search for: netpip

...lay. Second it can cause connection at step 3 to fail if it would take a long time for ssh to setup the forwarding. Now all this can be avoided if vnc would simply use stdin/out from ssh as a communication channel and make sure that ssh would forward the remote port to it. Currently I did it using netpipes, http://web.purplefrog.com/~thoth/netpipes/netpipes.html , but it does not seem right to execute an additional process copying megabytes of tcp trafic from vncserver to stdin/out just so ssh can forward it one more time. So it would be nice if ssh can forward a port to stdin/out on its own. AFAI...

Hi, I'm trying to configure ssh to get this behaviour: ssh binds on "localhost:60110" and when a local application connect to that port, all the data are forwarded to the "server". The particular fact is that I can't use port forwarding because I don't have any pop3 daemon on the "server". In fact I'm using a pop3 script as user's shell! $

...200947 KByte/s Tx, 208788 KByte/s Rx. Packet size 4k bytes: 217239 KByte/s Tx, 208988 KByte/s Rx. Packet size 8k bytes: 225145 KByte/s Tx, 208948 KByte/s Rx. Packet size 16k bytes: 227877 KByte/s Tx, 208372 KByte/s Rx. Packet size 32k bytes: 227802 KByte/s Tx, 208122 KByte/s Rx. Done. netpipe benchmark: [...] 121: 8388605 bytes 3 times --> 1540.13 Mbps in 41554.81 usec 122: 8388608 bytes 3 times --> 1538.24 Mbps in 41605.99 usec 123: 8388611 bytes 3 times --> 1482.47 Mbps in 43171.17 usec So the network throughput is ok in round robin mode. I know...

(The list appears to have eaten my previous attempt to send this. Apologies if you receive multiple copies.) The attached patches allow you to use paravirtualised network and block interfaces from fully virtualised domains, based on Intel''s patches from a few months ago. These are significantly faster than the equivalent ioemu devices, sometimes by more than an order of magnitude.

...would be ok. I followed different HowTOs http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html#AEN298 http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.loadshare.html or something like: ip route...equalize via... but I never got a higher transfer rate between the two hosts than max 115Mb/s with benchmarks like netpipe or netio. I guess the route cache might be a problem here, or maybe I''m missing some other important part. I''m running Debian Etch with Kernel 2.6.21 from backports.org. Any ideas what I''m missing, or if it''s possible at all? Thanks, Ralf

Hi, how about to provide a simple way to forward raw file descriptors through ssh tunnels. something which may provide a way to write something like : (echo 3; read > out3) |& exec 3<&p 4>&p echo 5 >| out5 exec 5<> out5 echo 1 | ssh -d 3:rd -d 4:wr -d 5:rw ' read <&3; echo $REPLY >&4 read; echo $REPLY read <&5; echo $REPLY >&5

...19 serious Bug #778019 [src:multimon] multimon: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > severity 778020 serious Bug #778020 [src:mz] mz: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > severity 778024 serious Bug #778024 [src:netpipes] netpipes: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > severity 778025 serious Bug #778025 [src:netrek-client-cow] netrek-client-cow: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > severity 778029 serious Bug #778029 [src:nsis...

...mportant Bug #778019 [src:multimon] multimon: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' > severity 778020 important Bug #778020 [src:mz] mz: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' > severity 778024 important Bug #778024 [src:netpipes] netpipes: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' > severity 778025 important Bug #778025 [src:netrek-client-cow] netrek-client-cow: ftbfs with GCC-5 Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' > severity 778026 important Bug #778026 [src:ni...