Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > > > Does anyone know how to determine which file system a disk was > > formatted with, if fdisk -l doesn't show it? > > I would use gparted from the command line or from Gnome's / > Applications / System Tools menu > > yum install gparted > > > -- > > > Thanx, I don't have a machine with X installed at my disposal right now, only servers. -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > If 'fdisk -l /dev/sda' does not show anything, either the disks were > never partitioned or formatted, at least not as a bare drive. What kind > of disk is this (I know it says USB above, but I am assuming these are > bare disk(s) that you installed in a USB enclosure). > > It is *possible* these disks were part of a *hardware* RAID array, in > which case only the hardware RAID would know how to deal with them > (they would have some vendor-specific metadata / superblock on them > somewhere). If the disks are not partitularly large (< 1TB) if they > were actually in use they would likely have a MS-DOS partition table > (which fdisk -l would be displaying). If they are larger disks they > might have gpt partition table (parted would show this). It is > possible that they have a Solaris disk label (if they were in a Solaris > machine). > > It is *possible* that someone used them as part of a Linux software > RAID array using the whole disk, in which case there might be a MD > superblock on them (mdadm might see it) and it is ALSO possible that > they were part of a LVM volume group, also using the whole disk as a > PV, in which case there should be LVM metadata on them (lvm might see > this). > > If none of the above, they are just 'factory fresh', never used disks. > > -- > > All the drives are old 160GB SATA. There's 1x 160GB IDE as well. They were used in the office on various machines, so no hardware RAID, but they definitely had some data on them. I did get some drives with software RAID on and could recover the data, but there's 2 drives which I can't figure out what filesystem they have / had on them. We use Linux & FreeBSD, so I suspect they had ZFS / UFS on them, but couldn't mount them on a FreeBSD server with ZFS or UFS either. -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
> On 06/25/2011 06:46 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Does anyone know how to determine which file system a disk was formatted
> with,
> > if fdisk -l doesn't show it?
> [snip]
> > I need to see what data is on a bunch of disks that I found in storage
> and would
> > prefer to first check if there's anything of use on them before I format
> them
>
> Running "file -s /dev/{some_partition}" will generally tell you something.
>
> --
> Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address.
> Do NOT delete it.
>
> ___
>
>
It did:
[root@HP-DL360 ~]# file -s /dev/sda
/dev/sda: empty
--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux
Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Saturday, June 25, 2011 07:46:01 AM Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > Does anyone know how to determine which file system a disk was formatted > > with, if fdisk -l doesn't show it? > > blkid -s TYPE > > On a C5 box here: > [root@backup670 ~]# blkid -s TYPE > /dev/mapper/vg_backup670-lv_root: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/md1: TYPE="swap" > /dev/md0: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/sdb2: TYPE="swap" > /dev/sdb1: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/sda2: TYPE="swap" > /dev/sda1: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/hda: TYPE="iso9660" > /dev/vg_backup670/lv_root: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/mapper/pachy--mirror-home: TYPE="xfs" > /dev/vg_opt/lv_pachy: TYPE="ext4" > /dev/pachy-mirror/home: TYPE="xfs" > /dev/mapper/vg_opt-lv_pachy: TYPE="ext4" > [root@backup670 ~]# > > On a RHEL 6.1 box here: > [root@www ~]# blkid -s TYPE > /dev/sdd1: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/sde1: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/sdk1: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/sdn1: TYPE="xfs" > /dev/sdg1: TYPE="ext4" > /dev/sds1: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/sdy1: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/sdaa1: TYPE="ext4" > /dev/sdag1: TYPE="linux_raid_member" > /dev/sdx1: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/sdaf1: TYPE="linux_raid_member" > /dev/sdad1: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/sdah1: TYPE="ext4" > /dev/sdah2: TYPE="LVM2_member" > /dev/mapper/vg_www-lv_root: TYPE="ext4" > /dev/mapper/vg_www-lv_swap: TYPE="swap" > /dev/md127: TYPE="ext3" > /dev/mapper/vg_bak2-lv_lobak: TYPE="ext4" > [root@www ~]# > > Useful stuff. > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > wow, this is quite a neat trick! But, it didn't help me much: [root@HP-DL360 ~]# blkid -s TYPE /dev/mapper/LVM-swap: TYPE="swap" /dev/mapper/LVM-root: TYPE="ext3" /dev/cciss/c0d0p1: TYPE="ext3" /dev/LVM/root: TYPE="ext3" /dev/LVM/swap: TYPE="swap" /dev/mapper/LVM-data: TYPE="ext3" [root@HP-DL360 ~]# fdisk -l /dev/sda [root@HP-DL360 ~]# Which filesystems can this command recognize? I checked the MAN page, but couldn't find a list of filesystems that it's familiar with -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On 06/26/11 12:58 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > All the drives are old 160GB SATA. There's 1x 160GB IDE as well. > > They were used in the office on various machines, so no hardware RAID, > but they definitely had some data on them. > I did get some drives with software RAID on and could