November 2002 - WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

RE: [Wlug] uptime celebration

by George Metz

> -----Original Message----- > From: wlug-admin(a)mail.wlug.org [mailto:wlug-admin@mail.wlug.org]On > Behalf Of doug waud > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:26 PM > To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > Subject: Re: [Wlug] uptime celebration > > > Hi all > > My firewall box was going fine for about a > year before one of my grandkids turned it > off! :-) / :-( Heh. Didn't even think of my firewall; my server I have to bounce every once in a while because I was cheap on the hardware for it. :) Paltry compared to the rarified heights of those HP-UX boxen, but: Veil# uptime 01:31:29 up 124 Days (2980h), load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veil# uname -a Linux Veil 2.2.18 #1 Fri Dec 15 23:32:10 EST 2000 i386 unknown Veil# Not bad. Though it's just a P60 with 24 megs of mem and no hard drive. :)

Nov. 5, 2002

Re: [Wlug] uptime celebration

by doug waud

Hi all My firewall box was going fine for about a year before one of my grandkids turned it off! :-) / :-( doug

Nov. 4, 2002

RE: [Wlug] uptime celebration

by Karl Hiramoto

With linux I find that the kernel moves so fast that I'm frequently rebooting just to upgrage kernels. sigh. I never now now that the DMCA prevents us americans from knowing what our security risk is. Upgrade just to be safe.. On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Keller, Tim wrote: > I that was the oldest... my coworker just corrected me... > > Also HPUX... > > ispolo5# uptime > 2:04pm up 1079 days, 3:28, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.13, 0.18 > ispolo5# > > I propose a 1000 day uptime minimum... ;-) > > Tim. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keller, Tim [mailto:Tim.Keller@stratus.com] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 14:03 PM > To: 'wlug(a)mail.wlug.org' > Subject: RE: [Wlug] uptime celebration > > > ispolo2# uptime > 1:59pm up 790 days, 56 mins, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.25, 0.24 > > Suppose I should put the uname -a output to resolve any confusions... > > ispolo2# uname -a > HP-UX ispolo2 B.10.20 E 9000/888 2140000344 8-user license > > I had a linux box at 354 days of uptime, however a loose ethernet card did > it in... > > Tim. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Hiramoto [mailto:karl@zoop.org] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 13:44 PM > To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > Subject: [Wlug] uptime celibration > > > > #uptime > 1:39pm up 100 days, 34 min, 6 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, > > > Eat that Micro$oft :) > > > > -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Lady Luck brings added income today. Lady friend takes it away tonight.

Nov. 4, 2002

RE: [Wlug] uptime celebration

by Keller, Tim

I that was the oldest... my coworker just corrected me... Also HPUX... ispolo5# uptime 2:04pm up 1079 days, 3:28, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.13, 0.18 ispolo5# I propose a 1000 day uptime minimum... ;-) Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Keller, Tim [mailto:Tim.Keller@stratus.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 14:03 PM To: 'wlug(a)mail.wlug.org' Subject: RE: [Wlug] uptime celebration ispolo2# uptime 1:59pm up 790 days, 56 mins, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.25, 0.24 Suppose I should put the uname -a output to resolve any confusions... ispolo2# uname -a HP-UX ispolo2 B.10.20 E 9000/888 2140000344 8-user license I had a linux box at 354 days of uptime, however a loose ethernet card did it in... Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Hiramoto [mailto:karl@zoop.org] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 13:44 PM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: [Wlug] uptime celibration #uptime 1:39pm up 100 days, 34 min, 6 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, Eat that Micro$oft :) -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Lady Luck brings added income today. Lady friend takes it away tonight. _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

Nov. 4, 2002

RE: [Wlug] uptime celebration

by Keller, Tim

ispolo2# uptime 1:59pm up 790 days, 56 mins, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.25, 0.24 Suppose I should put the uname -a output to resolve any confusions... ispolo2# uname -a HP-UX ispolo2 B.10.20 E 9000/888 2140000344 8-user license I had a linux box at 354 days of uptime, however a loose ethernet card did it in... Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Hiramoto [mailto:karl@zoop.org] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 13:44 PM To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: [Wlug] uptime celibration #uptime 1:39pm up 100 days, 34 min, 6 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, Eat that Micro$oft :) -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Lady Luck brings added income today. Lady friend takes it away tonight. _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

Nov. 4, 2002

Re: [Wlug] uptime celibration

by Chuck Homic

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:43:43PM -0500, Karl Hiramoto wrote: > #uptime > 1:39pm up 100 days, 34 min, 6 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, Hmm.. 100 days is not nearly uncommon. Before there's a flood of "check out MY uptime" mails, can I suggest that the minimum threshold be 730 days (2 years)? ;) THAT I'd like to hear about. -Chuck

