Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
I am doing something sort of similar ... use a routing protocol and set the metrics to make the LAN more attractive so it will get used over the wifi. Use dhcp to update dns. I was using ospf (quagga), dns and ISC dhcp which auto-updates bind. This is "transparent" to the the hosts, is a pain to set up but then just works. Pinning addresses makes like life very difficult though as dhcp wont update dns so Ive gone back to manually setting up the dns side for some hosts :( BillK On 23/05/13 02:52, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/22/13 14:30, Samuraiii wrote: >> I'm sorry for mistake the subnet mask for both spaces IS 255.255.255.0. >> so it is not overlapping at all. >> I apologise for my mistake in notation. >> still this is not (mainly) problem with routing but problem with >> assigning name to address. >> If I had superfast internet connection I would not mind and just use vpn >> address space. >> So basically i need to assign lan address to computer (laptop) which is >> in same location (LAN) as other machines. And vpn address on all other >> computers. >> >> to illustrate: >> >> hostname: foo >> Location:1 >> address eth0: 10.1.1.3 >> address tap0: 10.2.2.3 >> >> hotname: bar >> Location: 1 >> addresses are irrelevant >> hosts entry for foo is 10.1.1.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo >> moves to location 2 to 10.2.2.3)* >> >> hosname baz >> Location: 2 >> addresses are irrelevant >> Hosts entry for foo is 10.2.2.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo >> moves to location 2 to 10.1.1.3)* >> > > Which machines are joined to the VPN? For a location-to-location VPN, > the simplest thing to do would be to have your gateway routers > participate in the VPN and handle the routing appropriately. That way if > you're on the LAN at location 1 and you send a packet to another machine > on the same LAN (using its VPN address), the gateway router knows to > send the packet right back onto the LAN. No configuration necessary on > the hosts. You can use the same VPN addresses at both locations. > > If that's not possible, set up a DNS resolver at each location and > return the appropriate (local or VPN) address. > >
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I run apache as non-root user?
On 05/22/2013 05:01 PM, Jarry wrote: > Hi Gentoo community, > > I modified apache config to have it running on non-private > port 8080. I restarted apache and verified that it is > really listening on port 8080 (netstat). But when I check > all running apache processes for owners, I see there is still > one apache process running as root (rest are running as > "apache" user). > > So my question is: how can I run apache completely as non-root > user? IIRC, "root" is necessary only if I want to use "low" > port numbers (0-1023), but my apache is using 8080... > That's the parent process; it doesn't actually handle any requests, it just hands them off to a child process running as another user/group. Apache needs to be root to both (a) bind to ports < 1024, and (b) switch to the user/group specified in httpd.conf. If you don't need to do either of those, try starting apache as the user you want it to run as. You'll probably need to write your own init scripts, since the stock ones assume that you're root.
[gentoo-user] How can I run apache as non-root user?
Hi Gentoo community, I modified apache config to have it running on non-private port 8080. I restarted apache and verified that it is really listening on port 8080 (netstat). But when I check all running apache processes for owners, I see there is still one apache process running as root (rest are running as "apache" user). So my question is: how can I run apache completely as non-root user? IIRC, "root" is necessary only if I want to use "low" port numbers (0-1023), but my apache is using 8080... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
Hi, On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:35:30PM +0200, Samuraiii wrote: > Script was just checking (by sftp with public ssh keys for unprivileged > account) if LAN (eth or wifi) address is up and if not it just assigned > address to hostname from vpn range (it did not accounted if machine is > up or down). And the just write new /etc/hosts. > I'm using something similar but more sophisticated. On my machines I have two hosts files, one for vpn, one for lan. Everytime I activate vpn on my machine, a symlink to the "vpn" hosts is created. Upon deactivation of my vpn the symlink points to the "normal" hosts. It looks like this: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Feb 3 23:24 /etc/hosts -> /etc/hosts.normal -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1354 Feb 19 04:49 /etc/hosts.normal -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1420 Feb 3 16:09 /etc/hosts.vpn I use OpenVPN for my vpn, which calls the scripts up.sh and down.sh during de/activation. I simply put a appropriate "ln" command at the end of these scripts. Sure not the best solution, but if you only have a few machines it is good and simple enough. -- regards alex
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
