Re: London Stock Exchange suffers .NET Crash
what_to_buy;337990 Wrote: I'm new to all of this, but after much reading of this forum and the dBpoweramp forums, here is my strategy: Wow what_to_buy. I slack off for a couple days, and you do all the leg work for me. Thanks a bunch! -- johnvb johnvb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4009 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=51976 ___ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
Re: Weird application freeze problem
Rob van der Heij wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:26 AM, John Summerfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may have missed something. Is there no way that a virtual machine cannot have use of a clock, corrected for drift, that reflects the correct time of day, either now or in the future? A TOD clock that does _not_ reflect changes of timezone settings or DST settings? The TOD clock does not change with DST or timezone setting. The TOD clock runs (close to) GMT. The Operating System applies the current offset to produce local time for user and applications. When a virtual machine issues the STCK instruction to get its virtual TOD clock, it gets GMT as well and must apply its own offset. Do not use the z/VM IPL prompt to change the clock, since it offsets your LPAR TOD from GMT. Then why does anyone run ntpd (or any other programs in the suite) to correct the guest's clock? I don't recall anyone saying, Don't do that. Note that on a Windows PC, the hardware clock is supposed to run local time rather than GMT. Linux has some tricks during boot to compensate for that and obtain GMT to run its system clock. I know the IBM-PC is different. Probably SPARC, Power, SGI and other systems are all different (I know Mac laptops are different, they lose power and they forget the time). It's virtual Zeds I'm confused about atm. I had expected these very expensive systems would have well-refined timekeeping abilities such that ntpd would be redundant (except, maybe, on bare metal). -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Weird application freeze problem
Alan Altmark wrote: On Saturday, 09/13/2008 at 08:34 EDT, John Summerfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may have missed something. Is there no way that a virtual machine cannot have use of a clock, corrected for drift, that reflects the correct time of day, either now or in the future? A TOD clock that does _not_ reflect changes of timezone settings or DST settings? Three rules: 1. The System z TOD clock is always supposed to be GMT 2. Changes to a partition's TOD (SCK) does not affect the h/w clock 3. Changes to a virtual machine's TOD (SCK or SET VTOD) does not affect the partition's TOD This is pretty much as I expected. The TOD clock on System z does not reflect changes of timezone or DST. Each level applies it's own timezone and DST offsets to get local time. The local time on z/VM is what you see when you QUERY TIME or use other interfaces to get CP's view of the universe. However, when the guest looks at its (virtual) TOD, it sees the TOD as it is set in the LPAR, without CP's offsets. The guest is responsible to apply its own time offsets. As the LPAR drifts, so do the guests. If the LPAR does not drift (because of TOD steering), the guests do not drift. So TOD steering is an optional VM feature? Why might one not use TOD steering, and use ntpd instead? CMS is an exception because it *wants* the local time as known by CP, so it doesn't look at the TOD to get the time of day, but does use it for timers. This approach is not without its drawbacks as it makes it difficult for people in different timezones to use the same z/VM system for CMS work and have their files stamped with their view of local time. (If only SET VTOD could be applied to reality, eh?) I can understand might be some complications there, by experience of VM/CMS was six months' use in '94. I was editing files in my own VM area and running jobs on OS and DOS, so I didn't actually get to do much CMS stuff (besides learn REXX and xedit). I've never wanted to do this on Linux, but a little exploration and I see I can create files and display dates in my own, different, timezones on Linux. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Alan Altmark wrote: On Sunday, 09/14/2008 at 05:36 EDT, Patrick Spinler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uhm, I'm coming to this discussion late, but aren't all 127.0.0.0/8 addresses defined to be loopback? Yes, I mentioned that in an early post on the subject. That's one of the reasons it makes no sense. But we still don't know precisely *why* the change was made, so the results of the discussion remain inconclusive. One item I found on a Gentoo wiki suggests the .2 is created if one uses DHCP to get their real address. http://gentoo-wiki.com/Talk:TIP_Setup_Your_FQDN Maybe that's the reason for it. My Ubuntu 8.04 system, with a static IP address, has the host names on 127.0.1.1 in my /etc/hosts! Kim -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Do you want it to work when the interface is up? What I was trying to say is that with most hardware it will work when the interface is up or down, or it will not work when the interface is up or down. You can't do what I think you want. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Summerfield Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 6:10 PM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts? Fargusson.Alan wrote: The problem I eluded to is that some network cards and hubs don't send and receive at the same time, so if you send a packet to your own IP address you don't see it come back. That means that you won't be able to access machine x from machine x using the IP address. The loopback interface always works, which is why most systems either use a special route, or has a /etc/host entry to a 127.* address. As I said before, I don't want my external IP address/hostname apparently working when the interface is down. I am going to guess that virtual networks on z/VM will always act as if the send and receive at the same time, so this isn't going to be a problem under z/VM. The real network cards for zSeries may even handle this case specially. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Summerfield Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:35 AM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts? Fargusson.Alan wrote: This is a question for Novell, although I think they are changing to conform to some new network standard. It isn't just Novell that is changing this. I have seen some other Unix and Linux systems doing this as well (although I can't remember which one right now). I just did a netstat -r on SLES 10 SP1 and I didn't see my IP routed to the loopback interface. I did a netstat -r on Windows and I did. It may be that SP1 fails to access itself on some networks. This may be the reason for the change. I think the issue is that this case has been handled in the routing tables. If you do a route command (or a netstat -r) on most systems you will see that the IP address of your system is specially routed to the loopback interface. The problem is that routing tables can get messed up, and things break. Having he hostname specifically 127.* avoids some of these problems. I'd never seen that before. However, here's a Leopard: gargant:~ root# netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.252 UGSc52en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 644459lo0 169.254link#5 UCS 10en1 169.254.112.1 0:30:65:2:4:a9 UHLW00en1398 192.168.1 link#5 UCS 40en1 192.168.1.71 0:30:65:2:4:a9 UHLW00en1422 192.168.1.250 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 192.168.1.252 0:d:56:c5:48:30UHLW3 67en1 1168 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%en1/64 link#5 UC en1 fe80::203:93ff:fec0:4b18%en10:3:93:c0:4b:18 UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 ff02::/32 link#5 UC en1 gargant:~ root# So latest OS X is doing it. My Debian/Etch system does not. Whether it's because Debian does not, or because it has several active interfaces I don't know. My sl5/CentOS5 systems do not. My WBEL4/CentOS4 systems do not. I imagine that route would allow one to use the IP address of a down interface. I'm not sure I'd want that. I suspect that having that entry in /etc/hosts would do the same thing, again I'm not sure I'd want that. If a network interface is down, I want it down and obviously not working. Doing otherwise might hide a problem and prevent its being discovered in a timely manner, and complicate diagnosis of problems when it cannot be accessed from outside, but works from the host itself. I also wonder what it might do to my firewall rules. A problem I do have is connected with my one public IP address. If mo (soho-grade) ADSL router has it, and I try to access the external IP address from inside the LAN, the ADSL router gets confused when traffic arrives _from_ the LAN that is supposed to be going _to_ the LAN. I have worked around that one by creating a dummy interface
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The change that was made was to the name for the host in /etc/hosts. The name loopback should always have been to a 127.* address, and all the 127.* addresses should be routed to the loopback interface. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:18 PM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts? On Sunday, 09/14/2008 at 05:36 EDT, Patrick Spinler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uhm, I'm coming to this discussion late, but aren't all 127.0.0.0/8 addresses defined to be loopback? Yes, I mentioned that in an early post on the subject. That's one of the reasons it makes no sense. But we still don't know precisely *why* the change was made, so the results of the discussion remain inconclusive. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 __ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or distribution, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
JBoss certification