Nov. 4, 2002

Re: [Wlug] uptime celibration

by Theo Van Dinter

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:43:43PM -0500, Karl Hiramoto wrote: > #uptime > 1:39pm up 100 days, 34 min, 6 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, :) congrats. BTW: I don't think I posted this here yet: I'm the sysadmin for BBLISA, and had to reboot the server a few months ago. At the time, "uptime" reported: 1:02pm up 236 days, 17:53, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.18, 0.20 However, there is a "bug" in the Linux kernel which wraps the uptime counter after 400-something days. Here's the information from the root partition superblock. ;) Filesystem UUID: 5bdddb0e-1213-11d4-9f43-00400550fefc Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53 Filesystem OS type: Linux Last mount time: Tue Aug 15 17:40:11 2000 Last write time: Mon Aug 19 13:01:00 2002 Last checked: Tue Aug 15 17:40:08 2000 Check interval: 15552000 (6 months) Next check after: Sun Feb 11 16:40:08 2001 So 2 years and almost 4 days of straight uptime... <sigh> -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "If it works, don't mess with it" - School Graduate

Nov. 4, 2002

uptime celibration

by Karl Hiramoto

#uptime 1:39pm up 100 days, 34 min, 6 users, load average: 1.06, 1.05, Eat that Micro$oft :) -- ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Karl Hiramoto <karl(a)hiramoto.org> Work: 978-425-2090 ext 25 Cell: 508-517-4819 Personal web page: http://karl.hiramoto.org/ Freedom: http://www.technojihad.com/ Zoop Productions: http://www.zoop.org/ KTEQ Rapid City: http://www.kteq.org/ AOL IM ID = KarlH420 Yahoo_IM = karl_hiramoto ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø Lady Luck brings added income today. Lady friend takes it away tonight.

Nov. 4, 2002

Re: [Wlug] Newbie to mailing list- Issue with the generation of graphs in redhat 6.2

by Tom Guilderson

Peram, the top of the stack indicates that the java class loader can not find a particular class needed by java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.getLocalGraphicsEnvironment() Looking quickly at the javadocs for this - GraphicsEnvirpnment refers to the rendering target of the Graphics2D object. Most likely this method expects to find a target - meaning not only a configured X server - but a running X-server??? Was the X server running on the other machine when you weblogic server was running? If so start X on the other machine, then start weblogic and see what happens. If it is not that - then the problem is that one of the native X windows libraries is missing. If you figure out which java_vm binary is being executed (probably $JAVA_HOME/jre/bin/i386/native_threads/java_vm, then runn ldd against it to see what libraries it relies on - and it will also tell you which it can not find - the two X libraries it is looking for are most likely libX11 and LibXt - make sure both are installed. If you already solved the problem - I would be interested in hearing what it is. One last thought - Have you looked at the servlet code - specifically the makeGraph() method? That is the last method in your code I can see on the stack (the rest are awt stuff) to see if there is any references to a display target? On Tuesday 29 October 2002 17:03, Sudhaker P wrote: > Hi Tim, > Thanks for the reply. > The version of JDK differ the version I'm having issues with is 1.3.1_01 > and the ones the code is running successfully is 1.3.0_02, however the > graphs were being produced before. > The following is the Weblogic log which I'd appreciate if you can look at > and tell what could be the issue in your view: > java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError > at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) > at java.lang.Class.forName(Class.java:120) > at > java.awt.GraphicsEnvironment.getLocalGraphicsEnvironment(GraphicsEnvironmen >t.java:58) at java.awt.Window.<init>(Window.java:189) > at java.awt.Frame.<init>(Frame.java:315) > at java.awt.Frame.<init>(Frame.java:262) > at com.rivenet.graphingaction.Graphit.runGraph2D(Unknown Source) > at > com.rivenet.reporting.InformalFundingComparisonGraph.makeGraph(Unknown > Source) > at > jsp_servlet._plan._Model_controller._jspService(_Model_controller.java:356) > at weblogic.servlet.jsp.JspBase.service(JspBase.java:27) > at > weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletStubImpl.invokeServlet(ServletStubImpl.jav >a:123) at > weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletContextImpl.invokeServlet(ServletContextIm >pl.java:761) at > weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletContextImpl.invokeServlet(ServletContextIm >pl.java:708) at > weblogic.servlet.internal.ServletContextManager.invokeServlet(ServletContex >tManager.java:252) at > weblogic.socket.MuxableSocketHTTP.invokeServlet(MuxableSocketHTTP.java:346) > at > weblogic.socket.MuxableSocketHTTP.execute(MuxableSocketHTTP.java:246) > at weblogic.kernel.ExecuteThread.run(ExecuteThread.java:135) > > I've done some reading and feel that awt uses X-windows and I think that > might be broken. > > I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions. > > Thanks, > > Peram > > > > > > > From: "Keller, Tim" <Tim.Keller(a)stratus.com> > > >Reply-To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > >To: "'wlug(a)mail.wlug.org'" <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> > >Subject: RE: [Wlug] Newbie to mailing list- Issue with the generation of > >graphs in redhat 6.2 > >Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:42 -0500 > > > >Peram, > > > >I'll ask an obvious question... You've verified that both machines running > >the same version of the java run time environment? > > > >Also, does the entire applet fail or does it just fail to display the > >graph. > >If so, you might have to insert some code to catch exceptions... Possibly > >some library has gotten mangled... > > > >Hope that helps, > >Tim. > > > >-----Original Message----- > > From: Sudhaker P [mailto:perams27@hotmail.com] > > >Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 14:35 PM > >To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > >Subject: [Wlug] Newbie to mailing list- Issue with the generation of > >graphs in redhat 6.2 > > > > > >Hi , > >I've a program that generates graphs with Java 1.3.1_01. The same program > >is > > > >able to generate graphs on a machine with RH 6.2 kernel 2.4.16 but it > > fails to generate graphs on a machine with RH 6.2 kernel 2.4.7-10 on > > which it used > > > >to generate before. I've installed KDE and gd thinking that something may > >broken in the OS on the jpegs generation part. But that doesn't seem to > >help. > >I'd appreciate if any of you gurus can guide me in this issue with your > >comments and suggestions. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Peram > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! > >http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Wlug mailing list > >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Wlug mailing list > >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > _________________________________________________________________ > Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp > > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

