No problem Dave. Thanks for letting us know. I figured you were just doing some testing. I deleted all of mine.

I got a PM from Ian that port G4000 is down. I just checked. Actually, port G4000 is officially "quasi" down. (lol) By that I mean, I can connect to it just fine using my direct IP address of 192.168.2.100 but I absolutely cannot connect at all using the no-IP address site. The same applies to port G8000.

A question that I'll ask to the server guys:
Could Ian connect using the [ server = "192.168.2.100" ] command in the same manner that I can using that internal IP address? It sure would be nice to bypass the continuous problems thru the no-IP site that come up from my constant public IP address changes.

Max, I'm beginning to think that having servers on my machines isn't going to work. Ian has been more patient with G4000 than anyone else will probably be. He also has the time to check his machines several times a day, which others may not have the time to do.

I suppose the alternative may be to pay for a "fixed" public IP address. I run through $150 in electricity a month for this hobby so I suppose paying another $5-15 a month for a fixed IP address shouldn't be a big deal. It's just very irritating. Even though it's a small amount of money, I'll feel like I'm being ripped off. Actually, I'd just as soon pay a "one time" fee than to have to mess with paying something monthly as long as the fee is < ~$150-200.

Can anyone give me some "laymen's terms" info. on buying a fixed public IP address?

Ian, in the mean time, I'm going to suggest moving your machines to David's port 5000. There is very little activity there. The current n-range is n=~621K I think. I'm sorry you've had such problems with it. Thanks for being more than patient with it.


Gary

[QUOTE]Ian, in the mean time, I'm going to suggest moving your machines to David's port 5000. There is very little activity there. The current n-range is n=~621K I think. I'm sorry you've had such problems with it. Thanks for being more than patient with it.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry about me. I'll slowly switch over time. No big rush.

I tried 192.168.2.100 with no luck.

Something is tripping the flip switch. Something has changed. Just so you know all the parameters, on the last 2 occurances, I've had to flushdns AND restart the LLRNET client. Never had to restart the clients before. hmmmmmmmmm

[quote=MyDogBuster;163782]Don't worry about me. I'll slowly switch over time. No big rush.

I tried 192.168.2.100 with no luck.

Something is tripping the flip switch. Something has changed. Just so you know all the parameters, on the last 2 occurances, I've had to flushdns AND restart the LLRNET client. Never had to restart the clients before. hmmmmmmmmm[/quote]


Well, late last night and early this morning, I "messed" with port G8000 by trying to stop and restart it. That may have made things "extra bad". :smile: Although the flushdns thing will likely be needed in the future, as long as yours truly doesn't try to mess with the servers, hopefully that is ALL that will be needed and you won't need to stop and restart the clients.

Also, perhaps unplugging and replugging the wireless router, which is something that I have to do rarely "flipped" something last night.

I'd like to flip the finger to the servers. lol


Gary

You need to talk to your ISP to get a fixed IP address.
No, folks outside your LAN can not use your private LAN IP addresses, they *have* to use your public IP address, which you are going to make fixed shortly :wink:

I use a D-link DSL modem in NAT-tunnel mode cabled straight into my d-link router.

I have my no-ip account details on the DynDNS config on the router and it updates the address from no-ip regularly, frequently and automatically.

It has never blinked.

My linux servers are on a switch downstream from the router and they have no problems either.

PM sent

[quote=AMDave;163806]I use a D-link DSL modem in NAT-tunnel mode cabled straight into my d-link router.

I have my no-ip account details on the DynDNS config on the router and it updates the address from no-ip regularly, frequently and automatically.

It has never blinked.

My linux servers are on a switch downstream from the router and they have no problems either.

PM sent[/quote]


Ha ha. English now please.

You guys went from millions of e-mails for primes to none. LOL

I never got an e-mail for 893*2^639440-1. Flip the switch back on CAREFULLY. LMAO

[quote=gd_barnes;163737]OK, sorry about that. But after I stopped and restarted the server, only one of my clients would run it. I even waited 10-15 mins. one time after stopping the server and then restarted it. The other clients still hung and were sleeping, even after multiple attempts to stop and restart each one of them after stopping and restarting the server. I'll go downstairs and see if they are running now.

You were seeing results because I had ONE client running against the server but the other 6 that I was running against it wouldn't connect.

