ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Topics
    2. stacksofplates
    3. Best
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 13
    • Topics 145
    • Posts 7,946
    • Groups 0

    Posts

    Recent Best Controversial
    • RE: MeshCentral Updates

      @black3dynamite said in MeshCentral Updates:

      @haxit said in MeshCentral Updates:

      also how would i resolve this

      536aeb9b-1afb-427e-85fb-68abdd4020b7-image.png

      That doesn't appear if you are running MeshCentral as root.
      fb75c8a2-06e8-4655-99a6-ccd2c644fd99-image.png

      The screenshot above is taken from this guide.
      Install Guide
      http://info.meshcentral.com/downloads/MeshCentral2/MeshCentral2InstallGuide-0.0.9.pdf

      User Guide
      http://info.meshcentral.com/downloads/MeshCentral2/MeshCentral2UserGuide-0.2.9.pdf

      I don't understand why 80 and 443 are being used. Just use 8080 and 8443 (or literally anything >1024) like other applications and either use a proxy or port redirection. This also disables LD_LIBRARY_PATH. And it looks like Node has specifically tried to stop this because any node process would be able to bind to root only ports: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/22648

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Looking to Buy a SAN

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @thecreaitvone91 said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @bnrstnr said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.

      In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.

      This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.

      My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.

      The other solution is to not design an IPOD.

      Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.

      Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.

      Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.

      Exactly. I'm using in a lot of places in production with ~10k users and twice as many devices that is using the serveless functions in many areas... basically for free. And, that's just the start (one example) of it... Having a VM with enough power to process that as frequently as it's getting done now along with all the other benefits around it, there's truly no comparison. Scaling it down to how a typical SMB would use it, well that's a no-brainer, as it'd be totally free and 100% beneficial. I don't think one's ignorance of a technology justifies it's disqualification of use in the real world.

      This should probably be it's own topic, but here we are... I'm totally ignorant to Azure and serverless concepts in general. What types of real world services/processes are SMBs using (or could/should be using) serverless Azure for?

      There's a few different scenarios. Anything reactionary essentially. Send a message/email based on an event, do some kind of work based on messages in a message queue, transform or modify data, etc. You can even use it to build and define APIs. I have an API running in Vercel (not Azure but another serverless offering) and I don't have to run the service in a VM full time.

      Invoicing and Accounts Payable is a big use of it

      I don't understand how those are serverless? There is software running - right? where is that software running? This is something I completely don't understand - and I'm guessing @bnrstnr likely doesn't either - but he'll correct me if I'm wrong and he does.

      Yes there is a server on the backend but it's abstracted away so you don't see it. The only thing you see is either the JSON payload, the actual HTTP request, or some message queue object. Then you interact with that. It's all run in containers and only spins up when there is a request. So it's not good for very time sensitive requests because you have the latency of spinning up cold containers if there haven't been requests for whatever the timeout period is.

      So it's webcode/api waiting for a request? so it's basically a webserver? So how is the webserver setup serverless? what keeps your webcode waiting for an incoming request from getting mix with someone else's? the IP and port? OK - and us admins setting that stuff up - we just have a logon to some ethereal portal where we dump code? I'm guessing, as I type more, that the admin's portal to the 'cloud/serverless' setup is more like it's own server interface, where we configure services, etc, but that's really just an abstration from whatever's actually happening on the backend, because on the backend it's not really separate instances like we have in a typical server environment -

      oh man - I'm going going to be made fun of for that bunch of shit I just posted 🙂

      It kind of is a big webserver but your code isn't waiting to be run. It's not running at all until the request gets passed to your function and then your function is spun up and starts to work with the request. Your stuff only runs when a request comes in. That's why it's billed per request and per second. You might only get one request but your function may run for 5 seconds. So they cover both ends.

