We use Webex here, not the best but it works. Definitely pricey, but we have it because that's what our customers are used to using, so.....

@gjacobse said in Korora 25 Daily Use:

@scottalanmiller said in Korora 25 Daily Use:

@gjacobse said in Korora 25 Daily Use:

@scottalanmiller said in Korora 25 Daily Use:

Use top and hit "m"

That I like.

Shows Firefox using about 15%MEM

How often are you restarting FF? On Korora I found that it could not be left on for more than one day.

The system as a whole has only been running 1:4:3:00 - I restarted FF this morning after @dafyre made mention of it.

I mentioned the other day that you needed to restart it regularly 😉

Please mention another reason for not using Docker with Linux based operating systems:
If the UID on your host system doesn’t match the UID of the user inside your Docker container, you will have file ownership issues.

I think most people don’t encounter this because they are probably the only user on their development machine, and most people only add a single user in their Dockerfile to run their app.

I’m not sure about other Linuxes, but Ubuntu will assign the first user a UID of 1000 so if you’re the first user on an Ubuntu host and you have an Ubuntu-based Docker image, you won’t even notice.

Personally, i was given advice to avoid host volumes even though the case can be resolved with bindfs and a privileged machine in a Windows environment.

Also have you tested your ping to to NJ/NY data center for VULTR? Might surprise you.

I was surprised and ended up moving some things from Chicago to NJ/NY despite it being twice the distance from me as Chicago VULTR instances were (500 miles to Chicago, 1200 miles to NJ/NY). Latency went from 80/90ms to 30ms or less on average when I moved to NJ/NY Vultr instance.

.

Pretty sure that ShadowCopy is still time only.

Veeam DOES recommended avoiding low end NAS devices, and recommends SAN over NAS because Veeam wants block protocols. These parts are true and we don't need to watch videos as they are available in writing from @Rick-Vanover - we even have the author of the best practices here in the community!

https://www.veeam.com/blog/vmware-backup-repository-configuration-best-practices.html

0_1501712220659_Screenshot from 2017-08-02 17-16-46.png

The keys here are "low end" which is an issue around support. The misleading bit is that NAS means server, so low end servers are every bit affected in the same ways. The QNAP, Synology, ReadyNAS and other such devices are not actually NAS but Unified Storage, SAN as much as NAS. That Veeam recommends SAN instead of NAS is a protocol choice, it does not make those devices any less applicable. We should not be calling them NAS, as that is misleading, they are equally both.

If we really look at the guidance and consider what it could mean, the only real concern is "low end" and low end is always of some concern. Why spend so much on Veeam and Windows licensing and then get cheap on the hardware? You want solid storage hardware and solid support. But nothing here is telling us that there is anything wrong at all with these kinds of devices and certainly the issue is not some kind of corruption caused by the fact that they are in this product category.

@jaredbusch said in Ubuntu Boot Issues:

@brrabill said in Ubuntu Boot Issues:

Gotta love Ubuntu.

not really.

FFS can't you tell that was sarcasm?

Hey ... I kind of like this FFS-ing and yelling at people! It's fun after a long day!

@jaredbusch said in My Grizzly Login...:

@bigbear said in My Grizzly Login...:

How do you like my Fusion login screen?

Has turned out to be very much a developer/freeswitch project. Just messing around with it has given me so many ideas...

0_1501689798181_Screenshot (41).png

That (FusionPBX/Freeswitch) is next on my list of things to do this week, after firmware updates to Ubiquiti gear.

You know, if nothing else you could use it to provision and configure your phones to your FreePBX instances. The provisioned is great.

Just be a little bit of code change...

It has been for a while. However, the rumour is that the product is done and being phased out. So not likely useful even for testing.

@jaredbusch said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost:

@nashbrydges said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost:

@jaredbusch said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost:

@nashbrydges said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost:

@brandon220 said in Comparing Ubiquiti EdgeRouter and Cisco ASA PPS Performance and Cost:

I've been using an ERL at home for a while and have them deployed at several business. Zero complaints and I recommend them all the time.

