similar to: Heads up: ip_nat_ftp module can cause FTP problems in 5.7

On 09.12.2015 00:39, NightLightHosts Admin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn > <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: >> Hi, >> today we ran into a strange problem: When performing a regular Windows >> 2008r2 update apparently among other things the following was installed: >> "SUSE - Storage Controller - SUSE Block Driver for

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44 Summary: ip_conntrak_ftp / ip_nat_ftp enhancements Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: connection tracking AssignedTo:

For some reason, ip_conntrack_ftp & ip_nat_ftp aren''t loading automatically. If I load them manually with modprobe FTP works. Both ip_conntrack_ftp & ip_nat_ftp are listed in the modules file - I haven''t mucked with the order at all, so I assume it''s right. I''m using Mandrake 9.2 but, as recommended, I uninstalled the Mandrake version of shorewall and

On 27.02.2018 16:45, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 27 February 2018 at 06:11, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn > <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm currently trying to mirror a couple of yum repositories and the only >> tool that seems to be available for this is reposync. >> Unfortunately reposync for some inexplicable reason seems to use the yum

This is pretty epic if true. I'm installing some Fail 2008r2 now to check. Is your hypervisor running CentOS 6 or 7? -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis Jacobfeuerborn" <dennisml at conversis.de> > To: "Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS" <centos-virt at

Hi, I'm trying to build a redundant duo of firewalls/routers/gateways and I'm thinking about not putting any disks in them and instead using a usb-stick raid-1 as storage. Has anyone any experience with this? Since the machines will be running pretty much only iptables, conntrackd and keepalived there is not going to be a lot of disk activity going on and the plan is to do all the

Do you need the whole configuration? On the switch end, we have the relevant VLAN (VLAN 48) with the assigned IP address of 192.168.48.101 and the range of ports (Gi1/0/1 - Gi1/0/8) assigned to that VLAN. Seems - and acts - like a legitimate setup and works fine, except for this particular instance. Thanks. Boris. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at

On 15 Apr 2015 13:22, "Dennis Jacobfeuerborn" <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > > On 15.04.2015 12:41, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > > Hi there, > > Yesterday I've updated from 7 to 7.1 and today I've noticed on 2 server > > that postgresql systemd file was replaced with default values. This make > > postgres to no start and webserver give me

Andrew and Dennis are spot on. Their conclusions about your server being connected to an access port and not a trunk port would be my conclusion as well. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > Hi Boris, > what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch > port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs).

Hi, I'm currently trying to mirror a couple of yum repositories and the only tool that seems to be available for this is reposync. Unfortunately reposync for some inexplicable reason seems to use the yum config of the local system as a basis for its work which makes no sense and creates all kinds of problems where cache directories and metadata gets mixed up. Are there any alternatives? Some

Hi, today we ran into a strange problem: When performing a regular Windows 2008r2 update apparently among other things the following was installed: "SUSE - Storage Controller - SUSE Block Driver for Windows" Previously the disk drive was using the Red Hat virtio drivers which worked just fine but after the reboot after the update I just get a blue screen indicating that Windows cannot

On 09.12.2015 13:47, Patrick Bervoets wrote: > > > Op 09-12-15 om 01:00 schreef Dennis Jacobfeuerborn: >> On 09.12.2015 00:39, NightLightHosts Admin wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn >>> <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> today we ran into a strange problem: When performing a regular

CentOS 8.0 1905 is using Linux Kernel 4.18? Not Linux Kernel 5.x? On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 01:46, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > > Already bummed that the 4.18 kernel is too old for /proc/pressure :( > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Op 09-12-15 om 01:00 schreef Dennis Jacobfeuerborn: > On 09.12.2015 00:39, NightLightHosts Admin wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn >> <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> today we ran into a strange problem: When performing a regular Windows >>> 2008r2 update apparently among other things the following was

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > I think the problem is that you simply have to draw a distinction > between technology and product. > The rise of the Linux desktop will never happen because Linux is not a > product but a technology and as a result has to be a jack of all trades. I'm unconvinced. True, Chromebooks

On 16.01.2015 15:14, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 16.01.2015 13:33, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> Hi, >> today I noticed that one of my HVs started swapping aggressively and >> noticed that the two guests running on it use quite a bit more ram than >> I assigned to them. They respectively were assigned 124G and 60G with >> the idea that the 192G system then has

Still not working I really have to change 21 port on 80 port, my friend has only www and mail on his netwok. He has rigorous admin. I have done : !! in proftpd.cof : # Port 21 is the standard FTP port. Port 80 !! in /etc/shorewall/modules: loadmodule ip_conntrack_ftp ports=21,80 loadmodule ip_nat_ftp ports=21,80 AFTER THAT AND RESTARTTING PROFTP AND

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107 ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-08-19 12:14 ------- The posting you are referring to is a 2.4.10 kernel. I don't even remember how many bugs have been fixed since then... so I wouldn't consider this as a current bug report. Regarding your problem, I really don't see how this could

Hi, I'm currently looking for a RAID controller with BBU/CacheVault and while LSI MegaRaid controllers worked well in the past apparently they are no longer supported in RHEL 8: https://access.redhat.com/discussions/3722151 Does anybody have recommendations for for hardware controllers with cache that should work in both CentOS 7 and 8 out of the box? Regards, Dennis

Hi Boris, what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs). When I look at the switchport coniguration here I get (among other things): ... Port link-type: trunk Tagged VLAN ID : 8, 1624 Untagged VLAN ID : 10 ... Here is my suspicion: Your ports have an access link-type with an untagged VLAN ID of 48. That would