For Centos6 and older you'd use service --status-all > running.log

As for cron jobs, you'd have to look at the individual users on the system as each of them can have their own cron job(s).

Since you can easily find each user on the system, you'd use crontab -l -u <username> to print whatever is in their cron files.

@syko24 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:

@DustinB3403 said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:

Why in God's green earth would you deploy XP today? Or would you continue to operate Windows XP?

The system it runs has an $80,000 camera on it

Also this seems insane that the customer has an $80,000 camera, but can't or won't purchase an updated system to run it.

@Emad-R said in Is SMB 1.0 more vulnerable at the client level or server level:

when I told them to get support subscription-like from canonical they were like nah your smart we dont need that.

I've left jobs who've said that to me. "Oh you're too cheap to get proper support, well I guess you're F'd now - peace!"

@WLS-ITGuy said in Does 64 bit or 32 bit really matter?:

@DustinB3403 said in Does 64 bit or 32 bit really matter?:

@WLS-ITGuy Are the installs big?

One is. The one server has a 200GB hard drive but is only using 16GB. The other is almost 1TB.

So why not create a "new 20GB" version of that 200GB and move the services? I could see how you'd want to save the space. But it seems like a lot of effort if only for 180GB.

@Pete-S nothing in this topic suggests that he isn't already virtualized.

@wrx7m said in All in one backup appliances:

@DustinB3403 said in All in one backup appliances:

@wrx7m said in All in one backup appliances:

I would think that having a branded appliance would be too confining.

So you want to be able to bring your own kit to the party?

Sure. I have been. Then, if I didn't like the backup vendor, I can re-purpose it for someone else's product.

So you aren't specifically looking for an appliance. (Appliances you buy). Scale Computing offers appliances as an example.

@JasGot said in URL Redirect at the Windows Workstation?:

Is it possible to force a URL redirect at the windows workstation level?
for example: www.example.com -> mmm.example.com

I'm sure I'll get downvoted, but why in the hell would you want to do this?

I've exported his PDF's and converted them to ODT files for editing, they are currently available from Github here I've sent @Ylian an email requesting he pull these files over so the community can assist with updating this documentation.

@scottalanmiller said in httpd dead but pid file exists:

@wirestyle22 said in httpd dead but pid file exists:

@scottalanmiller said in httpd dead but pid file exists:

@wirestyle22 said in httpd dead but pid file exists:

It's just a problem I am working on. Anything else gathered from this is wrong. If my boss tells me to install a printer, i install it. If my boss tells me to try to diagnose a problem on a server, I do it. If he comes out and tells me to stop I will stop.
When am I just doing my job?

I get it, sounds like it is your boss with AJS here.

So my situation doesn't change. I am still working on this issue.

Depends if you feel your direct boss or his boss is in charge

No, his boss is the person who he reports to. He's apparently been tasked with spending time on trying to find out what happened and to presumably document it. Rather than just to get the system up and running.

Unless his bosses boss came to @wirestyle22 and said "What are you doing, don't do that" should @wirestyle22 just stick with what he's been told to do. It sounds like this was a direct order.

"Drill a hold in that table." sort of thing.

Without going into the details on what you could do I would ask, why not just work to import this data into your new system?

The end goal is to have everything in one place, so building or setting up literally anything else seems counter-intuitive.

You could, if you really needed, just host this CSV somewhere that could be downloaded as needed by a handful of people so they can perform a Ctrl+F on it.

@FATeknollogee said in Fedora 31: upgrade

Don't forget...
Upgrade was smooth as expected.

Is your title wrong or screenshot wrong?

Never mind I see it.

For a small setup like this, where it very rarely needs to be maintained you're not on the wrong track. You could spend the money on the controller, but does your friend not have anything that can run a tiny VM that you can turn on and off as needed to update the AP and any settings they may need?

So this has been a bit of an on-going conversation where I'm at. We have a few departments that say they need storage in an not unrealistic amount. Several dozen Terabytes usable. (72-80TB).

