My home computer just upgraded to 1803. We shall see how it goes.

@scottalanmiller said in Jeff Hunter Worries Me Quite a Bit:

@obsolesce said in Jeff Hunter Worries Me Quite a Bit:

@scottalanmiller if this is the kind of logic VMWare has, then no thank you, ever.

I'm told it's because Nutanix was trying to promote something very not-free as being free. And this was out of context in a fight between Vmware and Nutanix. If that's true, Nutanix baited VMware pretty well because that conversation doesn't exist, it's just VMware making insane claims.

LOL horrible marketing then.

I sell a hypervisor at $2m per physical core.

@scottalanmiller if this is the kind of logic VMWare has, then no thank you, ever.

@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

@bbigford said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.

http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/

Thanks! Bookmarked this. I don't know why MS doesn't have this tool on their site.

Because it's a basic concept and uses simple math, so a tool like this is not needed.

@pmoncho said in Samba file share and MS A/D NTFS permissions:

In my quest to move to a Linux Samba share based on groups, I used Obsolece's Samba with MS A/D instructions to create my test server, but am still having issues with using nested A/D groups.

I stuck to the instructions in the link except for entering in my own Domain info and shared folder information.

Over the last few days, I have done a bunch of reading and google searches plus help from https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_a_Share_Using_Windows_ACLs, I am still SOL.

I am trying to configure a share called /data/fax with the following permission:

NTFS Permissions on linuxfax\FAX share:
	Share Permissions = Everyone FULL
	ACL_FAX_Create - ONLY Create Folders / append data, 
               Applies to: This folder only.
	ACL_FAX_List - Traverse folder, List folder, Read
               Applies to: This folder only.
	ACL_FAX_Full - Full Control 
               Applies to: "This folder, subfolders and files."
	CREATOR OWNER: Full Control
               Applies to: "Subfolders and files only." 

Users in ACL_FAX_Full group are fine but can get in all folders (bad)
User in just FaxUser Group (Contains ACL_FAX_Create and ..List groups) cannot add a folder in /data/fax/ for themselves.

id [email protected] - shows all groups/nested groups

I had to make a small change the smb.conf file.

Added:

[global]
vfs objects = acl_xattr

[fax]
valid users = @"[email protected]" 

I am not familiar with SElinux so I don't know if that contributes to my situation.

P.S. I don't know if I should have used the code box or not as I was just trying to single out specific items. I will take the beating if necessary

I found it easier to not use xattr on the Linux file system, and control access via the smb.conf file. I commented out the vfs objects = acl_attr line, and removed the ACLs from the Linux permissions on the directories.

@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

@obsolesce Yeah. Somewhere I saw the 90 day limit applied to DC. I guess if you have DC on both, it doesn't matter.

There are no restrictions with Linux VMs. You can transfer those back and forth from Hyper-V host to host all day along, no licensing anywhere required (so long as the Linux VMs aren't running any software with such restrictions).

@pmoncho said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

@pmoncho said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

@coliver

That I get but does it make sense to get DC to stick with single function hosts? Does an SMB really want to pay for a WSUS, Email, two DC's, FileServer and two/three RDS servers separately?

All my SMBs do. The protection is important and once you have any number, DC makes the separation "free".

We do here too but with the refresh coming up next year, I am debating on whether the value for us is actually there vs moving as much to linux as possible. I have a little while to figure it out but this thread has been very enlightening. Good stuff.

If it's possible (in a given scenario, all things considered) to replace a windows server with Linux, it's always valuable. Even on a DC host. There's always savings in some form.

@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

Being that the 90-day limit also applies to DC, and you had 2 DC licences per host, would you still get stuck with not legally being allowed to move the same VM more than twice per 90-day period?

You need one DC license for HOST1 and one DC license for HOST2. Then you are free to move VMs between the two as often as you like... If we're talking about DC. The same applies to Standard, you just need to have the same licensing on both hosts to cover the VMs that will be moving to the other host.

Edit : and if you are going that route, you may as well have a cluster set up with SW vSAN

Fedora MATE should work great.