Nov. 4, 2002

RE: [Wlug] Routing problem -can I believe the ISP tech? #2

by George Metz

Reply's interspersed: > I just brought up my fourth RH7.3 server Friday afternoon (one of two > RH7.0 servers that had been hacked-new hard drive and software). I > then went home and spent a couple of hours connected to it with ssh > on a workstation connected to my home RH7.3 server. > > When I went to rerun a slightly modified (open ports for ftp and > internal dhcp twiddling) ipchains firewall I lost the connection, > and, more than 16 hours later, don't have it back. Smells like a typo referencing - specifically - Home's IP address or block, based on this. Double and triple check your firewall configs as a first step. If those are clean: > Home and EFO are on the same ISP and each has a block of 4 static > IPs. The blocks share the first 18 bits of their IP#s. Above tidbit might be important later. And actually, they're listing in your config as blocks of 8, with 6 useable. > Home now cannot connect to EFO via ssh, or access its web site. Pings > are disabled on all my servers - so I can't do that test. I STRONGLY recommend that you re-enable ping on both Home and EFO servers in order to perform this test. Firstly, it's really difficult to pingflood a box these days, second, it's a pretty darned useful indicator. This can be gotten around though, so if you're leery - say, you've been pingflooded recently - then skip it. Run a traceroute to Home from EFO and to EFO from Home. That will tell you, at the very least, where the traffic is dying. > EFO network workstations can browse the web; I can ping out from the > EFO linux box or workstations, and can ping EFO's Cisco 678 router > from its Linux box All good here. > EFO workstations cannot access Home websites (but I had not tried > this before since rebuilding EFO Linux box Most likely a symptom of the overall problem, but don't forget to test again. > Home Cisco 678 cannot be pinged from Home Linux box (!) or EFO (Linux > or workstation), but can be pinged from my office (Linux box on other > ISP). Uh... Houston, we have a problem. If the tech IS being straight with you, then the issue has to be on both sites, but one site is severely impairing the other. > >From my office workstation I can also ssh to EFO and access > EFO website (which in fact I uploaded to the new server from my > office today). Does this discount the possibility of a firewall issue? Not even remotely. All it proves out is that there's no rule in the firewall to block access from your office's IP addresses. There still might be a rule in place to block access to and/or from one site to the other. Note also that this is really easy to do accidentally, because one word change can totally break the intended rule. I'll let someone with more IPChains/IPTables experience help with that one. > I spent countless hours talking to the ISP (Qwest) tech support, and > over an hour with a senior tech who had some Linux knowledge, and he > claims that it must be a configuration issue on one or both of my > Home and EFO Linux boxes, since: > > He can login to both my Cisco routers and ping the other router - > he claims this proves its not a Qwest routing problem. Provisionally, this is correct. The provision has to do with whether or not the tech just ran "ping -c 100 ip.for.efo.site" or if he actually did the CORRECT thing and sourced it off of your Ethernet interface on the router. If Qwest is misrouting your allocation, all sorts of things can go wonky. The only way to test that would be to source off the ethernet IP address from both routers to the same. A straight ping will simply do the WAN IP, which (of course) is routed correctly on Qwest's network. I'm not sure about the Cisco 678s, since I never crawled around in one, but if it's running a standard flavor of Cisco IOS, he should be able to source it off of just about anything he wants to. If he's a senior tech with a clue, it's entirely possible that he did source off the ethernet interface, in which case it's back to config issue. > If he's right I'm still puzzled by two things: > a) Why could I connect from Home to EFO for two hours last night, > no problems? > b) Why can't the Home Linux box ping the Cisco 678 directly > connected to it? The former is simple; most likely the error causing the issue was introduced when you made whatever changes you did. The latter has all sorts of interesting possibilities, but there's no way of knowing without having access to both the 678 and the linux box and about an hour to monkey around. I note that you don't mention whether or not Home can access The World At Large, though you do mention it with the EFO site. Also, as I mentioned above, you're showing as having an assigned block of 8 IPs, of which 6 are normally useable. Knock out one for the router, and that leaves 5 assignable. Since 4 IPs is a little wierd, are you sure that you don't have either more and Qwest is just being stubborn, or perhaps they've routed them differently? Others will probably have an idea or two as well, but this to me just screams config error. Which might be why the tech was convinced of it. =)

Nov. 3, 2002