ioFTPD General New releases, comments, questions regarding the latest version of ioFTPD. |
11-11-2007, 03:53 PM
|
#46
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 692
|
YiL: you should start a fan club. Beware of stalkers though!!
|
|
|
11-11-2007, 08:09 PM
|
#47
|
Junior Member
ioFTPD Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 28
|
I've just upgraded to v6.3.1 and it took me about an hour .. to read carefully the changelog.txt and to edit ioftpd.ini .. well .. i guess I was a little bit lazy ... but everything seems to run fine
|
|
|
11-12-2007, 11:55 AM
|
#48
|
Senior Member
FlashFXP Registered User ioFTPD Foundation User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 165
|
Got a crash log from ioftpd 6.3.1 running on a windows 2003 server, I cant really tell you what it might be thats causing it, happends a few times / day, if you want to have a peak let me know yil.
Else I can wait for .3.2 version and check if it happends again.
|
|
|
11-12-2007, 06:59 PM
|
#49
|
Too much time...
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,194
|
Version 6.3.2
New Version
ioFTPD-v6.3.2.zip
Code:
v6.3.2 Release Notes:
*** File Modifications:
1) File system\ioFTPD.exe changed. Version 6.3.2.0
*** Fixes:
2) MDTM now closes the filehandle it opened when adjusting timestamps and
marks the directory cache as stale so the new timestamp will be picked
up.
3) The MDTM success response now includes a trailing newline, this was
causing clients to hang.
4) When attempting to download a file that cannot be opened for reading (such
as when the file is still being uploaded or a zipscript locks it) shared
memory was being incorrectly freed. This eventually results in memory
corruption. This must have been longstanding 5.x bug as well.
*** Functionality changes:
5) CRASH-Log.txt now includes the thread ID of the crashing thread to resolve
ambiguity in stack dumps.
6) Users with 1 flag are now considered administrators of all groups and thus
ignore their admingroup settings. Previously only M accounts did this.
7) A user without the 1 or M flag who has access to privileged commands (i.e.
someone with the G flag) who has no admingroups defined is no longer
considered an administrator of all groups. Such a user must be granted
authority over specific groups now.
8) Site uinfo/ginfo commands now apply the same test as above which means G
only flagged users cannot see detailed info about users or groups besides
those explicitely granted them.
9) As a side effect of the above changes, the site kick command now uses the
same rules. Non 1/M flagged users must have group admin rights defined
for the user they wish to kick.
10) M flagged accounts logged in via 127.0.0.1 can now add/delete the M flag
from any account, delete/rename other M flagged users, and add/remove IP
hostmasks from other M flagged users.
|
|
|
11-12-2007, 07:02 PM
|
#50
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 32
|
yil: maybe a good idea to add a line in the ioFTPD.log when ioFTPD is crashing,
this way a bot can read the log and spam a crash on irc
or make an event of it..
edit:
oh nice, new release
those grpadmin features have been missing for a long time
this sounds like the problem i had :
Quote:
4) When attempting to download a file that cannot be opened for reading (such
as when the file is still being uploaded or a zipscript locks it) shared
memory was being incorrectly freed. This eventually results in memory
corruption. This must have been longstanding 5.x bug as well.
|
great work,
respect
Last edited by monk-; 11-12-2007 at 07:17 PM.
|
|
|
11-13-2007, 02:39 AM
|
#51
|
Senior Member
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Foundation User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 306
|
errrr, no word to describe the gratitude for the hard great work you putting into this peojekt... err... "i love you?" ...err .... you really rock Yil !. btw, you think you can generate a code a small prolggy to generate ssl certificate based on newer version of oenssl togo with these upcoming ioFTPD and Openssl version?
|
|
|
11-13-2007, 08:40 AM
|
#52
|
Too much time...
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,194
|
monk: I think that's exactly the bug you, hukker, and lots of other people on busy servers were having. Of course it could be a long time before the corrupted memory makes things go bad and that made it really hard to find. The funny part here is I don't think I would have found this bug if I hadn't goofed up on the MDTM command and forgot to close a file handle. That started triggering the old bug all the time so I could catch it in a debugger.
Flow: Err, you lost me... openssl? ioFTPD uses the windows SSL libraries. There are ways to use openssl to generate a self signed cert, and I think it might be possible to even use makecert to generate one if you export it correctly... Of course as far as ioFTPD goes you can now create/delete certs using site commands now
Update: I forgot to include this in the changelog.
File system\ioFTPD.pdb changed.
That file is necessary for printing the text in crashlogs correctly.
