similar to: Finding Accounts inside Trusted Domains

Hello Matt, I've had similar misfortunes too with interdomain trusts. I think you're working along the right lines since you seem to want to do the same thing as I. However the NT_STATUS_UNSUCCESSFUL is an error I always get when trying to connect to the IPC$ share of the PDC of the trusting domain. In my case the trusting PDC is a Windows 2003 Server. I know it's not an issue

I fought with this a few months back, and was never able to resolve it, so I'm back at it trying to get things to work before classes start again in January. Here's a brief summary of the situation: I am responsible for 2 departments, Math and Socialwork, which are located in the same building and share the same network. Each department has its own samba server (RHEL4/CentOS4) and domain

I'm having problems getting Interdomain trusts set up. Both servers are running samba-3.0.10-1.4E.9 (one RHEL 4, the other CentOS 4). The two domains are SOCIALWORK and MATH, servers swserver and bing respectively. On bing, I created a socialwork$ account with the -i option to smbpasswd. On swserver, I created a math$ account with the -i option to smbpasswd. The trust relationships seem to

Hi , I have two virtual machines VM1 and VM2. Then I have added eth0 of my VM to 'default' network. Use case :- I want to monitor all traffic on virbr0('default' network). Steps followed :- 1. Add VM1 eth0 to virbr0 2. Add VM2 eth1 to virbr0 3. brctl setageing ovsbr0 0 ..(To put bridge in promiscuous) Now I am running tcpdump on eth1 of VM2 and trying to ping

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/06/2014 10:06 AM, Yuanzhen Gu wrote: > > yes, I got your point, thanks very much Eric. > > not entirely, because you still top-posted. > > got it entirely this time, not top-posted. > > > > If I want to take a distributed snapshot, which need pause all the VMs > and >

In my vm2 config i have: disk = [ ''phy:/dev/volumes/vm2-disk,hda,w'', ''phy:/dev/volumes/vm2-swap,hdb,w'', ''phy:/dev/volumes/vm2-data,hdc,w'', ''file:/xen/images/office2007basic.iso,hdd,r'', ''file:/xen/images/printshopinstall.iso,hde,r'',

[It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC if you are a non-TC member.] Hi, Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is typical in DPDK applications where virtio-net currently is one of several NIC choices. Existing virtio-net implementations are not optimized for VM-to-VM

[It may be necessary to remove virtio-dev at lists.oasis-open.org from CC if you are a non-TC member.] Hi, Some modern networking applications bypass the kernel network stack so that rx/tx rings and DMA buffers can be directly mapped. This is typical in DPDK applications where virtio-net currently is one of several NIC choices. Existing virtio-net implementations are not optimized for VM-to-VM

Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >>> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote: > Am 2015-04-27 um 14:35 schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >>>> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote: > Am 2015-04-27 um 14:35 schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> Am 2015-04-27 um 12:17 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: >>>> On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: > On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there >> is no efficient solution if the software switch is a VM. > >

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke at snabb.co> wrote: > On 24 April 2015 at 15:22, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The motivation for making VM-to-VM fast is that while software >> switches on the host are efficient today (thanks to vhost-user), there >> is no efficient solution if the software switch is a VM. > >

On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is different from the simplistic ivshmem. > I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. >

On 2015-08-31 16:11, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hello! > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > of ivshmem. No, not on top of ivshmem. On top of shared memory. Our model is different from the simplistic ivshmem. > I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > Comments welcome. >

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:35:55AM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > > of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > >

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:35:55AM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > During the KVM forum, we discussed supporting virtio on top > > of ivshmem. I have considered it, and came up with an alternative > > that has several advantages over that - please see below. > >

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+