@scottalanmiller said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

@pmoncho said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

@scottalanmiller said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

@pmoncho said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

The value of that same dollar (according to the chart) is roughly $.10.

Right, but the value of $1 is always $1. Saying that $1 = $.10 is nonsensical.

Let's use another description, does purchasing power work? A $1 in 1913 has the same purchasing power as $.10 in 2013. There are multiple forces at work with the main force being the Federal Reserve devaluing the dollar.

Unfortunately, the Fed started out with a useful purpose but has turned into a Money Printing machine.

Yes, but the chart doesn't list that. If the left had chart is the 1913 dollar, it doesn't denote that anywhere.

To me the chart has a Full $1 at the top and it starts with the year of 1913 and the green graph (representing money) depletes as it goes down the time line on the right. Along with the title of the graph, it seemed self-explanatory to me. Sorry if it was confusing.

@scottalanmiller said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

@pmoncho said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

The value of that same dollar (according to the chart) is roughly $.10.

Right, but the value of $1 is always $1. Saying that $1 = $.10 is nonsensical.

Let's use another description, does purchasing power work? A $1 in 1913 has the same purchasing power as $.10 in 2013. There are multiple forces at work with the main force being the Federal Reserve devaluing the dollar.

Unfortunately, the Fed started out with a useful purpose but has turned into a Money Printing machine.

@scottalanmiller said in Statefull vs Stateless:

@pmoncho said in Statefull vs Stateless:

1 Ubuntu 16.04 Fax server (Driver for Digi only works on 16.04 to date)

Now a Fax server would be stateless natively.

Gotcha.

@scottalanmiller
We are basically windows but I am starting to put in a couple different Linux machines. I have one Ubuntu 18.04 for Samba file server, 1 Ubuntu 16.04 Fax server (Driver for Digi only works on 16.04 to date) and looking to change over some other Windows to Linux (Logging is coming soon).

I guess my question now becomes, if I want to make my soon-to-be-implemented Samba file server a stateless system (all configuration is done with file paths setup but no data), I should just create a clone and move off to another type of storage?

@scottalanmiller

That is the value of one US Dollar in 1913 prior to the introduction of the Federal Reserve. The value of that same dollar (according to the chart) is roughly $.10.

@scottalanmiller said in Statefull vs Stateless:

@pmoncho said in Statefull vs Stateless:

I get confused when I think, "How can a machine be stateless? Where is the data and configuration? Those can't be stateless?"

In IT, most systems, maybe 90%, don't store data. In the SMB, it is common for shops, mostly because of Windows licensing, to smoosh their data into their application servers and merge them making stateless systems be stateful. But at any scale, they are normally separate with many application layer serves for very few data storage servers.

This makes a bunch of sense to me. I have been in SMB my entire career and never have not had any exposure to larger enterprises.

Thanks to all who have made the mud seem much clearer. This is my "learn something new everyday" item !

@pete-s said in Statefull vs Stateless:

Well, a webserver can easily be stateless

That is where I get confused. Separating the two.

Well, if you consider that the configuration is static (at least for a while) and the data could reside on another machine then it could be stateless. For instance a webserver connected to a database on another machine.

@dustinb3403 said in Statefull vs Stateless:

In cases like this, think of a file server, that is running the OS and the shares, but the data resides on something else (a NAS for example). All the server does is connect to the remote storage for that data share and hands it out.

If you deleted the server, the data would still be intact and ready to be shared out again. So you'd clone your server, power it on and your system is back online.

Taking both of these posts at once since they are similar.

So basically, If I had a generic Linux machine setup and ready to go with all updates that will be used as a master. That is considered the stateless machine correct?

Then I would (try to) write a script for generic file server config/ web server config like @scottalanmiller did for NC which would connect to the backend data?

I am guessing that keeping the data separated from the OS is the key (whether it be a separate volume or server)?

@pete-s

My mind gets tangled in details many times instead of staying generalized.

In many of the posts I've read, individuals speak of creating stateless machines. One of many examples being, whip up a new/identical system in minimal amount of time. I get confused when I think, "How can a machine be stateless? Where is the data and configuration? Those can't be stateless?"

That is where I get confused. Separating the two.

@momurda said in Bitcoin Takes Another 10% Hit on SEC Warning:

The target price of any cryptocurrency is $0. Buy now!

How's that great US Dollar doing? It won't go to 0 but the value can get close.

Without sounding to ignorant, What is considered a Stateless system vs a Statefull?

I see many conversations here where "Stateless" is mentioned and I am having a small issue comprehending the entire meaning.

I can basically understand what stateless protocol is but applying it to a system confuses me what type of system this would be and its use.

If anyone has a link, that would be great.

@brrabill said in MFP/Printers - what brand do you like?:

Our new additions...

Which model is this?

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

@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.

I noticed that. Couldn't figure out why but I am beginning to understand much better based on comments here and more reading last night and this morning.

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

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

@black3dynamite said in Samba file share and MS A/D NTFS permissions:

@pmoncho For testing purpose, you can temporary set SELinux to permissive by using this command:
sudo setenforce 0

Thank but there was no change. It potentially rules out SELinux.

Maybe I am stretching what Samba can do.

Samba is an SMB file server. This isn't related to NTFS ACLs which are a filesystem thing. Same as on Windows.

Good point. Have to work on keeping them separated.

@black3dynamite said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:

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

Off topic, soz.
What is a use case for running MSSQL on linux rather than MySQL? Saving 500 dollars on a Windows Server license? Certainly there must be features in MSSQL that are missing in MySQL(and vice versa), but they must be some esoteric things that likely only work with other MS products like Dynamics or Sharepoint. With licensing costs of those products in the tens of thousands for even small deployments, why?

Now I can just setup MSSQL Express on Linux instead of using Windows.

This could be a big saver for smaller SMB's. Jumpcloud with Win 10 PC's KVM and Linux VM's and MSSQL Express. Nice and saves $1500.

@black3dynamite said in Samba file share and MS A/D NTFS permissions:

@pmoncho For testing purpose, you can temporary set SELinux to permissive by using this command:
sudo setenforce 0

Thank but there was no change. It potentially rules out SELinux.

Maybe I am stretching what Samba can do.

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

Off topic, soz.
What is a use case for running MSSQL on linux rather than MySQL? Saving 500 dollars on a Windows Server license? Certainly there must be features in MSSQL that are missing in MySQL(and vice versa), but they must be some esoteric things that likely only work with other MS products like Dynamics or Sharepoint. With licensing costs of those products in the tens of thousands for even small deployments, why?

This is where it gets a little sticky for me. That Windows server license is no longer $500. If a company has 3 hosts in a cluster with 30 cores (10 on each host), that one server license with SA could cost 1000's. All depends on how they are licensed.

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

@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.

@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?

If an SMB can combine functions from 14 VM's(random # ) down to 4 VM's, why pay the extra 3 OS licenses for each host in the cluster?

I guess it comes down to the usual price vs risk equation?

Just trying to wrap my head around all this.

So with 2016 core licensing for an SMB with/without SA in say a two host cluster for <100, it seems that it is best to go back to multi-function servers to save on OS licensing. Is my thinking wrong here?

I do like single function guests but it could become much cheaper if a business combines on-prem Email, FileServices, DC, RDS, SW, SAP, or any combination of other applications into 2 or 3 VM's.

My logic could be faulty but with the limits on use of MS products, it just seems way more expensive than it needs to be. Don't get me wrong, I do understand value and if a company goes down the MS route, there is a price to pay and the rules must be followed.

Of course the real answer to the perceived high cost of MS, is to move as many services off of Windows as possible.