Hi, I'm pleased to announce that JBoss is now officially certified on System z: http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/08/27/jboss-enterprise-application-platform-expands-certified-configurations-adds-more-mainframe-java-se-6-support/ For specific version info, see: http://www.jboss.com/products/platforms/application/testedconfigurations Thanks, -- Brad Hinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sr. Support Engineer Lead, System z Red Hat, Inc. (919) 754-4198 www.redhat.com/z -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
I don't know if there is any actual standard for /etc/hosts entries. There is also no guarantee that /etc/hosts will have an entry for localhost, or the hostname of the system. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:03 PM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts? On Thursday, 09/11/2008 at 10:39 EDT, Michael MacIsaac/Poughkeepsie/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see how SuSE/Novell can argue that it is a valid value (i.e. working as designed), but if it affects important applications such as SAP and DB2, I can see how it might be viewed as a bug by the customer. I can't see how they can argue that at all. While it wasn't manually added by the user, it still smells of some special one-off for some strange app that is binding to 127.0.0.2 (a hidden web server?). Adding the hostname to /etc/hosts allows the traditional daemon reverse-lookup to work and report the local host name instead of the more traditional localhost. I'd argue that I'd rather see the resolver changed to return the defined hostname instead of localhost than have spurious entries in /etc/hosts. Shouldn't 127.0.0.3 resolve to the same name? Has anyone opened a problem with Novell, asking why they added it? If it's a new standard, I'd like to see the reference to the standard. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 __ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email from the State of California is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review or use, including disclosure or distribution, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this email. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Weird application freeze problem
On Monday 15 September 2008 12:38, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS wrote: Has anyone come to a conclusion? Run NTP or not? Adjust the time once a day using cron? Given that the current ntpd implementation wakes up every second, I'd say *never* run ntpd on more than a few guests. I think the jury is still out on how to keep your Linux guest's clocks in sync. I'm investigating sntp, because it only wakes up every five hours, and that appears to be relative to when the daemon is started, not an absolute time. Thus if you have hundreds of guests running sntp, they won't all wake up at once; each will wake at a multiple of five hours after it was IPL'd. So the difference in IPL timing naturally staggers those sntp wakeups out. And for a Linux guy like me, it's easier to integrate into our existing network time infrastructure than syncing to the VM TOD clock. - MacK. - Edmund R. MacKenty Software Architect Rocket Software, Inc. Newton, MA USA -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
On 09/12/2008 07:18 PM, Fargusson.Alan wrote: The problem I eluded to is that some network cards and hubs don't send and receive at the same time, so if you send a packet to your own IP address you don't see it come back. That means that you won't be able to access machine x from machine x using the IP address. The loopback interface always works, which is why most systems either use a special route, or has a /etc/host entry to a 127.* address. Either a special route or special code in the forwarding section of the IP implementation handles packages destined to any IP address which belongs to any local network interface by forwarding them to the loopback interface. Entries in /etc/hosts are just for the resolver (DNS), i.e. for conversion between hostnames and IP addresses. This is not related to IP packet forwarding (at least not directly). While this still leaves the reason for the observed entries in /etc/hosts open, I would like to point out the difference between routes and /etc/hosts. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Summerfield Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:35 AM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts? Fargusson.Alan wrote: I just did a netstat -r on SLES 10 SP1 and I didn't see my IP routed to the loopback interface. I did a netstat -r on Windows and I did. It may be that SP1 fails to access itself on some networks. This may be the reason for the change. gargant:~ root# netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.252 UGSc5 2en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00 lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 644459 lo0 169.254link#5 UCS 10 en1 169.254.112.1 0:30:65:2:4:a9 UHLW00 en1398 192.168.1 link#5 UCS 4 0en1 192.168.1.71 0:30:65:2:4:a9 UHLW00 en1422 192.168.1.250 127.0.0.1 UHS 0 0lo0 192.168.1.252 0:d:56:c5:48:30UHLW3 67 en1 1168 So latest OS X is doing