One of our resellers has an account.. When looking into cpanel, it says that that account is using 3300megs. When we go into the ftp of that account, in reality it is only using 1.3megs. This is a huge difference! Most of folders are empty. We are using the latest version of WHM and Cpanel.
Has anyone here gotten any of the Xen images from jailtime.org to work on CentOS? I've figured out what the heck I'm doing since my last question [url], but they still won't boot. And the more I Google it, the more people I find asking the same questions.
It looks like they're depending on a bunch of non-standard images in their initrd, and, unless we have some of these unknown modules, the darned thing won't boot. Mine ends up failing like this:
Code: NET: Registered protocol family 1 NET: Registered protocol family 17 Using IPI No-Shortcut mode XENBUS: Device with no driver: device/vbd/2049 XENBUS: Device with no driver: device/vbd/2050 XENBUS: Device with no driver: device/vif/0 md: Autodetecting RAID arrays. md: autorun ... md: ... autorun DONE. VFS: Cannot open root device "sda1" or unknown-block(0,0) Please append a correct "root=" boot option Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) The xen.conf for this particular VM:
Code: # This points ta real Dom0 kernel! kernel = "/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-53.1.13.el5xen" memory = "256" name = "Ubuntu-Matt" vif = [ 'mac=00:01:02:03:04:07, bridge=xenbr0, vifname=vif1.0' ] # Set the disk... disk = ['file:/home/matt/vms/ubuntu-7.04/ubuntu.7-04.img,sda1,w', 'file://home/matt/vms/ubuntu-7.04/ubuntu.swap,sda2,w'] root = "/dev/sda1 ro" This is driving me bonkers... Has anyone gotten these to work? Would I be better off just installing from an ISO?
I have virtual folder in IIS6 which has asp file as default and several jpg files. How to prevent JPG files download from server? I want to let execute asp file only and do not let users download jpg files.
The images I am trying to block are on page generated by a simple PHP script on my server. The offender has replicated what I am doing with ASP on their server. They are hotlinking to my images for the resulting page. They left my website's name on them, so they must think that giving credit is enough.
I'm going to be contacting them to stop but I also want to see if there is a way for me to prevent it from happening in the first place.
I know mod_rewrite works on my server because I've been using it for some other things.
However, whenever I enable the above code (add it to the directives and restart apache - have also tried just putting it in a .htaccess file in the appropriate directory), I end up with images still being allowed on my domain and the other domain I'm trying to stop from using my images. Do you think it could have to do with an absent referrer? I read that the code doesn't work if the referrer is blank. What else would cause this not to work? Obviously the domain would have to be correct, but it doesn't block from my domain OR the offending domain.
I tried another method:
Code: <FilesMatch ".(gif¦jpg¦png)$"> SetEnvIfNoCase Referer ^$ allow_image SetEnvIfNoCase Referer ^[url] allow_image Order Deny,Allow Deny from all Allow from env=allow_image </FilesMatch>
This one blocked images to the offending domain, but it also blocked mine!
I am creating a web application, nothing spectacular just something to display content.
After completing a long night of coding, I uploaded my files to my server and checked to make sure everything was functioning correctly. Everything seemed fine so I went to bed.
The next morning, to my surprise, all my images had dissapeared! Well not all of them, just the ones being displayed through the PHP script. (coincidentally, these images where all in the same directory...)
Of course the first thought that went through my mind was "scripting error". Which surprised me, since everything worked perfectly the night before. I checked and double checked everything, and I couldn't find anything wrong. I checked the permissions on the directory holding the images and they appeared correct (755). So, to locate the problem I decided to strip out all the variables and create a test page that had only the SQL query, and a print to output the <img> code. Still nothing! So I decided to just go the HTML route and create a test file that held only the <img> code, no PHP involved... nothing.
The images are on the server. I double checked... if you right click > view image, it shows up. Then if you go back to the "test" page and refresh the image is there... however, it does not appear when you first load the page, or it appears and then immediately dissapears.
I contacted my host about the issue, and their first response said:
Dear customer, The images are there if you login through plesk control panel and go to File Manager under your domain you can find the pictures and see them.But some of them are not opening under your website. Best Regards
Honestly... are you kidding me? Reiterating my question doesn't constitute as an answer. And they call themselves "engineers"...
Seeing as it appears to only be affecting one directory (and possibly only JPG images...? Have a look at the test pages above), I believe it might be a permissions issue.
I've got an application (java web ) tha dynamically creats images ( with dynamic url - ...tab&vi=nia&h=24&ds=bottom&fn...) - like thumbnails,icons ect.
The think I'm trying to deal with is to force caching theese images by a browser.
When the application starts the server gets images and shows code 200 ( and this images apppers in web browser cache), but after reloding or simply viewing the images from the cache url the server shows again code 200. I'd like to have code 304 - not modified - like when browser gets an image from cache.