recover the > data, but there's 2 drives which I can't figure out what filesystem > they have / had on them. > We use Linux & FreeBSD, so I suspect they had ZFS / UFS on them, but > couldn't mount them on a FreeBSD server with ZFS or UFS either. > is it possible you used the raw disk without partitioning? so in linux, that would be /dev/sdb instead of /dev/sdb1 or whatever. on a random server with normally partitioned disks... # file -s /dev/sda /dev/sda: x86 boot sector; partition 1: ID=0x83, active, starthead 1, startsector 63, 256977 sectors; partition 2: ID=0xfd, starthead 0, startsector 257040, 4192965 sectors; partition 3: ID=0xfd, starthead 0, startsector 4450005, 138914055 sectors, code offset 0x48 # file -s /dev/sda1 /dev/sda1: Linux rev 1.0 ext3 filesystem data (needs journal recovery) -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:04 AM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 06/26/11 12:58 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > > > > All the drives are old 160GB SATA. There's 1x 160GB IDE as well. > > > > They were used in the office on various machines, so no hardware RAID, > > but they definitely had some data on them. > > I did get some drives with software RAID on and could recover the > > data, but there's 2 drives which I can't figure out what filesystem > > they have / had on them. > > We use Linux & FreeBSD, so I suspect they had ZFS / UFS on them, but > > couldn't mount them on a FreeBSD server with ZFS or UFS either. > > > > is it possible you used the raw disk without partitioning? so in > linux, that would be /dev/sdb instead of /dev/sdb1 or whatever. > > > on a random server with normally partitioned disks... > > # file -s /dev/sda > /dev/sda: x86 boot sector; partition 1: ID=0x83, active, starthead 1, > startsector 63, 256977 sectors; partition 2: ID=0xfd, starthead 0, > startsector 257040, 4192965 sectors; partition 3: ID=0xfd, starthead 0, > startsector 4450005, 138914055 sectors, code offset 0x48 > > # file -s /dev/sda1 > /dev/sda1: Linux rev 1.0 ext3 filesystem data (needs journal recovery) > > > > > -- > john r pierceN 37, W 122 > santa cruz ca mid-left coast > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > It's hard to say. They've been in the cupboard for along time and I don't know which tech did what on them, which is why I'm trying to see which file systems were on them last, so that I can see what data is on them. -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On 06/26/11 1:11 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > It's hard to say. They've been in the cupboard for along time and I > don't know which tech did what on them, which is why I'm trying to see > which file systems were on them last, so that I can see what data is > on them. well, if as you say... > [root@HP-DL360 ~]# file -s /dev/sda > /dev/sda: empty I'm guessing the tech wiped them clean. `dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=65536` will do that nicely. -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > To: CentOS mailing list > From: Rudi Ahlers > Subject: Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk? > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:04 AM, John R Pierce wrote: > >> On 06/26/11 12:58 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: >>> >>> All the drives are old 160GB SATA. There's 1x 160GB IDE as well. >>> >>> They were used in the office on various machines, so no hardware RAID, >>> but they definitely had some data on them. >>> I did get some drives with software RAID on and could recover the >>> data, but there's 2 drives which I can't figure out what filesystem >>> they have / had on them. >>> We use Linux & FreeBSD, so I suspect they had ZFS / UFS on them, but >>> couldn't mount them on a FreeBSD server with ZFS or UFS either. >>> >> >> is it possible you used the raw disk without partitioning? so in >> linux, that would be /dev/sdb instead of /dev/sdb1 or whatever. >> >> >> on a random server with normally partitioned disks... >> >> # file -s /dev/sda >> /dev/sda: x86 boot sector; partition 1: ID=0x83, active, starthead 1, >> startsector 63, 256977 sectors; partition 2: ID=0xfd, starthead 0, >> startsector 257040, 4192965 sectors; partition 3: ID=0xfd, starthead 0, >> startsector 4450005, 138914055 sectors, code offset 0x48 >> >> # file -s /dev/sda1 >> /dev/sda1: Linux rev 1.0 ext3 filesystem data (needs journal recovery) >> >> >> >> >> -- >> john r pierceN 37, W 122 >> santa cruz ca mid-left coast >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > > It's hard to say. They've been in the cupboard for along time and I don't > know which tech did what on them, which is why I'm trying to see which file > systems were on them last, so that I can see what data is on them. What about using a spare low spec machine with removable EIDE and SATA drive caddies? This would come in handy for times like these, or if you needed to wipe a drive completely befroe disposal? HTH Keith Roberts - Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Keith Roberts wrote: > > > > > It's hard to say. They've been in the cupboard for along time and I don't > > know which tech did what on them, which is why I'm trying to see which > file > > systems were on them last, so that I can see what data is on them. > > What about using a spare low spec machine with removable > EIDE and SATA drive caddies? This would come in handy for > times like these, or if you needed to wipe a drive > completely befroe disposal? > > HTH > > Keith Roberts > > > Keith, don't take this the wrong way, but you're going off the beaten track here. Whether the drives are