| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Comments:
<0> MS
<0> :-/
<1> *sigh*
<1> Ok... So does MS's NFS service have a control panel?
<0> right-click->Properties->NFS Share
<0> it's done on a per-share basis
<2> the last time I used M$'s Services for UNIX it had disturbing ideas about integrating itself into the LS*** and liked to panic a lot
<1> Lian: MS's UNIX Print Services (LPR) service for Win2K and WinXP Pro don't get set to 'manual' start. So apparrantly MS intends that you only print on the boot where you installed the service.
<2> CancerMan, haven't needed to deal with that since NT4, thankfully
<0> so... any ideas?
<3> kembro: ring up billy g
<0> heh
<0> it's not on the server side
<0> i installed CentOS on the box that's having issues... FROM THAT SHARE
<3> I'm guessing you're running NFSv3 or nfsv2 on CentOS, or is it even possible taht NFSv4 is supported by MS services for unix? I know I've found NFSv4 much more stable than v3 between linux machines
<0> ya know... i'm running whatever comes with CentOS 3.7
<3> might wanna read up on centos then
<4> cheeksy
<5> OldMonk: i missed you.
<4> cheeksy: learn to aim better next time then :)
<6> hmm did qnx do a m*** ctcp
<6> ahh well I guess he is gone
<4> nope
<5> OldMonk: oh typical man - a gal tells him she misses him and he makes up whole different thing in his mind.
<5> :o)
<4> i'm not comfortable with emotions
<5> OldMonk: i missed your vivid presence in the channel.
<2> sjh, I didn't see one
<5> ah thats why.
<4> cheeksy: ok, i feel sorry for you
<6> ahh well maybe I was just lucky to get a CTCP version from qnx
<5> OldMonk: me too, i feel sorry for myself.
<4> now that i'm back, you can remember how nasty and mean i am and then spend 2 days wondering why the F you were missing me.
<5> love you too.
<5> quiet.
<3> might try a pin, they work better
<7> hahaha
<7> you ruined it
<4> libolt: leave your penis alone for a while please
<3> sorry it just keeps getting in the way
<8> oh wait.
<8> OldMonk
<8> wow, connecting to eu.undernet took me 3 minutes
<4> judicious use of the ``host'' command could have reduced that to 10 seconds
<4> oh, ****y xchat!
<8> host command? pray explain?
<4> man 1 host
<2> viksit, I think OM thinks your issue was local DNS...
<8> er, i know what it is. i mean - why and how would it..
<8> ah i see.
<4> Liandrin: nah, he tries to connect to the one server that isn't working, and doesn't have the wherewithal to hit another one
<2> or perhaps repeatedly running up against stoned servers
<4> Liandrin: that
<8> that would be interesting though.
<7> i just use specific servers instead of the randomizers
<2> "round robins"
<8> yeah, one thing about xchat is that the method of putting in more servers into the program is a pain.
<8> a big pain
<7> mousing a text based thing is stupid
<8> well, if only it had a simple config file to put in servers
<8> i find the entire server selection menu retarded
<9> Does anybody know if you can define queries in the DataSource tag in the struts-config.xml
<10> re
<7> OldMonk_: nice tail
<10> ****ing dsl died
<11> OldMonk
<10> Sunblade
<2> OldMonk_, wow, you have DSL in India? *ducks*
<10> yeah, the elephants carry the packets to and fro
<10> sometimes they tie a lot of snakes together to make a wire
<8> monkeys do CRCs too
<10> nah, monkeys write the complete works of shakespeare
<12> hey , my problem : just compiled a 2.6.16.20 kernel , installed the image with no errors and restarted linux when i get the following : Kernel Panic : not syncing :vfs: unable to mount root fs on unknown-block (0,0)
<10> drivers for your jard disk aren't compiled in
<10> hard disk too
<8> surely CRC is tougher than shakespeare
<2> or the root device isn't set
<11> or forgot to make an initial ramdisk
<12> i read that i should edit /boot/grub/menu.lst
<12> and edit the ( o,o )
<12> *(0,0) with the number that my linux partition contains ex : hda7
<13> any postfix wizards here?
<12> but my linux partition has no number :(
<7> hehe
<10> later
<11> hmm good news I guess there's a new patch
<13> bah any smtp wizards here? (of any kind..?)
<11> dweller: just ask, maybe someone knows
<13> i am looking for a way to create an smtp machine with several communication interfaces (or subinterfaces) such that - when talk to a certain leg, the mail you sent will be relayed fourth coming from that certain leg
<13> i dont want the smtp to choose the same leg to go out to the world all the time (but i dont need a random mechanizm either. i need consistency)
<13> you see what i mean?
<11> no
<13> heh
<11> did you read the postfix documentation first ?
<13> o'course
<13> i am not sure postfix can do it though
<14> Tell us what you're really trying to do.
<13> I need to create an smtp with two real legs: 1.2.3.4 and 6.7.8.9
<13> it will function as a mail relay. you send mail through it, not TO it.
<14> Why?
<14> Tell us what you're trying to get done, and maybe we can help.
<13> I am telling you.. thats exactly what i want done.
<13> why?
<13> welp,
<14> No, you're telling us how you're trying to do it.
<13> the reason is i have a few customers that send mails to large mailinglists. its not spam, but still, sometimes they get listed on some rbl
<13> i need to give them a mail relay to send through
<13> but so that if one customer gets blocked, the others wont be effected
<13> its tricky, i guess
<13> zetawoof, whatcha make of it? is it possible?
<14> I'm more wondering what they're doing to manage that
<13> what, these mailling lists?
<14> yeah
<13> people buy their way into them, oddly enough
<13> they belong to respected newspapers and stuff.
<13> personally, I would have blocked them all out
<13> and i'll probably do when they start effecting my own mailserver with my own customers, but right now it all looks clean and tidy
<14> Standard policy on most hosts I've seen is "if we end up on an RBL because of you, you're GONE"
<13> shye tell me about it
<13> thing is they ARE getting unlisted. its mostly look-like spam activity but not the real thing,
<13> otherwise spamhaus or cbl wouldnt release them so easily
<14> yeah.. still...
<13> technically, anywayz, do you think something like that is even possible?
<14> Well, I can think of at least one way to do it
<11> yugh dia is so impratical
<13> what would it be?
<11> s/impratical/impractical/
<11> visio is so much cooler, oh well
<13> zetawoof..?
<14> yes?
<13> what do you recon?
<13> how do you figure its possible?
<14> Set up a couple of virtual machines with Xen or whatnot, and put a separate mail server on each one
<13> bah
<13> so far i figured out myself..
<14> I didn't say it was practical
<13> i dont want to take that path..
<13> shye
<15> Morning geek folk
<11> coma
<15> Mogguh Sunblade
<16> 476gjekhkej4fsf v
<16> that is "I need coffee", for those who can't read it
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#AllNiteCafe
Rayder undernet
#php
#php
#AllNiteCafe
#skype
#linuxhelp
tg3 linux interrupt coalescing
dannieashe
WEISENDARKBIER
|
|