I wish I could use it at home. I'm on Bell Canada ftth and they use a different vlan for iptv and internet. All of the online guides I've seen haven't been able to get me to use my ERL and Bell won't give up which VLANs they use.

No one hasd figured this information out yet?

Sadly not yet, at least not that my Google-fu has allowed me to find.

I am a bit amazed because it should only take a mirrored switch port and wireshark to find VLAN tags.

This was my thinking as I was reading the posts. This is /should be pretty easy to figure out.

In thinking about this - I mentioned adding additional domains to the search suffix list.

While this is doable for a few PCs, or if you are using DHCP, I was thinking -

For the primary things you'll be searching for by shortname from the 'other' domains, create cname records in the local domains pointing to the real host in the real domain.

Example

The DB server is DB1.fire.randomcity.com
A user in water.randomcity.com needs to access the DB server.
Create a cname in the water.randomcity.com DNS server called DB1 that points to DB1.fire.randomcity.com
This allows the user in the water domain to connect to 'DB1' and they will be pointed to the server via DNS over to the server in the fire domain. No change to the client's DNS search suffix list required.

This does assume that there is not a server called DB1 in the water domain.

@bigbear said in So, is this Vultr Machine CPU Pegged Out?:

@Dashrender yeah I thought the same thing

Its a windows RDSH server btw. Made a huge difference. I went ahead and defrag (optimized) the block storage attachment as well for the hell of it.

Hmmm... Windows. Suspicious 😉

@jaredbusch No rush but when you can post something up that will help 🙂

@travisdh1 said in NextCloud: Insuffienct Storage:

Which base OS is being used? Debian/Ubuntu or RedHat/CentOS/Fedora? Log files will be different between the two that I'd want to look at. Either way probably looking for the apache/httpd log.

Fedora -

FWIW, xo-server updated to 5.11.1 without issue.

@minion-queen said in Mac O365 update issue:

@dashrender said in Mac O365 update issue:

@minion-queen said in Mac O365 update issue:

@dashrender said in Mac O365 update issue:

@minion-queen said in Mac O365 update issue:

Having users that leave the office with their laptops = updates being pushed off etc. pretty often. Can't wait for a good way to monitor this stuff aka SODIUM (man they really do need to come up with a better name for that).

Where there no other products you could use to monitor this? or the client wasn't willing to pay for it?

Of course they aren't willing to pay for it... story of smb life.

Then why are you worrying about it? I'm assuming they aren't willing to pay to have you monitor Sodium either.

For my own sanity I would. However again they only pay when they need me and an emergency clean up is more $$ for me so... while I would rather do it right in the first place and not have to scramble to fix it. They do make it worth my while.

Exactly, so deploying Sodium isn't what the customer wants. Should you offer it to them - heck yes. Say something like - hey we can offer this great new inexpensive service, for $200 or so a month, we'll monitor all of your machines. If we see one outside of updates, or whatever in this given timeline, we'll either automatically go on the clock and fix it, or we'll notify you and schedule time to fix it. But the monitoring shouldn't be free. They are just lucky that the tool to do the monitoring can be free.

@black3dynamite said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

@scottalanmiller said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

@black3dynamite said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

@scottalanmiller said in Installing LXC Containerization on openSuse Tumbleweed:

I have to say, though, I prefer the Ubuntu LXD approach much better.

I know Canonical is a big supporter of LXD. Who is the big supporter for LXC?

LXD is just an interface for LXC. So Canonical supports LXC through LXD. The biggest contributors to LXC are Virtuozzo, IBM and Google.

So LXD makes it easier to manage LXC?

Yes

@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:

@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]

The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.

But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."

Prove this.

Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.

Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.

But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.

Cost has nothing to do with that.

I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.

You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.

I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.

If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.

It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.

You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.

But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!

This is correct, it is not our job to do research when you are the one claiming a fact. It is the reader's job to verify, but the reader cannot do that without the initial facts.

Yes, I know you already answered. Just closing my part of the conversation.