The dynamic url for image is being created only once - when the appication starts, and after that it stays unchanged, but I still can't force use the cached images - like when it is a static url - .../image.jpg.
I need a medium of some kind to store my backup drive images of a windows 2003 standard x64 server. I will be taking DriveImage XML images every Sunday. The medium must have a minimum capacity of 250gb.
I am wondering what is the best/most cost efficient option? My budet is around $500.
I have heard tape and usb external drives.
Can you provide specific models, costs, pros/cons of each technology and product?
I'm using suphp to secure a shared web hosting server and am confused about one issue I'm having. It is my understanding that using suphp, you should be able to chmod 755 all directories and chmod 600 all files since apache runs the .php files as the user.
However, when I chmod 600 all files, the formatting of the sites gets messed up. It loses all css and if you try to view image files in the browser you get a permission denied error. Why is that?
As a temporary solution, I can chmod 644 all files and then 600 only sensitive files like config files (wp-config.php for WordPress for example), but I'd rather just chmod 600 everything.
Can anyone explain why 600 doesn't work?
With 644 permissions, any user could upload a script like:
Code: <?php $filename = realpath("/home/user/public_html/wp-config.php"); $handle = fopen($filename, "r"); $contents = fread($handle, filesize($filename)); fclose($handle); echo '<textarea name="textareaName" rows="46" cols="103">'.$contents.'</textarea>'; ?> and view another users's file if it is 644.
We have a major chunk of our traffic coming in from Asia and our servers are in the US. The latency is an issue which we have sorted out by ensuring we use Amazon's cloudfront CDN atleast for the static images.
Now while this is working rather well, we are now wanting to experiment and see if we could put up an additional image server in our country to serve IPs from that specific range.
In case the local image server goes down, the amazon cloudfront setup should be used. What are the best options for achieving this with the least amount of latency for the users?
I use 34SP to host my website, and the package which I use allows me 2000MB of traffic a month. If every image that I use on my website (including the logo and background image) is hosted on photobucket instead of by the 34SP server, does this mean that the data received from photobucket won't count against my monthly traffic allowance?
And is this a reliable way of doing things? I guess it's less reliable than having all the images on the same server, but how often is this likely to go wrong?
i have to reload a page several times. at least once. the templates show up fine, but the actual images and contents do not show up unless i reload the page....this is evident during peak hours but not during normal hours.....
I'm starting to see this, or maybe it's always existed, but it seems like bigger sites are hosting their images on external servers. I've even seen some sites use Flickr as the host for all of their images. I guess for Flickr that means you have a guarenteed image CMS, but I really don't see that as why Flickr was created.
I'm sure there are bandwidth advantages, and maybe that's the main reason. Is there a point where the traffic gets so high that moving images off site would improve load times and sever loads? Is it a worthwhile endeavor for smaller sites? I'm curious to see what the thoughts are on this trend.
I am hosting my site on cpanel server, but there is a little problem, my images in the application are not getting displayed, whereas they are displaying alright on my local server, i've tried different methods to ressolve this issue, but, i wonder is it something to do with the server.
first time building a website, and was thinking about setting up a blog type website similar to the likes of engadget etc....
However I'm curious as to how I can source images and how copyright relates to a blog news site. Obviously with the quick nature I would be posting like other news sites I doubt there would be time to email the owner of a site and ask for permission and await a response.
So maybe theres a loop hole in regards to blog news sites for permission?
For my website I have a server which houses all of my gallery IMAGES of my user profiles. There are over 100,000 images on the server and it's only purpose is to provide those images with http.
However, the http server also has PHP installed, and it's only purpose is for uploading new images. Therefore users eventually get redirected to the images server where they can upload the image.
This all works, but in the future I want to remove the PHP side to the server. I also want to change the whole server program from Apache to Lighthttpd. This is because, lighthttp is a very low overhead web server program, but also provides very little features.
So I was wondering, if I was to do so, and since PHP is not installed, then I would have to make the upload pages on the main http server (which has PHP and Apache). Then I would have to make the main server send the uploaded image to the the lighthttp server via some sort of the scp system call, via PHP. I know that this IS possible, but when it comes down to security holes and so on, would this method really be worth it?
Generally I want to have the lighthttp setup only because it eliminates having to have any dynamic content. Obviously this can also be done with apache (removing dyanmic content), but lighthttp may be more efficient for static content.
I have a simple app where i am currently downloading some images from the internet. I want to use a local web server to host some of these images when i am not connected to the internet. I installed the apache web server and added the images folder under htdocs - my document root.
Now, i want something like when i continue to query images from www.examplesite.com/xyzimage.png within my app, it should be redirected to localhost/images. Is this possible? I tried doing this
In C:WINDOWSsystem32driversetchosts i added this line URL:...