attached to a motherboard, or USB disk caddy doesn't change the file systems on them -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > To: CentOS mailing list > From: Rudi Ahlers > Subject: Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk? > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Keith Roberts wrote: > >> >>> >>> It's hard to say. They've been in the cupboard for along >>> time and I don't know which tech did what on them, which >>> is why I'm trying to see which >> file >>> systems were on them last, so that I can see what data is on them. >> >> What about using a spare low spec machine with removable >> EIDE and SATA drive caddies? This would come in handy for >> times like these, or if you needed to wipe a drive >> completely befroe disposal? >> >> HTH >> >> Keith Roberts > Keith, don't take this the wrong way, but you're going off > the beaten track here. > > Whether the drives are attached to a motherboard, or USB > disk caddy doesn't change the file systems on them Absolutely. You did say they have been in a cupboard for some time, and using a spare machine with removable EIDE or SATA drive caddies would allow you to swap the EIDE or SATA drives quickly into the caddies for doing whatever you want to them, without having to fiddle about and install the drive permanently. But as the job is almost done, I guess that's not important now? Kind Regards, Keith - Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] - ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On 06/26/11 1:18 AM, John R Pierce wrote: >> > [root@HP-DL360 ~]# file -s /dev/sda >> > /dev/sda: empty > I'm guessing the tech wiped them clean. or they were spares for a raid system, never used. -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] iptables port forwarding
Dear all, I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. can you help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) -> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - In Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run system-config-firewall 1.1 open local port 8080 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. Thanks ! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
At Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:58:16 +0200 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > > > > If 'fdisk -l /dev/sda' does not show anything, either the disks were > > never partitioned or formatted, at least not as a bare drive. What kind > > of disk is this (I know it says USB above, but I am assuming these are > > bare disk(s) that you installed in a USB enclosure). > > > > It is *possible* these disks were part of a *hardware* RAID array, in > > which case only the hardware RAID would know how to deal with them > > (they would have some vendor-specific metadata / superblock on them > > somewhere). If the disks are not partitularly large (< 1TB) if they > > were actually in use they would likely have a MS-DOS partition table > > (which fdisk -l would be displaying). If they are larger disks they > > might have gpt partition table (parted would show this). It is > > possible that they have a Solaris disk label (if they were in a Solaris > > machine). > > > > It is *possible* that someone used them as part of a Linux software > > RAID array using the whole disk, in which case there might be a MD > > superblock on them (mdadm might see it) and it is ALSO possible that > > they were part of a LVM volume group, also using the whole disk as a > > PV, in which case there should be LVM metadata on them (lvm might see > > this). > > > > If none of the above, they are just 'factory fresh', never used disks. > > > > -- > > > > > > All the drives are old 160GB SATA. There's 1x 160GB IDE as well. > > They were used in the office on various machines, so no hardware RAID, but > they definitely had some data on them. > I did get some drives with software RAID on and could recover the data, but > there's 2 drives which I can't figure out what filesystem they have / had on > them. > We use Linux & FreeBSD, so I suspect they had ZFS / UFS on them, but > couldn't mount them on a FreeBSD server with ZFS or UFS either. Wondering: could these extra 2 drives have been 'spare' disks that were never actually installed? And got mixed in with the 'used' drives? It is also possible that the drives got 'wiped' somehow, eg they were on the bottom shelf when the cleaning crew came by with the floor waxing machine... > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/ () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > Wondering: could these extra 2 drives have been 'spare' disks that were > never actually installed? And got mixed in with the 'used' drives? > > I doubt it since there are quite a few drives that were part of a RAID set and I could get some data from them. > It is also possible that the drives got 'wiped' somehow, eg they were > on the bottom shelf when the cleaning crew came by with the floor waxing > machine... > No floor waxing or other "vibrating" machines come in this office. So I guess the techs just completely wiped them for security or other reasons. Unfortunately none of the guys remember. But it's fine, I'll just salvage what I can from the other drives and then resell these to someone else who can use them. > > > > > > > -- > Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com > Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/ > () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail > /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments > > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Jumbo Frame performance or lackof?
