what did you learn today? (part 2)

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

euri[/url]":zxpxtmzd]Anyone know off the top of their head whether you can expand a Dell H700 RAID 10 set from 4 disk to 6 or 8 disk without reinitializing the array?

I haven't done it but I believe that model does support online RAID migration/online RAID expansion.

 

[M. Jones]

dredphul[/url]":3r3t696e]

M. Jones[/url]":3r3t696e]Cloudera's Hadoop seems not to let you relocate or expand existing HDFS. Who would go out of their way to buy Hadoop?!

Because installing Apache Hadoop (the free, open source version) can take a couple of weeks (or more) if it's your first time.

I don't yet know the drivers for the decision. Assuming for the moment that this is so, we usually call that 'investment', and it qualifies for the R&D tax credit.

 

[dredphul]

M. Jones[/url]":3q7hyjiq]

dredphul[/url]":3q7hyjiq]

M. Jones[/url]":3q7hyjiq]Cloudera's Hadoop seems not to let you relocate or expand existing HDFS. Who would go out of their way to buy Hadoop?!

Because installing Apache Hadoop (the free, open source version) can take a couple of weeks (or more) if it's your first time.

I don't yet know the drivers for the decision. Assuming for the moment that this is so, we usually call that 'investment', and it qualifies for the R&D tax credit.

The commercial versions also offer paid support and training. Upper management at my work place seems to find that comforting as we currently don't have much in-house expertise in Hadoop.

 

[PaveHawk-]

Big Wooly Mammoth[/url]":2dmrm8sq]

euri[/url]":2dmrm8sq]Anyone know off the top of their head whether you can expand a Dell H700 RAID 10 set from 4 disk to 6 or 8 disk without reinitializing the array?

I haven't done it but I believe that model does support online RAID migration/online RAID expansion.

I have, I didnt have a problem going from 4 to 6 disks in R10.

 

[Entegy]

PaveHawk-[/url]":3sl2l9u6]

w00key[/url]":3sl2l9u6]The front page promoted comments are amusing

For "Facebook aims to knock Cisco down a peg with open network hardware", this one takes the cake

There's a ton of potential here. Cisco actually charges $10,000 for a switch, comparable to a $173.26 "TP-Link" (TL-SG2424) switch you can buy from Wal-Mart... Of course the latter has crap firmware (software) with a crippled and foreign user interface.

Yeah, lets reflash a TP-Link with SDN and use it in racks. You go first

Okay, so I just saw the thread and its comments. WTF.

I love commenters like that. It was like the article about the ruggedized HP laptop. Buy a MacBook instead!

 

[jshiplett]

PaveHawk-[/url]":ujt1wcxn]

Big Wooly Mammoth[/url]":ujt1wcxn]

euri[/url]":ujt1wcxn]Anyone know off the top of their head whether you can expand a Dell H700 RAID 10 set from 4 disk to 6 or 8 disk without reinitializing the array?

I haven't done it but I believe that model does support online RAID migration/online RAID expansion.

I have, I didnt have a problem going from 4 to 6 disks in R10.

Thanks, guys!

 

[ronelson]

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

To use the 64 bit client VPN software, you have to upgrade the firewall. I still haven't figured that one out.

 

[dlp]

ronelson[/url]":2jqsh3kl]

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

To use the 64 bit client VPN software, you have to upgrade the firewall. I still haven't figured that one out.

MAC address bitness is different on 64 bit clients.

 

[Danger Mouse]

M. Jones[/url]":36qjr09t]

ronelson[/url]":36qjr09t]

Never forget how long Cisco delayed in introducing a 64-bit version of their Windows IPsec client in an effort to push customers into per-seat licensed AnyConnect proprietary SSL VPNs.

Clearly you haven't worked with Checkpoint's VPN product. Cisco's is pretty good, and cheap, in the right light.

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

The open-source POSIX IPsec client for Cisco and open-source AnyConnect client 'OpenConnect' work very well, however, despite Cisco's business practises.

