How to generate QR code

We can use qrencode utility to generate QR code:



     qrencode     -o   blog_url.png

Check Result:    display blog_url.png



LGA 1155 CPU

E3-1290 V2                 9749
E3-1280 V2                 9561
E3-1270 V2                 9481
E3-1275 V2                 9344
E3-1240 V2                 9177
E3-1245 V2                 9110
E3-1230 V2                 8852
E3-1290                      8699
E3-1280                      8473
E3-1275                      8348
E3-1270                      8233
E3-1245                      8048
E3-1240                      7972
E3-1230                      7907
E3-1265L V2              7779
E3-1235                     7680
E3-1225 V2                6841
E3-1220 V2                6661
E3-1260L                   6534
E3-1220                     6103
E3-1265L                   6038
E3-1225                     5917

debug linux daemon in remote server

Using GNU screen + gdb utility to debug daemon software in remote machine


# Launch the daemon service

/etc/init.d/dnsproxy start


# Create a screen session, say dns

screen -dmS dns


# Attach to the screen session

screen -r dns


# Launch gdb with in the session


attach xxxx



# Detach the screen session




# Debug code with gdb by Attaching to the screen session second time

screen -r dns

Web development in C






fast C HTTP server library comparison & wishlist


Trying to choose an embeddable HTTP server library for a project, and
also considering writing my own special-purpose code, I came up with
the following comparison of libonion vs. other C libraries that include
high-performance HTTP support and are currently maintained.


libevhtp+libevent – 3-clause BSD
libmicrohttpd – LGPL 2.1
libonion – Apache 2 (except for some examples) or GPLv2+
mongoose – GPLv2 (and commercial)

Build environment:

libevhtp+libevent – cmake+autotools
libmicrohttpd – autotools
libonion – cmake
mongoose – none (one large file, like SQLite)

Code size (“text” as reported by the size(1) command on the library or
on a tiny sample program if statically linked, on Scientific Linux 6.6
on x86_64):

libevhtp+libevent – ~500 KB, or ~200 KB without unicode.c.o and reg*.c.o
libmicrohttpd – ~100 KB default, ~55 KB with most ./configure –disable-*
libonion – ~100 KB with most ONION_USE_* set to false
mongoose – ~100 KB including JSON-RPC

For the smaller builds of libmicrohttpd and libonion, I kept threads
support enabled, but disabled pretty much everything else that could be
disabled without patching the code.  It looks like libmicrohttpd wins
this test.  Maybe there’s more code in libonion to disable (make into
compile-time options) – I haven’t checked yet.

Built-in JSON support:

libevhtp+libevent – none
libmicrohttpd – none
libonion – JSON builtin, JSON-RPC in Apache 2 licensed example
mongoose – JSON-RPC builtin (simple JSON parser not exported?)

All of this is for current versions on GitHub or in recent release
tarballs as of a few days ago.

Maybe someone else will find this useful.  I’d appreciate corrections.
It is very likely that I overlooked something.

On a related note, I found the list of alternate implementations on the
libmicrohttpd homepage very helpful.  That’s classy.  Thanks.

My wishlist:

A processes (pre-fork) + [e]poll mode, like nginx has.  Processes have
pros and cons vs. threads: more reliable, faster malloc/free (no lock
contention risk), but OTOH slower context switches (if running process
count exceeds number of logical CPUs).  I would likely prefer this mode,
but all four libraries appear to be missing it.

Ability to accept not only HTTP, but also raw TCP connections, and
handle them in application code along with the library-handled HTTP.
Such as for implementing JSON-RPC directly over TCP, while also having
it over TCP+HTTP, and without having to manage an own/separate
threads/processes pool.  Do any of the four have this?  I found no such
examples with any of them.

Easily and cleanly embeddable into an application’s source tree, while
also allowing easy updates to new upstream versions.  mongoose almost
achieves this, but at the expense of sacrificing meaningful separation
into multiple translation units within the library itself.  I think we
don’t have to pay this price.  We could have multiple files (10 or so?),
in a subdirectory, which are also easy to list in a project’s Makefile.
Maybe I’d do that for libonion, freeing it from cmake, but then updating
to new upstream versions would be harder.  Do I really have to bite the
cmake or/and autotools bullet for something as simple as accepting HTTP?

I’d prefer a more permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT.  But I
guess I’ll have to settle on Apache 2 or such.  mongoose’ use of GPLv2
is understandable – need to make money – but is otherwise a disadvantage
(even for a commercial project that could pay, and even when publishing
any source code changes is not a problem and would be planned anyway; we
just don’t want to put our time into something that we would not always
be able to reuse in other projects).

Optional JSON from the same upstream is a plus, ideally exported both as
a generic JSON parser and as JSON-RPC support.  Looks like only libonion
sort of delivers both (but the code might not be production quality).

Ability to exclude more of the functionality – for example, to include
only the POST method (and not compile in code for the rest).  I am
concerned not so much about code size per se, as I am about attack
surface, and about ease of code reviews (not having to determine if some
compiled-in code is actually dead code in a given case, but to know
reliably that it’s not compiled in).

On a related note, David’s use of Coverity for libonion is commendable,
but it looks abandoned since 2014, and many “defects” (even if false
positives) remained unfixed back then.

Mark’s use of Coverity for libevhtp is also commendable… and looks
abandoned since May 10, 2015.  It shows “48,919 Lines of Code Analyzed”,
only “4 Total defects” and “0 Outstanding” – I guess it means that
everything detected by Coverity before (which must have been many more
“defects”) had been eliminated prior to that run.  That’s impressive.
But we don’t know how many new “defects” may have appeared in the 9
months that passed.  Also, I haven’t looked into whether libevent has
been subjected to similar static analysis or not (although being
initially written by Niels Provos speaks in its favor, given Niels’
other work), and accepting TCP connections isn’t as much risk as parsing

I don’t give a lot of weight to the Coverity results for my
decision-making, but it shows whether the maintainers care, and there
are few other somewhat-meaningful metrics I could use before having
spent time to analyze and try to use the code myself.

Why am I posting this to the onion mailing list specifically?  I find it
likely that libonion wins for me, although not by a large margin (and
there’s a lot that I dislike about it).  This is not a final decision
yet.  I might as well end up reverting to writing special-purpose code
from scratch.



Missing diskspace in Linux

Missing diskspace in Linux

Today I had a problem with a server that had no more disk space. And I learned something new in the process.

df -h told me that 100% was in use. Which was about 29GB on that server.

But if I checked the root partition with du -shx / i got about 9GB of used space.

So off to checking where the space could have gone:

Inode usage

I know “du” does not take account for inodes, etc. But according to dumpe2fs /dev/sdx1 my Inode size * Inode count = about 700MB.
So that was not it.

“Hidden” directories under mountpoints

“du” will not see used space of files located in a path that is later mounted to another file-system. For example, if you have files in /home/ on your root partition, but has later mounted /home to its own partition. The files will be hidden behind the new mountpoint.

To be able to check these files without unmounting anything in use, I did the following:

mount --bind / /mnt
du -shx /mnt

If “du” would give me a different result now, I would have known that the files where hidden under one of my mountpoints. But sadly, they where not. I was starting to run out of options.

Deleted files

If a process opens a file, and then you delete it by rm thefile you will have the file deleted from the filesystem, but the inodes will not be freed before the process closes/releases the file. This is something I love about Linux/Posix systems, since that means that processes does not need to lock my files and I have full control over my files as opposed to other operating systems(windows). But I thought that when you delete a opened file, there is no easy way of knowing which deleted files are “held back” by processes. But there is!

lsof | grep deleted quickly gave me a list of files that has been deleted, but is held open by processes, and their size. In my case a deleted log file of 17GB in size was held by asterisk. So i reloaded the logger module of asterisk, and hey presto! The diskspace was available again.

Now only 9GB was “in use” according to df -h.

Remove GPT from a disk under ubuntu

Suppose /dev/sdb is the device to be cleand


sudo apt-get install gdisk

sudo gdisk /dev/sdb

> Enter 2,  select GPT

> Enter  ?,  get command list

> Enter x,   expert mode

> Enter ?,  get command list

> Enter z,   destroy GPT


# create dos partition table, and partition

sudo fdisk /dev/sdb

# format the dos partition,   say /dev/sdb1

sudo mkfs.msdos /dev/sdb1

转:Linux上Core Dump文件的形成和分析

Core,又称之为Core Dump文件,是Unix/Linux操作系统的一种机制,对于线上服务而言,Core令人闻之色变,因为出Core的过程意味着服务暂时不能正常响应,需要恢复,并且随着吐Core进程的内存空间越大,此过程可能持续很长一段时间(例如当进程占用60G+以上内存时,完整Core文件需要15分钟才能完全写到磁盘上),这期间产生的流量损失,不可估量。


关于Core产生的原因很多,比如过去一些Unix的版本不支持现代Linux上这种GDB直接附着到进程上进行调试的机制,需要先向进程发送终止信号,然后用工具阅读core文件。在Linux上,我们就可以使用kill向一个指定的进程发送信号或者使用gcore命令来使其主动出Core并退出。如果从浅层次的原因上来讲,出Core意味着当前进程存在BUG,需要程序员修复。从深层次的原因上讲,是当前进程触犯了某些OS层级的保护机制,逼迫OS向当前进程发送诸如SIGSEGV(即signal 11)之类的信号, 例如访问空指针或数组越界出Core,实际上是触犯了OS的内存管理,访问了非当前进程的内存空间,OS需要通过出Core来进行警示,这就好像一个人身体内存在病毒,免疫系统就会通过发热来警示,并导致人体发烧是一个道理(有意思的是,并不是每次数组越界都会出Core,这和OS的内存管理中虚拟页面分配大小和边界有关,即使不出Core,也很有可能读到脏数据,引起后续程序行为紊乱,这是一种很难追查的BUG)。



%p 出Core进程的PID

%u 出Core进程的UID

%s 造成Core的signal号

%t 出Core的时间,从1970-01-0100:00:00开始的秒数

%e 出Core进程对应的可执行文件名

2.Ulimit –C命令,此命令可以显示当前OS对于Core文件大小的限制,如果为0,则表示不允许产生Core文件。如果想进行修改,可以使用:

Ulimit –cn


Ulimit -cunlimited


首先可以明确一点,Core文件的格式ELF格式,这一点可以通过使用readelf -h命令来证实,如下图:




gdb exec_file core_file


Objdump –x core_file | tail



no symbols



#include “stdio.h”

int main(){

int stack_of[100000000];

int b=1;

int* a;



这段程序使用gcc –g a.c –o a进行编译,运行后直接会Core掉,使用gdb a core_file查看栈信息,可见其Core在了这行代码:

int stack_of[100000000];

原因很明显,直接在栈上申请如此大的数组,导致栈空间溢出,触犯了OS对于栈空间大小的限制,所以出Core(这里是否出Core还和OS对栈空间的大小配置有关,一般为8M)。但是这里要明确一点,真正出Core的代码不是分配栈空间的int stack_of[100000000], 而是后面这句int b=1, 为何?出Core的一种原因是因为对内存的非法访问,在上面的代码中分配数组stack_of时并未访问它,但是在其后声明变量并赋值,就相当于进行了越界访问,继而出Core。为了解释得更详细些,让我们使用gdb来看一下出Core的地方,使用命令gdb a core_file可见:

可知程序出现了段错误“Segmentation fault”, 代码是int b=1这句。我们来查看一下当前的栈信息:

其中可见指令指针rip指向地址为0×400473, 我们来看下当前的指令是什么:

这条movl指令要把立即数1送到0xffffffffe8287bfc(%rbp)这个地址去,其中rbp存储的是帧指针,而0xffffffffe8287bfc很明显是一个负数,结果计算为-400000004。这就可以解释了:其中我们申请的int stack_of[100000000]占用400000000字节,b是int类型,占用4个字节,且栈空间是由高地址向低地址延伸,那么b的栈地址就是0xffffffffe8287bfc(%rbp),也就是$rbp-400000004。当我们尝试访问此地址时:



#include “stdio.h”

int main(){

int* stack_of = malloc(sizeof(int)*100000000);

int b=1;

int* a;



使用gcc –O3 –g a.c –o a进行编译,运行后会再次Core掉,使用gdb查看栈信息,请见下图: