I usually use ftp.scarlet.be (and its predecessor before it) to get my
updates, but its slackware-current branch has not synced since the Jan 3rd
update. Is it no longer a functioning mirror site or is this just a
temporary glitch?

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:28:13 +0000 (UTC), Cichlidiot
<fishlover@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>I usually use ftp.scarlet.be (and its predecessor before it) to get my
>updates, but its slackware-current branch has not synced since the Jan 3rd
>update. Is it no longer a functioning mirror site or is this just a
>temporary glitch?

It's probably due to the same problem that I've been seeing with always
getting:
opening tcp connection to ftp.slackware.com port 873
@ERROR: max connections (25) reached - try again later
rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so far) [receiver]
rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(359)


That's been going on for some time now. It's almost like someone is running
a DOS attack against the server. With a max of 25 connections, that
wouldn't be too hard.


Mark Post

Cichlidiot wrote:
> I usually use ftp.scarlet.be (and its predecessor before it) to get my
> updates, but its slackware-current branch has not synced since the Jan 3rd
> update. Is it no longer a functioning mirror site or is this just a
> temporary glitch?

Try http://www.slackware.no
ftp://ftp.slackware.no
rsync://rsync.slackware.no

Hi there
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:40:58 -0500, Mark Post <markkp@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:28:13 +0000 (UTC), Cichlidiot
><fishlover@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I usually use ftp.scarlet.be (and its predecessor before it) to get my
>>updates, but its slackware-current branch has not synced since the Jan 3rd
>>update. Is it no longer a functioning mirror site or is this just a
>>temporary glitch?
>
>It's probably due to the same problem that I've been seeing with always
>getting:
>opening tcp connection to ftp.slackware.com port 873
>@ERROR: max connections (25) reached - try again later

Consider rsync'ing from mirror sites instead of hitting the main
distro server. Rsync puts a high load on servers, one of the
mirrors I use will handle 2000 ftp users but only 60 rsync users.

I'm running slack-current, and keep a local mirror -- that way I
already have most of 10.1 now, and wont be in the mad scramble
finding open ftp servers for the .iso's when 10.1 is released.

Cheers,
Grant.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Mark Post dared to utter,
> It's probably due to the same problem that I've been seeing with always
> getting:
> opening tcp connection to ftp.slackware.com port 873
> @ERROR: max connections (25) reached - try again later
> rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so far) [receiver]
> rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(359)

I'm not sure if Pat has admin rights on ftp.slackware.com (IIRC some
one donates the bandwidth to him?), but it might be worth doing a
three-tier approach.

1st tier - ftp.slackware.com
2nd tier - registered mirrors
3rd tier - rest of the world

Idea is to only allow connections from the second tier to the 1st. I
think the BSD's do something like this, and IIRC Red Hat did something
similar by only allowing mirrors and RHN subscribers to access their
files for a brief time period.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8wnblKR45I6cfKARAqkdAKCsttAKq3eAk9MHPw2d0Y 5TQg0UDwCeI67H
/CPZ7Td1npYUIrK/p+N6Si4=
=RxcY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:17:00 GMT, Grant <grant_nospam@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>Consider rsync'ing from mirror sites instead of hitting the main
>distro server. Rsync puts a high load on servers, one of the
>mirrors I use will handle 2000 ftp users but only 60 rsync users.

This only works if the mirrors are able to get updated. I don't believe
they can because of the problem I described.


Mark Post

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:20:15 -0000, +Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK>
wrote:


>I'm not sure if Pat has admin rights on ftp.slackware.com (IIRC some
>one donates the bandwidth to him?), but it might be worth doing a
>three-tier approach.

No, he doesn't. That's why all the packages you see on the server are owned
by "volkderdi:users" instead of "root:root."


Mark Post

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:17:46 -0500, Mark Post <markkp@nospam.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:20:15 -0000, +Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK>
> wrote:
>>I'm not sure if Pat has admin rights on ftp.slackware.com
[...]
>
> No, he doesn't. That's why all the packages you see on the server
> are owned by "volkderdi:users" instead of "root:root."

That could also be because Pat prefers not to use the root account
unless he really has to. It's usually best to disable remote root
logins (over any protocol) and just use a user account.


--
Simon <simon@no-dns-yet.org.uk> **** GPG: F4A23C69
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
- Douglas Adams

Mark Post wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:17:00 GMT, Grant <grant_nospam@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Consider rsync'ing from mirror sites instead of hitting the main
>>distro server. Rsync puts a high load on servers, one of the
>>mirrors I use will handle 2000 ftp users but only 60 rsync users.
>
>
> This only works if the mirrors are able to get updated. I don't believe
> they can because of the problem I described.
>
>
> Mark Post
>

This morning, I was checking several of the mirroring sites that offer
rsync (and use it to sync up with slackware.com) and I found that all of
those that I checked are still many days behind. I can not get into
slackware.com (on an rsync command) and I believe something is amiss,
here. Whether it is a DOS or an internal glitch, I guess we will have to
wait and see.

After a couple of the mirror sites get updated, I will try again.



--

humjohn AT aerosurf DOT net

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:51:25 +0000, Simon <usenet@no-dns-yet.org.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:17:46 -0500, Mark Post <markkp@nospam.net> wrote:
>> No, he doesn't. That's why all the packages you see on the server
>> are owned by "volkderdi:users" instead of "root:root."
>
>That could also be because Pat prefers not to use the root account
>unless he really has to. It's usually best to disable remote root
>logins (over any protocol) and just use a user account.

No, it's because the people who own the system won't give him root access.
Strange, but true.


Mark Post