What's the deal with the VNC thing anyway? I've noticed the same thing that you have. If you have a terminal window up from directly messing with the machine, it won't show in VNC. When you have a terminal window up in VNC, it won't show when you are directly messing with the machine. That seems like a bug to me. It doesn't make sense because I pulled up the task manager (Linux version) and verified exactly what was running on the machine. I then killed the server, waited an appropriate amount of time and restarted it. I tried this twice to unhang my clients. Shouldn't that have killed any terminal window in VNC or non-VNC?

Is there a way around this confusing VNC (remote access) vs. non-VNC problem? English laymen's terms please.

Also, why do you have to keep running this "while" loop? Is that because of my constant IP address changes? If so, why didn't it work this time? It was well over an hour after the crash or IP address change before I tried starting and stopping it.

Gawd, this server stuff is confusing. My question is: Why did port 8000 have the problem and port 4000 didn't? Also, why should it be so difficult to kill the server from the task manager, wait 10-15 mins., and then restart it? These servers shouldn't be rocket science but they are from my perspective.

I think in the future, I'm not going to do any kind of attempt at stopping and restarting of the servers. I just end up creating more problems than there were originally. If there's a problem, I'll just move my machines to something else and you can fix them the next day.

Personally, I think having the servers on my machines has turned out to be a bad idea. My internet connection is quite stable but keeps changing addresses. I've had a mobo crash one time but I think I've gotten that problem resolved. Knock on wood. Ian has been very patient with port GB4000 and diligently does the flushdns thingy when the IP address changes. Others, I'm sure, won't be so patient.


Gary[/quote]
Okay, remember how I once explained before that it's not unlike what you see on a Windows 2000 Server machine that's running Terminal Services? That is, you log in on the console, and it starts a "fresh" session of your username; and when you log in via Terminal Services, it will start another, separate, "fresh" copy and show you that. The two sessions will not see each others windows and applications except through Task Manager. It's like logging in two separate users at the same time, except that both users have the same credentials and *some* things are the same (desktop icons, background, etc.).

A similar thing is what's happening here with the VNC thing. This is not a bug; it's simply the way things are designed. In a way, it's kinda good, since it means that when I'm working on one of your machines you can still surf the web, change clients around, or whatever on that machine without interruption. :smile:

The only reason why I'm able to access the "console session" (i.e. the one you see when you sit down in front of the computer) is because Ubuntu also comes with a tool called "Remote Desktop" that runs a customized type of VNC server for direct remote control of the console session. It's a little slower and clunkier than the main VNC server we're using to control these machines (due to geek reasons I won't go into at this time), but nonetheless it still does work. Yesterday I logged onto that VNC connection on a hunch and noticed that you'd had the LLRnet server running from that session--and I couldn't see it from the VNC session since it's essentially like having a second user logged in.

Hope this explains things a bit. :smile:

Max :smile:

[quote=gd_barnes;163785]Well, late last night and early this morning, I "messed" with port G8000 by trying to stop and restart it. That may have made things "extra bad". :smile: Although the flushdns thing will likely be needed in the future, as long as yours truly doesn't try to mess with the servers, hopefully that is ALL that will be needed and you won't need to stop and restart the clients.

Also, perhaps unplugging and replugging the wireless router, which is something that I have to do rarely "flipped" something last night.

I'd like to flip the finger to the servers. lol


Gary[/quote]
Well, believe it or not, G8000 actually seems to be running fine and dandy right now. :smile: I can see that you restarted G8000 (and apparently ran into my auto-restart system--that's what the "while loop thing" is--when you tried to stop it the first time :smile:), and it seems to be running fine. I'm not going to do anything to it at the moment so as not to mess with apparent success. :smile:

I think I'm inclined to agree that we should look into moving G4000 and G8000 over to servers running on IronBits' machines. Just plain too much has been going wrong lately with the servers Gary and I have been running. :rolleyes: From DNS changes (which are unavoidable but happen somewhat frequently and throw everyone for a loop for a few hours) to occasional server crashes (which can happen to anyone, but for some reason it seems to be happening to me a lot lately, just at the times when I'm not around to notice it :smile:), things have been going wrong right and left with these servers. Yet all the while the worst that's happened to David's servers is a few duplicate emails that got sent out. :smile:

Besides, it might also simplify things for Karsten & Co. to have all of the servers at once place. :wink:

Max :smile:

Let me know what you decide and when you want to do it then.