964 reputation
1822
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen yesterday

11h
awarded  Popular Question
1d
awarded  Good Answer
Jan
16
awarded  Popular Question
Dec
1
awarded  Popular Question
Nov
25
awarded  Yearling
Oct
15
awarded  Notable Question
Oct
13
comment JBoss cluster reporting “Caught TimeoutException acquiring ownership”
@Sree it doesn't happen very often, few times a week. I already suggested the same but management said that the current value (256) is more than enough, otherwise it would affect the performance of the server.
Oct
13
asked JBoss cluster reporting “Caught TimeoutException acquiring ownership”
Oct
1
accepted Change top's sorting back to CPU
Oct
1
asked Change top's sorting back to CPU
Sep
30
asked logrotate not working as intended
Sep
21
accepted Fixed mount point of external usb hdd
Sep
21
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
16
accepted Does -o and -i make sense when the target host is already connected to the interface specified?
Sep
16
comment Does -o and -i make sense when the target host is already connected to the interface specified?
@StéphaneChazelas but the point, as I just added on slm's answer, is that is impossible that the packets go by the other interface, as it's intended for the 192.168.x.x network
Sep
16
comment Does -o and -i make sense when the target host is already connected to the interface specified?
there is another interface, eth0, which is use by the 192.168.x.x network. The point is that, in my opinion (I might be wrong, that's why I'm asking), both are redundant conditions as it would be impossible to match -d 10.10.48.3 and -o eth0 for example.
Sep
16
asked Does -o and -i make sense when the target host is already connected to the interface specified?
Sep
7
awarded  Good Question
Aug
26
awarded  Notable Question
Aug
20
awarded  Popular Question