Michael Mol wrote: > On 05/22/2013 01:36 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with > >> one serious problem: > >> I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing > >> local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space > >> (10.2.2.0/8). > > This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space > > overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. > > > > Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be > > routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will > > be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now > > the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the > > same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what > > to do with it. > > > > > > To be clear, replacing /8 with /24 would do this: > > 10.1.1.0/8, as a "network", is really just 10.0.0.0/8. This is also true > of 10.2.2.0/8. The bits after the first 8 are irrelevant, since a /8 is > being used. Use /24 instead, in this case. > > It would be good for Samuraiii to read up: > > http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPAddressing.htm OK, I see now, never mind my previous post. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with > > one serious problem: > > I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing > > local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). > > This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space > overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. > > Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be > routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will > be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now > the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the > same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what > to do with it. > OK, why are they the same network? Looks like two separate networks to me, but I am very interested if I am wrong. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 05/22/13 15:35, Samuraiii wrote: > The only result I got was a script which every 5 minutes checked all > possible addresses of given machine (my "network" is not big at all - > only eight machines and one network printer). So checking around 20 > addreses is not big deal - but this approach feels clumsy and not > scalable to bigger networks (as have other users from list to deal with). > > Script was just checking (by sftp with public ssh keys for unprivileged > account) if LAN (eth or wifi) address is up and if not it just assigned > address to hostname from vpn range (it did not accounted if machine is > up or down). And the just write new /etc/hosts. > Central dns is possible only in one part of network - only one machine > runs 24/7. Can't this be changed? If you're running a script to update 20 hosts files regularly, you're reinventing what DNS already does. > > Routers on both sides are just simple boxes which support only built-in > dhcp. > Central DNS and/or routed VPN does not solve problem of compute not in > any of "known" networks. Both would solve the problem. If the routers are the VPN gateways as well, you could decide e.g. that a certain chunk of the VPN space belongs to location 1, and then have the router at location 1 do the appropriate thing (all packets travel through it, after all). This can be done directly with some VPN software, or you can translate the addresses on the fly with iptables. With a DNS server at each physical location, you just have the DNS server at location 1 return the local (location 1) address instead of the VPN address for any hostnames physically located at location 1.
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 2013-05-22 20:52, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/22/13 14:30, Samuraiii wrote: >> I'm sorry for mistake the subnet mask for both spaces IS 255.255.255.0. >> so it is not overlapping at all. >> I apologise for my mistake in notation. >> still this is not (mainly) problem with routing but problem with >> assigning name to address. >> If I had superfast internet connection I would not mind and just use vpn >> address space. >> So basically i need to assign lan address to computer (laptop) which is >> in same location (LAN) as other machines. And vpn address on all other >> computers. >> >> to illustrate: >> >> hostname: foo >> Location:1 >> address eth0: 10.1.1.3 >> address tap0: 10.2.2.3 >> >> hotname: bar >> Location: 1 >> addresses are irrelevant >> hosts entry for foo is 10.1.1.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo >> moves to location 2 to 10.2.2.3)* >> >> hosname baz >> Location: 2 >> addresses are irrelevant >> Hosts entry for foo is 10.2.2.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo >> moves to location 2 to 10.1.1.3)* >> > Which machines are joined to the VPN? For a location-to-location VPN, > the simplest thing to do would be to have your gateway routers > participate in the VPN and handle the routing appropriately. That way if > you're on the LAN at location 1 and you send a packet to another machine > on the same LAN (using its VPN address), the gateway router knows to > send the packet right back onto the LAN. No configuration necessary on > the hosts. You can use the same VPN addresses at both locations. > > If that's not possible, set up a DNS resolver at each location and > return the appropriate (local or VPN) address. > > The only result I got was a script which every 5 minutes checked all possible addresses of given machine (my "network" is not big at all - only eight machines and one network printer). So checking around 20 addreses is not big deal - but this approach feels clumsy and not scalable to bigger networks (as have other users from list to deal with). Script was just checking (by sftp with public ssh keys for unprivileged account) if LAN (eth or wifi) address is up and if not it just assigned address to hostname from vpn range (it did not accounted if machine is up or down). And the just write new /etc/hosts. Central dns is possible only in one part of network - only one machine runs 24/7. For me personally is not problem to remember where am I - but other users need names instead of adresses. Routers on both sides are just simple boxes which support only built-in dhcp. Central DNS and/or routed VPN does not solve problem of compute not in any of "known" networks. S
Re: [gentoo-user] Lightweight & Simple Proxy that supports upstream authentication
