Q. I have tried rsync, SSH, SCP, and even ssh user@remotehost -C "cat /path/to/bigfile" | dd of=bigfile. They all crap out at about 16 or 17GB with a file too large error. I'm out of my mind, no idea what to try next.
Compressing the file is not an option.
The drive is not out of space, it's a 1.9TB (terrabyte) LVM with 788GB free.
Compressing the file is not an option.
The drive is not out of space, it's a 1.9TB (terrabyte) LVM with 788GB free.
A. compress the file ---try this free one from iboit---- winrar
Good interoperating system webserver?
Q. I've recently built a new computer and decided to use my old one as a file server for our house. We have a variety of devices and I was wondering what a good suggestion for a server would be?
The computers we have are:
2x Windows XP home
1x Windows XP Pro
1x Windows Vista Home
3x GNU/Linux
I also have a ps3
The server itself will be running opensuse 11 since i use that myself and know how to configure it easily. These are the file servers i'm thinking of:
ftp with a http interface for downloads
pros - Works on all client systems with no setup
cons - It's a bugger to set-up server side and keep also ftp can be quite slow.
nfs
pros - Fast, secure, easy for the Linux boxes to setup but i can't find a decent free windows client.
Samba (windows file-sharing) -
pros - um... no software to install on the windows systems
cons - with 4 different operating systems it is very temperamental impossible to set up on linux and be ale to see and access all the other computers.
None of the above are perfect worst comes to worst i can use ftp but I'd rather have a system which:
Both windows and linux can access without too much hassle.
Fast file transfer.
I can setup and leave running for months at a time without needing to configure or check.
Cheers in advance.
Mike.
The computers we have are:
2x Windows XP home
1x Windows XP Pro
1x Windows Vista Home
3x GNU/Linux
I also have a ps3
The server itself will be running opensuse 11 since i use that myself and know how to configure it easily. These are the file servers i'm thinking of:
ftp with a http interface for downloads
pros - Works on all client systems with no setup
cons - It's a bugger to set-up server side and keep also ftp can be quite slow.
nfs
pros - Fast, secure, easy for the Linux boxes to setup but i can't find a decent free windows client.
Samba (windows file-sharing) -
pros - um... no software to install on the windows systems
cons - with 4 different operating systems it is very temperamental impossible to set up on linux and be ale to see and access all the other computers.
None of the above are perfect worst comes to worst i can use ftp but I'd rather have a system which:
Both windows and linux can access without too much hassle.
Fast file transfer.
I can setup and leave running for months at a time without needing to configure or check.
Cheers in advance.
Mike.
A. I would use linux and just setup a scp client on Windows (eg. winscp) You have a small set of machines so it doesn't really matter either way.
How to test bandwidth/capacity of a router/network?
Q. Hi, I'm running a Starcraft II tournament that will require 8-10 computers that will be connected to the Internet at the same time, playing 4 head to head games simultaneously. Last tournament, the internet would crash during gameplay, when all 8 computers were running and we had to settle with playing with only 2 matches at the same time.
The network consisted of a DD-WRT WRT54GS connected to another router (supplying the internet connection) via DD-WRT's Wireless Bridge function. This allowed us to move the router to the front of the building while maintaining a network connection. All of the computers were hooked up to a cheap switch via 10/100 ethernet which was then hooked up to the DD-WRT router via 10/100 ethernet. I noticed that when our network crashed and the internet connection ceased, the DD-WRT router needed a restart in order to get back up.
I need a way to test the network or router's capacity. Are there any (free) utilities out there that I can use to simulate network load to find the breaking point? What can I do to prevent the router from crashing, and what are causes of it crashing? This has happened before on the same router, but with regular home usage. Even with DD-WRT the WRT54GS is pretty unreliable.
The network consisted of a DD-WRT WRT54GS connected to another router (supplying the internet connection) via DD-WRT's Wireless Bridge function. This allowed us to move the router to the front of the building while maintaining a network connection. All of the computers were hooked up to a cheap switch via 10/100 ethernet which was then hooked up to the DD-WRT router via 10/100 ethernet. I noticed that when our network crashed and the internet connection ceased, the DD-WRT router needed a restart in order to get back up.
I need a way to test the network or router's capacity. Are there any (free) utilities out there that I can use to simulate network load to find the breaking point? What can I do to prevent the router from crashing, and what are causes of it crashing? This has happened before on the same router, but with regular home usage. Even with DD-WRT the WRT54GS is pretty unreliable.
A. If you can put a linux box on each side of the router, use the iperf utility to test raw throughput. You could pull this off with 2 laptops with live ubuntu cd's or whatever.
If you are smart enough to be rolling DD-WRT then you can handle this.
Pick one box to be the server, one to be the client. then reverse it.
iperf -s on the server
iperf -c ip.address.of.server
or, you could time copying of files over SCP, but then you are adding disk io into the mix. iperf doesn't use any disk. should be pretty close and good for saturation testing.
in my experience, dd-wrt as awesome as it is seems to choke over time with lots of UDP or billions of tcp connections (a la bit torrent).
you *could* take a crappy computer and make a linux router out of it or install pfSense (a BSD distro made specifically to be a router). either way it would likely outperform dd-wrt, although it is more work.
ubuntu with 2 nic's can make a dang good router without much difficulty at all.
If you are smart enough to be rolling DD-WRT then you can handle this.
Pick one box to be the server, one to be the client. then reverse it.
iperf -s on the server
iperf -c ip.address.of.server
or, you could time copying of files over SCP, but then you are adding disk io into the mix. iperf doesn't use any disk. should be pretty close and good for saturation testing.
in my experience, dd-wrt as awesome as it is seems to choke over time with lots of UDP or billions of tcp connections (a la bit torrent).
you *could* take a crappy computer and make a linux router out of it or install pfSense (a BSD distro made specifically to be a router). either way it would likely outperform dd-wrt, although it is more work.
ubuntu with 2 nic's can make a dang good router without much difficulty at all.
Nec Projector Review
Plastic Shed Reviews
Ati Graphic Reviews
Nurse Uniforms Reviews
Cabochons Reviews
Inflatable Water Slides Reviews
Barcode Scanner Reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment