ker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:43:49 -0000
--GOdHDkIp180r3pqZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
As you may be aware, BitFolk currently doesn't support 64-bit
guests. The reasons for this are:
- 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
per-process compared to 32-bit.
- 99.04% of BitFolk customers have less than 2GiB addressable RAM.
- Supporting only 32-bit or only 64-bit is a bit simpler.
We do, however occasionally lose custom due to not supporting 64-bit
guests.
A future memory upgrade (not planned as to when) will obviously push
more people into the space where >2G RAM per process would be
beneficial, so I will consider switching to only 64-bit by that
time. Will anyone be terribly upset to leave 32-bit behind?
To clarify I am saying that after that point new installs would have
to be 64-bit. Existing 32-bit installs would be unaffected.
Also if you have a requirement for 64-bit it would be appreciated if
you could vote for:
https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/27
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--GOdHDkIp180r3pqZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk/DjyIACgkQIJm2TL8VSQsxNwCfRfnTdytxYTOrzJzNs4A0Tle/
PRYAoLvfqtIe/4MedPHaovPsLtBymXSl
=G2K+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--GOdHDkIp180r3pqZ--
From andy@??? Mon May 28 12:53:43 2012
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <andy@???>)
id 1SYzSA-0004wL-Mc
for users@???; Mon, 28 May 2012 12:53:43 +0000
Received: by wgbgn7 with SMTP id gn7so2702450wgb.21
for <users@???>; Mon, 28 May 2012 05:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=YhEiUX5Vfi6oZNPFBgAMF3JC33nRkeHOrcLb42POjws=;
b=RJgSaIdrywW7aOJ0hQGgdlscuwigf5scdnuJKsOyk6nq6P6RVGv+IAxKCyak21KkN3
80zwFQvE/PutdABjUGb+94aZPETrYkRxWsRgDSmHAmFkpYFYsbHwVl7aDSyS6KZeMk0I
6SwKYQqbWymUYZwlGGxEm04RcHMn+kWyv7iM/8q2HoUjjbFz5WTyPEdeE76sn5yZ2YCu
LSqCrCwLd/l8Bgii+c2ir7iZ/Y3oilwwBH35rYMANAVYt84TReBoXTyAY6CFNKbMNwFy
ZPWIUQGAi3nE0LmjenLzoS0h4g/p/5roCCXSPkgKqpKrnIGe7ZlGuL9RrPDeHgea7EmZ
kciQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.193.80 with SMTP id j58mr4328600wen.96.1338209616112; Mon,
28 May 2012 05:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.91.14 with HTTP; Mon, 28 May 2012 05:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [86.131.129.200]
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 13:53:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CALaLcMyBdLvBgystBuP6OctHeTvoxv3mDCfqGCVf-7ZPJhFykw@???>
From: Andrew Gilmour <andy@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknUm6sFkLavbYYRRGjA46WxGd3YfPw5ncdMtlfti1YecCkakW6wt0tEX6mNtQomn2O5PTO
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Mon,
28 May 2012 12:53:42 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.52
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 74.125.0.0/16
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust
* [74.125.82.52 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 May 2012 14:53:01 +0000
Subject: [bitfolk] VPN's and extra IP's
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 12:53:43 -0000
--0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I would like to set up a VPN, for mostly hobby rather
than commercial reasons so being Scottish, I'm trying to find the Low/No
cost solution.
For reference, the set up document I have been looking at is
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=132029 .
Now first question, in /etc/pptpd.conf we have a line similar to
remoteip 172.198.2.50-51
If my understanding is correct, this refers to the "external IP's" that my
VPS at bitfolk would be assigning to the client devices, so being Scottish,
and as I say, being a low budget little project, is there a way of setting
up a VPS using just a single IP, or what costs are involved
in acquiring a handful of IP's?
Secondly, Ill quickly summarise my objectives here so you can let me know
just how wrong a tree I'm barking up by taking the VPN path :)
Purpose 1 : To allow me to connect safely to insecure networks using
android tablets/phones (2.2,2.3,4), and a dual boot laptop (ubuntu/win7)
and just for shits and giggles probably my old windows mobile collection
(3,5,6).
Purpose 2 : My ISP quite frequently has difficulty with its routing to the
North American RIFT Servers... but never to me good old VPS,
so I'm thinking in these occasions it may provide a (possibly somewhat
imperfect) bypass to that problem when it happens.
Purpose 3 : Minecraft Pocket Edition. I introduced my nephew to minecraft
on his Archos tablet, unlike the desktop versions, it only supports LAN
games... Im thinking if it was on the same VPN as me, it would probably
let us play a LAN game together, even with him being in Aberdeen, and me
being on Skye?
All input and suggestions are welcome.
--
AndyG
http://www.slightlysheepish.com/
--0016e6db300acdab9104c11834cc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to set up a VPN, for mostly hobby r
