@JaredBusch said in CentOS 7 networking issues:

@Tim_G said in CentOS 7 networking issues:

@stacksofplates Didn't realize he was being forced to use defaults. Since that's the case, I guess he has no other option than to use Network Manager?

No one is forcing me to use anything. But use of defaults is a best practice. without a really good reason, you do not stray from them.

Losing VM functionality due to time issues because of a default isn't a good enough reason? Isn't it a production VM? Does it being down not lose the company money on top of paying you to mess with it? I'd rather use a non-default that works just as well for a particular function or task, rather than having to waste so much of a clients money to fix something that can arguably be replaced with something else non-default. Maybe Network Manager handles teaming better, but are you using teaming? Are you using teaming at the VM level or at the Hypervisor level? Just do what's best for the client. Don't use a default because it does something better with something you aren't even using. Know what I mean?

Maybe for your case it's worth it to get Network Manager working properly due to other things I don't know about. I'm not giving a blanket statement, just throwing out a point is all.

Sometimes best practice is a square, and what you are dealing with is a circle. It might not fit.

@stacksofplates Didn't realize he was being forced to use defaults. Since that's the case, I guess he has no other option than to use Network Manager?

@MattSpeller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:

@DustinB3403 said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:

@Tim_G Why is any of it physical?

If his place is anything like mine there's just stuff you haven't gotten to yet

This pretty much says it all.

There was a lot of custom stuff before I started. So it's not as simple running P2V, bang bang done. At the same time consolidating. There was definite physical server sprawl, complicated configurations. Much of it was old outdated Linux and Windows physical servers such as 2000, 2003, wayyyy (old) unsupported CentOS, FreeBSD, and Ubuntu. A bunch of other stuff that couldn't be virtualized. So not only couldn't I do P2V, it had to be rebuilt from scratch on a different OS... Software updated, the list goes on.

How it was when I started, all the VMs were physical, plus more because of too much role separation. Plus a lot of IPODs with old SANs and such (no clustering).

It started out as a garage shop, grew to a multinational company in like 30 countries, and never left the garage shop mentality... so you can use your imagination to get a better picture of how thing were, and how far it has come with the numbers I provided. Lots of stuff coming up in the meantime too... huge projects.

Still a lot of work to do, and no time to do it.

Part of my CentOS routine:

1. Change run level: nano /etc/inittab (use id:3:initdefault:)

2. cd /etc/rc.d/rc3.d

3. ls -lh

4. mv S23NetworkManager K23NetworkManager

5. Reboot

6. ls -l /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts (to see what's there)

7. nano /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
   (if dhcp)
   DEVICE=eth0
   BOOTPROTO=dhcp
   ONBOOT=yes
   (save it)

ifup eth0
chkconfig network on

First thing I do on CentOS is disable Network Manager. I hate it.

I'm assuming you mean only servers:

CentOS 5 - 7
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS & 10.04 LTS
FreeBSD 10.3 & 11

Linux = 28.75%
Windows = 71.25%

Physical Linux: 13
Physical Windows: 14

Virtual Linux: 10
Virtual Windows: 43 (because of DataCenter licensing)

I got the go-ahead. I'll get it taken apart sometime today, but probably won't be able to ship until tomorrow or Friday.

I'm in San Diego so I guess you can PM me the address you want me to ship to and I'll let you know cost, unless you had your own shipping method and price in mind.

@jrc

What city would it be going to?

@jrc said in Dell Poweredge 2950 CPU Heatsink Retention bracket:

@Tim_G said in Dell Poweredge 2950 CPU Heatsink Retention bracket:

We already threw a bunch out. I think we have another on it's way out. Is yours a 2U? Maybe I could send you the piece you need... here's a pic of the one I have:

Yes, that is exactly what they look like. If you are tossing the thing and can mail them to me that would be awesome. Could I be so bold as to ask for all 8 pieces from the CPU sockets? Never hurts to have some spares.

I can paypal you over some money for mailing and a little extra for a six pack or something.

I'll have to see. I don't see a problem with it as it's out the door anyways. But I will need to make sure. Can you confirm the pieces you need are the ones I've circled below: (but all 8 of them?)

