|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 187 responses total. |
arianna
|
|
response 50 of 187:
| 
May 6 23:38 UTC 1997 |
I would imagine...
|
senna
|
|
response 51 of 187:
|
May 7 00:20 UTC 1997 |
Yeah, it's only accessible with a root password that only staff members
know... and some programs are only accessible to select staff members
|
dang
|
|
response 52 of 187:
|
May 7 00:57 UTC 1997 |
Yeah, shutdown is root only.
|
kentn
|
|
response 53 of 187:
|
May 7 05:41 UTC 1997 |
...and a good thing, too.
(do shutdown messages from gryps show up on grex?)
|
scg
|
|
response 54 of 187:
|
May 7 05:51 UTC 1997 |
No, shutdown messages from gryps show up only on gryps.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 55 of 187:
|
May 7 18:09 UTC 1997 |
Is "gryps" the machine that manages grex's sessions? Is there a
one-to-one correspondence in sessions between gryps & grex? Or does
gryps merely manage the internet connection, and grex handle its own
connections (I don't see how...) ? Anyway, assuming that gryps is also
a Unix machine, does *its* shutdown warn the grex users running through
it?
|
dang
|
|
response 56 of 187:
|
May 7 18:41 UTC 1997 |
Gryps is a unix machine, called a router, and it handles Grex's internet
connection. The link modem is attached to gryps, and it runs ppp over that
modem to IC Net. All incoming traffic to gryps is forwarded to Grex (Unless
that traffic is specifically for gryps) and grex handles all of the
connections. So, you do not have a session with gryps when you are here. As
a matter of fact, no one but staff even has login's on gryps. The shutdown
messages on gryps are only on gryps, and so you would not see them here. All
that would happen is that your telnet session would freeze, and, of gryps was
down long enough, it would time out. If gryps isn't down long enough, then
it just freezes for a while, and then starts back up.
|
scg
|
|
response 57 of 187:
|
May 7 19:55 UTC 1997 |
Right, gryps is a router, just like any other router on the Net. Gryps
receives IP packets, and if they aren't for it, it passes them on to wherever
its routing table says they should go. In other words, if it recieves packets
for something on Grex's subnet (152.160.30.0/24) it sends them out its
ethernet port. If it receives packets for something anywhere else, it sends
them over the PPP link to ICNet. It doesn't do anything with the packets
other than pass them on.
Here's a traceroute (showing every router the packets go through) from my
computer at work to Grex. Gryps shows up here as hop 14, 152.160.82.254.
traceroute to cyberspace.org (152.160.30.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 livrtr.wwnet.com (206.62.36.23) 0.848 ms 0.745 ms 0.873 ms
2 agis-inventron.detroit1.agis.net (205.137.60.41) 14.073 ms 12.438 ms
4.8s 3 a0.1008.chicago4.agis.net (205.137.60.238) 10.422 ms 10.388 ms
10.227 ms 4 a0-0.1001.chicago2.agis.net (205.254.173.242) 26.863 ms 24.076
ms 13.652s 5 aads.mci.net (198.32.130.12) 56.765 ms 64.684 ms 64.218 ms 6
core3-hssi1-0.WillowSprings.mci.net (204.70.1.197) 334.257 ms 421.631 ms s
7 bordercore2-loopback.WillowSprings.mci.net (166.48.22.1) 52.216 ms
79.501s 8 * * merit-michnet-ds3.WillowSprings.mci.net (166.48.23.254) 79.825
ms 9 um-fddi4-0.ann-arbor.cic.net (192.203.195.3) 93.042 ms * 65.348 ms
10 iti-fastether1-0s7.ann-arbor.cic.net (198.87.20.26) 73.618 ms 78.013 ms
s 11 icnet-iti.ann-arbor.cic.net (198.87.20.18) 89.355 ms 74.817 ms 77.412
ms 12 152.160.252.3 (152.160.252.3) 77.411 ms 73.991 ms 74.95 ms 13
p3.aa.ic.net (152.160.60.8) 81.149 ms 77.237 ms 86.974 ms 14 152.160.82.254
(152.160.82.254) 875.556 ms 433.686 ms 884.12 ms 15 grex.cyberspace.org
(152.160.30.1) 1184.86 ms 510.936 ms 288.82 ms
|
senna
|
|
response 58 of 187:
|
May 8 00:49 UTC 1997 |
where does the telnet que come into this?
|
scg
|
|
response 59 of 187:
|
May 8 03:35 UTC 1997 |
The telnet queue is running on Grex. You packets have to go through all those
routers to get to Grex when you're in the telnet queue, just like they do
after you're logged in.
|
senna
|
|
response 60 of 187:
|
May 8 15:25 UTC 1997 |
ah, gotcha
|
jshafer
|
|
response 61 of 187:
|
May 9 04:07 UTC 1997 |
Is there any way to see the status of the queue while you're on Grex?
Just curious. I was gone when the queue was installed.
|
senna
|
|
response 62 of 187:
|
May 9 04:21 UTC 1997 |
the queue is old, though, it's been around for a while.
|
davel
|
|
response 63 of 187:
|
May 9 11:22 UTC 1997 |
heh
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 64 of 187:
|
May 10 16:04 UTC 1997 |
and may I assume that dial-in sessions that are not telneted somewhere else
would not be affected at all by gryps going down?
|
davel
|
|
response 65 of 187:
|
May 10 19:28 UTC 1997 |
That's right, unless you're using *outbound* internet services.
|
jared
|
|
response 66 of 187:
|
May 11 00:20 UTC 1997 |
you can use shutdown -k to do a "fake" shutdown and warn folks of something
on most *BSD type systesm
|
jared
|
|
response 67 of 187:
|
May 11 10:30 UTC 1997 |
I'm the only person on :)
6:29am up 6:24, 2 users, load average: 1.82, 1.68, 1.62
User tty login@ idle JCPU PCPU what
jared ttyp0 5:10am -
jared ttyp3 6:29am w
It's a problem. I'm really only on once.. i swear ;)
|
jshafer
|
|
response 68 of 187:
|
May 12 00:28 UTC 1997 |
Hmm. Is there any way, while online, to see how many people
are in the queue? There are myriad commands to let us see how
many people are logged in. And when you are in the queue you
can hit = to see your position. What about when you are
logged in?
And, just out of curiosity, how long has the queue been in place?
Thanks, and sorry for repeating myself. I hope it's clear this time?
|
senna
|
|
response 69 of 187:
|
May 13 03:28 UTC 1997 |
man, queue's been in place for ages.. it's so much better than the old system.
hassle free, as long as you're williung to wait for a while.
|
valerie
|
|
response 70 of 187:
|
May 13 21:16 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
jshafer
|
|
response 71 of 187:
|
May 14 05:59 UTC 1997 |
Thank you, Valerie.
Senna: Yes, I agree, the queue's great. It was, however, installed
while I was gone and was a bit of a surprise when I returned.
Therefore, I missed any discussion of it at the time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 72 of 187:
|
May 14 14:26 UTC 1997 |
Reaction to the queue at the time it was installed was
definitely mixed, partly because there were a few kinks that
hadn't been worked out yet. Seems to be quite reliable now, and
I agree that it's a big improvement over the Russian Roulette
telnetting that people had to do before.
|
mary
|
|
response 73 of 187:
|
May 14 14:34 UTC 1997 |
There are probably some folks too who are paying by the
minute for their ISP connection and who are unable to
wait in the queue for very long. So for them life took
a turn for the worse. ;-)
|
valerie
|
|
response 74 of 187:
|
May 14 14:41 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
