similar to: [PATCH V3] ocfs2: llseek requires to ocfs2 inode lock for the file in SEEK_END

llseek requires ocfs2 inode lock for updating the file size in SEEK_END. because the file size maybe update on another node. if it not . after call llseek in SEEK_END. the position is old. this bug can be reproduce the following scenario: at first ,we dd a test fileA,the file size is 10k. on NodeA: --------- 1) open the test fileA, lseek the end of file. and print the position. 2) close the test

AFAIK, and my setups thus far, unless you have NodeB’s public key in Nodes C-Z (with NodeB’s public/reachable IP configured in Nodes C-Z) *and* you have the PublicKeys for NodesC-z configured in NodeB, there is no way that NodesC-Z will be able to establish a connection directly with NodeB, and it’ll have to forward via NodeA (or any other node that do have a direct connection established with

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:03:30AM +0200, Keith Whyte wrote: > I have two tinc nodes (A and B) behind a firewall > > NodeA and NodeB have 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.1.3 assigned on an internal > LAN, and they both have different public IP addresses forwarded to them, > port 655 udp/tcp > > I would like any given node in the C-Z group to be able to find Node B > on it's

Dear all Recently, i did some work to test small files performance for gnfsv3 transport. Following is my scenario. #####environment##### ==2 cluster nodes(nodeA/nodeB)== each is equipped with E5-2650*2, 128G memory and 10GB*2 netcard nodeA: 10.254.3.77 10.128.3.77 nodeB: 10.254.3.78 10.128.3.78 ==2 stress nodes(clientA/clientB)== each is equipped with E5-2650*2, 128G memory and 10GB*2

Hi all I feel like I should know the answer to this question, like I read it someplace sometime, but it evades me right now. It's also an opportunity to say hello to the list and many thanks for writing and supporting tinc vpn! We make great use of it at rhizomatica. So, Let's take this example setup. I have two tinc nodes (A and B) behind a firewall NodeA and NodeB have 192.168.1.2

Hi Guus, I've been a huge fan of the GraphDumpFile parameter in tinc -- it certainly beats sending USR2 to tincd, and ploughing through syslog to figure out which nodes are connected. Could I request that GraphDumpFile dumps a little more data to the file, namely, the subnet; changing the output file from (for example): digraph { nodeA [label = "nodeA"];

I have an rsync server running on nodeA and a client, nodeB. I am attempting to do a sync/copy from the local machine, nodeB, to the rsync server, nodeA. The following line from the rsync man page makes it look like this is relatively simple: for copying from the local machine to a remote rsync server. This is invoked when the destination path contains a :: separator or a rsync:// URL. I have

hi guys I have a kvm quest & two nodes. a kvm guest on nodeA and IPaddr2 on nodeB(at this time) nodeA & nodeB comprise a HA cluster now... - nodeA can ping IPaddr2 IP - nodeB can ping kvm guest IP - kvm guest can get to nodeB's IP but* Only a bit non-common bit in my setup is: - both nodeA & nodeB be interfaces which are relevant to the subnet on which it operates are

From: Xue jiufei <xuejiufei at huawei.com> Subject: ocfs2: dlm_request_all_locks() should deal with the status sent from target node dlm_request_all_locks() should deal with the status sent from target node if DLM_LOCK_REQUEST_MSG is sent successfully, or recovery master will fall into endless loop, waiting for other nodes to send locks and DLM_RECO_DATA_DONE_MSG to me. NodeA

dlm_request_all_locks() should deal with the status sent from target node if DLM_LOCK_REQUEST_MSG is sent successfully, or recovery master will fall into endless loop, waiting for other nodes to send locks and DLM_RECO_DATA_DONE_MSG to me. NodeA NodeB selected as recovery master

You have a typo in your routes: fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/6 abcd vs. adcd On 21 May 2015, at 19:35, Martin <martinmoen at gmail.com<mailto:martinmoen at gmail.com>> wrote: I have 2 nodes nodeA and nodeB I'm using tinc 1.1pre11 -- nodeA(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) : $ ip -6 route fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 dev tun0 proto kernel metric 256 fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/64 dev tun0 metric 1024

I have 2 nodes nodeA and nodeB I'm using tinc 1.1pre11 -- nodeA(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) : $ ip -6 route fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 dev tun0 proto kernel metric 256 fd80:2015:2105:adcd::/64 dev tun0 metric 1024 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 $ ping6 fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1 PING fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1(fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from fd80:2015:2105:abcd::1:

quoted from http://www.tinc-vpn.org/examples/redirect-gateway/ "In fact, one does not have to set the VPN_GATEWAY variable at all. In switch mode, the gateway routes are necessary" i don't get it. it's is too short to understand. is VPN_GATEWAY set by tinc in switch mode? and why is "In switch mode, the gateway routes are necessary" mentioned here suddenly? afaik,

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Keith Whyte <keith at rhizomatica.org> wrote: > Is there a way to force NodeA or NodeB to "advertise" it's public IP to > the rest of the tinc network, or did I miss something really obvious? the config files can use DNS names, right? Have the nodes that you want to advertise their public IP addresses sign up with Dyndns or similar,

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:39:03PM +0000, WANG Cheng D wrote: > Dear Daniel, > Thank you for your email. > According to your suggestion, I tried to use the shared memory filesystem for data exchange between the host machine and the container. The steps are as follows: > > 1) create an empty file in the host machine (/tmp1/file1). > 2) run #chmod 777 /tmp1 and #chmod 777

Dear Daniel, Thank you for your email. According to your suggestion, I tried to use the shared memory filesystem for data exchange between the host machine and the container. The steps are as follows: 1) create an empty file in the host machine (/tmp1/file1). 2) run #chmod 777 /tmp1 and #chmod 777 /tmp1/file1. 3) expose /tmp1 to the container by configuring the container with the following XML

Dear Daniel, As you know, following your suggestion, I can expose shared memory to two containers hosted by the same machine, thus the two containers can exchange data. Now I have a new problem: how does the containers avoid concurrent accesses to the shared memory? In a native system, this can be achieved by using semaphore. But I don't know how the two containers can see the same semaphore.

I am trying to figure out what happens in the following scenario: I use rsync to copy files from hostA:/dir1 to hostB:/dir1 with the command (from hostB) rsync -abvt --delete-after --suffix=~ hostA:/dir1 /dir1 So if fileA exists already on both boxes (it has previously been rsynce-d) and fileA changes on hostA. rsync starts from hostB, fileA starts transfer. If the transfer aborts before it

Hi, I had a query wrt the topic of rsync's rolling checksum algorithm: If I have a fileA that is a database file of size 100 MB on local machine. I back it up first time (full backup) using rsync to the server assuming block_size to be 30 KB and --compress option to compress data as it is transferred. Next time, I modify the fileA with another 100 MB new contents towards the end

Hi all, Long email but please be patient :) I am part of EHAS [1], a non profit organization which main goal is to improve the Healthcare assistance in isolated rural areas in developing countries. Recently we have developed a long distance Wi-Fi network in Cuzco (Peru). This network provides connectivity to 12 nodes (they are in fact Health Centers). As VoIP is a essential service in this