A CPA at a farm and one for a restaurant across town do essentially the same job and can fill in for each other easily. Two IT people at two different businesses might have careers that are nothing alike.
There's a lot of customization in the iptables config and other areas that are scripted so that future systems could be deployed quickly.
If that was handled in Salt, it would be all automated so that it would solve this problem, rather than create it. That's actually a reason to use Salt in that case.
The production stack has Salt working. It's the QA stack that doesn't. The production stack is 62 servers, and needs Salt. The QA stack is just 8 servers plus 2 management servers, and the salt config is supposed to be the same, but adjusted for other system names. I don't have the Salt skills to adjust the Salt scripts to work for the QA stack.
Hmmm... might want to pressure your Salt guy to automate that. In theory, you could have something like QA in the name that designates that for the future.
Yeah, the reason I'm in the middle of all this is because our Salt guy is on his honeymoon in Italy this week, and the UK next week. So, he's not going to be of much help for a while.
That was not good timing!
Fun story: He's planned this for a year. He married his wife a year ago in the US to allow her to stay in the country, to then have a real ceremony on their 1 year anniversary with her family and go on their honeymoon. In January, our company got bought out, specifically because our technology was far better than the other company's, yet they had better sales contacts and more business, and the new CTO has a very special and fast timeline for converting some of our apps to cloud for use by our new coworkers. That plan just happened to step on our Systems Engineer's wedding plans that were not able to be changed. So, we got stuck in this mess. Sometimes, various things just make the perfect storm.
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
But then why state the red herring as the reason instead of the actual reason? the reason is "two hosts", nothing to do with the capacity number, but you implied that a large capacity number would make a SAN make sense, even just for one host.
Production Checkpoints -- uses Volume Shadow Copy Service or File System Freeze on a Linux virtual machine to create a data-consistent backup of the virtual machine. No snapshot of the virtual machine memory state is taken.
Titles don't matter that much except for companies that literally base your pay range on it. If they are going to do that, then fight for the best paying title!
And yes, I do work for a comp that does it. I started as "IT Helpdesk" and could not get my title changed even once I began supporting Linux web servers and doing all the purchasing and essentially being responsible for all-the-things.
The person before me who remained on staff for a while was called "IT Coordinator", whatever that means.
Eventually I had to write like a 6 page letter explaining what I do and what titles actually mean and finally got my title approved to be "IT Systems Administrator" (a most appropriate and generic title for my position and duties). And then negotiated my pay as a separate thing. Plus I like calling myself a "SysAdmin" and can celebrate national SysAdmin Day.
What's funny is that when my boss would send phone calls or emails to me to do things, he would use important-sounding titles to look impressive to the other person. Like "I'll pass you on to our CTO to handle that" even though I'm no such thing, lol