@dustinb3403 Are you an admin of the DNS server itself? If so, maybe grep your BIND zone file for CNAME records or use Get-DNSServerResourceRecordon your Windows DNS server.

Listening to a talk at Fedora Nest about the Pinephone.

Listening to / watching Nest with Fedora 2021 when time allows while at work.

@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@eddiejennings said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

About to be on a call with Solarwinds support.

There went 16 hours of your life

Ha! It lasted about 2 hours. Issue was "resolved" by uninstalling a module.

I would make a group for the users that need to access this folder (even if it's a group with only one user).

User also needs to map two drives (unc\path1 and unc\path2) that are on a server. The folder %programdata%\liberty software is not and does not need to be shared or mapped.

User logs into the server (via RDP?), needs two drives mapped to some other locations that's not %PROGRAMDATA%\liberty software, and needs write access to %PROGRAMDATA%\liberty software on the server, correct?

About to be on a call with Solarwinds support.

I don't know the default permissions for this folder off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure applications either write to this folder or read config files and such from it, so I'm a little surprised you have an application that requires any tinkering with these permissions.

As far as the title of your post is concerned, yes, icacls is a tool you can use. But there's more to the story it seems. Are you needing to share the %PROGRAMDATA% folder over the network, and users running said application on their workstation can write to this shared folder from within the application?

Before I can respond to the rest, do you mean %PROGRAMFILES(X86)% or %PROGRAMDATA%?

Updating template VMs.

Evening walk done. Back to RHCE prep.

@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@travisdh1 That works! I haven't had to dig into logs in a while...

Today we're doing AD cleanup and deleting old things that are no longer needed. I just deleted ~300 servers from our Computers OU. I hope they aren't still in use, lol.

I'm working on a similar project at work.

RHCE practice exam. Then a break and more practice -- focusing on Ansible roles today.

Saxophone lesson, daily walk, nomz, and RHCE prep / video recording: in that order.

About to continue this evening's RHCE prep.

@scottalanmiller said in Multiple Virtual Disks and Application Performance:

Remember.... just because you are virtual does not imply that your storage is virtual, nor does virtual storage imply that the storage will be shared between workloads or VMs. None of that is implied or suggested in going virtual. You still maintain all proper storage management decision making when virtual as you did physical. You don't get to give any of that up.

In restrospect, I probably ought not have included the System Center Dude stuff in the discussion, since it seemed to just cause confusion about what I was curious.

You still maintain all proper storage management decision making when virtual as you did physical.

I believe this is the greatest takeaway from the discussion. Regardless if the environment is like the one I'm in where ultimately one physical storage device is hosting all of the virtual storage within the VMs.

About to give a little presentation on how to get started with scripting for the weekly Fedora Infrastructure IRC chat meeting.

Daily walk completed. Meal consumed. Time for RHCE prep.

@dafyre said in Multiple Virtual Disks and Application Performance:

That wouldn't be for performance, actually. That would be for ease of management. I got called in to fix an SQL Server where the OS Disk was full of translog & tempdb files more than once that totally crashed the SQL server.

That's true for management, and on that point I would use multiple virtual disks, simply to make later storage expansion easier. I was most curious about performance implications though. Looking back at my OP, I wasn't clear about that.

@dafyre said in Multiple Virtual Disks and Application Performance:

@eddiejennings said in Multiple Virtual Disks and Application Performance:

...three disks for SQL server (one for SQL server and the main database, one for tempDB , and one for logs.

If you're doing a SQL Server with any real load, I do one OS Disk, and One BIG Disk with partitions for SQL Data, Translogs, and Temp DB, and oversize them by at least 25% of what you expect to use.

I'll also agree with using the recommended cluster sizes as well.

If different physical disks were at play, I would agree, but does doing that separation for a VM, specifically in a situation where the VM storage is all on the same physical disks, actually make a difference?

@dashrender said in Multiple Virtual Disks and Application Performance:

@eddiejennings said in Multiple Virtual Disks and Application Performance:

Now, if you follow their advice of using 64K cluster sizes for the disks storing SQL data, then maybe it makes sense because the guest OS would be writing to its virtual disks differently

Is it though? Your VM storage is all formatted at whatever it's formatted at. if you create a vDisk at a different cluster size than the underlying disk - I have no idea what happens performance wise.

You and I are thinking alike. It seems like there's not going to be any real difference since the underlying disk is the same for everything.