@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

So it's the BOOTDRV share that the terminals connect to?

So connecting to the back office server (with the right username replaced below) what was the response?

  net use \\192.168.128.xxx\BOOTDRV /user:username

Also run the command

net share

on the back office server and post the results.
It will show you what shares and folders are shared on the server.

@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

@pete-s said in Cant communicate:

@wrcombs
Can you try and open the windows share on the back office server from a POS terminal?

Either from the windows explorer or from the command line with "net use" etc.

when i run net use just as it is i get a connection to Term3, when i run net use \\alohaboh i get

System Error 53 hs occurred.
The network path was not found

The usage is like this:
net use <driveletter>:\ \<server>\<sharename> /USER:<domain><username> <password>

With just a workgroup you can skip the domain so it's:
net use <driveletter>: \ \<server>\<sharename> /USER:<username> <password>

PS. For details type: net use ?
I had some formatting problems with backslashes above.

@wrcombs
Can you try and open the windows share on the back office server from a POS terminal?

Either from the windows explorer or from the command line with "net use" etc.

@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

@pete-s said in Cant communicate:

@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

@scottalanmiller said in Cant communicate:

@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

The Back office can connect and talk to the POS Terminals. The Terminals Cant Connect and Talk to the Back Office.

"Can't talk to" isn't a useful term. that they can ping means that they are currently talking to each other.

You need to use a different description here, something meaningful that would involve a specific protocol.

okay: The Terminals cant Access the Back office files to pull the data they need to run correctly. our terminals are running in a stand alone state however they are on the network for troubleshooting purposes. , we cant path to the back office using run and using \\\192.168.128.xxx(the Back office IP) Which we can do that on every other site.
The Terminals

So the POS terminals access the Back Office server by windows file sharing?

Have you tried to connect a laptop and open a network share to the back office server?

No havent tried that cause im not on site, I am remoted in.

Are the POS terminals running full windows? Can you remote to them as well?

@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

@scottalanmiller said in Cant communicate:

@wrcombs said in Cant communicate:

The Back office can connect and talk to the POS Terminals. The Terminals Cant Connect and Talk to the Back Office.

"Can't talk to" isn't a useful term. that they can ping means that they are currently talking to each other.

You need to use a different description here, something meaningful that would involve a specific protocol.

okay: The Terminals cant Access the Back office files to pull the data they need to run correctly. our terminals are running in a stand alone state however they are on the network for troubleshooting purposes. , we cant path to the back office using run and using \\\192.168.128.xxx(the Back office IP) Which we can do that on every other site.
The Terminals

So the POS terminals access the Back Office server by windows file sharing?
Have you tried to connect a laptop and open a network share to the back office server (by using the right IP, username and password)?

@wrcombs
Exactly which devices can't communicate with each other?
The error you mentioned above from some log, what log is that and on which machine?

@wrcombs

Do you have windows firewall enabled on the machines? In that case disable it.

Troubleshooting needs to be done in a logical manner.
You want to verify things by testing and excluding things that work.
It might take forever to find something if you do it by checking things haphazardly.

@scottalanmiller said in Fail-over solutions:

@pete-s said in Fail-over solutions:

@stacksofplates

The customer standardizes on windows but the software is cross-platform.

But super slow and cumbersome on Windows Both MySQL and PHP famously are dogs on Windows.

I don't think that's true anymore. I haven't run any benchmarks on the same hardware but I think speed was brought up to parity with MySQL 5.5 by Oracle. And PHP after Microsoft started to work with Zend so around PHP 5.4 or so. Linux will probably always have the upper hand since that is the huge majority of installations and it would be my preference as well.

@dbeato said in Fail-over solutions:

@scottalanmiller said in Fail-over solutions:

For MySQL HA, the "go to" solution is generally Galera.

http://galeracluster.com/

It's similar licensing to MySQL so a good match there, and is specifically the primary MySQL application layer HA product out there. I've used this in some pretty demanding environments (over 35K concurrent users.)

You don’t recommend Percona right?

It looks like Galera is an integrated part of MariaDB since v10.1, a few years back. Maybe that would be another option.

@jmoore

Nope. But maybe it should be in some form.

All the VMs the customer are running are located in datacenters off-site but this one has to be on-site. That's why it's not virtualized at the moment.

@stacksofplates

The customer standardizes on windows but the software is cross-platform.

I have a physical server running windows with an mysql database, lots of php and apache. The system is collecting information in real-time from an industrial process running 24/7/365 and presenting that information through the webserver on the intranet.

I need to have some kind of fail-over solution for this type of server. What options / technology would you recommend I look into? Can it be done by adding just one more physical server?

@scottalanmiller said in Seeking an AMD AM4 MicroATX Mobo That Supports Dual HDMI Output:

If it does dual output at once, I'll just get a cable adapter and get this one...

ASRock A320M-HDV AM4 Socket MATX

As mentioned before there are no motherboards that doesn't support at a minimum two outputs - if there are two outputs on the MB. Dual and triple monitors is something everyone expects today.

From the users manual:
AB350M-HDV/A320M-HDV:
• Three graphics output options: D-Sub, DVI-D and HDMI
• Supports Triple Monitor
• Supports HDMI with max. resolution up to 4K x 2K
(4096x2160) @ 24Hz / (3840x2160) @ 30Hz
• Supports DVI-D with max. resolution up to 1920x1200 @
60Hz
• Supports D-Sub with max. resolution up to 2048x1536 @
60Hz
• Supports Auto Lip Sync, Deep Color (12bpc), xvYCC and
HBR (High Bit Rate Audio) with HDMI Port (Compliant
HDMI monitor is required)
• Supports HDCP with DVI-D and HDMI Ports
• Supports Full HD 1080p Blu-ray (BD) playback with DVI-D
and HDMI Ports

Note that the resolution on D-Sub and DVI-D has is wrong above. It's the DVI that has the higher resolution.

@scottalanmiller

I don't think you will find a motherboard today that has limitations in the number of monitors you can attach to it.
So if it has two ports you can run two displays on it. If it has three you can run three displays on it.

I had a look at one motherboard for the AM4 socket, Gigabyte I think, that explicitly stated that it supported three and it had VGA, hdmi and dvi.

Also pick a mini-itx card unless you have some specific reason for a microATX, for instance the number of PCIe slots or something similar.

PS. Why do you need two HDMI? Do you have specific monitors in mind?

@obsolesce

DVI is basically the same as HDMI, just another physical connector. So a DVD to HDMI cable or a DVI to HDMI adapter have just wires inside.

Displayport however is totally different so it requires an active converter (as in something electronic).

Hey guys!

Multinational corporations that have 10 thousand or more computers running Windows, how do they keep track of all their MS licenses? I assume it can't be a manual process.

@kelly
Wouldn't a layer 3 switch be considered a pure router (and switch) but not a firewall?