search for: punching

Hi, I read about the invitation protocol that will be introduced in 1.1pre8. Is there any mechanism of UDP hole punching to establish a VPN behind NAT? Cheers, Nik -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. -------------- n?chster Teil -------------- Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt... URL: <http://www.tinc-vpn.org/pipermail/tinc/attachments/20130804/a714cc8e/a...

...upporting ZERO_RANGE (e.g. NFS 4.2) or > block device on kernel < 4.9, we used to call fallocate() for every > zero, fail with EOPNOTSUPP, and fallback to manual zeroing. When > trimming, we used to try unsupported fallocate() on every call. > > Change file handle to remember if punching holes or zeroing range are > supported, and avoid unsupported calls. > > - can_trim changed to report the actual capability once we tried to > punch a hole. I don't think this is useful yet. The documentation states that filters (or the nbdkit engine itself) are free to cache...

...e number of other tinc nodes that can then establish direct data with it. Also, I have two tinc nodes behind a domestic gateway and one of them is doing direct data to a tinc node that is behind a NAT with no explicit port forwarding, the other is relaying. This is just the way it is with NAT hole punching, I suppose. (there are more than A,B+C in my real world setup) > (This whole process is quite clever and very well done IMHO - Guus > gets the credit for this fantastic job.) > Yes indeed!

I have a number of datasets that are multipunch column-binary format. Does anyone have any advice on how to read this into R? Thanks. David

...using file systems not supporting ZERO_RANGE (e.g. NFS 4.2) or block device on kernel < 4.9, we used to call fallocate() for every zero, fail with EOPNOTSUPP, and fallback to manual zeroing. When trimming, we used to try unsupported fallocate() on every call. Change file handle to remember if punching holes or zeroing range are supported, and avoid unsupported calls. - can_trim changed to report the actual capability once we tried to punch a hole. I don't think this is useful yet. - zero changed to: 1. If we can punch hole and may trim, try PUNCH_HOLE 2. If we can zero range, try ZER...

Wasn't there a TV series in the 1960s about a US soldier who got made up to general thanks to the accidental over punching of paper tape? Regards, Martin, >-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On >Behalf Of Always Learning >Sent: 10 July 2014 11:43 >To: CentOS mailing list >Subject: Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ? > &...

This is the second version to support efficient zero for block devices on older kernels (e.g. RHEL 7.5), and file systems that do not support yet FALLOC_FS_ZERO_RANGE (e.g. NFS 4.2). Changes since v1: - Split to smaller patches - Skip linux only includes on other systems - Skip code using BLKZEROOUT if the macro is not defined - Try BLKZEROOUT only if the offset and count are aligned to device

...g. NFS 4.2) or > > block device on kernel < 4.9, we used to call fallocate() for every > > zero, fail with EOPNOTSUPP, and fallback to manual zeroing. When > > trimming, we used to try unsupported fallocate() on every call. > > > > Change file handle to remember if punching holes or zeroing range are > > supported, and avoid unsupported calls. > > > > - can_trim changed to report the actual capability once we tried to > > punch a hole. I don't think this is useful yet. > > The documentation states that filters (or the nbdkit engine...

...d a port to > the Windows desktop and use that, but it seems a bit longwinded. Or I > could do the tinc-over-tinc, I guess, but I'm a bit concerned about > latency. > tinc is fully capable of traversing NATs automatically and transparently; it implements techniques such as UDP hole punching that are specifically designed to do just that. The only requirement is that you have *some* nodes on your graph that are not subject to NATs. In your case that would be your linux boxes. If you add your laptop and Windows machine to that graph by establishing tinc connections between them and the...

...RO_RANGE yet fall back to manual > zeroing. > > We can avoid this by combining two fallocate calls: > > fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNHCH_HOLE) "PUNCH" > fallocate(0) > +#ifdef FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE > + /* If we can punch hole but may not trim, we can combine punching hole and > + fallocate to zero a range. This is expected to be more efficient than > + writing zeros manually. */ Although we can fix this before pushing so there's no need to submit a new version, it's better if the comment style sticks to the same as used elsewhere, ie:...

Even if the hole punching is executed, the modification time of the file is not updated. So, current time is set to inode. Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh <t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index 110d3cb..15fecc1 100644 ---...

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588 Bug ID: 11588 Summary: missing option: preallocate for all files except for sparse Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: core

...upporting ZERO_RANGE (e.g. NFS 4.2) or > block device on kernel < 4.9, we used to call fallocate() for every > zero, fail with EOPNOTSUPP, and fallback to manual zeroing. When > trimming, we used to try unsupported fallocate() on every call. > > Change file handle to remember if punching holes or zeroing range are > supported, and avoid unsupported calls. > > - zero changed to: > 1. If we can punch hole and may trim, try PUNCH_HOLE > 2. If we can zero range, try ZERO_RANGE > 3. Fall back to manual writing > > - trim changed to: > 1. If we can pu...

Because of space limitations and because of the location of the punch-down blocks, my * server is located on the shelf in a coat closet. Sadly, there is not enough space (or ventilation) for the monitor and keyboard. This will all change when we move to new quarters, but... Does anyone have experience running Linux/Asterisk without a monitor? What, if any, are the issues? TIA

Hello list, I want to listen to voicemails on my * box from a phone that is not local to my pbx. I.e., from my cellphone or my PSTN work line etc. I'm aware that I can forward VM to email or use a web interface but that is not always practical. Other than doing an IVR type arrangement or a phone number dedicated to VM access is there a way to do this? On my old POTS line I used to be

We're currently support two paths from VFS to preallocate unwritten extents(from FS_IOC_RESVSP, or fallocate()), likewise, behavior of punching-hole should be treated as the same, this patch tries to teach file_ioctl() to handle FS_IOC_UNRESVSP, underlying filesystem like ocfs2 is wise enough to do the rest of work;-) Signed-off-by: Tristan Ye <tristan.ye at oracle.com> --- fs/ioctl.c | 10 +++++++--- include/linux/fa...

We're currently support two paths from VFS to preallocate unwritten extents(from FS_IOC_RESVSP, or fallocate()), likewise, behavior of punching-hole should be treated as the same, this patch tries to teach file_ioctl() to handle FS_IOC_UNRESVSP, underlying filesystem like ocfs2 is wise enough to do the rest of work;-) Signed-off-by: Tristan Ye <tristan.ye at oracle.com> --- fs/ioctl.c | 10 +++++++--- include/linux/fa...

Any tips or guidance on improving the probability of being able to connect to a Tinc daemon. I am currently on a guest wifi at a hospital for my in-laws family. Wanting to pass time and be semi productive, I tried to VPN back to my private networks but it appears the default port Tinc users is blocked. Here is what I know about their firewall:

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More for...

Hello, I have an Adit 600 (3 FXS cards) hooked up to a digium T1 card in my asterisk box. I 'connected' the slots to the a:1 T1 interfaces via the command line. The slots (3 fxs) are configured with 'ls' signaling. I configured the T1 card with the same line settings as the T1 interfaces on the adit and I get green lights on both the T1 card and the T1 interface on the adit (so