Here's the obligatory training manual...

(I'll eventually get tired of posting this... maybe).

I get to play Handy Manny again and figure out where the NEW leak in the roof is at. Ugh. Who said home ownership was a good thing?

@JaredBusch said:

None of that answers my question.

Enable Hyper-V Replication on your Remote Hyper-V server, and configure your local Hyper-V Server(s) to replicate everything to your Remote Hyper_V box.... This of course can take a while, but it should work.

@Reid-Cooper said:

I'd vote for an increase on that.

Some where in the order or 300 to 500% increase for first offense. Second offense should see an additionall 700 to 900% increase.

My turn to raise the dead... but the same instructions work flawlessly on Mint 17.3

@wirestyle22 said:

There are no stupid questions only stupid answers

And Stupid Taxes.

I hate typing sudo 50000000 times...

so I just sudo -i if I need to run stuff as root. Easy, and done.

I've got it going on my server now.

@Sparkum said:

Sad...

But also true...

@Jason said:

... require more fees for more throughput being used on the same device.

This is what drives me crazy about companies these days... Let me pay for a box that is sized for the network I want. If it can handle more than my current bandwidth, great! Don't make me buy a paper license just because I have a 300Mbit internet connection and your box is rated for 200 megs, but I am aactually seeing the full 300.

This is why I prefer to build my own firewall... Shorewall + Snort (or Suricata) + DansGuardian +ClamAV = Win. (Or you can just use pfSense)... Gotta build a beefy box to make it all run nice and smooth and not choke your internet.... But still probably a far cry cheaper than Palo Altos, et al.

@NattNatt said:

@Minion-Queen said:

Early morning meetings.... I am not awake enough for this yet.

Is anyone EVER awake enough for an early morning meeting? They should be banned...

I second this motion.

@quicky2g said:

@dafyre said:

@Jason said:

... require more fees for more throughput being used on the same device.

This is what drives me crazy about companies these days... Let me pay for a box that is sized for the network I want. If it can handle more than my current bandwidth, great! Don't make me buy a paper license just because I have a 300Mbit internet connection and your box is rated for 200 megs, but I am aactually seeing the full 300.

This is why I prefer to build my own firewall... Shorewall + Snort (or Suricata) + DansGuardian +ClamAV = Win. (Or you can just use pfSense)... Gotta build a beefy box to make it all run nice and smooth and not choke your internet.... But still probably a far cry cheaper than Palo Altos, et al.

You must have loads of fun troubleshooting all those individual systems when something is blocked that shouldn't be.

Ha ha ha. Nope. If it's a website, it's DansGuarian. If it's an App, then it is Snort / Suricata blocking it. (In my last build, I used Suricata to block the applications we didn't want on the network).

If it's not Snort / Suricata, then it's the Firewall not allowing outgoing ports.

@scottalanmiller said:

It has been a little slow here today, we JUST overran MailGun for the day. That's later than usual.

Must be because NTGHQ is offline?

Edit: I see now that was a satirical post... but true nonetheless. If any Zombie sightings are reported, I'm moving to the moon.

@quicky2g said:

@Dashrender said:

@anonymous said:

The funny thing is someone would that it has value, because of all the work you put into protecting it

While some people might think that because of your extreme protections it has value, the reality is that most hackers won't bother - they will move on to easier targets.

Those who would be willing to go to nearly any length are probably doing so because they Know it's value, and that value is greater than the cost of them getting the data.

How about the port forwarding a customer of mine had for RDP, FTP, SMTP, HTTP, and HTTPS to their exchange server? Sounds like an easy target.... Makes sense why I saw 10,000 sessions coming from Russia and Poland IP's through their router to the exchange server.

cough it got hacked cough

@NattNatt said:

@dafyre said:

@NattNatt said:

@hobbit666 said:

@dafyre said:

After Earth,

Skip it!

Is that the Smith bonanza?

Yea.

I agree with the above statement then, skip it.

I usually like his movies, and wifey wanted to see it too... But we have other things to watch as well, so we may get to it, or we may not.

Edit: Yay, Netflix & Hulu & Amazon Prime!

It has worked quite well for me in my lab environment. It makes an excellent storage mechanism for ISO images, installer files, and backups. I had to shut it down for a while, but they have also had a couple of releases since I last used it. The Write speed is slow when copying in large files, such as ISO images and backups. Much of that was likely my test lab as well.

If you haven't had a chance to test it out, it is DEFINITELY worth a look. It has proven quite useful. It handled machine outages just fine. If you have 4 nodes and 1 goes offline (example), the system will switch to read only... When that one comes back online, it calls home, and everything switches back to read/write (this of course, is an oversimplification).

@MattSpeller said:

Weather today:

8am Sun

9am Hail

915am Rain

930am Sun

1230pm Big storm clouds

1:15pm Blizzard?

I'm having a similar issue, but different, lol. I am unable to backup any of my XenServer VMs. I am using an XO Machine built with @DustinB3403 's instructions. I am connecting to my XenServer using it's inside IP address (192.168.15.1/24) from my XO Server (192.168.15.2/24).

When the backup jobs try to run, my XO Server tires to connect to the PUBLIC IP address of my XenServer.

This poses a problem this is a hosted XenServer instance with a single public IP address... I am using ports 80 and 443 to run an Nginx proxy as a VM.

Is this a bug in XO, by any chance? @olivier ?

If the answer to that question is "NO", then what can I do to fix XenServer so that it only listens on my inside IP addresses?

Preparing for bad weather, apparently.

@scottalanmiller said:

Also, containers provide some of these features for shops too small to have cloud to do this with VMs.

Like you were talking about earlier... Doing both can be beneficial. Have a couple of big VMs for LXC containers, and what-not... You get the benefits of both virtualization and containers.

@MattSpeller said:

I'm the only employee in the building today. Rolled into the parking lot and sat idling in the middle of 4 spaces while I checked and double checked it wasn't a vacation day. Turns out there's a big meeting in Vancouver

So that means A) You can get a bunch of stuff done today.... or B) You have to drive to Vancouver... or C) You "call in" sick.