> I'm wondering, that since Jumbo Frames was supposed to be better for > bulk transfers, why am I seeing these results? Is it the ElRepo > drivers I used to enable higher MTUs or possibly some kind of oddity > with the realtek NICs I am using? Or am I mistaken about the benefits > of jumbo frames and that they are only beneficial in specific > configurations, perhaps only with higher network speeds and enough > packets at 1500 MTU to overwhelm packet handling hardware? In short, the entire path from origin to destination must be configured to support jumbo frames. If not, then the devices at various points in the path will attempt to scale and you'll end up getting fragmentation and higher overhead in the devices leading to worse overall performance. Have you verified this is the case? Of course, the quality of the driver for your NIC will also play a role. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Jumbo frames problem with Realtek NICs?
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: > Now the question is whether the overheads reduction, even at sub-10GBs > speeds, may be significant if the host/guest are VMs instead of actual > physical machines. If you are going to use it on virtual interfaces, I would think it would help, especially if you have greater number of VM's. If virtual interfaces can achieve greater/unlimited speed, this could even have greater impact on throughput itself. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: > Dear all, > I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. can you > help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 > Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 > > > Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) -> > a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - > In Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using > system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run system-config-firewall > 1.1 open local port 8080 > 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp > 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p > tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. > > > > > Thanks ! You have to use Destination NAT for the job: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea to specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 Marian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] sendmail - smtp security/authentication & port 587 issues
Max Pyziur wrote: > Are there any views in this CentOs user community on [using port 587]? Yes. Not only is enabling 'submission' a good idea, but you should also enable 'smtps' (which is different from smtp+tls): DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp, Name=MTA')dnl DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=submission, Name=MSA, M=Ea')dnl DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtps, Name=TLSMTA, M=s')dnl > To authenticate, users would first have to POP their mail. > > Is there a better way of doing this? As others have said, yes. Details: Have the users do authentication over smtp+tls, submission, or smtps (you should enable all three and let the users pick as the optimal solution varies with email client). To do this safely, you *must* ensure that you only permit someone to authenticate if they're on an encrypted session. define(`confAUTH_OPTIONS', `A,p,y')dnl TRUST_AUTH_MECH(`EXTERNAL LOGIN PLAIN')dnl define(`confAUTH_MECHANISMS', `EXTERNAL LOGIN PLAIN')dnl define(`confTLS_SRV_OPTIONS', `V')dnl FEATURE(`no_default_msa', `dnl')dnl FEATURE(`smrsh', `/usr/sbin/smrsh')dnl You need to set up saslauthd to support it. I use saslauthd to query ldap. My systems also use cyrus imapd as the MDA, although you could use other MDAs. Remember to set up SSL (confCACERT_PATH, confCACERT, confSERVER_CERT, confSERVER_KEY). Devin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Still having umask problems
I have the samba problems solved thanks to the help of folks on this forum, but I do not have the php umask problems solved. The www directory is /var/www/html and the html directory is owned by apache and is in the apache groups with the following permissions: drwxrwsr-- A sub-driectory, /var/www/html/viewpoints has the same attributes as the html directory, however when php creates a directory within /var/www/html/viewpoints, the permissions are drwxr-sr-x My goal is to have any created directories and files to have 774 permissions. What am I missing? Todd -- Ariste Software Petaluma, CA 94952 http://www.aristesoftware.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] how do determine last file system on disk?
On 06/26/11 3:53 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > It is also possible that the drives got 'wiped' somehow, eg they were > on the bottom shelf when the cleaning crew came by with the floor waxing > machine... in that scenario, you would get nothing but servo errors from the drive, they wouldn't even finish spinning up -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
Thanks Marian, The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables records, only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , then how? 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： >On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: >> Dear all, >> I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. can you >> help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 >> Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 >> >> >> Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) -> >> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - >> In Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using >> system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run system-config-firewall >> 1.1 open local port 8080 >> 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp >> 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >> 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p >> tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. >> >> >> >> >> Thanks ! >You have to use Destination NAT for the job: > >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 >echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea to specify >the destination -d 192.168.1.250 > >Marian ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
On Monday 27 June 2011 00:08:08 muiz wrote: > Thanks Marian, > The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables records, > only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , then how? Huh, I'm sorry yes you need a second rule. So the rules are: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s local_ip/local_net --to 192.168.1.250 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward The Source NAT(SNAT) rule is needed, cause otherwise the packaets that reach a.b.c.d will be comming from the ip of the local client not 192.168.1.250 and so 192.168.1.250 will never receive the replies from a.b.c.d. Since the packets reach the client directly from a.b.c.d, the client will simply disregard them and will wait for packets comming from .1.250. So the SNAT rule changes the SOURCE IP of the packets to 1.250 so a.b.c.d will return the answares to the right source. Marian > > > 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： > > >On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. can > >> you > >> > >> help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 > >> Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 > >> > >> > >> Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) -> > >> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - > >> In Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using > >> system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run > >> system-config-firewall > >> > >> 1.1 open local port 8080 > >> 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp > >> > >> 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >> 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d > >> -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks ! > > > >You have to use Destination NAT for the job: > > > >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > >a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > > > >If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea to > >specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 > > > >Marian > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Best regards, Marian Marinov signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Does anyone using dm-cache?