it. My Debian/Etch system does not. Whether it's because Debian does not, or because it has several active interfaces I don't know. My sl5/CentOS5 systems do not. My WBEL4/CentOS4 systems do not. Linux also uses loopback routes for addresses of local interfaces, just more silently in the background. Take the following host with eth0 having address X.Y.108.38/22: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# ip -4 address show dev eth0 7: eth0: BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP mtu 1492 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet X.Y.108.38/22 brd X.Y.111.255 scope global eth0 Using the classic route command from the net-tools package does not reveal all: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface X.Y.108.0 * 255.255.252.0 U 0 00 eth0 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 00 eth0 default X.Y.108.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 However, using the ip command from the iproute package is able to show every internal detail of the Linux routing machinery: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# ip -4 route list table all X.Y.108.0/22 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src X.Y.108.38 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link default via X.Y.108.1 dev eth0 local X.Y.108.38 dev eth0 table 255 proto kernel scope host src X.Y.108.38 The above entry in some special in-kernel routing table, which is implicitly maintained, is of type local and its target is exactly the address of eth0. Whenever a route lookup returns such a route flagged local, the forwarding happens through the loopback interface. broadcast 127.255.255.255 dev lo table 255 proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 broadcast X.Y.108.0 dev eth0 table 255 proto kernel scope link src X.Y.108.38 broadcast X.Y.111.255 dev eth0 table 255 proto kernel scope link src X.Y.108.38 broadcast 127.0.0.0 dev lo table 255 proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 local 127.0.0.1 dev lo table 255 proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table 255 proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 Here you also have the 127/8 network, which is all loopback. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# ip route get X.Y.108.38 local X.Y.108.38 dev lo src X.Y.108.38 cache local mtu 16436 advmss 16396 hoplimit 64 You can use ip to find out what the routing/forwarding would do, if you sent a packet to the specified destination address. [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# ping -c1 X.Y.108.38 PING X.Y.108.38 (X.Y.108.38) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from X.Y.108.38: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.039 ms --- X.Y.108.38 ping statistics --- 1 packets
Re: Weird application freeze problem
Has anyone come to a conclusion? Run NTP or not? Adjust the time once a day using cron? Ron Foster -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Kim Goldenberg wrote: Alan Altmark wrote: On Sunday, 09/14/2008 at 05:36 EDT, Patrick Spinler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uhm, I'm coming to this discussion late, but aren't all 127.0.0.0/8 addresses defined to be loopback? Yes, I mentioned that in an early post on the subject. That's one of the reasons it makes no sense. But we still don't know precisely *why* the change was made, so the results of the discussion remain inconclusive. One item I found on a Gentoo wiki suggests the .2 is created if one uses DHCP to get their real address. http://gentoo-wiki.com/Talk:TIP_Setup_Your_FQDN well, 1. That document is rather old 2. Whether things works that way depends on the distro and in particular the DHCP client scripts. 3. What is appropriate for a home LAN is not necessarily appropriate for an Enterprise network. Maybe that's the reason for it. My Ubuntu 8.04 system, with a static IP address, has the host names on 127.0.1.1 in my /etc/hosts! Kim -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Steffen Maier wrote: On actually sending something to that address, the following entries are added to the routing cache, revealing that the ICMP echo request was sent on the loopback interface and the echo reply was received from the loopback: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# ip route list table cache local X.Y.108.38 dev lo src X.Y.108.38 cache local mtu 16436 advmss 16396 hoplimit 64 local X.Y.108.38 from X.Y.108.38 dev lo cache local ipid 0x8142 mtu 16436 advmss 16396 hoplimit 64 ... I imagine that route would allow one to use the IP address of a down interface. I'm not sure I'd want that. Yes, you could reach your own host via the IP address of a down interface since packets would go through loopback. At least from a performance point of view, forwarding packets destined for oneself efficiently within the host is a good thing. AFAIK this has been the usual behavior of Unix IP stacks since BSD. Not being willing to believe anyone (even myself sometimes!) I thought to try a little experiment. I have three peecess on a KVM and two are currently