As interesting as this may sound, I was looking at purchasing Linux servers for a new company I am starting. I went to Dell's site looking for the Linux support on the servers, but I'd have to say that it wasn't very easy to figure out just exactly what was supported. An example is that they have RAID configs for their boxes and list their RAID card that they use. The problem is that I couldn't cross reference that RAID card with the Linux Hardware Compatibility list. This may just be a documentation issue, but I didn't want to risk forking X thousand dollars only to find that the RAID card isn't supported, but standard Adaptec SCSI is. To make a long story short, I'm purchasing my Rack mountable, redundant power supplied, hot swappable drive server from Penguin Computing.:) This isn't a plug, but I thought this might be helpful info for those of you that are in the market.
From an administration standpoint, wouldn't you agree that socks is harder to maintain since it requires client config per computer. Somewhat like using static IPs instead of Dynamic IPs. You can imagine the hassle with laptops that are used at both a corporate HQ and a client site.
Here's where NAT/masq applications shine. They don't require any changes on the client side. I've been at a firm that used socks, and it is somewhat more difficult because if your application doesn't use the TCP/IP stack like the socks is expecting it, such as with Oracle apps, you're screwed.. With NAT, you're not:).. There are basically pros/cons, but I'm a pro NAT individual.
If you use your FTP client in passive mode, you don't need the ip_masq_ftp module.
eg:
ftp site.com ftp> passive Passive Mode On ftp> get blah.tar.gz, etc
the ip_masq_ftp module just allows the active FTP transfers to work. I don't use ip_masq_ftp and am able to ftp up/down from the net w/out problems. I just need to use passive mode. This is what your browser will use as default when it is downloading via FTP.
I've had problems with Tar (and the other commands) as well when the number of files I had was extremely large. This is regardless of file size, eg: I had 200,000+ small files, but storage size was about 1 gig or so and I had problems with tar.. I ended up just breaking down my backups into batches. something like:
tar -cf part-a-of-tree.tar/files/parta tar -cf part-b-of-tree.tar/files/partb
They probably didn't give credit to the PC Manufacturer before because from the looks of the old pics, it looked generic. I assume the last was a frankenstein machine build up. I guess they didn't feel like slappin another together this time 'round and picked up a Micron. Personally I like puttin together my PC, part of the fun..., but for biz use I generally like to buy the kind that's already put together..generally takes some hassle out of the process.
This is a very good point. I myself, being a Unix System Admin / Past freeBSD user started using Linux about 8 months ago. Knowing that it was just another Unix variant I actually started off with Slackware 3.5. I didn't really have that much trouble installing it and was using it for a few weeks until RH 5.2 was released. I must say that I was much more impressed with RH 5.2's install process and have been using it since. Although even though I installed RH 5.2 I wouldn't say that's what I use now. Just like any other distro, other than the few distro dependant utils such as rpm, yast, etc... All my utils an added apps were either added from./configure ; make ; make install, or rpm -i blah.rpm (if I didn't feel like compiling)... My point is... Once I had RH 5.2 installed I tweaked it just like any Linux user. I installed Samba, Xfree 3.3.3.1, KDE 1.1, AfterStep 1.7.90, Kernel v2.2.6, etc... Other than some of the initial setup, every distro is the same... I don't see RH falling prey to MS business tactics and think they are doing a very good job. Until I ran the RH 5.2 install, I still was thinking I should once again use FreeBSD since the 2.0 install of freeBSD was very slick.... I hope all the so called hard core linux users will realize that RedHat hasn't done bad yet...and as everything else has been saying... If they're GPL'ing all of their utils/code, they can't really become a monopolistic bunch. Also, in the real world it is more than likely that vendors will make the simple install scripts / wrapper scripts for different distros because this is a significantly less amount of effort than actual porting from say, HP-UX -> Solaris -> AIX, etc...
This is a very good point. I myself, being a Unix System Admin / Past freeBSD user started using Linux about 8 months ago. Knowing that it was just another Unix variant I actually started off with Slackware 3.5. I didn't really have that much trouble installing it and was using it for a few weeks until RH 5.2 was released. I must say that I was much more impressed with RH 5.2's install process and have been using it since. Although even though I installed RH 5.2 I wouldn't say that's what I use now. Just like any other distro, other than the few distro dependant utils such as rpm, yast, etc... All my utils an added apps were either added from./configure ; make ; make install, or rpm -i blah.rpm (if I didn't feel like compiling)... My point is... Once I had RH 5.2 installed I tweaked it just like any Linux user. I installed Samba, Xfree 3.3.3.1, KDE 1.1, AfterStep 1.7.90, Kernel v2.2.6, etc... Other than some of the initial setup, every distro is the same... I don't see RH falling prey to MS business tactics and think they are doing a very good job. Until I ran the RH 5.2 install, I still was thinking I should once again use FreeBSD since the 2.0 install of freeBSD was very slick.... I hope all the so called hard core linux users will realize that RedHat hasn't done bad yet...and as everything else has been saying... If they're GPL'ing all of their utils/code, they can't really become a monopolistic bunch. Also, in the real world it is more than likely that vendors will make the simple install scripts / wrapper scripts for different distros because this is a significantly less amount of effort than actual porting from say, HP-UX -> Solaris -> AIX, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
As interesting as this may sound, I was looking at purchasing Linux servers for a new company I am starting. I went to Dell's site looking for the Linux support on the servers, but I'd have to say that it wasn't very easy to figure out just exactly what was supported. An example is that they have RAID configs for their boxes and list their RAID card that they use. The problem is that I couldn't cross reference that RAID card with the Linux Hardware Compatibility list. This may just be a documentation issue, but I didn't want to risk forking X thousand dollars only to find that the RAID card isn't supported, but standard Adaptec SCSI is. To make a long story short, I'm purchasing my Rack mountable, redundant power supplied, hot swappable drive server from Penguin Computing. :) This isn't a plug, but I thought this might be helpful info for those of you that are in the market.
