection hyper-v

    - by autrevo
    Hyper-V internal switch and VM OS interfacing with Guest OS and IP Cofiguration When configuring hyper-v internal switch, Apart from physical lan adapter (say adapter 1), I see another LAN adapter (say adapter 2) added in host os. And we already have one virtual lan adapter in guest os, (say adapter 3) . adapter 1 is connected to internet with defaulty gateway say, 192.168.0.254 and uses class C IP. By con configuring adapter 2 and 3, I need to acheive two purpose - Access internet in guest os. seemlessly share files & folders between guest and host OS. Please, suggest, What is the best way to configure IP of these three adapters ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273  | Next Page >