Last edited by Yil; 11-13-2007 at 08:48 AM.
|
|
|
11-14-2007, 07:07 AM
|
#53
|
Senior Member
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Foundation User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 306
|
Oh kool, dohh, thanks. Dang that MDTM bugg brought up a few fixes. Really nice to have those fixed.
|
|
|
11-15-2007, 08:18 AM
|
#54
|
Senior Member
ioFTPD Scripter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 703
|
Yil, very nice updates indeed!
Only thing that I've had problems with is symlinks. Sometimes when I upload new dirs (to a dir which I have a symlink pointing to) the symlink somehow updates to that newly uploaded dir or something and is screws the original dir up so that it appears empty. I have to manually reset the symlink and rename to original dir and then back to the correct name for the dir list to show everything again.
This has appeared for me a couple of (random) times since the new symlink functions of 6.2.0. It doesn't trigger a crash so I'm not sure on how to debug it. Any ideas?
/ZR
|
|
|
11-15-2007, 01:45 PM
|
#55
|
Too much time...
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,194
|
Zero: When the new site symlink function was added I changed the way relative symbolic link paths were evaluated:
Code:
7) Fixed relative symlinks. You can now use links of the form a -> b,
a -> ../b, a -> ../../foo/b. Previously you could use relative links
but it was necessary to prepend an extra "../" which is clearly wrong
when viewing a directory listing.
Are you using relative symbolic links? And/or are their scripts that use them that may be using the old method? From my experience most scripts tended to use absolute links which won't have been affected, but suffer from being incorrect if the directory structure is moved around.
As far as the new site symlink function goes it's just a shorthand for creating symlinks. If you aren't using the function it should have no effect as everything under the covers remained the same. Since you aren't creating a new symlink in this case I don't think it's even involved in this problem. If you are using it let me know though.
Next time you notice this happing, try a couple of things. Get the names of the dirs involved so we can see the relationships to any potential renaming effects that might be going on. Then try logging into the server with a fresh ftp client so none of the directories are cached in the client. See if the problem exists on the 2nd login as well. If ioFTPD has a messed up cache it should be wrong in both. Now shut the server down and restart it to see if the problem was cache related or if it's wrong on disk somehow...
|
|
|
11-15-2007, 04:41 PM
|
#56
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
|
Just installed subj, and here is the problem.
If user with d/l manager (such as FlashGet) begins multithreaded d/l from server with limited connections per ip, and if connection limit in d/l manager exceeds connection limit in ioFTPD, he eventually gets banned by this section:
Quote:
# To be removed from the ban list a user MUST NOT attempt to connect during
# the temp ban time else he'll just keep pushing the ban farther out...
Connections_To_Ban = 6 # 6 connections without a reset and
# IP is temp banned (5)
Ban_Counter_Reset_Interval = 60 #
Temporary_Ban_Duration = 300 # Seconds host remains banned
|
When this happens, ioFTPD crashes after a small amount of connection attempts from banned IP. Windows just reports that application stopped working.
System is Vista Ultimate x64
|
|
|
11-16-2007, 07:07 AM
|
#57
|
Senior Member
ioFTPD Scripter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 703
|
Yil,
I guess I'm using a combination of the new and old way to create or modify the symlinks. The new way of creating symlinks is very nice since you don't have to create an empty dir manually and then converting into a symlink. So I use it for creation. Then, to modify the symlink, I use the good ol' chattr command.
Basically I have two symlinks, with absolute paths ie. /section/year/month, in the ftp root dir pointing a couple of levels down in the dir structure and no symlinks going back. Once a month I change the targets manually and rename the dir/symlink so it represents the correct month in this case.
Will try your suggestions if it happens again.
Thanks
/ZR
|
|
|
11-17-2007, 01:04 PM
|
#58
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 138
|
How come credits aren't updated when user got ratio 0?
Wouldn't it be more logical to have credits update on user upload? In case you want to change the ratio at a later stage...
|
|
|
11-17-2007, 04:16 PM
|
#59
|
Too much time...
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,194
|
pion: the credit question is a good one. I can definitely see why we should keep track of credits even with a no ratio account, but what about negative credits? I suppose we could pin credits to 0 instead of going negative though...
|
|
|
11-17-2007, 08:53 PM
|
#60
|
Too much time...
FlashFXP Beta Tester ioFTPD Scripter
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
|
Because with the ratio multiplier being 0, they don't get any credits.
If a user has a upload ratio of 1, they get the same amount of the credits as the amount they upload.
If a user has a upload ratio of 2, they get twice the credits of the amount they upload.
If a user has a upload ratio of 0 (unlimited), how many credits should they get? 1x, 2x, 3x, or none?
Last I checked 15,000 multiplied by zero is zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yil
I suppose we could pin credits to 0 instead of going negative though...
|
Negative credits are needed for nukes, to punish users. (I have seen negative credits very often with large nukes).
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 PM.
|