similar to: Print server communications back to the client during printing

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:30 PM Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/02/2018 02:05 PM, Nir Soffer wrote: > > When 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

I have encountered a bizarre problem upon moving from Samba 2.2.2 to 2.2.4 on our local print server. When a client tries to map a printer, the server does a DNS lookup on the netbios name of the client, and tries to contact that IP address. This can fail in situations where the client's netbios and DNS names don't match, as in a wireless network user. The failure doesn't prevent

On 08/02/2018 02:05 PM, Nir Soffer wrote: > When 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

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > 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 [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

On 12 November 2015 at 21:29, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: >> According to an online NAT check service, around 50% of NATs in the >> wild have this problem, making this a very real issue: >> http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php > > Are you referring to port restricted NAT in the

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 formally, this

On 13 April 2018 at 19:34, Alex Corcoles <alex at corcoles.net> wrote: > > Note that it would be easier to set up tinc nodes on your Windows > > desktop and Linux laptops, to avoid the additional complication of > > having to relay broadcast packets between your local networks and the > > tinc network. This is what I do in my setup. > > But both systems will

My apologies if I sent this email to Seeger directly in error. Any clues to the problem I posted below? Thanks! Marc -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, Marc Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 14:06 To: 'Karolin Seeger' Subject: RE: [Samba] compiling 3.2.6 fails on fedora 10 i386 Karolin, I just downloaded Samba-3.2.7 and ran into the same problem that Adam ran into (I am using

Hi again, On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 19:56 +0100, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > 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

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 :

If we may not trim, we tried ZERO_RANGE, but this is not well supported yet, for example it is not available on NFS 4.2. ZERO_RANGE and PUNCH_HOLE are supported now on block devices, but not on RHRL 7, so we fallback to slow manual zeroing there. Change the logic to support block devices on RHEL 7, and file systems that do not support ZERO_RANGE. The new logic: - If we may trim, try PUNCH_HOLE -

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:05:28PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > File systems not supporting FALLOC_FL_ZERO_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

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:

On 1/3/19 6:37 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > The original plan was to have a background thread doing the reclaim. > However that cannot work given the design of filters, because a > background thread cannot access the next_ops struct which is only > available during requests. > > Therefore we spread the work over the request threads. Each blk_* > function checks whether

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 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -1964,6 +1964,9 @@ out_trans:

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 01:13:05AM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > When 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

Linus et al, Here are the ocfs2 updates for 2.6.35. There are two major changes. Mark added allocation reservations to our node-local allocators. This gets us much more contiguousness when many processes are growing files in parallel. On the other end of contiguousness, ocfs2 has had a major limitation since the beginning. When ocfs2 needs new inodes, it has always grown its metadata

Here are a few facts that should make things clearer. Regarding keys: - The key used for the metaconnections (routing protocol over TCP) - i.e. the one you configure in your host files - is NOT the same as the key used for UDP data tunnels. - The key for data tunnels is negotiated over the metaconnections, by sending REQ_KEY and ANS_KEY messages over the metagraph (i.e. the graph of

Either wallclock time, uptime or time since client connection can be served back to the client in a big endian binary structure. $ nbdkit info time --run 'nbdsh --connect $uri -c "sys.stdout.buffer.write(h.pread(12,0))" | hexdump -C' 00000000 00 00 00 00 5d 8f 24 c7 00 04 24 01 └─────┬─────┘ ┌─┘ │ $ date

Hi all, many thanks for the replies! On 14/05/18 19:05, Parke wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:44 AM, Keith Whyte <keith at rhizomatica.org> wrote: >> but then I read that no, each host much have the key of >> the other to establish the direct connection. But I am looking at >> tcpdump right now in the terminal and seeing the UDP tunnel packets >> flowing from