I installed suhosin successfully but most images in the website is not working it show red X box
this is the suhosin list from php info
This program makes use of the Zend Scripting Language Engine: Zend Engine v1.3.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2004 Zend Technologies with the ionCube PHP Loader v3.1.32, Copyright (c) 2002-2007, by ionCube Ltd., and with Zend Extension Manager v1.2.0, Copyright (c) 2003-2007, by Zend Technologies with Suhosin v0.9.18, Copyright (c) 2002-2006, by Hardened-PHP Project with Zend Optimizer v3.2.2, Copyright (c) 1998-2006, by Zend Technologies
suhosin This server is protected with the Suhosin Extension 0.9.18
Copyright (c) 2006 Hardened-PHP Project
Directive Local Value Master Value suhosin.apc_bug_workaround Off Off suhosin.cookie.checkraddr 0 0 suhosin.cookie.cryptdocroot On On suhosin.cookie.cryptkey [ protected ] [ protected ] suhosin.cookie.cryptlist no value no value suhosin.cookie.cryptraddr 0 0 suhosin.cookie.cryptua On On suhosin.cookie.disallow_nul 1 1 suhosin.cookie.encrypt Off Off suhosin.cookie.max_array_depth 100 100 suhosin.cookie.max_array_index_length 64 64 suhosin.cookie.max_name_length 64 64 suhosin.cookie.max_totalname_length 256 256 suhosin.cookie.max_value_length 10000 10000 suhosin.cookie.max_vars 100 100 suhosin.cookie.plainlist no value no value suhosin.coredump Off Off suhosin.executor.allow_symlink Off Off suhosin.executor.disable_emodifier Off Off suhosin.executor.disable_eval Off Off suhosin.executor.eval.blacklist no value no value suhosin.executor.eval.whitelist no value no value suhosin.executor.func.blacklist no value no value suhosin.executor.func.whitelist no value no value suhosin.executor.include.blacklist no value no value suhosin.executor.include.max_traversal 0 0 suhosin.executor.include.whitelist no value no value suhosin.executor.max_depth 0 0 suhosin.filter.action no value no value suhosin.get.disallow_nul 1 1 suhosin.get.max_array_depth 50 50 suhosin.get.max_array_index_length 64 64 suhosin.get.max_name_length 64 64 suhosin.get.max_totalname_length 256 256 suhosin.get.max_value_length 512 512 suhosin.get.max_vars 100 100 suhosin.log.file 0 0 suhosin.log.file.name no value no value suhosin.log.phpscript 0 0 suhosin.log.phpscript.is_safe Off Off suhosin.log.phpscript.name no value no value suhosin.log.sapi 0 0 suhosin.log.script 0 0 suhosin.log.script.name no value no value suhosin.log.syslog no value no value suhosin.log.syslog.facility no value no value suhosin.log.syslog.priority no value no value suhosin.log.use-x-forwarded-for Off Off suhosin.mail.protect 0 0 suhosin.memory_limit 0 0 suhosin.multiheader Off Off suhosin.post.disallow_nul 1 1 suhosin.post.max_array_depth 100 100 suhosin.post.max_array_index_length 64 64 suhosin.post.max_name_length 64 64 suhosin.post.max_totalname_length 256 256 suhosin.post.max_value_length 65000 65000 suhosin.post.max_vars 200 200 suhosin.protectkey On On suhosin.request.disallow_nul 1 1 suhosin.request.max_array_depth 100 100 suhosin.request.max_array_index_length 64 64 suhosin.request.max_totalname_length 256 256 suhosin.request.max_value_length 65000 65000 suhosin.request.max_varname_length 64 64 suhosin.request.max_vars 200 200 suhosin.session.checkraddr 0 0 suhosin.session.cryptdocroot On On suhosin.session.cryptkey [ protected ] [ protected ] suhosin.session.cryptraddr 0 0 suhosin.session.cryptua On On suhosin.session.encrypt On On suhosin.session.max_id_length 128 128 suhosin.simulation Off Off suhosin.sql.bailout_on_error Off Off suhosin.sql.comment 0 0 suhosin.sql.multiselect 0 0 suhosin.sql.opencomment 0 0 suhosin.sql.union 0 0 suhosin.sql.user_postfix no value no value suhosin.sql.user_prefix no value no value suhosin.stealth On On suhosin.upload.disallow_binary 0 0 suhosin.upload.disallow_elf 1 1 suhosin.upload.max_uploads 25 25 suhosin.upload.remove_binary 0 0 suhosin.upload.verification_script no value no value
I have a new WP installation but when i access the site the css and images wont load. Check in the browser console an it shows - Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 500 (Internal Server Error). So i think it would be a file permission issue. I'd check in ftp their file permission and it shows XXX. Tried to change it to 644 for files and 755 for folders but no luck. Tried to change it via file manager still the same. I'm thinking this is causing the problem or some other else.