Neat, I need to play with this as well.

@DustinB3403 said:

@anthonyh said:

@DustinB3403 Thanks for the info. Like I mentioned originally, blades are not my first choice when it comes to server hardware. I'm just dealing with what I was dealt, and so far it hasn't been bad.

In any rate, my post was not looking for approval of my hardware, but a question about a BIOS setting. As much as I'd love to contiue this debate as I'm honestly and genuinely curious, I suspect my thread has officially been derailed...

Anybody have any input on my OP? 😃

Sorry I wasn't looking to debate, just inform. As for the OP, I wouldn't enable this feature unless you are certain you need it. It appears to be designed for custom OS's including Red Hat, Suse and Microsoft Windows HPC Server.

http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04128168.pdf (Page 10)

So I wouldn't enable this feature.

Aha! Thanks!! I swear I did attempt some reasearch before posting. I'll leave it disabled, then.

@Jason said:

Well proper routing might be needed and since he's this incompetent maybe routing isn't setup right. polish your resume and get another job.

While this is an isolated incident, @jason is right. You are dealing with someone who is missing very basic things. Things that a Windows entry level person would be expected to know. And while it is fine to miss things (maybe Windows isn't his background) he's missing "common use cases" on top of not knowing "standard entry level technology" and then "not understanding how to approach a problem" and using years out of date technology, too.

It's about four big red flags in a single incident. It's a situation where, for your own good, you want to question how good of a manager or mentor this person is for you. Are you likely to learn from them? Or find that they hold you back from learning and growing in your own career.

@Dashrender said:

MS is finally making Enterprise look like a more worthwhile upgrade, but damn.. still just more money to spend.

That's the Windows world. Commitment to paying for all the little features. Great stuff, but the cost to "do things the Windows way" gets really expensive. And doing anything else leave you without the benefits of the ecosystem that money is being invested into.

@aaronstuder said:

@Dashrender We are a global company. 192.168.104.X is already used by another location.

Doesn't sound like much of a global company to me if they are overlapping subnets. Seems pretty careless. Bad idea incase something does need to talk, and also one routing BGP advertisement mistake away from causing a lot of issues.

And let's not get started on NAT translation for it, that's a bad idea too

@scottalanmiller said:

@KOOLER said:

@iroal said:

@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-V

Failover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.

Free Hyper-V works just fine, it's that it doesn't replace Windows licensing. It's just unrelated. You could say that a puppy doesn't work here either, but having a puppy doesn't cause a problem either, it's just not related to the issue at hand - that of licensing the Windows VMs on top of the hypervisor, whatever that hypervisor is.

OK, could be I misunderstood the question ...

thanks for the tips. i didn't have vm tools installed on some hosts but didn't have a chance to check again today so perhaps tomorrow success after ensuring tools are installed on all hosts. they are all on HP Proliants and just Ubuntu/Win hosts so nothing unusual that I'd expect to not support this I hope.

@aaronstuder said:

@scottalanmiller Didn't Red Hat take Centos back in house?

That's a weird way to say it. "Back" would imply that they used to be in house. CentOS was a third party and Red Hat bought them.

@olivier FWIW, I just retested on the latest next-release with the same results. If I disconnect / reconnect the server from within XO, the "ghost" VM is now gone.

@Dashrender said:

@IRJ said:

@Kelly said:

@Dashrender said:

@Kelly said:

That is correct.

I'm sorry, what is correct?

"Windows 7 will continue to be supported for security, reliability, and compatibility through January 14, 2020 on previous generation silicon. Windows 8.1 will receive the same support through January 10, 2023. This includes most of the devices available for purchase today by consumers or enterprises."

We are already in the phase for Windows 7 where all Microsoft is required to supply are security updates. So they'll drop the reliability and compatibility options for new things, but that doesn't mean that a new security update wouldn't work on Skylake - at best, as Scott is saying is that maybe - maybe if you have a problem with a security patch and you're on a system with Skylake, MS won't give you support.

But the chances are that it will work just fine.

As for supported versus not supported - when was the last time anyone here called MS for support on a desktop client? Other than asking for a download from a KB I found myself - I've never called them for support.

You asked a question and I was responding to it with my "You are correct." I hope you are right. I'm just reading their statements, and proceeding accordingly. I am going to proceed on the assumption that any hardware running SkyLake 6th gen or newer needs to be running Windows 10. You might be able to still get patches, from a business perspective it isn't worth the risk in my mind.