This isn't an issue in any sense though. What is an issue is that there is no justification for this need, people just throwing a number at the wall to see if it'll stick.

This department does work on raw video files, so I understand the resource request, but I can't imagine anyone would have zero way of justifying the need. Especially if the track record for the department is to just hoard files forever, never clean up for themselves and generally just laze about when it comes to what they've had in the past.

Looking for some general advice on how you might address this so you can formulate a real business plan.

@Pete-S said in Windows Server - average RAM, vCPU allocation?:

@DustinB3403 said in Windows Server - average RAM, vCPU allocation?:

I tend to start at 2Gb and 2 vCPU, my coworkers tend to think I'm insane for starting so low.

As if they don't know you can always add more. .

But where do you end up?

Or are you saying that 2 vCPU and 2GB is what you end up running most Windows Server VMs on?

We end up right where I set them (usually at 2 and 2) with a very few exceptions.

@Dashrender said in How do you get your departments to quantify what they actually need for their jobs:

@pmoncho said in How do you get your departments to quantify what they actually need for their jobs:

@Dashrender said in How do you get your departments to quantify what they actually need for their jobs:

@pmoncho said in How do you get your departments to quantify what they actually need for their jobs:

@Dashrender said in How do you get your departments to quantify what they actually need for their jobs:

I also want to find a way to work in Dustin's - the departments don't cleanup their old shit - so storage just keeps growing - into this as well, but I'm not sure how.
I have yet to find a way to do it here and will be watching this post for others who come up with an idea.

FU*&#%@ PDF's for Credentialing bloat my file server. Worse than email attachments (grrhhhh).

Better than being in email in my mind. are you in medical?

Yeah a Medical SMB. The issue is they come in email, the email is then forwarded (with attachement) to a few other internal individuals and then save to the file server. Then they make one change to the document and the process starts over and no one bothers to remove the previous PDF's that no longer matter.

yeah - I have those same types of issues, but the PDFs are generally so small it's not an issue.
But to really fix it - you have to get management involved - look, we are storing a TB of dupe not valid forms - can we delete them?
how do you know they are dupe non valid? - hopefully you have some sort of naming that makes them identifiable as the same, yet updated.

A hash checker could quickly produce an easily readable report for that.

@popester said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

Z77 intel

Definitely check BIOS first and make sure virtualization is enabled, and absolutely use XCP-ng over Citrix Hypervisor in a lab scenario.

Way more functionality and not limited based on what you can do/test/break with it.

@popester said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

My thought process was that we are a XenApp on ESXi shop.

So you're a VDI shop, while you can certainly reduce the cost of the maintenance plan for the hypervisor (and supporting software) if you're using Windows within XenApp you won't be able to reduce that cost without using a different guest OS (linux, freebsd etc).

@popester said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

C-Level wants to look at cutting cost and XenServer is much cheaper.

KVM is free as well, but it doesn't have the same management interface that you can opt to use with XCP-ng or Citrix Hypervisor. It may be worth looking at if you have the time and resources.

@popester said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

I would like to do more along the line of design, not just bus driver.

What needs to be engineered here? Do you have questions about how you might set this up, the storage layer, networking, etc?

@popester said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

@scottalanmiller said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

@popester said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

@Dashrender said in Bootable Hardware Detection Tool::

Definitely seems like an odd choice to start with.
These days,
KVM is the obvious choice for most people. Super fast, really easy to use, specifically the fastest option for Windows workloads (presumably that's what you are using XenApp for), and totally free. And super well known with all kinds of support.

Can I get the best jumping in link for KVM? I tried researching a couple of years ago and could never quite get it off the ground.

THank you.

A one line installation for KVM (without explaining what it does) can be found here

Copied below to reduce your headache. This assumes you have Fedora 31 installed and need to add the KVM functionality.

sudo dnf group install --with-optional virtualization -y && systemctl start libvirtd && systemctl enable libvirtd

If you wanted some documentation on using Cockpit to administer KVM, here is some light reading.