      Here's a real life example: https://gitlab.com/hooksie1/hookiescookies-api

      If you go to https://cookies.hookiescookies.com/api/ingredients/cocoa it will return all cookies with the ingredients cocoa. That is running in a serverless architecture. All I wrote was the functions to get data and return it. I don't manage any of the infrastructure or containers. It's all built automatically through a pipeline. And the data lives in hosted FaunaDB which means I don't manage any of my database infrastructure either.

      It's more abstracted than a PaaS because with a PaaS you have to manage the container infrastructure. With serverless all I do is write code and deploy it.

      Also, the trigger doesn't have to be an HTTP trigger, it could be a number of other things, and doesn't have to be a web related function either.

      Right. I mentioned before you could use things like a message queue, but I was going for a simple explanation.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: MeshCentral Updates

      @scottalanmiller said in MeshCentral Updates:

      what wouldn't qualify as beta here, and often requires worse installation

      I have a hard time believing that breaking system security or being forced to run the tool as root is not a worse instsllation.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: encrypted email options?

      @Dashrender said in encrypted email options?:

      HIPAA doesn't require encryption at rest, even though I have it on my side with O365.

      I'd rethink that.

      https://thehcbiz.com/is-encryption-required-by-hipaa-yes/

      So… it’s not required. But HHS goes on:

      “The covered entity must decide whether a given addressable implementation specification is a reasonable and appropriate security measure to apply within its particular security framework. For example, a covered entity must implement an addressable implementation specification if it is reasonable and appropriate to do so, and must implement an equivalent alternative if the addressable implementation specification is unreasonable and inappropriate, and there is a reasonable and appropriate alternative.”

      The key phrase here is “reasonable and appropriate.” As in, encryption IS required if it’s reasonable and appropriate to encrypt. This is really important and we’ll come back to it later. HHS continues:

      “This decision will depend on a variety of factors, such as, among others, the entity’s risk analysis, risk mitigation strategy, what security measures are already in place, and the cost of implementation. The decisions that a covered entity makes regarding addressable specifications must be documented in writing. The written documentation should include the factors considered as well as the results of the risk assessment on which the decision was based.”

      Basically what they’re saying is that you don’t “have to” encrypt, but if you choose not to you’d better be prepared to demonstrate, in writing, why you believe that. Then, in the event of an audit, The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will review your documentation and determine whether or not they agree with you.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Looking to Buy a SAN

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      As with anything, people not leveraging public cloud offerings (specifically serverless in this case and not just the big 3) is because of FUD. There are very few real cases where it can't be leveraged. As you said in another thread, don't avoid the best because it fails to be perfect.

      That's actually the opposite. I see loads and loads of people going TO cloud because of FUD. Then getting there and finding out that they can't afford it - either because it costs more (generally a LOT more) or because they can't afford what it costs holistically to make that piece of it cost less.

      It sounds good, but we're talking real world here. Outside of a few unique enterprises with crazy deep pockets, or isolated workloads, even big companies can't move to 100% bespoke workloads with all of their investment being driven not by total cost, but by a desire to just say that they are 100% in on cloud.

      It doesn't even begin to cover issues like companies that can't have that latency or can't be online. There is zero excuse for pushing cloud as the single answer, it isn't. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. And calling "basic business decision making" around cost "FUD" is not fair, it's anything but FUD. It's cold, hard math.

      You keep saying this, but you're referencing companies that just lift and shift. We have said over and over again obviously that's more expensive. Applications need to be redesigned to leverage public cloud efficiently.

      It doesn't even begin to cover issues like companies that can't have that latency or can't be online.

      What does this mean? Latency from what? services in the same AZ and VPC are averaging the same as a LAN. You can even run HPC workloads with Infiniband speeds.

      Outside of a few unique enterprises with crazy deep pockets, or isolated workloads,

      That's demonstrably false. I mean it's amazing you can say those words and people on this site will read it and believe it when you can just clearly look anywhere and see tons of companies relying either solely or very heavily on cloud providers.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Looking to Buy a SAN

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      I assume you're talking about OpenFaaS. You can control cold starts but the complexity of setting that up along with maintaining it is light years above deploying to a provider.

