search for: redudancy

...er 'samba' ldap timeout failover parameter instead of different network timeouts corresponding to different network architectures....Don't you think ? Has anybody ever test LDAP redundancy with different IP subnets ? >> Hi, Redhat 4, Samba server 3.0.22. We are testing LDAP redudancy. We have 2 LDAP servers. If we stop LDAP services on the first LDAP server, everything works fine : the samba server detects the failed ldap server and switch to the available LDAP server. Clients can be authenticated, everything works fine. But, if the first LDAP server is unavailable (does n...

Redudancy and recovering from a mailstore failure is one of the concerns I am trying to address where I work. Any plans to have Dovecot store emails in a database? NAS/SAN devices which do automatic replication to a second device are extremely expensive. I also don't see any distributed filesystem w...

On 7/25/19 4:07 PM, Giles Coochey wrote: > > On 25/07/2019 13:51, hw wrote: >> Hi, >> >> how can DNS reliability, as experienced by clients on the LAN who are >> sending queries, be increased? >> >> Would I have to set up some sort of cluster consisting of several >> servers all providing DNS services which is reachable under a single >> IP

Hello: I have been looking into projects that will automatically restrict hacking attempts on my servers running CentOS 5. I think the two top contenders are: DenyHosts - http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net Fail2ban - http://www.fail2ban.org >From what I see, DenyHosts only blocks based on failed SSH attempts whereas Fail2ban blocks failed attempts for other access as well. The main benefit

Is there a way to network the asterisk voicemail system between offices? We would like the ability to forward a voicemail to another user at a branch office (each office would have their own asterisk server connected via iax), I guess I would prefer not to use one central server for voicemail for redudancy and disaster recovery, but I guess I'll have to if others have gone this way and I don't have any other choice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20060131/36b6be7f/attachment.htm

Hello: According to the Red Hat Virtualization Guide, Windows Server 2003 32-bit will only run as a fully virtualized guest on an AMD64 system. I thought I have seen a lot of discussion about running paravirtualized Windows on CentOS. Is that a bad idea? Neil -- Neil Aggarwal, (281)846-8957, www.JAMMConsulting.com Will your e-commerce site go offline if you have a DB server failure, fiber

Hi, I gave up on 1.0.4 on my osx machine for the time being, but needed it on a linux machine this morning. Grabbed 1.0.4 and it seemed to build ok, but doesn't pass make check. Sorry if this is redudant information. I've seen a few posts recently and can't tell if it is or not. flac-1.0.3 on the same machine builds, checks and runs fine. thanks, mike ERROR: iterator claims

hi * users, anyone out there ever come across, worked with or heard anything about NEC's Univerge SV7000 Telephony Server? Link is at http://www.univerge.nec.com/products/list/sv7000/sv7000.html I'm just wondering whether it's as flexible, programmable and configurable as Asterisk. It also looks like they've got a whole range of IP phones

The vmbus driver dependes on ACPI and PCI subsystems. Change Kconfig to reflect this. Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz at microsoft.com> --- drivers/staging/hv/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/hv/Kconfig index 76f0756..5e0c9f6

The vmbus driver dependes on ACPI and PCI subsystems. Change Kconfig to reflect this. Signed-off-by: K. Y. Srinivasan <kys at microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz at microsoft.com> --- drivers/staging/hv/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/hv/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/hv/Kconfig index 76f0756..5e0c9f6

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:32 AM hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > I can't help it when the primary name server goes down because the UPS > fails > the self test and tells the server it has 2 minutes or so left in wich case > the server figures it needs to shut down. I wanted better UPSs ... > critical infrastructure servers should have redudant PSUs, on seperate UPSs. my

On 25/07/2019 20:39, John Pierce wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:32 AM hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > >> I can't help it when the primary name server goes down because the UPS >> fails >> the self test and tells the server it has 2 minutes or so left in wich case >> the server figures it needs to shut down. I wanted better UPSs ... >> > critical

Hi, I am planning to use Dovecot 2.0 as a Mail server for a Voicemail system. There is not much traffic so I am not concerend about scaling. However redudancy is an issue. I need to have two Dovecot servers installed on two different farms and setup HA between the two. I would prefer that the HA would be automatically. I have two different storage machines with SAN, and I can setup Layer 2 between the two farms. I am concerned with split brain scenario w...

There seems obviously quite a lot of possible setup for server clustering and redudancy, but let's say considering about three mid-range servers only with FoneBridge --- What could be the best way to setup Auto Failover Redundancy for Vicidial with Asterisk on CentOS or other Linux OS? Sam -------------------------------------------- www.SamAcosta.Net -------------- next part -...

Hi guys I'm about to embark on a project replacing a legacy single mail server running proprietary software with a cluster of Dovecot servers. We clearly need a shared mail store for these servers, but we are not happy with simply using a server running NFS as this becomes a single point of failure. What have other people used? AFAICT our options are: * A shared block device (Fibre

when do I need to use which()? > a <- c(1,2,3,4,5,6) > a [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 > a[a==4] [1] 4 > a[which(a==4)] [1] 4 > which(a==4) [1] 4 > a[which(a>2)] [1] 3 4 5 6 > a[a>2] [1] 3 4 5 6 > seems unnecessary... -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.6 (Final) X 11.0.60900031 http://jihadwatch.org http://palestinefacts.org http://mideasttruth.com

Hello All, This is my first appearance to the opus mailing list. My name is Michael Mehari and i am a researcher at Ghent University mainly on cognitive radio networking. Recently i am working on a demo scenario on self adjustable wireless audio conferencing and i selected opus for the audio encoding and decoding part. specifically the applications (i.e opusenc and opusdec) from opus-tools

Hi, [+ Quentin] Sorry for the late reply. > On Feb 13, 2019, at 9:09 AM, Nikola Prica <nikola.prica at rt-rk.com> wrote: > > On 12.02.2019. 18:06, Adrian Prantl wrote: >> [+ some folks more knowledgable about the Machine layer than me.] >> > That would be useful for us too! :) > > >>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 5:07 AM, Nikola Prica <nikola.prica at

[+ some folks more knowledgable about the Machine layer than me.] > On Feb 12, 2019, at 5:07 AM, Nikola Prica <nikola.prica at rt-rk.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am one of the authors of this feature. On Phabricator, we agreed to > take discussion whether encoding this in IR and threading it through the > compiler or performing a late MIR analysis is the better approach.

Hi folks, has anybody a simple solution for the following request? I have a group alias (all at company.com). (1) Only company.com accounts should be able to send an email to everybody in that company via all at company.com. (2) - rather optional: refine the restrictions, e.g. two groups, grp1 at company.com and grp2 at company.com. Grp1 members should be able to send mails to grp2 but not vice