Re: [gentoo-user] Setting up shorewall
> > I have two questions: > > > > 1. Is it feasible to have both Ethernets connect, directly or indirectly, > to the same DSL modem/router? (Adam seemed to imply that he operates this > way). The device is a Billion Bipac 8900AX R2, which can segregate LAN > ports, but as far as I can see it can't assign different IP addresses to > them. > What are you trying to achieve with that setup? In the general case, you wouldn't do that. > > > 2. How should I set up routing on the web server so that outgoing traffic > from itself is routed as follows: > > > > (i) if the destination is in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, the packet should > go out through enp2s0, and > > (ii) traffic to all other destinations goes out through enp1s0? > If server has an address on 192.168.1.0/24, then it has a "connected" route automatically created by the OS, and that will be preferred over other routes. No change required. If the server is not directly connected to 192.168.1.0/24, then you will need a static route to get to it. The gateway for that route will be an IP address on a subnet that both the server and the router have an address on. The router will also have an address on 192.168.1.0/24. For (ii) you set the default route out that interface.
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo livedvd
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 28.05.2017 kell 20:41, kirjutas Christos Kotsis: > Hello everyone, > > I noticed that the Gentoo livedvd is outdated. Is anyone assigned > there > to contact? I would like to updated it, since I use it very often. The LiveDVD is a user contribution by Fernando Reyes, coordinated with RelEng to some extent. Usually updated in time of some conference event with bigger Gentoo presence to hand out pressed DVDs with some artwork. You can catch him as "likewhoa" nickname in the #gentoo-ten IRC channel. Mart
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo livedvd
On Sunday 28 May 2017 20:41:52 Christos Kotsis wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I noticed that the Gentoo livedvd is outdated. Is anyone assigned there > to contact? Have a look at the Release Engineering project: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:RelEng The project email address, IRC channel and list of members can be seen on the right hand side of the page. > I would like to updated it, since I use it very often. > > Christos.K I'm sure they would welcome contributions and will be able to advise on due process. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Gentoo livedvd
Hello everyone, I noticed that the Gentoo livedvd is outdated. Is anyone assigned there to contact? I would like to updated it, since I use it very often. Christos.K 0x13E499BA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys
Re: [gentoo-user] Setting up shorewall
On Wednesday 29 Mar 2017 16:59:01 I wrote: > [I have a] new web-server box [with] two Ethernet ports, which I want to > connect as follows: > > Port 1 (enp1s0) will be connected to [its own] port on my vDSL modem/ > router and be accessible from outside. > > Port 2 (enp2s0) is connected to my LAN switch, which is connected in turn > to another port on the vDSL modem. Once the server goes into service this > interface will be down most of the time. I have two questions: 1. Is it feasible to have both Ethernets connect, directly or indirectly, to the same DSL modem/router? (Adam seemed to imply that he operates this way). The device is a Billion Bipac 8900AX R2, which can segregate LAN ports, but as far as I can see it can't assign different IP addresses to them. 2. How should I set up routing on the web server so that outgoing traffic from itself is routed as follows: (i) if the destination is in the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, the packet should go out through enp2s0, and (ii)traffic to all other destinations goes out through enp1s0? There ought to be a simple addition to /etc/conf.d/net, but I can't see what, even after looking through several web resources, including these: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:AMD64/Networking/Introduction et seq https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Static_Routing. -- Regards Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] tmp on tmpfs
On Friday 26 May 2017 10:36:40 Kent Fredric wrote: > On Wed, 24 May 2017 15:45:45 +0300 > > Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > - smaller CPU overhead: not every i/o is being compressed, e.g. if > > there is sill enough RAM available it is used without compression > > overhead as usual, but if memory is not enough, swapped out pages > > are being compressed instead of swapping out to disk; > > I found the opposite problem somehow. CPU started becomming frequently > pegged in zswap for no obvious reason, while the underlying IO that zswap > was doing was only measurable in kb/s , far, far, far below the noise > thresholds and by no means a strain on even my crappy spinning rust based > swap. > > And to add to that, zswap introduced general protection faults and kernel > panics. > > So nah, I'm glad I turned that off, it was a huge mistake. Did you also have zbud enabled at the time? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.