Rudi Ahlers wrote on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:42:16 +0200: > it's 2 different list, with different people > and different input Ask on one list first, wait, if you ask on another provide what you got so far from the other list. That is plain courtesy. Kai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Latest kernel produces kernel error on Dell R200 on boot-up
I accidentally noticed this error written to the warn log on my Dell R200's when the machines booted up after latest kernel update. Google doesn't have this exact error, only a few with differently named devices, but all seem to have to do with USB. Could this be a bug? Didn't see this error on other machines with more than one USB port, though. Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: kobject_add failed for usbdev1.2_ep81 with - EEXIST, don't try to register things with the same name in the same directory. Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: Call Trace: Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] kobject_add+0x166/0x191 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] device_add+0x85/0x372 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] usb_create_ep_files+0x137/0x19a Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] klist_add_tail+0x35/0x42 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] usb_create_sysfs_intf_files+0x80/0x93 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] usb_set_configuration+0x3aa/0x3d9 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] usb_new_device+0x253/0x2c4 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] hub_thread+0x74e/0xb11 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] hub_thread+0x0/0xb11 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] keventd_create_kthread+0x0/0xc4 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] kthread+0xfe/0x132 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] child_rip+0xa/0x12 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] keventd_create_kthread+0x0/0xc4 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] kthread+0x0/0x132 Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] child_rip+0x0/0x12 Kai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Still having umask problems [resend]
I have the samba problems solved thanks to the help of folks on this forum, but I do not have the php umask problems solved. The www directory is /var/www/html and the html directory is owned by apache and is in the apache groups with the following permissions: drwxrwsr-- A sub-driectory, /var/www/html/viewpoints has the same attributes as the html directory, however when php creates a directory within /var/www/html/viewpoints, the permissions are drwxr-sr-x My goal is to have any created directories and files to have 774 permissions. What am I missing? Todd -- Ariste Software Petaluma, CA 94952 http://www.aristesoftware.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
> > > yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes > it useful. > besides, read the title text on that page again: > "QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not > official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target > dates are subject to change." > > Which makes it pretty useless. -- No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. Regards Mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
So, to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it happen in June or July? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Still having umask problems [resend]
> My goal is to have any created directories and files to have 774
> permissions.
Hi Todd,
Am I correct in assuming the php script that creates the directory
uses the mkdir() function? If so something along the lines of:
mkdir('mydir', 0774); should suffice. The 0 can be changed to 2, 4 or
6 depending on what combination of SGID & SUID sticky bits you want on
the directory.
--
Drew
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Monday, June 27, 2011 10:46 AM, robert mena wrote: > So, > > to go back to the topic what is the current status for 6.0? Will it > happen in June or July? > I vote "who cares?" ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: > > I vote "who cares?" I vote "http://qaweb.dev.centos.org";. John -- I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right. -- Euripides (c 480 BC - 406 BC), Greek playwright, Suppliants pgpBsgJZs8ywH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
Dear Marian and all, It seems don't works: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to a.b.c.d echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward I check the Fedora iptables setting: /etc/sysconfig/iptables files: ... :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] -A PREROUTING -i eth+ -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination a.b.c.d:8080 :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A FORWARD -i eth+ -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d a.b.c.d --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT And more rules I add is : /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8080 -j MASQUERADE Then it works! But if I don't use system-config-firewall GUI tools, then how? Thanks very much ! At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: >On Monday 27 June 2011 00:08:08 muiz wrote: >> Thanks Marian, >> The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables records, >> only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , then how? > >Huh, I'm sorry yes you need a second rule. So the rules are: >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 >iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s local_ip/local_net --to >192.168.1.250 >echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >The Source NAT(SNAT) rule is needed, cause otherwise the packaets that reach >a.b.c.d will be comming from the ip of the local client not 192.168.1.250 and >so 192.168.1.250 will never receive the replies from a.b.c.d. >Since the packets reach the client directly from a.b.c.d, the client will >simply disregard them and will wait for packets comming from .1.250. > >So the SNAT rule changes the SOURCE IP of the packets to 1.250 so a.b.c.d will >return the answares to the right source. > >Marian > >> >> >> 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： >> >> >On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. can >> >> you >> >> >> >> help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 >> >> Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 >> >> >> >> >> >> Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) -> >> >> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - >> >> In Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using >> >> system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run >> >> system-config-firewall >> >> >> >> 1.1 open local port 8080 >> >> 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp >> >> >> >> 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >> >> 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d >> >> -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks ! >> > >> >You have to use Destination NAT for the job: >> > >> >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to >> >a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >> > >> >If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea to >> >specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 >> > >> >Marian >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >-- >Best regards, >Marian Marinov ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