> On Monday 20 May 2013 11:31:31 Pandu Poluan wrote: > > Hello, > I'm looking for a simple HTTP+FTP proxy that supports upstream authentication. > The reason is that we (that is, my employer) have a server that requires Internet access for its setup, but for some reason* my employer does not want to give the contractors a login for the corporate proxy. > I'm planning of setting up a simple proxy to authenticate against the corporate proxy using one of my credentials, and have the contractor use this simple proxy instead of the corporate one. > I think Squid can do that... but is there a simpler solution? I truly don't need caching, inter-proxy coordination, or other exotic stuff. Just a way to allow other people to authenticate against the corporate proxy using my credentials, but without giving my credentials away. > (Of course the simple proxy will be installed on a totally separate system, one under my full control and nobody else's) cntlm is what you looking for http://cntlm.sourceforge.net/ It's available for linux and windows. Depending on your needs. I'm using it for years and it's doing really well. It needs a little time to create a config file. But it's really powerful. It's even possible to provide your contractors a config file within your credentials. hint: see the -M option or just use it with interactive prompt (-I option). heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 05/22/13 14:30, Samuraiii wrote: > I'm sorry for mistake the subnet mask for both spaces IS 255.255.255.0. > so it is not overlapping at all. > I apologise for my mistake in notation. > still this is not (mainly) problem with routing but problem with > assigning name to address. > If I had superfast internet connection I would not mind and just use vpn > address space. > So basically i need to assign lan address to computer (laptop) which is > in same location (LAN) as other machines. And vpn address on all other > computers. > > to illustrate: > > hostname: foo > Location:1 > address eth0: 10.1.1.3 > address tap0: 10.2.2.3 > > hotname: bar > Location: 1 > addresses are irrelevant > hosts entry for foo is 10.1.1.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo > moves to location 2 to 10.2.2.3)* > > hosname baz > Location: 2 > addresses are irrelevant > Hosts entry for foo is 10.2.2.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo > moves to location 2 to 10.1.1.3)* > Which machines are joined to the VPN? For a location-to-location VPN, the simplest thing to do would be to have your gateway routers participate in the VPN and handle the routing appropriately. That way if you're on the LAN at location 1 and you send a packet to another machine on the same LAN (using its VPN address), the gateway router knows to send the packet right back onto the LAN. No configuration necessary on the hosts. You can use the same VPN addresses at both locations. If that's not possible, set up a DNS resolver at each location and return the appropriate (local or VPN) address.
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 05/22/2013 02:30 PM, Samuraiii wrote: > > On 2013-05-22 19:52, Michael Mol wrote: >> On 05/22/2013 01:36 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: Hello, I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with one serious problem: I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). >>> This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space >>> overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. >>> >>> Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be >>> routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will >>> be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now >>> the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the >>> same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what >>> to do with it. >>> >>> >> To be clear, replacing /8 with /24 would do this: >> >> 10.1.1.0/8, as a "network", is really just 10.0.0.0/8. This is also true >> of 10.2.2.0/8. The bits after the first 8 are irrelevant, since a /8 is >> being used. Use /24 instead, in this case. >> >> It would be good for Samuraiii to read up: >> >> http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPAddressing.htm >> >> > I'm sorry for mistake the subnet mask for both spaces IS 255.255.255.0. > so it is not overlapping at all. > I apologise for my mistake in notation. > still this is not (mainly) problem with routing but problem with > assigning name to address. > If I had superfast internet connection I would not mind and just use > vpn address space. > So basically i need to assign lan address to computer (laptop) which > is in same location (LAN) as other machines. And vpn address on all > other computers. > > to illustrate: > > hostname: foo > Location:1 > address eth0: 10.1.1.3 > address tap0: 10.2.2.3 > > hotname: bar > Location: 1 > addresses are irrelevant > hosts entry for foo is 10.1.1.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo > moves to location 2 to 10.2.2.3)* > > hosname baz > Location: 2 > addresses are irrelevant > Hosts entry for foo is 10.2.2.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo > moves to location 2 to 10.1.1.3)* > > Thank you or patience > S > > What you're trying to accomplish is painfully difficult with IPv4. (If you were using IPv6, I'd just point you at gai.conf, but AFAIK there is no analog for IPv4.) You may be far better served using a different VPN topology. (i.e. n2n+IPsec, or having a VPN routing point at your network gateway) (That said, if anyone knows a better way to do this, I'll be taking notes, too...) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 2013-05-22 19:52, Michael Mol wrote: > On 05/22/2013 01:36 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with >>> one serious problem: >>> I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing >>> local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). >> This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space >> overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. >> >> Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be >> routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will >> be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now >> the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the >> same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what >> to do with it. >> >> > To be clear, replacing /8 with /24 would do this: > > 10.1.1.0/8, as a "network", is really just 10.0.0.0/8. This is also true > of 10.2.2.0/8. The bits after the first 8 are irrelevant, since a /8 is > being used. Use /24 instead, in this case. > > It would be good for Samuraiii to read up: > > http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPAddressing.htm > > I'm sorry for mistake the subnet mask for both spaces IS 255.255.255.0. so it is not overlapping at all. I apologise for my mistake in notation. still this is not (mainly) problem with routing but problem with assigning name to address. If I had superfast internet connection I would not mind and just use vpn address space. So basically i need to assign lan address to computer (laptop) which is in same location (LAN) as other machines. And vpn address on all other computers. to illustrate: hostname: foo Location:1 address eth0: 10.1.1.3 address tap0: 10.2.2.3 hotname: bar Location: 1 addresses are irrelevant hosts entry for foo is 10.1.1.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo moves to location 2 to 10.2.2.3)* hosname baz Location: 2 addresses are irrelevant Hosts entry for foo is 10.2.2.3 *(this is what I want to update if foo moves to location 2 to 10.1.1.3)* Thank you or patience S
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 05/22/2013 01:36 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with >> one serious problem: >> I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing >> local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). > This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space > overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. > > Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be > routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will > be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now > the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the > same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what > to do with it. > > To be clear, replacing /8 with /24 would do this: 10.1.1.0/8, as a "network", is really just 10.0.0.0/8. This is also true of 10.2.2.0/8. The bits after the first 8 are irrelevant, since a /8 is being used. Use /24 instead, in this case. It would be good for Samuraiii to read up: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPAddressing.htm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Openssl 1.0.1c/d have serious issues?
Hello all, 1. dev-libs/openssl-1.0.1c is current stable version 2. Reliable sources on the postfix list claim c (and d) versions have 'serious' issues: On 2013-05-22 12:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > 1.0.1c has some known issues, you should use 1.0.1e. and On 2013-05-22 12:38 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > Both 1.0.1c and 1.0.1d had *serious* problems. Unless you can > absolutely confirm that Gentoo has applied all of the patches from > both of those releases to their build, I would strongly advise you to > roll your own 1.0.1e release. > > --Quanah So... can anyone comment on this? Does the stable version 1.0.1c apply patches to address these issues?
Re: [gentoo-user] howto on setting up rootfs on ZFS?
Hi, I use grml livecd for various recovery/livecd purposes. I just add an script to my boot partition to compile current zfs. Since it is debian based it contains installation through aptitude. Robert. /boot/zfs # ls install_zfs* spl-0.6.1.tar.gz zfs_create zfs-0.6.1.tar.gz /boot/zfs # cat install_zfs #!/bin/sh aptitude update aptitude install build-essential zlib1g-dev uuid-dev aptitude install linux-headers-3.7-1-grml-amd64 tar -xvzpf spl-0.6.1.tar.gz tar -xvzpf zfs-0.6.1.tar.gz cd spl-0.6.1 ./configure --prefix=/ make make install cd .. cd zfs-0.6.1 ./configure --prefix=/ make make install cd .. rm -rf zfs-0.6.1 rm -rf spl-0.6.1 On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:52:33 -0400 Douglas J Hunley wrote: > I used the existing wiki to get ZFS up and running on my system a few > weeks ago and after getting familiar with it, beating it up a bit, > and breaking it in as many different ways as I could envision, I > think I'm happy with it. I'd now like to use it as my rootfs. I'm > going to leave /boot as a separate extX filesystem for simplicity's > sake. I can't find any decent Gentoo-related documentation on setting > up rootfs on ZFS. I'm not even sure what boot media supports ZFS > (system rescue cd doesn't, and my googling turns up a bunch of *bsd > based media). > > Anyone done this before and care to help a brotha out? >
Re: [gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
On 05/22/13 12:36, Samuraiii wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with > one serious problem: > I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing > local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). This isn't two networks, it's one network and you've got the VPN space overlapping the LAN space. To oversimplify a little, Don't Do That. Use a separate subnet for the VPN. Then traffic to the VPN will be routed over the VPN interface as intended, but traffic to the LAN will be routed over the LAN interface. This is what you want, but right now the VPN and the LAN are the same network, so "routing to the LAN" is the same as "routing to the VPN", and your network stack doesn't know what to do with it.