Microsoft could easily not give any updates to hardware running Skylake just as easy. If skylake=no updates is entirely possible and easy enough for Microsoft to implement.

This would be unprecedented and probably cause reasons for lawsuits. MS has claimed that they will provide security updates until 2020. While it's true, that maybe they could do this, I just don't see it happening.

What I do see happening is Windows 7/8.1 not supporting all features in Kaby Lake. But again, assuming the typical Intel backward compatibility paradigm, while new features might not work, I would expect that you could install them on Kaby Lake.

Of course, we're running into architectural changes such as UEFI that older OSes have a hard if not impossible time dealing with.

This is probably an additional root why MS is making these statements. Windows 7 does not deal well with UEFI, MS had to do some substantial coding to make it work so it's been reported, I can understand their desire to not do that for any more new chips.

How many unprecedented things have seen this year and last year? It really wouldn't surprise me. If you want to move everyone to a new OS you have to make a stand somewhere and somehow.

Yeah I get that the configuration was messed up, what I don't understand is how it became messed up.

As this VM was a direct export and reimport into Xen server. I update the MAC address within the VM configures, but other than that it had always worked.

Either way thank you for the help, I greatly appreciate it.

SSLv2 shouldn't be running in the first place anymore. Ref: SSL Labs Documentation

@aaronstuder said:

@JaredBusch Fixed! Sorry 😞

The permalink is in the timestamp.
0_1456860659059_upload-340da54e-03b8-46a5-b01e-5cb56a877190

I've been following this (but not closely) as I actually like the .NET world quite a bit (not including VB) and hope to see MS succeed in this. At the moment Mono has been bought and internalized by MS but sadly, Mono is still has .NET is being supported on Linux. The plan is for a full port of the "real" .NET framework to make it over, but the Ximinan Mono code is what is handling it at the moment.

Getting C# and F# on Linux and other OSes would rock.

I've heard that Mono is working decently well these days, and MS is really trying hard to get it working well.

@scottalanmiller said:

@dafyre said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@DustinB3403 said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@DustinB3403 said:

At the moment I can access the NFS Share using WinSCP, and copy from the NFS Share to my windows PC without issue, but I don't believe I can schedule this.

With PuTTY you can.

Care to elaborate?

PuTTY comes with a command line SCP client.

I never noticed / knew that!

Took me like a decade or so before someone pointed it out to me recently too 🙂

it's robocopy all over again 😛

So I found this website... https://www.dustin.se/product/5010897806/optiplex-7040-sff & https://www.dustin.se/product/5010897811/optiplex-5040-sff
Trustworthy?

7040
0_1456849205263_upload-13fb313a-1769-405c-892a-4e4b43dd462c
5040
0_1456849183366_upload-75551df1-9d12-4737-a043-1599e364d8b7

@Jason said:

@LAH3385 said:

So I am NOT a network guru.. and this does not make sense to me at all.
When I try to ping a workstation I received <1ms average.
When I try to ping a switch I received <1ms to =6ms. average at 2-3ms
When I try to ping our phone system I received =1ms to =5ms. average at 3-4ms.

What does this mean?

Pretty normal your phone system likely processing sip traffic and causes the slight delay for pings. It may even be setup to proiritize traffic so pings can handle less preferentially than its SIP traffic.

One hopes, in fact, that a phone will deprioritize anything but the RTP voice traffic.

Ntfs premission reporter might help. http://www.cjwdev.com

And... you'd need a database to track the databases!

Actually, as I think about it, separating databases really just becomes semantics. As long as it is a single application, separating the databases adds overhead (mostly for the developers) but in reality, it is always still all one datastore. One way or another, the application has to behave essentially the same no matter which way you do it.

The one advantage to having them separate is that you can have different "versions" for different customers. But I'm not sure that that is a good thing.

The app in my mind would be as follows.

On something the size of an iPad, it would be full screen.
It would show one page at a time, and you can swipe it off screen, left or right (and arrows like you see on google photos) to advance to the next or previous page.
A button to allow you to delete the page.

on the back end.

User prints PDF or whatever file type is needed and saves that file to a network location that is unique to each reviewer. The app, based on logon, attaches to the designated network path and downloads the files.

An additional nice component would be a process that grabs all things saved to this location and forwards them to the staff doing the last step, adding it to the backend system.