@Lakshmana said:

There is no work to do so trying to do things in new manner

In that case, let's work on moving to good business experience. This is the kind of thing that your old boss would have had you do. Do not use VMware Workstation. If you need a type 2 hypervisor, first thing is to get the current Ubuntu, not an old one, and then use VirtualBox.

@scottalanmiller said:

Someday. I will try to get there and let you know.

thank you very much, i want to meet you really. i will be your guide in your journey 😉

@flomer said:

@scottalanmiller I was simply using those numbers as examples, actually. I have learned over the years that it's better to start low and increase as the VM needs more resources.

I often try to estimate just a tiny bit high, look at the real needs when given available overhead and tune down.

Example: Give a PBX 1GB of RAM. Watch the real usage as well as caching and buffering over time. Then decrease until caching and buffering have enough overhead but only just enough. On a typical PBX this means we decrease to around 800MB.

@Carnival-Boy said:

Talking of security, have you cracked my 7-zip file yet? 🙂

Not even tried yet 😛 Had fun with other things first.

@Joy said:

@scottalanmiller said:

The error that you stated is not the error in the screenshot.

Hi Sorry, i just got back from my day off.
Well try to use different version of IE. I only tried the IE8, IE10, and IE11

That's an awful lot of them. Have you contacted the vendor to see what the error means to them?

@JaredBusch said:

@Breffni-Potter said:

@JasonNM - If you don't go with NTG, if you engage another consultant, have them sign an agreement which prohibits them from reseller agreements or sales on your behalf, you'll need the right legal phrasing but for any prospective consultant, lay that out up front.

While I do completely agree with this in general, as it is how we run our company, just because someone is a reseller, should not rule them out. It should reduce they value of their input, but if you are getting competing information, they can still be a value.

Resellers, IMHO, have tons of value. But at different stages of the process. You shouldn't get the broad guidance, like system design, from the resellers. Not where they are in a process to influence design. But once you are down to system specifics or needing to compare two products of similar types getting resellers involved (as long as their is oversight to keep their sales people from bring misleading and causing problems) is very good. Resellers need to be part of a good IT supply chain, but not a replacement for the IT skills themselves.

@JasonNM said:

In the US these are very much illegal. Don't know about India.

And yet they use them in the US. Fishy, isn't it, what these local governments do.

@Dashrender said:

Also, don't take this as my saying that closed source is better - I'm not. I'm just saying that anyone who isn't already familiar with this situation needs to be aware that just because something is open source does in no way imply that anyone has ever done an audit, let along a security audit of the code.

No, but you are implying that open source is equal or worse, but it is not. It is better (or equal.) It literally has no downsides compared to closed source (for the end users, obviously what is bad for the customers might be good for the vendor) but does require customers (but not every customer) to leverage to have it still be beneficial for all (one enterprise doing an audit and checking or improving code helps everyone). The same code made open or closed will always be better or equal to the same code closed source.

You are completely correct that no one should think that the nature of a license for code visibility would mean that it is magic and that audits are automatic - but I've never heard of anyone implying or believing such a thing. I think we were all assuming that no one thought that open sourcing code was doing anything like that.

But we also have the vast majority of enterprise open source software being audited all the time. So in one way, we have to be aware of basics like source licensing does not imply an audit. At the same time we have to be understanding that major companies certainly do audit core code, especially security code, regularly and that there is a level of auditing going on on enterprise open source that exists nowhere else.

Just got it installed on the latest Ubuntu running ML.

@JaredBusch You're welcome. If any assistance with scripting is needed, feel free to reach me either here or on our community forums.

http://forums.veeam.com/

Thanks.

@Breffni-Potter said:

@Bob-Beatty said:

@Breffni-Potter I agree with everything Scott says, with the exception of stopping at strange bars in the middle of the jungle at 10:00 at night.

Are you honestly telling me it was just the "one" thing you disagreed with? 🙂

I suspect there might be a few more bar visits you would object to if you cast your mind back.

haha! I.. cant.... remember too many bar visits with Scott, or I may agree with your comment... 😛

What do you mean a comparison between the methods?

You deploy RAID the same to SSD or HDDs.

Why one is advisable and one is not was laid out here a few days ago by @scottalanmiller.

From memory a few things:

SSDs don't suffer UREs
SSD resilver time is low enough to not consider failure of another drive to be a perceived threat

These two (again from memory) are why it's considered OK to use RAID 5 with SSDs, but not with HDDs.

@dafyre said:

@marcinozga Spin up XenServer on your NUC and then try to get adTran going on it. If it works, great! If not, switch to another Hypervisor.

That's what I'm probably going to do.

@johnhooks said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@johnhooks said:

What about running a UTM in a VM? At least you can vertically scale if needed.

Of course that's an option and you get "unlimited" power in that way. But having your firewall on a VM, unless it is on a one to one dedicated piece of hardware, is generally not ideal. It basically requires that an attacker already be on your network before facing the firewall. In nearly all cases, I would recommend that you stick with the physical firewall for mainline security and put the non-routing / non-firewall scanning functions onto a VM instead.

Oh OK. I did it at home playing around. The UTM was the only VM with access to the WAN nic but I guess the dom0 is still public facing then? Never thought about that.

Could be, but shouldn't be. But the physical access still exists no matter what you expose to it.

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.