      Except a problem with the providers is cold starts. So if that's needed, it's needed either way.

      Depends on the language and who you use. If you use Cloudflare workers, it's an average of under 200 ms. Again, completely depends on language and provider.

      Sure, using like Go can do a lot to keep it down. But 200ms is high, so high that common workloads like VoIP would be impacted to the point that the couldn't do it. There are definitely workloads, like email, where 200ms would even be noticed. But workloads like web where you'd kinda notice and workloads like VoIP where it would be a huge problem and ones like finance where it's a show stopper.

      So it's not Go, workers use Javascript. You're telling me these SMB shops that you keep talking about that are using quickbooks need sub 200ms latency for API or pubsub requests? Come on you can't just change the rules wherever you want to fit the argument. Pick a spot for the goalposts and stay there.

      Where do you come up with things? Who would even think of running VoIP on a serverless architecture? You're just making up ridiculous things now.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Looking to Buy a SAN

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @thecreaitvone91 said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @bnrstnr said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.

      In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.

      This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.

      My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.

      The other solution is to not design an IPOD.

      Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.

      Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.

      Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.

      Exactly. I'm using in a lot of places in production with ~10k users and twice as many devices that is using the serveless functions in many areas... basically for free. And, that's just the start (one example) of it... Having a VM with enough power to process that as frequently as it's getting done now along with all the other benefits around it, there's truly no comparison. Scaling it down to how a typical SMB would use it, well that's a no-brainer, as it'd be totally free and 100% beneficial. I don't think one's ignorance of a technology justifies it's disqualification of use in the real world.

      This should probably be it's own topic, but here we are... I'm totally ignorant to Azure and serverless concepts in general. What types of real world services/processes are SMBs using (or could/should be using) serverless Azure for?

      There's a few different scenarios. Anything reactionary essentially. Send a message/email based on an event, do some kind of work based on messages in a message queue, transform or modify data, etc. You can even use it to build and define APIs. I have an API running in Vercel (not Azure but another serverless offering) and I don't have to run the service in a VM full time.

      Invoicing and Accounts Payable is a big use of it

      I don't understand how those are serverless? There is software running - right? where is that software running? This is something I completely don't understand - and I'm guessing @bnrstnr likely doesn't either - but he'll correct me if I'm wrong and he does.

      It's not the best terminology. But it's the standard now. It's like "API only" processing, getting as light as you reasonably can.

      API processing is just one of many.

      If you want to bother to learn more about serverless tech and use cases, give this PDF a read:
      https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/serverless

      I think if you read it without bias, you'll better understand and grasp it.

      I think you are missing the whole point. When hosted/cloud isn't an option because it can't be done, going to serverless doesn't fix anything.

      You are acting like a niche technology, a great one, but niche, is a panacea for everything. Name me one company, any company, anywhere in the world, that has gone completely serverless and no longer needs anything but end user workpoints with zero workload on them? Any company, anywhere.

      Again no one said serverless for everything. You're literally quoting someone who all they did was correct you and say "API processing is just one of many" and trying to argue that it isn't for every workload. No one said it was so I don't know why you're arguing here.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Looking to Buy a SAN

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.

      In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.

      This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.

      My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.

      The other solution is to not design an IPOD.

      Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.

      Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.

      Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.

      Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?

      Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."

      I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.

      I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.

      Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.

      Again the only costs that were mentioned was directly related to serverless. You interjected your own ideas here and made a mountain out of nothing.

      Then I apologize. Their serverless offerings are good value similar to the industry and I read into what was being said inappropriately.

      No it's fine, I'm not trying to be combative. I maybe could have worded things better.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Looking to Buy a SAN

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      @Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:

      It goes beyond functions.