On Monday 27 June 2011 06:50:27 muiz wrote: > Dear Marian and all, > It seems don't works: > /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s > 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to a.b.c.d echo 1 > > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward Yup, its normal not to work... You got the SNAT rule wrong :) It should be to the IP of the server that is DOING the forwarding... so /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to 192.168.1.250 Marian > > > I check the Fedora iptables setting: /etc/sysconfig/iptables files: > ... > > :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] > > -A PREROUTING -i eth+ -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination > a.b.c.d:8080 > > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] > > -A FORWARD -i eth+ -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d a.b.c.d --dport > 8080 -j ACCEPT > > > And more rules I add is : > /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8080 -j > MASQUERADE > > > Then it works! But if I don't use system-config-firewall GUI tools, then > how? > > > > > Thanks very much ! > > At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: > >On Monday 27 June 2011 00:08:08 muiz wrote: > >> Thanks Marian, > >> The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables records, > >> only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , then how? > > > >Huh, I'm sorry yes you need a second rule. So the rules are: > >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > >a.b.c.d:8181 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s local_ip/local_net > >--to 192.168.1.250 > >echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > > > >The Source NAT(SNAT) rule is needed, cause otherwise the packaets that > >reach a.b.c.d will be comming from the ip of the local client not > >192.168.1.250 and so 192.168.1.250 will never receive the replies from > >a.b.c.d. > >Since the packets reach the client directly from a.b.c.d, the client will > >simply disregard them and will wait for packets comming from .1.250. > > > >So the SNAT rule changes the SOURCE IP of the packets to 1.250 so a.b.c.d > >will return the answares to the right source. > > > >Marian > > > >> 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： > >> > >> >On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: > >> >> Dear all, > >> >> > >> >> I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. > >> >> can you > >> >> > >> >> help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 > >> >> Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) > >> >> -> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - In > >> >> Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using > >> >> system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run > >> >> system-config-firewall > >> >> > >> >> 1.1 open local port 8080 > >> >> 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp > >> >> > >> >> 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >> >> 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d > >> >> a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Thanks ! > >> > > >> >You have to use Destination NAT for the job: > >> > > >> >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > >> >a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >> > > >> >If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea to > >> >specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 > >> > > >> >Marian > >> > >> ___ > >> CentOS mailing list > >> CentOS@centos.org > >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Best regards, Marian Marinov signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
On Monday, June 27, 2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:25:21AM +0800, Christopher Chan wrote: >> >> I vote "who cares?" > > I vote "http://qaweb.dev.centos.org";. > Too bad that does not seem to be good enough for some. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
Marian, I'm very happy you're online :)I think I have try the record you mention just now. And I would like to clear what I have done (the scripts I test):/sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to 192.168.1.250 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_fowardThen it's not to work! At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: >On Monday 27 June 2011 06:50:27 muiz wrote: >> Dear Marian and all, >> It seems don't works: >> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to >> a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s >> 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to a.b.c.d echo 1 > >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >Yup, its normal not to work... You got the SNAT rule wrong :) > >It should be to the IP of the server that is DOING the forwarding... > >so > >/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to >192.168.1.250 > >Marian > >> >> >> I check the Fedora iptables setting: /etc/sysconfig/iptables files: >> ... >> >> :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] >> >> -A PREROUTING -i eth+ -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination >> a.b.c.d:8080 >> >> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] >> >> -A FORWARD -i eth+ -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d a.b.c.d --dport >> 8080 -j ACCEPT >> >> >> And more rules I add is : >> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8080 -j >> MASQUERADE >> >> >> Then it works! But if I don't use system-config-firewall GUI tools, then >> how? >> >> >> >> >> Thanks very much ! >> >> At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: >> >On Monday 27 June 2011 00:08:08 muiz wrote: >> >> Thanks Marian, >> >> The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables records, >> >> only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , then how? >> > >> >Huh, I'm sorry yes you need a second rule. So the rules are: >> >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to >> >a.b.c.d:8181 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s local_ip/local_net >> >--to 192.168.1.250 >> >echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >> > >> >The Source NAT(SNAT) rule is needed, cause otherwise the