From an administration standpoint, wouldn't you agree that socks is harder to maintain since it requires client config per computer. Somewhat like using static IPs instead of Dynamic IPs. You can imagine the hassle with laptops that are used at both a corporate HQ and a client site.
:).. There are basically pros/cons, but I'm a pro NAT individual.
Here's where NAT/masq applications shine. They don't require any changes on the client side. I've been at a firm that used socks, and it is somewhat more difficult because if your application doesn't use the TCP/IP stack like the socks is expecting it, such as with Oracle apps, you're screwed.. With NAT, you're not
If you use your FTP client in passive mode, you don't need the ip_masq_ftp module.
eg:
ftp site.com
ftp> passive
Passive Mode On
ftp> get blah.tar.gz, etc
the ip_masq_ftp module just allows the active FTP
transfers to work. I don't use ip_masq_ftp
and am able to ftp up/down from the net w/out problems. I just need to use passive mode. This is what your browser will use as default when it is downloading via FTP.
I have used redir and it works well..
/var/log/redir.log &
Pretty simple to configure, here's a sample line:
$redir --bind_addr=$myip --laddr=$myip --lport=2346 --caddr 192.168.2.4 --cport=2346 -
-transproxy 2>>
$redir = variable I set for my redir binary (/usr/local/sbin/redir)
$myip = My external IP
I redirect stderr to a log to find out if things are funky and then send it to the background.
This particular redirect of port 2346 is for a game that I play (rainbow 6) so I can host games from my workstation inside the firewall.
I'm assuming your IPChains is configured to let the allowed port in. Here's my IP chain line to let the allowed port in:
$ipchains -A eth0-in -p TCP -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d $myip 1024:5999 -j ACCEPT
I basically accept most traffic at unprivvied ports. Again myip = my external nic. $ipchains is my ip chains binary.
Most of my rules I got from the IPCHains-HOWTO examples. I modified from there..
I've had problems with Tar (and the other commands) as well when the number of files I had was extremely large. This is regardless of file size, eg: I had 200,000+ small files, but storage size was about 1 gig or so and I had problems with tar.. I ended up just breaking down my backups into batches. something like:
/files/parta /files/partb
tar -cf part-a-of-tree.tar
tar -cf part-b-of-tree.tar
etc...
They probably didn't give credit to the PC Manufacturer before because from the looks of the old pics, it looked generic. I assume the last was a frankenstein machine build up. I guess they didn't feel like slappin another together this time 'round and picked up a Micron. Personally I like puttin together my PC, part of the fun..., but for biz use I generally like to buy the kind that's already put together..generally takes some hassle out of the process.
This is a very good point. I myself, being a Unix System Admin / Past freeBSD user started using Linux about 8 months ago. Knowing that it was just another Unix variant I actually started off with Slackware 3.5. I didn't really have that much trouble installing it and was using it for a few weeks until RH 5.2 was released. I must say that I was much more impressed with RH 5.2's install process and have been using it since. Although even though I installed RH 5.2 I wouldn't say that's what I use now. Just like any other distro, other than the few distro dependant utils such as rpm, yast, etc... All my utils an added apps were either added from ./configure ; make ; make install, or rpm -i blah.rpm (if I didn't feel like compiling)... My point is... Once I had RH 5.2 installed I tweaked it just like any Linux user. I installed Samba, Xfree 3.3.3.1, KDE 1.1, AfterStep 1.7.90, Kernel v2.2.6, etc... Other than some of the initial setup, every distro is the same... I don't see RH falling prey to MS business tactics and think they are doing a very good job. Until I ran the RH 5.2 install, I still was thinking I should once again use FreeBSD since the 2.0 install of freeBSD was very slick.... I hope all the so called hard core linux users will realize that RedHat hasn't done bad yet...and as everything else has been saying... If they're GPL'ing all of their utils/code, they can't really become a monopolistic bunch. Also, in the real world it is more than likely that vendors will make the simple install scripts / wrapper scripts for different distros because this is a significantly less amount of effort than actual porting from say, HP-UX -> Solaris -> AIX, etc...
Just my $.02 worth!
This is a very good point. I myself, being a Unix System Admin / Past freeBSD user started using Linux about 8 months ago. Knowing that it was just another Unix variant I actually started off with Slackware 3.5. I didn't really have that much trouble installing it and was using it for a few weeks until RH 5.2 was released. I must say that I was much more impressed with RH 5.2's install process and have been using it since. Although even though I installed RH 5.2 I wouldn't say that's what I use now. Just like any other distro, other than the few distro dependant utils such as rpm, yast, etc... All my utils an added apps were either added from ./configure ; make ; make install, or rpm -i blah.rpm (if I didn't feel like compiling)... My point is... Once I had RH 5.2 installed I tweaked it just like any Linux user. I installed Samba, Xfree 3.3.3.1, KDE 1.1, AfterStep 1.7.90, Kernel v2.2.6, etc... Other than some of the initial setup, every distro is the same... I don't see RH falling prey to MS business tactics and think they are doing a very good job. Until I ran the RH 5.2 install, I still was thinking I should once again use FreeBSD since the 2.0 install of freeBSD was very slick.... I hope all the so called hard core linux users will realize that RedHat hasn't done bad yet...and as everything else has been saying... If they're GPL'ing all of their utils/code, they can't really become a monopolistic bunch. Also, in the real world it is more than likely that vendors will make the simple install scripts / wrapper scripts for different distros because this is a significantly less amount of effort than actual porting from say, HP-UX -> Solaris -> AIX, etc...
Just my $.02 worth!
DJ Booya