booted into Linux. I configured eth0:0 with a 127.10 address and confirmed I can ping it. On another box, I configured eth0:0 with a different 127.10 address in the same network. Each can ping itself, neither can ping the other. This is completely consistent with Steffen's contribution:-) Then I had an A hah!, so tried ifconfig lo down Now I cannot ping even the 127.10 address assigned to eth0:0. This too is completely consistent with Steffen's contribution:-) And finally, I tried to ping my external IP address while lo is down, and that does not work either (but pinging another box is okay). -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Fargusson.Alan wrote: I don't know if there is any actual standard for /etc/hosts entries. There is also no guarantee that /etc/hosts will have an entry for localhost, or the hostname of the system. man hosts RFC 952 (maybe). I think you may have some problems if localhost doesn't resolve, and maybe if 127.0.0.1 doesn't reverse-resolve. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Fargusson.Alan wrote: Alan, I have a threaded view of my incoming email: its displayed in a tree hierarchy reflecting who replied to whom. For some reason, your email isn't being threaded properly. Could you pls check your settings and see whether there's something you can tweak? Do you want it to work when the interface is up? What I was trying to say is that with most hardware it will work when the interface is up or down, or it will not work when the interface is up or down. You can't do what I think you want. I'm not sure what you think you're saying here: what I expect is that if my external interface(s) is(are) down, I do not want applications working that should not. Many applications fail if names don't resolve, and when that happens it's abundantly clear that something is broken and I get to recognise that it needs to be fixed. If squid and sendmail and other stuff starts as if nothing's wrong when something is, it might be some time before I recognise that a network cable or a power cable has fallen out. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 127.0.0.2 in /etc/hosts?
Fargusson.Alan wrote: I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The change that was made was to the name for the host in /etc/hosts. The name loopback should always have been to a 127.* address, and all the 127.* addresses should be routed to the loopback interface. This entry: 127.0.0.2 gpok189.endicott.ibm.com gpok189 could result in a successful lookup for gpok189 when a hardware problem (fallen-out network cable) should cause it to fail (because BIND can't be reached). That does not seem to me a good idea. -- Cheers John -- spambait [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-) -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
z Education - IBM System z Expo (Oct 13-17, 2008)
Posted for the participants of IBMVM, IBMMAIN, and Linux-390 who are interested in System z Education. Enrollment is open for the next IBM conference for the mainframe IBM System z Expo featuring z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE, and Linux on System z. Oct. 13-17, 2008 RIO All Suites Hotel Las Vegas Nevada Web site: http://www.ibm.com/training/us/conf/systemz If you are new to System z, or new one or more of the operating systems that runs on System z, this is an ideal place to begin with the basics. If you are an experienced System z professional, you can use your time this week to update your skills and to learn about the new levels of z/OS V1.10, z/VM V5.4, z/VSE 4.2. You can also hear customer experiences of Linux on z/VM. * The keynote presenter is Karl Freund, IBM VP Systems z Marketing and Strategy, IBM Systems Group. * IBM Fellow, Mike Cowlishaw, will be presenting on his project on Decimal Arithmetic on System z. * Presenters from the System z community including IBM developers, customers and ISVs. Their names may look familiar to you from listserv discussions and user groups, but then you might also seeing some new faces (next gen'ers). The format includes both stand-up lectures and hands-on labs. There's also time for networking and learning about ISV solutions at the Solutions Expo on Mon/Tues evenings and Tues/Wed lunch times. Here's the agenda grid as of last week (watch the wrap): http://www-304.ibm.com/jct03001c/services/learning/us/conf/xls/2008_System_z_Expo_Agenda_090808.xls And here's the abstracts file: http://www-304.ibm.com/jct03001c/services/learning/us/conf/xls/2008_System_z_Expo_Abstracts_090808.xls We know that many of you have to cover multiple tracks/topics during the week so we are also running the early morning (8 AM) guilt-free sessions in the z/VM, z/VSE, and Linux tracks. (Guilt free? They're not up against z/OS or System z general topics.) We look forward to seeing you at the System z Expo. Please stop by the IBM booth to say hello. Web site: http://www.ibm.com/training/us/conf/systemz Regards from your System z Agenda Architects Pam Christina Julie Liesenfelt Glenn Anderson -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