packaets that >> >reach a.b.c.d will be comming from the ip of the local client not >> >192.168.1.250 and so 192.168.1.250 will never receive the replies from >> >a.b.c.d. >> >Since the packets reach the client directly from a.b.c.d, the client will >> >simply disregard them and will wait for packets comming from .1.250. >> > >> >So the SNAT rule changes the SOURCE IP of the packets to 1.250 so a.b.c.d >> >will return the answares to the right source. >> > >> >Marian >> > >> >> 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： >> >> >> >> >On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. >> >> >> can you >> >> >> >> >> >> help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 >> >> >> Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) >> >> >> -> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - In >> >> >> Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using >> >> >> system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run >> >> >> system-config-firewall >> >> >> >> >> >> 1.1 open local port 8080 >> >> >> 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >> >> >> 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d >> >> >> a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks ! >> >> > >> >> >You have to use Destination NAT for the job: >> >> > >> >> >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to >> >> >a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >> >> > >> >> >If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea to >> >> >specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 >> >> > >> >> >Marian >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> CentOS mailing list >> >> CentOS@centos.org >> >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >-- >Best regards, >Marian Marinov ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
On Monday 27 June 2011 07:15:33 muiz wrote: > Marian, I'm very happy you're online :)I think I have try the record you > mention just now. And I would like to clear what I have done (the scripts > I test):/sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 > --to a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s > 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to 192.168.1.250 echo 1 > > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_fowardThen it's not to work! You have to have some other iptables rules that block the traffic since this has to work. Marian > At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: > >On Monday 27 June 2011 06:50:27 muiz wrote: > >> Dear Marian and all, > >> > >> It seems don't works: > >> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > >> a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s > >> 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to a.b.c.d echo 1 > > >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > > > >Yup, its normal not to work... You got the SNAT rule wrong :) > > > >It should be to the IP of the server that is DOING the forwarding... > > > >so > > > >/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 > >--to 192.168.1.250 > > > >Marian > > > >> I check the Fedora iptables setting: /etc/sysconfig/iptables files: > >> ... > >> > >> :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] > >> > >> -A PREROUTING -i eth+ -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination > >> a.b.c.d:8080 > >> > >> :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] > >> > >> -A FORWARD -i eth+ -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d a.b.c.d --dport > >> 8080 -j ACCEPT > >> > >> > >> And more rules I add is : > >> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8080 -j > >> MASQUERADE > >> > >> > >> Then it works! But if I don't use system-config-firewall GUI tools, > >> then how? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks very much ! > >> > >> At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: > >> >On Monday 27 June 2011 00:08:08 muiz wrote: > >> >> Thanks Marian, > >> >> The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables > >> >> records, only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , > >> >> then how? > >> > > >> >Huh, I'm sorry yes you need a second rule. So the rules are: > >> >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > >> >a.b.c.d:8181 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s > >> >local_ip/local_net --to 192.168.1.250 > >> >echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >> > > >> >The Source NAT(SNAT) rule is needed, cause otherwise the packaets that > >> >reach a.b.c.d will be comming from the ip of the local client not > >> >192.168.1.250 and so 192.168.1.250 will never receive the replies from > >> >a.b.c.d. > >> >Since the packets reach the client directly from a.b.c.d, the client > >> >will simply disregard them and will wait for packets comming from > >> >.1.250. > >> > > >> >So the SNAT rule changes the SOURCE IP of the packets to 1.250 so > >> >a.b.c.d will return the answares to the right source. > >> > > >> >Marian > >> > > >> >> 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： > >> >> > >> >> >On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: > >> >> >> Dear all, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but > >> >> >> failed. can you > >> >> >> > >> >> >> help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 > >> >> >> Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 > >> >> >> (forward) -> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 > >> >> >> - In Fedora, I > >> >> >> successfully to config the firewall using > >> >> >> system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run > >> >> >> system-config-firewall > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1.1 open local port 8080 > >> >> >> 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >> >> >> 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d > >> >> >> a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Thanks ! > >> >> > > >> >> >You have to use Destination NAT for the job: > >> >> > > >> >> >iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > >> >> >a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > >> >> > > >> >> >If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea > >> >> >to specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 > >> >> > > >> >> >Marian > >> >> > >> >> ___ > >> >> CentOS mailing list > >> >> CentOS@centos.org > >> >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Best regards, Marian Marinov signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-6 Status updates
