switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 ... Last
[#] Tue Nov 17 2009 10:59:47 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

My primary complaint about VirtualBox was that it was a big hassle to

get the network configured. That was a while ago, though. Has it
evolved to the point where you can just tell it "bridge to eth0" like

VMware does?

I don't run it on Linux hosts, but the network setup now supports "bridge to eth0" on Windows, and it's pretty much a no-brainer to set up. On inux I seem to recall that they still need to install kernel drivers to support their bridging implementation, but after you do that it should be fairly simple.

[#] Wed Nov 18 2009 14:02:26 EST from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

[#] Wed Nov 18 2009 14:48:10 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

VirtualBox does what I need; why pay for VMware if you don't have to?

I don't have to, and it's eaiser to keep using vmware which I've got a pile of images for than start all over again.
But perhaps at the next big failing, I will take a look...

[#] Wed Nov 18 2009 14:48:58 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

here here!

[#] Wed Nov 18 2009 17:39:29 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

** EPIC FAIL!! **

Customer was complaining that they couldn't log in to their VPN. Lots of troubleshooting was performed. RADIUS is in use so they could authenticate against Craptive Directory.

To make a long story short ... Microsoft's piece of crap DNS server laid claim to port 1812/udp, which was preventing their piece of crap RADIUS server from using the port. So all RADIUS requests were failing.

Who the heck designs software this way?!?!!

[#] Wed Nov 18 2009 19:30:34 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Who the heck designs software this way?!?!!

People that set up the server that the software is connecting to only allow for one port because they don't have the balls to open up more than one port, so they design their software around that one port even though other programs could use it...

I don't like the way those kinds of connections are made...

[#] Wed Nov 18 2009 23:55:59 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

1812/udp is the rendezvous port for RADIUS.  Microsoft DNS just arbitrarily decided to bind to that port.  Stoooooooooopid.

[#] Thu Nov 19 2009 03:11:34 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

binding ports has another implications: your communication partners finding you.

have a look at /etc/services

if you bind another port, you need to specify it in the URL.

otoh, why doesn't the radius server not complain of being unable to bind the port?

[#] Thu Nov 19 2009 10:31:14 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It did, once I started looking carefully at the logs.

[#] Thu Nov 19 2009 17:42:13 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

actually, that brings up a good point.
When the OS picks a 'high numbered port' with which to bind an incoming connection to... does it check services to see if it's a known port?
I doubt it, and while 1812 is a pretty low number, did it happen twice in a row, that it just picked that port specifically, or is it by some cosmic random chance the 'high numbered port'
Actually, it can't be, it bound/binded to listen, right?

But still, I wonder how many systems get messed up because the kernel picks a random port to use that somebody later tries to bind to.

[#] Thu Nov 19 2009 17:45:29 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Windows normally does not check if the port is reserved by another program/service before binding to it. It only stops if another program is currently running and is bound to it. So, say you have programA bound to 10119, but it's not running at the moment so the OS thinks it's open. So you install programB and it also wants to bind to 10119 (for some odd reason), it doesn't see anything bound to it so it's like "Yay! my port!", then you go to run programA and it's like "WTF, I can't bind to my port, reinstall me or i'll kill your system" so you go back and forth until you specify a port for either of them... gets tiring when working on game clients...

[#] Fri Nov 20 2009 23:26:27 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Once upon a time, a "high numbered port" meant >256. Then it meant >1024.
Nowadays, most implementations go much higher when selecting random ports for outbound use etc. >49152 seems to be the norm, but there's no reason not to simply start at 65535 and work downwards.

Windows is particularly heinous, though. I don't know if Microsoft's DNS server does this, but I know for a fact that their LDAP server does: when under load, it starts cloning itself, starting more servers listening on different ports, and then on the rendezvous port (389) it'll just start issuing redirects to its clones' ports rather than answering on its own.

[#] Fri Nov 20 2009 23:30:26 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's ridiculous and totally misses the point of multi-threaded processes in my opinion.

[#] Sat Nov 21 2009 09:45:46 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Of course it does. I don't know why they would do that, unless something about Windows makes it difficult for multiple threads to take turns accepting incoming connections on the same rendezvous port.

[#] Mon Nov 23 2009 12:45:57 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Check this out.

60% of Xbox 360's have had hardware failures. 47% of Xbox 360's have failed within the first year of purchase.

Evidently the only way Microsoft would be able to make a product that doesn't suck would be if they got into the vacuum cleaner business.

[#] Mon Nov 23 2009 13:46:15 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

[#] Mon Nov 23 2009 13:47:38 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

omg... wtf is up with my browser... i go to post and it says "error 404" but i know u guys are online, and my computer is online..

oh, wait.. found the problem... IE7 in WindowsXP SP3

[#] Mon Nov 23 2009 13:48:24 EST from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I seem to have a bigger problem than that...

there's a windows logo at the bottom left of my computer screen...

[#] Mon Nov 23 2009 15:16:00 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, that's definitely a virus. You'd better wipe the machine :)

[#] Tue Nov 24 2009 01:55:31 EST from the8088er @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

*takes a look*

Damn. It's what I feared most.

It's a computer.

Go to page: First ... 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 ... Last