On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 10:40:08AM +0200, Arman Khalatyan wrote: > Interesting problem... > Did you considered an insider job?( comes to mind http://verelox.com > <https://t.co/dt1c78VRxA> recent troubles) I would be really really surprised, we are only 5 / 6 with access and as far as I know no one has a problem with the company. The last person to leave did so last year, and we revoked everything (I hope). And I can't think of a reason they'd leave the website of a hungarian company in there, we contacted them and they think it's one of their ex-employee trying to cause them problems. I think we were just unlucky, but I'd really love to confirm how they did it > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:30 AM, W Kern <wkmail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/6/2017 4:57 PM, lemonnierk@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > Gluster already uses a vlan, the problem is that there is no easy way > > that I know of to tell gluster not to listen on an interface, and I > > can't not have a public IP on the server. I really wish ther was a > > simple "listen only on this IP/interface" option for this > > > > > > What about this? > > > > transport.socket.bind-address > > > > I know the were some BZs on it with earlier Gluster Versions, so I assume its still there now. > > > > -bill > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-users mailing list > > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