Mark Bradbury wrote: > > yes cool isn't it, that webpage is updated! actually that's what makes > it useful. > besides, read the title text on that page again: > "QA dates are tentative dates for internal planning only. These are not > official release dates, but only a guide for the QA team. All target > dates are subject to change." > > > Which makes it pretty useless. > Not quite. Those are at least "not before this date". And those are goals set for upcoming period. If issues are found between now and then, then schedule has to be moved. They are not Microsoft to release unfinished product. But I do think that some kind of announcement that target date might/will not be met should be posted 1-2 days prior to that date. That would make speculations at lowest minimum possible. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Latest kernel produces kernel error on Dell R200 on boot-up
Kai Schaetzl wrote: > I accidentally noticed this error written to the warn log on my Dell > R200's when the machines booted up after latest kernel update. Google > doesn't have this exact error, only a few with differently named devices, > but all seem to have to do with USB. > Could this be a bug? > Didn't see this error on other machines with more than one USB port, > though. > > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: kobject_add failed for usbdev1.2_ep81 with - > EEXIST, don't try to register things with the same name in the same > directory. > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: Call Trace: > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] kobject_add+0x166/0x191 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] device_add+0x85/0x372 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > usb_create_ep_files+0x137/0x19a > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] klist_add_tail+0x35/0x42 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > usb_create_sysfs_intf_files+0x80/0x93 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > usb_set_configuration+0x3aa/0x3d9 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > usb_new_device+0x253/0x2c4 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] hub_thread+0x74e/0xb11 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] hub_thread+0x0/0xb11 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > keventd_create_kthread+0x0/0xc4 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] kthread+0xfe/0x132 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] child_rip+0xa/0x12 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] > keventd_create_kthread+0x0/0xc4 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] kthread+0x0/0x132 > Jun 26 22:59:07 c4 kernel: [] child_rip+0x0/0x12 > > > Kai > You failed to mention that this is CentOS 4 kernel, am I correct it is C4? Adding as much info as possible is always advised. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] iptables port forwarding
Marian Marinov wrote: > On Monday 27 June 2011 07:15:33 muiz wrote: >> Marian, I'm very happy you're online :)I think I have try the record you >> mention just now. And I would like to clear what I have done (the scripts >> I test):/sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 >> --to a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s >> 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to 192.168.1.250 echo 1 > >> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_fowardThen it's not to work! > > You have to have some other iptables rules that block the traffic since this > has > to work. > > Marian > >> At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: >>> On Monday 27 June 2011 06:50:27 muiz wrote: Dear Marian and all, It seems don't works: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to a.b.c.d:8181 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 --to a.b.c.d echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >>> Yup, its normal not to work... You got the SNAT rule wrong :) >>> >>> It should be to the IP of the server that is DOING the forwarding... >>> >>> so >>> >>> /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 >>> --to 192.168.1.250 >>> >>> Marian >>> I check the Fedora iptables setting: /etc/sysconfig/iptables files: ... :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0] -A PREROUTING -i eth+ -p tcp --dport 8080 -j DNAT --to-destination a.b.c.d:8080 :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A FORWARD -i eth+ -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -d a.b.c.d --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT And more rules I add is : /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8080 -j MASQUERADE Then it works! But if I don't use system-config-firewall GUI tools, then how? Thanks very much ! At 2011-06-27，"Marian Marinov" wrote: > On Monday 27 June 2011 00:08:08 muiz wrote: >> Thanks Marian, >> The server only has one IP. I think I should add more iptables >> records, only one NAT record is not enough,isit correct? If yes , >> then how? > Huh, I'm sorry yes you need a second rule. So the rules are: > iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to > a.b.c.d:8181 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT -s > local_ip/local_net --to 192.168.1.250 > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward > > The Source NAT(SNAT) rule is needed, cause otherwise the packaets that > reach a.b.c.d will be comming from the ip of the local client not > 192.168.1.250 and so 192.168.1.250 will never receive the replies from > a.b.c.d. > Since the packets reach the client directly from a.b.c.d, the client > will simply disregard them and will wait for packets comming from > .1.250. > > So the SNAT rule changes the SOURCE IP of the packets to 1.250 so > a.b.c.d will return the answares to the right source. > > Marian > >> 2011-06-26 23:38:58，"Marian Marinov" wrote： >> >>> On Sunday 26 June 2011 12:53:07 muiz wrote: Dear all, I would like to forward a port to an internet server, but failed. can you help me? Server: eth0: 192.168.1.250, Port: 8080 TCP, CentOS 5.6 Remote server: IP: a.b.c.d Port: 8181 Forward path: client1(192.168.1.10) -> 192.168.1.250:8080 (forward) -> a.b.c.d Port: 8181 - In Fedora, I successfully to config the firewall using system-config-firewall and iptables command: 1. Run system-config-firewall 1.1 open local port 8080 1.2 add a forward rule: local 8080 to remote a.b.c.d:8181, tcp 2. echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward 3. add a iptables rule: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d a.b.c.d -p tcp --dport 8181 -j MASQUERADE That's all. Thanks ! >>> You have to use Destination NAT for the job: >>> >>> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 8080 --to >>> a.b.c.d:8181 echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_foward >>> >>> If you have more then one IPs on the local machine its a good idea >>> to specify the destination -d 192.168.1.250 >>> >>> Marian >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Actually, very BIG difference in two scripts is that on Fedora he redirects port 8080 to a.b.c.d 8080, but in OP he said a.b.c.d uses port 8181!!! And if correction of the port does not help, then he can try with additional rule: -A FORWARD -i eth+ -p tcp -d a.b.c.d --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org h
