similar to: Extend DHCP range

On 2020-02-24 10:51, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > g) remember!! still at least (depending how you mount it) > the 'root' will have access to that data while mounted, > obviously! More than that: the root user will be able to access data in the future too, since it can steal the key while the data is mounted. Regards. -- Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it

Hi, There''s been discussion before on this list on the very small number of hard links supported by btrfs.[1][2] In those threads, an often asked question has been if there''s a real world use case the limit breaks. Also it has been pointed out that a fix for this would need a disk format change. As discussed in bug #15762 [3], there are certainly real-world use cases this

On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:46:19AM -0700, Gordon Messmer (gordon.messmer at gmail.com) wrote: > On 7/3/19 11:43 PM, Jobst Schmalenbach wrote: > > - How can it be that the DELL takes so much longer alltough on the far better hardware? > It looks like the DIY system has a CPU that's nearly twice as fast > as the Dell's.? The additional CPU in the Dell will run more tasks >

Hi, I have one question: Are those functions thread-safe, i.e. fprintf() and fflush() ? Thanks! Regard Andrew

I have a new computer with 2 x 2TB SSDs where I wanted to install C7 and use mdadm for RAID1 configuration and encrypting the /home partition. On the net I found https://tuxfixer.com/centos-7-installation-with-lvm-raid-1-mirroring/ which I adopted slightly with respect to partition sizes, using RAID1 for /boot and /root as well and added the /home partition with RAID1 and chose to have /home

Hi, I've decided to use these summer holidays to wrap my head around Docker and its quirks. Spent the last couple weeks working through a Udemy tutorial and a thick book about Docker, and I have Docker CE installed on two machines: * my workstation running OpenSUSE Leap 15.1 * a public sandbox server running CentOS 7 I'm currently fiddling with custom networks and container

On 2020-02-24 14:37, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > > > On 24/02/2020 10:26, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> On 2020-02-24 10:51, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >>> g) remember!! still at least (depending how you mount it) >>> the 'root' will have access to that data while mounted, >>> obviously! >> >> More than that: the root user will be able to

There may be ways to force NIC naming, I've done so but only on Ubuntu so you'll need to do the research if it's important to you. Things to look for based on my experience: 70-persistent-net.rules, net.ifnames=0, biosdevname=0. ________________________________ From: CentOS <centos-bounces at centos.org> on behalf of Nicolas Kovacs <info at microlinux.fr> Sent: Sunday,

Hi I need some advice what to do next, even if someone tells me to check out (an)other mailing list(s), tuning site or point me in a better direction how to solve my annoying problem: one server is much faster for certain tasks although on "shitty" hardware. I have tried many things to solve my issue - changed buffer/pool/cache/etc mysqld - changed server settings apache/php -

On 02/17/2020 05:03 AM, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: > On 16/02/2020 15:18, H wrote: >> I wonder if it is possible to set up an encrypted "file container" on a CentOS VPS? I am the root user of the VPS but the hosting company also has access to the VPS and thus all files. Is it possible to create a LUKS-container on the VPS and those files only be accessible by me? IOW, most of

i recently setup a dhcp at my home and now i am getting these errors in my logs and was wondering if i set something up wrong? --------------------- dhcpd Begin ------------------------ Unknown Entries: Unable to add forward map from STEVEN-DELL.dusty.home to 192.168.1.100: timed out: 4 Time(s) Unable to add forward map from laptop.dusty.home to 192.168.1.104: timed out: 4

I am working to a CentOS 6 server with nonstandard iptables system without rule for ACCEPT ESTABLISHED connections. All tables and chains empty (flush by legacy custom script) so only filter/INPUT chain has rules (also fail2ban chain): Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination f2b-postfix tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all --

Hi all :) I have a masqueraded home lan as well as a friend of mine. I have set up two tinc daemons on both masquerading gateways and I have no trouble connecting (it works pretty smooth) and they show up in the syslog as configured after sending an USR1 / USR2 signal to the daemons. The trouble is the routing / firewalling of the packets. Maybe somebody could give me a hand here? :) The

Hi. I have a Server''s network with some servers in it, all with 192.168.1.0/25 ips. There is also a router in that network with ip 192.168.1.1. This router also connected to a client''s network 10.10.0.0/16 with ip 10.10.100.1. All services on each server are given their virtual address from one of two virtual networks 192.168.1.128/28 and 192.168.1.144/28. 192.168.1.128/28 is

Hi, My local server is running CentOS 7. The machine has two NICs and is acting as a gateway. For DHCP and DNS, I'm using Dnsmasq. I have a strange little problem with local hostname resolution. Before going into more details, here's my configuration. [root at nestor:~] # ifconfig enp2s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.0.2 netmask

Here is the report and the complete diagram. And sorry for email problem and incomplete email ! I have made new test. Eth0 and eth2 are bridged. I can ping NET from LAN I can ping every firewall''s interface from LAN I can ping eth1 from private LAN I can ping everything from firewall Bridging is activated in shorewall.conf >From LAN i can ping 192.168.11.253 but not 192.168.11.254

Hi, I think I found a problem in iproute or ubuntu kernel. I think that the "ip route get" returns wrong interface and gateway in an multipath routing environment on Ubuntu 6.06 LTS. I reported it also to launchpad as a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iproute/+bug/105521 The easiest way to reproduce it is to start an Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Live on a system with three

On 2020-02-24 15:57, H wrote: > On 02/24/2020 12:42 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >> On 2020-02-24 14:37, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24/02/2020 10:26, Roberto Ragusa wrote: >>>> On 2020-02-24 10:51, lejeczek via CentOS wrote: >>>>> g) remember!! still at least (depending how you mount it) >>>>> the

I need help setting up a basic routing between two nic's on my CentOS desktop. I thought I'd understood the basics, but ... I don,t want a nat router, just packets forwarded back and fort. This is what I thought would do the trick, but didn't. Can someone please give me some pointers or links so I can get this right. # echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward # route

I have two machines a linux_amd64_x86 (gentoo_amd64) and a linux_x86. Both run R-2.1.0. I have a very long program (hopefully will become a package) that works perfectly on the linux_amd_x64. Great means no error, no problems and results that, where the analytic solution exists, coincide with it. I have problem making the code run on the x64 machine. I am baffled. The same code on the same version