      Serverless Kubernetes and container services.

      Serverless application environments.

      Don't forget about the CI/CD pipelines, which can pretty much do anything you want, even on-prem if want to host (an Azure) worker there (still 'serverless' in the other sense).

      There's Serverless Automation, inventory, change tracking...
      DSC (config management) without needing a server.

      Update management

      Device management

      etc... and it keeps growing.

      I think that confuses the idea. The only thing people refer to when they say serverless is functions like Lambda, GCP Cloud Functions, Azure Functions, etc. Things that only run when a request appears. The other things are SaaS offerings. By that definition any SaaS would be "serverless".

      With things like GKE, EKS, ECS, etc you still have to manage the docker containers. That's just a hosted PaaS.

      All of what I mentioned is not SaaS offerings.

      It's all part of this for example, their (Azure's) serverless arsenal:

      • https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/serverless/
      • https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/serverless/
      • https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/reference-architectures/serverless/cloud-automation
      • https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/serverless/guide/serverless-app-cicd-best-practices

      Maybe it adds in to the confusion because it's not the primary serverless 'easy example' if you know what I mean.

      If you read how they state it in those links, it's referenced not as serverless but whatever the thing is supporting serverless. An example from the CI/CD page:

      This article discusses a CI/CD pipeline for the web frontend of a serverless reference implementation.

      The solutions/serverless page isn't like that but Azure is the only provider I've seen call something serverless that wasn't functions. And a lot of their examples are kind of weird. Like the AKS one:

      Elastically provision pods inside container instances that start in seconds without the need to manage additional compute resources.

      That's just what kubernetes does? It's nothing that serverless provides, that's k8s job.

      I'm thinking more along the lines of serverless as the definition... really, BaaS. Those aren't SaaS... technically what you are referring to is FaaS (Functions).

      I'm just going to have to gracefully disagree that "serverless" is and can be ONLY Lambda, AZ/GCP Functions, and other identical services, and nothing else.

      Yeah not trying to start an argument. It's just Azure is the only company I've seen market things like that.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Has anyone setup an API for an internal application

      @JaredBusch said in Has anyone setup an API for an internal application:

      @scottalanmiller said in Has anyone setup an API for an internal application:

      What about a RESTful API? Simple for everyone involved, typically.

      A RESTful API is what I was thinking about, but I wasn't restricting the question to a RESTful API as I don't know enough about the entire process from a development point of view.

      It all depends on the language. OpenAPI/REST or just a simple webhook would probably be easiest. You could do gRPC or GraphQL but I think those might be overkill for this if it's temporary.

      Swagger editor can give you a structure for different languages. https://editor.swagger.io/. OpenAPI is pretty much the standard now.

      You can generate server and client code.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: NC: Ubuntu 18.04 to 20.04 error

      Is mariadb running? Is SELinux enforcing? Were there errors during the update?

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Has anyone setup an API for an internal application

      @JaredBusch said in Has anyone setup an API for an internal application:

      @stacksofplates said in Has anyone setup an API for an internal application:

      @JaredBusch said in Has anyone setup an API for an internal application:

      @stacksofplates said in Has anyone setup an API for an internal application:

      A question so I can have a better understanding of how the data should be returned. Why the repeating codes in the first line? It looks like that matches up lines, but if it's a CSV I'm not sure why each line has a description for the second column but on another line it's like FD. I'm just trying to understand the structure.

      Are you asking about the first two characters?
      IC = Invoice something i don't recall.
      IH = Invoice header
      IP = Invoice Product
      IQ = Invoice Product Message
      IX = Invoice Tax
      IM = Invoice Message

      Not pictured are likely a couple more.

      but everyone in the industry knows this format.

      My thought was just to dump the text out in a json encoded response or something.

      Yeah you could return that in the JSON body. Are you planning on doing multiple login accounts or just an endpoint per client with a single key?

      I would assume multiple login accounts are possible, though most people would simply be using automation and only need one.

      yeah it's definitely possible. I was thinking more account per company or server endpoint per company. It's just one is more work which is why I was asking.

      So if you're doing the multiple authentication you'll need some middleware to handle the auth on the request so you don't have to call it from each function. Basic auth headers would probably be the easiest to write, however you have to maintain the ids and passwords obviously. You could do OAuth if the clients would be able to do that. Then you'd need to figure out how you want to structure your endpoints. If you just want to give them the latest it could be something like server.com/api/invoice but if they need to access multiple you'd probably want something like server.com/api/invoice/{invoiceId} or somehow by date.

      This is kind of bread and butter for a serverless app but if you can't run on a provider you'd need a local server and db. A document based database would probably be the best option here (couchdb, elasticsearch, mongodb, faunadb, etc).

      Would you plan on creating the client for your customers or them writing it themselves?

      There's going to be a good bit of work in this.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Reconsidering ProxMox

      After all of this, I still don't get the use case for LVM backed VMs. Other than possibly, possibly a super IO heavy database. Even then, it's questionable.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Reconsidering ProxMox

      @scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      @stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      After all of this, I still don't get the use case for LVM backed VMs. Other than possibly, possibly a super IO heavy database. Even then, it's questionable.

      That's roughly it, and yes, it remains questionable at the best of times.

      In the cases where you need LVM fat, you almost certainly also need to avoid LVM because that itty bitty overhead is still too much.

      Preallocated qcow2 images are 99% as fast as LVM volumes. Even with just preallocating just the metadata I've had almost native disk write speeds. You lose all of the advantages of qcow2 like libguestfs, the qemu agent, internal and external snapshots, etc.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Reconsidering ProxMox

      @scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      @stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      @stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      @scottalanmiller said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      @stacksofplates said in Reconsidering ProxMox:

      After all of this, I still don't get the use case for LVM backed VMs. Other than possibly, possibly a super IO heavy database. Even then, it's questionable.

      That's roughly it, and yes, it remains questionable at the best of times.

      In the cases where you need LVM fat, you almost certainly also need to avoid LVM because that itty bitty overhead is still too much.

      Preallocated qcow2 images are 99% as fast as LVM volumes. Even with just preallocating just the metadata I've had almost native disk write speeds. You lose all of the advantages of qcow2 like libguestfs, the qemu agent, internal and external snapshots, etc.

      that said, no idea how the eff you do that with ProxMox. That was just KVM.

      It's the default actually. We use Qcow2 on LVM-Thin mostly.

      I meant the preallocation. I'd be surprised if they expose that because you can either fully preallocate and zero out the blocks, preallocate and just mark the beginning and end, or just preallocate the metadata.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Chromebooks

      Oh you're referencing superfish. That was something different. What @Dashrender was referring to was the WPBT injection which happened on like a single product line of their systems.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Is certbot the best way to handle Let's Encrypt certs?

      @Pete-S said in Is certbot the best way to handle Let's Encrypt certs?:

      @stacksofplates said in Is certbot the best way to handle Let's Encrypt certs?:

      Lego is another good one from what I've seen. It does all 3 challenge types.

      https://go-acme.github.io/lego/

      Thanks, might have a look at it next time.

      I went with certbot this time because it was very clear what needed to be done. Debian has a package for it's all you need to do is have a http server up and running and then:

      # apt-get install certbot python-certbot-apache
      # certbot --apache
      

      It will do everything for you - create & install the certificate, set up redirection from http to https, set up a job that updates the cert etc.

      The site has instructions for every common OS (redhat, ubuntu etc) and http daemon (apache, nginx etc) combination.
      https://certbot.eff.org/lets-encrypt/debianbuster-apache

      Yeah certbot is the easiest. Lego is just more flexible and you only need the binary. Def start with the easiest for now.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Testing Zulip

      @gjacobse said in Testing Zulip:

      @stacksofplates said in Testing Zulip:

      @scottalanmiller said in Testing Zulip:

      @stacksofplates said in Testing Zulip:

      @scottalanmiller said in Testing Zulip:

      Rocket is no longer going to do notifications for free,

      It shows you get 5 thousand for free per month?

      Yeah, doesn't seem like nearly enough for us. We've hundreds of users and constant chatter. Seems like we could go through that in a few days.

      How many users do you have? Seems like a good investment to pay the $3 a month to support Rocket.Chat.

      Edit: Or go SaaS with them and pay $2 a month and have no limit for notifications at all (and not have to manage anything). That seems like a crazy deal.

      Edit2: Sorry missed the hundreds. You have hundreds of employees?

      Hundreds of NTG employees? No -

      But NTG client employees number in the hundreds - and they use it as a point of contact other than phone or mail

      Then it's a no brainer. The $2 should be built into the support cost. The employee cost for it should be minimal.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Testing Zulip

      @Dashrender said in Testing Zulip:

      @stacksofplates said in Testing Zulip:

      @Dashrender said in Testing Zulip:

      @stacksofplates said in Testing Zulip:

      @scottalanmiller said in Testing Zulip:

      We have a separate team that deals just with customer service handling. We try hard to never let phones go to voicemail, and I think we only see that once every several months (like two to three times a year.) We have a tiered desk that answers the phones, then their managers and a few techs who have volunteered take calls if the front line is overwhelmed, which is rare since Paul and I ring with the front line so if they are swamped, we tend to know and can grab calls before they go to managers like @valentina and then we typically, depending on the path, have a third tier that can catch most calls if they fall through both of those levels and if, by some unbelievable situation, it makes it all the way through the third tier, it goes to voicemail that automatically emails everyone to find someone to deal with a customer that's tried to call and couldn't get through. THEN a tech might respond immediately because they couldn't get to triage. But like I said, 2-3 times a year. It's rare and we staff up to make sure it stays at about that rate.

      Generally the front line takes a call, puts in a ticket while on the phone, finds the right tech, and transfers (along with the ticket and notes) directly to the tech. It's not a delaying tactic, it's to allow the triage layer to find the right resource that both has the right technical skill set and is currently available to step in. Otherwise, we'd have techs grabbing the phone and you might be calling about a printer and get a storage guy or something.

      The CEO and CIO are taking helpdesk calls? That cannot be a good use of company money? That just seems crazy.

      Well, he's not alone - my boss constantly takes phone calls, she can't allow technology to do it's job - i.e. go to VM, we'll call them back.

      Is your boss the CIO/CEO? They are taking the calls so that the manager doesn't have to. Does your CEO take calls so your manager doesn't have to?

      Yeah, my boss is basically the CEO (medical practices don't call them that - they generally call them Office Managers).

      no, my boss is taking them along with the manager taking them. It is weird that Scott would want the call before the manager of the HELPDESK personal - what is that manager doing that's so much more valuable than answering the phone? What makes what they are doing more valuable than Scott evaluating the next replacement for Rocket.chat for the company to not spend money on?

      There's no reality where I can be convinced that it's useful to have the CEO/CIO answering the phone when you can somehow get a competent systems engineer for $5-6 an hour. At that rate a helpdesk person should be $3 an hour. There isn't a universe where having more helpdesk people to answer the phones makes less sense than the highest paid people in the company.

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • RE: Testing Zulip

      @scottalanmiller said in Testing Zulip:

      I took one those calls tonight and am hoping it's over $100K of benefit because I did so. I definitely don't have many hours that make more money than that. Now, is it certainly $100K? No. Likely, actually yes. Keeping tabs on operations can have value.

      That sounds like a sales call. What are the circumstances where a helpdesk call was over $100k in benefit?

      posted in IT Discussion
      stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates
    • 1 / 1