similar to: performance problems with {s,m}dbox

Hi Guus, The first example was a manual connect, the second example was debug regards Robert >>> "Robert Horgan" <robert at nsasia.co.th> 13-Jun-18 10:21 AM >>> Hi, Are you sure? What happens if you manually telnet/socket 10.130.39.180 nsasia at web3:~$ telnet 10.130.39.180 655 Trying 10.130.39.180... Connected to 10.130.39.180. Escape

You know I think I've seen this once before. Got ID from db1 (10.130.39.180 port 655): 0 db1 17 Sending METAKEY to db1 It looks like it's communicating properly but there is a problem with your keys. Can you rename and regenerate your keys? On a project I'm working on when we transferred our keys to another client it put Carriage returns so there was a key mismatch. Try that and

Hi, Are you sure? What happens if you manually telnet/socket 10.130.39.180 nsasia at web3:~$ telnet 10.130.39.180 655 Trying 10.130.39.180... Connected to 10.130.39.180. Escape character is '^]'. 0 db1 17 Connection closed by foreign host. Stopping the service and running debug I get: nsasia at web3:~$ sudo tincd -n gainplus -d5 -D tincd 1.0.33 starting, debug level 5

Yes, I am sure but added another broader rule: nsasia at db1:~$ sudo ufw allow from any port 655 proto udp same result for debug example. regards Robert >>> Rafael Wolf <rfwolf at gmail.com> 13-Jun-18 5:32 PM >>> Telnet will only do tcp not udp which tinc works on. Are you sure udp 655 is open? On Wed, Jun 13, 2018, 3:51 AM Robert Horgan <robert

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:13:02 +0200 Henry Jensen via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:59:56 +0100 > Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:55:24 +0200 > > Henry Jensen via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:51:33 +0100 > >

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:26:36 +0100 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:13:02 +0200 > Henry Jensen via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:59:56 +0100 > > Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:55:24 +0200 >

Hi All, >>>>> Could anybody point me in the right direction for setting the kernel >>>>> parameter, max_stack_depth, to 10240 for database tuning? >>>>> >>>>> I have currently set it by running 'ulimit -s 10240' but this does not >>>>> survive a reboot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:55:24 +0200 Henry Jensen via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:51:33 +0100 > Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > Failed to modify SPNs on CN=db1,CN=Computers,DC=mydom,DC=lan: > > > > > acl: spn validation failed for spn[TERMSRV/DB1.MYDOM] > > > >

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:59:56 +0100 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:55:24 +0200 > Henry Jensen via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:51:33 +0100 > > Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Failed to modify SPNs on

Hi Rowland, On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:46:24 +0100 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > Failed to modify SPNs on CN=db1,CN=Computers,DC=mydom,DC=lan: acl: > > spn validation failed for spn[TERMSRV/DB1.MYDOM] uac[0x1000] > > account[db1$] hostname[(null)] nbname[mydom] ntds[(null)] > > forest[mydom.lan] domain[mydom.lan] > > > > At

On 17/02/16 14:44, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 02/17/2016 08:39 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 02/17/2016 08:10 AM, Michael H wrote: >>>> The easy answer is yes .. glibc requires so many things to be restarted, >>>> that is the best bet. Or certainly the easiest. >>>> >>>> Note: in CentOS 7, there is also a kernel update which is rated as

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 13:00:57 +0200 Henry Jensen via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:46:24 +0100 > Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > Failed to modify SPNs on CN=db1,CN=Computers,DC=mydom,DC=lan: acl: > > > spn validation failed for spn[TERMSRV/DB1.MYDOM] uac[0x1000]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:51:33 +0100 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > Failed to modify SPNs on CN=db1,CN=Computers,DC=mydom,DC=lan: acl: > > > > spn validation failed for spn[TERMSRV/DB1.MYDOM] uac[0x1000] > > > > account[db1$] hostname[(null)] nbname[mydom] ntds[(null)] > > > > forest[mydom.lan] domain[mydom.lan]

# Just when I thought I had the basic stuff mastered.... # This has been quite perplexing, thanks for any help ## Here's the example: db1=data.frame( olditems=c('soup','','','','nuts'), prices=c(4.45, 3.25, 4.42, 2.25, 3.98)) db2=data.frame( newitems=c('stew','crackers','tofu','goatsmilk','peanuts'))

Hello, I've got some log entries like these on our DCs: Failed to modify SPNs on CN=db1,CN=Computers,DC=mydom,DC=lan: acl: spn validation failed for spn[TERMSRV/DB1.MYDOM] uac[0x1000] account[db1$] hostname[(null)] nbname[mydom] ntds[(null)] forest[mydom.lan] domain[mydom.lan] At first I thought it was about missing SPN entries, but adding these did not resolve the problem: # samba-tool

Hi, re-posting this with a more appropriate subject for my reply; > The easy answer is yes .. glibc requires so many things to be restarted, > that is the best bet. Or certainly the easiest. > > Note: in CentOS 7, there is also a kernel update which is rated as > Important .. so you should boot to that anyway: >

Just a quick addition - On 17/08/15 08:40, Michael H wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 14/08/15 16:45, Jason Warr wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 16:31 +0100, Michael H wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> >>>> Could anybody point me in the right direction for setting the kernel >>>> parameter, max_stack_depth, to 10240 for database tuning?

> The easy answer is yes .. glibc requires so many things to be restarted, > that is the best bet. Or certainly the easiest. > > Note: in CentOS 7, there is also a kernel update which is rated as > Important .. so you should boot to that anyway: > https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2016-February/021705.html > > Here is a good link to figure out what to

On 02/17/2016 08:39 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 02/17/2016 08:10 AM, Michael H wrote: >>> The easy answer is yes .. glibc requires so many things to be restarted, >>> that is the best bet. Or certainly the easiest. >>> >>> Note: in CentOS 7, there is also a kernel update which is rated as >>> Important .. so you should boot to that anyway:

On 17/02/16 14:32, Michael H wrote: > Hi, re-posting this with a more appropriate subject for my reply; > >> The easy answer is yes .. glibc requires so many things to be restarted, >> that is the best bet. Or certainly the easiest. >> >> Note: in CentOS 7, there is also a kernel update which is rated as >> Important .. so you should boot to that anyway: