Yes, I can download updates. The question is how is it intended to work and is it working as intended.

@johnhooks said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@johnhooks said:

I'm also quite late, but would it be appropriate to keep passwords in files with root permissions and have the script read it? Or is that just as insecure?

At some point, passwords need to exist. In most cases, you want to use keys, though. Where do you need passwords?

I was just asking if that would be a solution to the original problem while still being secure since he couldn't use keys.

Oh, in that case, they aren't concerned about security or they'd have keys. So being really secure isn't on their radar 🙂

Well I'm the admin of this mound.

🙂

As small and stinky it may be, this is mine!

Of course UEFI comes with its own risks, as we have recently seen, so it is more imperative that you trust your hardware maker when using UEFI. Not that trusting them wasn't always essential, but their toolkits for being naughty have expanded.

I've never monitored them.

The work is being done by Dom0, not the VM.

And with the resources being statically assigned I can't imagine that there is much of a hit to the performance of the VM's them self.

the log has this.

MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\2450d0.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\4548bc25.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\30d2dd04.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\9b12058e.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\37a812.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\1787be.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\4db72bbb.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\2ef9d4c5.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:774]: Original patch ==> C:\Users\aciadmin\Downloads\Exchange2007-KB3056710-x64-EN.msp

It does find these apparently..

MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {72C048CD-EEE3-4D28-9140-E41E7773EDA5} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.279.3 Order: 0 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {3CB9909C-1466-4F1A-89C7-72B3BBD61D81} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.279.5 Order: 1 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {E9730840-6730-446B-BBAE-1866F024031E} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.297.2 Order: 2 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {C0DBC2AC-7FA8-46AF-A389-179FAB1D8102} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.298.3 Order: 3 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {9750A7B7-545E-473F-B2BA-5D79157CC280} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.327.1 Order: 4 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {193F22C5-6469-44B9-BBC3-067C725B3FE0} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.342.4 Order: 5 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {373F441B-FE35-42C4-8A6B-84BB431C609D} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.348.2 Order: 6 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {CE370EC7-8AF5-43BE-829C-73CEF5598C5D} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.379.2 Order: 7 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {BF73925F-9C98-444F-9455-8DC63A79B9C2} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.417.1 Order: 8

That looksa like it started with update rollup 8
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/240.exchange-server-and-update-rollup-build-numbers.aspx#D

This list precisely matches the Windows update history screen.

@johnhooks said:

This was resolved. The VM was running. After shutting it off, the interface could be removed.

Oh, just saw this. Expected behaviour when running. Same on VMware too, for example.

If it is a very specific ad that is an issue, you might want to consider blocking it manually either via IP at the router or via DNS or something similar.

I've had success with Revo uninstaller before. But I agree, I would get rid of the cracked version and just use the free version. Who knows what's been installed along with the cracked version.

Sorry for the confusion- its a development server, but i still need to make sure that these are updated with minimal downtime. I am trying to push the AD changes to some other time at least wait for the dev team to complete the tasks in hand, but not very sure if they will stop it just for us

Thank you

Got back to this myself.. http://mangolassi.it/topic/4681/veeam-endpoint-backup-is-out-of-beta-and-available/13

i agree that when you see your work being implemented in the production environment you get happy and willing to do more, but if the management allows,

@aroelle said:

But what is wrong with the first logical drive?

That would be the question. What makes you feel that something is wrong?

Exactly - two 6 TB HDD's may be a lot less expensive, but the performance compared to SSD would be insanely different.

How many HDDs would you need to reach your IOPS requirements?

@scottalanmiller said:

Applies to any blind swap system. "To you" the Lacie is hardware RAID...

http://mangolassi.it/topic/5872/how-to-replace-a-failed-drive-in-hardware-raid

I previously read it, the same day in fact that this drive started to have issues. It was very well timed reminder.

I use Windows backup for my data and dump it on my NAS... well that was when I had Windows 7.
I might change it now that I'm on Windows 10.

Also, I take a disk level backup with Acronis True Image

@gjacobse said:

Sounds? Interesting.. I've never heard sounds from ML or ML chat....

I get OS alert sounds but there are not supposed to be any sounds here, the sound module is not even installed.

Wow, on a high end Juniper switch? That's more bad ports on a single Juniper than I've seen first hand on decades of use of Netgear!