@MattSpeller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
@MattSpeller said:
Expected an article on how to emotionally manipulate coworkers into doing what I want - disappointed.
It never works
- They normally find out later what you did.
Clearly we've not worked together.
And now I'm hearing everything you post in Ron Swanson's voice. This is quite amusing.
@MattSpeller said:
Expected an article on how to emotionally manipulate coworkers into doing what I want - disappointed.
Your avatar agrees with your sentiment.
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
One of the questions I haven't had answered yet, is where Docker/LXC/etc. fits in the virtualization stack. Would it be on top of a "Type 1" hypervisor or lieu of?
Most important answer here is that containers can be in either place. You will find it commonly on both...
I have had some devs pushing me to implement containers because it is "closer to the metal". How accurate is this? If it is run on top of XS, does that add much overhead?
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
And I have no idea how or why this ended up in SAM-SD.
Fixed
Thanks
Leo is essentially a hobbyist, and Paul is on the edge of hobbyist/prosumer/SMB. Mary Jo on the other hand has some excellent insights into what is going on inside MS outside of their desktop/laptop/services arena.
So outside of DevOps, have any of you found applications of containers that are specific to IT? I'm just starting to dig into this and I was curious what applications (no pun intended) people had found for it.
One of the questions I haven't had answered yet, is where Docker/LXC/etc. fits in the virtualization stack. Would it be on top of a "Type 1" hypervisor or lieu of?
It seems like, unless you've already made enough videos of this, that putting together ones that show your expertise in a given area would be most effective. Then you're not only educating, but also marketing.
@scottalanmiller said:
How bad is the OpenStack situation? I mean, would tackling the NAS replacement first, by putting in CEPH nodes, and getting it working as a NAS replacement, phasing that out and having a testing CEPH platform as a starting point and then adding XenServer as needed make sense?
It is broken at the moment. We're running at about 60-70% of capacity due to one of the servers deciding to take its processors and go home. I'd prefer to do it that way, but my priority is to get everything functional on the front end.
We have decent backups of the NAS and an expensive support contract so downtime there isn't as concerning in the short term.
@scottalanmiller said:
If you can get down to two, then you can go for bigger hosts down the road. Start with two socket hosts if you want, but you can go to four socket hosts to get double the density without getting more nodes. This allows you to do more and more to stay with less management. Going to CEPH only makes sense if you are going to a lot of nodes. It's worth a lot to go to fewer. Since Linux has no licensing complications from having lots of CPUs like Windows does, you get that extra benefit for "free".
They are already quad socket motherboards, so I have that going for me...
At this point I have zero visibility into what our actual workloads are because of the version of OpenStack Cloud we're running on, so I'm going in a bit blind. That is why I'm going to try to just run two hosts and add as necessary.
My reasoning for looking at Ceph in the long run is that I'd like to centralize all of our storage. We currently have an Oracle (Sun) NAS that is very expensive to maintain, and is a single point of failure. This is where all of our critical data is stored (not my design). It is also the backend for some of the VMs running in our existing cloud.
@scottalanmiller said:
What kind of workload do you run? Mostly Linux, Windows, etc? You have four nodes today, right? Anything keeping you from dropping to fewer?
On these hosts it is all Linux. It is mostly processor and memory intensive compute processes with not a lot of storage required at this point. I'm shooting to start out with just two hosts initially and see if, with better management and transparency, we can manage with the two newer hosts and leave the other two for testing or other duties.
@travisdh1 said:
@StrongBad said:
I am pretty sure that CEPH and Xen can coexist, but I don't know about with XenServer. Doing so would likely be very awkward at best.
Possibly. Now I want to go experiment with XenServer and CEPH.
The most recent articles that I can find about it talk about the ability to make XS a Ceph Client, but not necessarily a Ceph node. This is the direction I'd like to go long term with our storage situation. Get three whitebox servers with a lot of storage (relative to how much I have had) and run Ceph on them to present a back end for XS.
@Dashrender said:
How much storage do you have in CEPH now? what kind of resiliency do you have today? I'm completely unfamiliar with CEPH, if you loose a drive, I'm assuming you don't loose an entire array?
It is a very cool tool. As @scottalanmiller said, it is a RAIN (hadn't heard that term before yesterday). Basically it is software that will write to multiple nodes (it is even slow link aware) and enable you to convert commodity hardware into a resilient storage system. I would consider keeping it if it were not able to coexist (as near as I can tell) with XS.
As for total storage it is pretty low. Each host is running at < 20 TB in absolute terms. Since Ceph requires three writes that means I'm getting quite a bit less than this on average.
So, to sum up, the recommendation would be to run XS independently on each of the four, configuring RAID 1 or 10, if possible, and then use XO to manage it all? Is that correct?
Here's a quick breakdown: http://serverfault.com/questions/12854/cidr-for-dummies. I was going to try to explain most of that, but they're hitting the high points.
Basically masks are what define your range. If you have a 255.255.255.0 mask you're stating that the entire last octet is devoted to your subnet. To go further than this is not really possible in a post. You're going to have to do some reading about CIDR and learn binary (to an extent).
@DustinB3403 said:
@ChrisL said:
@DustinB3403 said:
FYI "Pr1^c3S$" would take a whopping 3 days to crack....
More than enough time to come up with a new password... like ':PR!n<3$$'
If you actually leave the single quotes, sure, secure password to brute force.... otherwise 50 days
What is irritating about single quotes is the number of commercial systems that strip them off without notification.
@Reid-Cooper said:
@Kelly You would have to have a SAS controller of some type in there for the drives that are attached for CEPH now.
There is an onboard controller, but it isn't running any RAID configuration that I can tell.
@scottalanmiller said:
The mismatched local drives will pose a challenge for local RAID. You can use them, but you will get crippled performance.
It looks like there is an onboard 8 port LSI SAS controller in them, so I might be able to do RAID. My desire for HA is not for HA necessarily, but more survivability in the case of a single drive failing if I don't run any kind of RAID so as not to lose storage capacity.
@anonymous said:
To phish your users. Then you have a sit down and talk with them about opening emails from unknown sources.
Or you could just use KnowBe4's free (for fewer than 100 employees) phishing test.
