@Pete-S said in ISP Failover with Cisco ASA:

All ASA 5500 series are EOL though so I don't think you can (or should) upgrade the license on them..

Very good point. I'd love if this was the excuse to replace them.

I have an older Cisco ASA at a site that is interested in possibly getting a second ISP after some downtime with the main line and we are wondering if the Cisco ASA can handle a failover line like that. I am pretty sure that it cannot do load balancing. But just failover seems like it would. Has anyone does this? Does it work? If so, does it work well?

@Obsolesce said in General Guidance on Windows Admin Center WAC:

Yes you do need to either add other devices manually or by importing a list... but it's a one-time thing so it's a non-issue IMHO.

Not bad for tiny environments. But at any scale, how does that handle machines being added in the future? You have to manually add every new machine after every change to WAC?

Trying to roll out WAC to a small office. Mostly just want to play around with it. I have two Windows servers here, both are Windows Server 2019. One is an Active Directory domain controller, one is an application or LOB server. Pretty basic setup, small office.

I know that WAC does not support installation to an AD DC. So that decision is simple, it goes on the application server. No other web services, so no port conflict issues. Seems easy.

I'm not using the beta or preview version, just the stable release. The one that MS recommends.

Getting it installed is no issue. Self signed certificate, port 80 redirection, those work immediately. Beyond that, WAC seems to have a lot of issues.

First, it only shows the one local server, not the domain controller or anything else in the domain. I understand that you can add other machines, but there seems to be no way to add automatically or search a domain, every single one has to be added by hand?

Adding by hand would be doable, the environment is tiny, but adding by hand seems to fail at least half of the time. And it constantly asks for the admin credentials, often multiple times for the same task, and then fails anyway. If I log in, it seems to randomly treat the machine as a local device and sometimes as a domain one.

If I reboot and log back in, the machines that I have added to WAC are gone. I have to add them each by hand, every time I go to use WAC. That doesn't work.

Sometimes the page can't load at all. It seems to struggle heavily just with displaying the page.

I assume that all of this is from some basic setup that is wrong, but the install is so simple and straightforward, it is hard to imagine what I might have done wrong that makes the resulting system so unusable. Anyone have any guidance on where to start?

I assume I'll be making many posts with new issues as I figure out what they are. Thx. RC

@Dashrender said in I can't even:

@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:

Talked to a customer today....

"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.

This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!

And IT reported that to the CFO/CEO and they signed off on it? wow.

They have no IT. Owner was on the call. I think this might be one of those hobby situations.

@travisdh1 said in I can't even:

@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:

Talked to a customer today....

"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.

This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!

So, are they still a customer?

Money is money.

@garak0410 said in Server Monitoring:

So, I'm looking for something to scan my entire network, similar to SpiceWorks help desk and just keep my to-do list separate.

Not sure anything is really all that similar. Zabbix and Zenoss are powerful, but very different. Some RMM tools are similar, but don't have the same coverage for networking gear.

Are you trying to elevate on the Windows side, or on the Linux side?

Talked to a customer today....

"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.

This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!

@matteo-nunziati said in Testing oVirt...:

@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:

@matteo-nunziati frankly, I'm surprised SuSE still exists

They where quite strong in Europe a few years ago. But the company has been sold so many times...

That is a sure way to kill a product. Everyone starts to feel uncertain and then people give up while waiting for the dust to settle and the more that people wait, the more that the dust doesn't settle and soon everyone just gives up on it.