We already threw a bunch out. I think we have another on it's way out. Is yours a 2U? Maybe I could send you the piece you need... here's a pic of the one I have:

@scottalanmiller said in Code "markdown" for OneNote?:

@Tim_G said in Code "markdown" for OneNote?:

Could someone screen shot one of their IT KB articles on their GitLab? My experience with it was always the Dev side... nothing regarding IT wiki KBs or whatever you want to call them.

I'm interested to see what your GitLab article and area look like. Perhaps it's a better solution than the one I'm using now.

It's ONLY the code that we put there, not articles. Well not here, anyway.

Oh I see. I misunderstood.

Could someone screen shot one of their IT KB articles on their GitLab? My experience with it was always the Dev side... nothing regarding IT wiki KBs or whatever you want to call them.

I'm interested to see what your GitLab article and area look like. Perhaps it's a better solution than the one I'm using now.

I like to keep rough notes in OneNote for myself before final-copying them to the IT Wiki... it's fast and easy to put stuff wherever. I haven't come across anything either, but I haven't really had the need to look because I just highlight code and change it to 'courier new' font. That seems to work pretty well for me, although there's no highlighting

Now that we have concluded that the term or acronym "JBOD" should not be used in any circumstance, we need to document what should be used instead. We can't leave everyone who comes across this hanging...

I would think it depends on the situation and context.

Some starters:

• If you are talking about configuring internal server storage

• If you are referring to a multi-hard disk enclosure such as DAS (even that term can be misleading... a DAS could be a cdrom... but that's another discussion I gather)

• SAM, you see more on forums than I do... you have a list of cases JBOD is used to add?

I got the main idea of how it is used... JBOD enclosure, you need a JBOD attached to a server, etc... I get JBOD configuration to mean disks with pass-through in the presence of a hardware RAID card, or exposed as individual drives.

But I'm going to go ahead and pretend the term or acronym JBOD does not exist from now on.

Okay, so I have taken a look at the history of "JBOD" on Wikipedia... take a look at it, just for laughs. Click on the history tab and change edits to 500, then search JBOD.. highlight them if using firefox to find them easier. Look at the bigger edits. To me it's all a joke, now.

The more I look at the meaning of "JBOD" from "word authority" sites like Wikipedia and others, and various IT pros and such, the more I feel that the word "JBOD" is just some randomly made acronym with no real value. It seems to be just a big marketing term, and also a literal term used to mean an actual bunch of disks in the sense that there's some disks not yet in a RAID, and that are shown as pass-through disks if there's a hardware raid card present.

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

It's all in the context of which it's being used. I've never seen JBOD used officially, in a context that doesn't imply a JBOD enclosure.

I take that back. I have in a "configuration" sense.

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

Every time in Microsoft documentation they use the word JBOD, it's used correctly that I've seen. It's used to mean one thing, always. It's never used to mean anything other than this: http://dataonstorage.com/dns-jbod-enclosure/dns-2608-4u-32-bay-12gbps-sas-enterprise-jbod-storage-enclosure.html

Is it? So with SS for example, it won't function with actual JBODs, but only JBOD enclosures? There is no way to use it with local disks? How does it know?

It's all in the context of which it's being used. I've never seen JBOD used officially, in a context that doesn't imply a JBOD enclosure.

I suppose you could say, "set up your servers internal storage in a JBOD configuration". Or you could say "hook up your server to a JBOD". Or even "I just dropped my JBOD enclosure"

Honestly, all are correct, and I don't see any issue what so ever with any. It doesn't make me any less knowledgeable or show that I can't do my job less well than someone else who avoids the term.

Okay, what about this view...

What would you have called this before the term JBOD?: http://dataonstorage.com/dns-jbod-enclosure/dns-2608-4u-32-bay-12gbps-sas-enterprise-jbod-storage-enclosure.html

If you say "disk enclosure", then you can't use that as easily as JBOD. Because a disk enclosure can contain a bunch of disks that are already raided by some means. Therefore, you can't say just disk enclosure. JBOD specifically implies a disk enclosure that is not raided by anything.