[gentoo-user] VPN vs LAN address hostname resolution
Hello, I am trying to get hostname address resolution on my LAN and VPN with one serious problem: I have two "networks" eg. 10.1.1.0 and 10.2.2.0 which are representing local address space for LAN (10.1.1.0/8) and VPN address space (10.2.2.0/8). Every host has its own address "suffix" (eg. host foo has LAN address 10.1.1.3 and vpn address 10.2.2.3). I would like to setup some sort resolution which would account for availability of host on LAN: If host foo is in same LAN and host bar the connection would be carried through LAN interface with LAN address and NOT (as avahi is trying to do) using VPN connection which is connecting through remote server and is therefore *a lot* slower than LAN connection. The LAN address is not available always but VPN is. So my question is there something which would do this almost same as avahi but would be capable of prioritizing interface/address? Thank you for advice in advance S
Re: [gentoo-user] Seamonkey and path to internet
Dale wrote: > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 05/20/2013 07:08 PM, Dale wrote: >>> Howdy, >>> >>> I noticed over the past few weeks a interesting issue. When I leave >>> Seamonkey open for several hours, it looses its connection to the >>> internet. If I open Firefox, it works fine. I can ping in a Konsole >>> too. In Seamonkey tho, not even a simple page like google will work. >>> If I close Seamonkey and then restart it, it works fine. I don't have >>> to log out of KDE or anything either. Just restart Seamonkey and it >>> works for a few more hours. Also, it affects both browser and email. >>> >> Try visiting an IP address instead of a hostname. There's an internal >> DNS cache; if that's what's stopped working you can turn it off with >> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.dnsCacheExpiration in about:config. >> And hopefully that avoids the lookup entirely. >> >> >> > Dang, that thing was set to like forever. Default according to your > link was supposed to be like 60 or something. Mine was set to over > 250,000. O_O > > Maybe that will fix this thing. I seem to recall it would have "looking > up " at the bottom. The is whatever website I was trying to > get to. > > I'm not sure this is it but thanks much!! Should know pretty soon. > > Dale > > :-) :-) > Well, so far so good. It sat here all night and most of yesterday and it still works. So, this setting fixed something. Thanks much. Looks like I can stop closing and restarting now. I was beginning to think Linux was turning into windoze. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Seamonkey and path to internet
On 05/22/2013 09:51 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 21/05/2013 23:36, Dale wrote: >> Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> On 05/20/2013 07:08 PM, Dale wrote: Howdy, I noticed over the past few weeks a interesting issue. When I leave Seamonkey open for several hours, it looses its connection to the internet. If I open Firefox, it works fine. I can ping in a Konsole too. In Seamonkey tho, not even a simple page like google will work. If I close Seamonkey and then restart it, it works fine. I don't have to log out of KDE or anything either. Just restart Seamonkey and it works for a few more hours. Also, it affects both browser and email. >>> Try visiting an IP address instead of a hostname. There's an internal >>> DNS cache; if that's what's stopped working you can turn it off with >>> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.dnsCacheExpiration in about:config. >>> And hopefully that avoids the lookup entirely. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Dang, that thing was set to like forever. Default according to your >> link was supposed to be like 60 or something. Mine was set to over >> 250,000. O_O >> > > Hmmm. Mine is set the same - 30 days. > > I wonder how that could have happened when Mozilla's wiki recommends 60 > seconds as default Looks like there's two variables with similar names: network.dnsCacheExpiration (60) Network.dnsCacheExpirationGracePeriod (2592000) I only have the latter and the default seems fine according to: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2680535 (5th post and down, on second page) raf
Re: [gentoo-user] Seamonkey and path to internet
On 21/05/2013 23:36, Dale wrote: > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 05/20/2013 07:08 PM, Dale wrote: >>> Howdy, >>> >>> I noticed over the past few weeks a interesting issue. When I leave >>> Seamonkey open for several hours, it looses its connection to the >>> internet. If I open Firefox, it works fine. I can ping in a Konsole >>> too. In Seamonkey tho, not even a simple page like google will work. >>> If I close Seamonkey and then restart it, it works fine. I don't have >>> to log out of KDE or anything either. Just restart Seamonkey and it >>> works for a few more hours. Also, it affects both browser and email. >>> >> Try visiting an IP address instead of a hostname. There's an internal >> DNS cache; if that's what's stopped working you can turn it off with >> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.dnsCacheExpiration in about:config. >> And hopefully that avoids the lookup entirely. >> >> >> > > Dang, that thing was set to like forever. Default according to your > link was supposed to be like 60 or something. Mine was set to over > 250,000. O_O > > Maybe that will fix this thing. I seem to recall it would have "looking > up " at the bottom. The is whatever website I was trying to > get to. > > I'm not sure this is it but thanks much!! Should know pretty soon. Hmmm. Mine is set the same - 30 days. I wonder how that could have happened when Mozilla's wiki recommends 60 seconds as default -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