Cisco's 64bit VPN client requires a reghack to work

 

[daldrich]

Danger Mouse[/url]":2za01rfk]

M. Jones[/url]":2za01rfk]

ronelson[/url]":2za01rfk]

Never forget how long Cisco delayed in introducing a 64-bit version of their Windows IPsec client in an effort to push customers into per-seat licensed AnyConnect proprietary SSL VPNs.

Clearly you haven't worked with Checkpoint's VPN product. Cisco's is pretty good, and cheap, in the right light.

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

The open-source POSIX IPsec client for Cisco and open-source AnyConnect client 'OpenConnect' work very well, however, despite Cisco's business practises.

Cisco's 64bit VPN client requires a reghack to work

It also requires a reghack to work on Windows 8.

 

[SandyTech]

Today I learned that with enough people and proper staging, in 2 hours you can pull off major changes and nobody will ever notice. We changed all 7 access layer switches, the server and core switches the router, and firewal in the 1st hour. Then we changed the server, phone and PC VLANs and re-establish the VPNs and MPLS links in hour two.

 

[Danger Mouse]

daldrich[/url]":39ubj67i]

Danger Mouse[/url]":39ubj67i]

M. Jones[/url]":39ubj67i]

ronelson[/url]":39ubj67i]

Never forget how long Cisco delayed in introducing a 64-bit version of their Windows IPsec client in an effort to push customers into per-seat licensed AnyConnect proprietary SSL VPNs.

Clearly you haven't worked with Checkpoint's VPN product. Cisco's is pretty good, and cheap, in the right light.

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

The open-source POSIX IPsec client for Cisco and open-source AnyConnect client 'OpenConnect' work very well, however, despite Cisco's business practises.

Cisco's 64bit VPN client requires a reghack to work

It also requires a reghack to work on Windows 8.

Works fine on Win8 64bit, with just the same reghack for the 64bit portion. The 32bit version should work fine on Win8 32bit without any reghacking.

 

[Big Wooly Mammoth]

daldrich[/url]":1j8o975n]

Danger Mouse[/url]":1j8o975n]

M. Jones[/url]":1j8o975n]

ronelson[/url]":1j8o975n]

Never forget how long Cisco delayed in introducing a 64-bit version of their Windows IPsec client in an effort to push customers into per-seat licensed AnyConnect proprietary SSL VPNs.

Clearly you haven't worked with Checkpoint's VPN product. Cisco's is pretty good, and cheap, in the right light.

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

The open-source POSIX IPsec client for Cisco and open-source AnyConnect client 'OpenConnect' work very well, however, despite Cisco's business practises.

Cisco's 64bit VPN client requires a reghack to work

It also requires a reghack to work on Windows 8.

And it is missing the ability to leave VPN connected when you log off and also dropped the ability to start the VPN before logon--something that would save our users eery once in a while--like once a week.

 

[ferzerp]

Big Wooly Mammoth[/url]":lht7p2tv]


And it is missing the ability to leave VPN connected when you log off and also dropped the ability to start the VPN before logon--something that would save our users eery once in a while--like once a week.

A good workaround for what I am sure your issue is, is to have a local, restricted account on the PCs that can dial in to VPN. The PC can then be locked, and unlocked with the AD credentials of whomever needs to get it, and have the credentials cached.

You have to really think about how you want to maintain that account, but it is better than having people stuck, with no recourse other than having them use the local admin account.

 

[ronelson]

MAC address bitness is different on 64 bit clients.

But why? My Cisco client, as crappy as it is, doesn't require me to upgrade the firewall just to support 64 bit client software. The packets on the wire should look the same.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Big Wooly Mammoth[/url]":3o4yotcb]

daldrich[/url]":3o4yotcb]

Danger Mouse[/url]":3o4yotcb]

M. Jones[/url]":3o4yotcb]

ronelson[/url]":3o4yotcb]

Never forget how long Cisco delayed in introducing a 64-bit version of their Windows IPsec client in an effort to push customers into per-seat licensed AnyConnect proprietary SSL VPNs.

Clearly you haven't worked with Checkpoint's VPN product. Cisco's is pretty good, and cheap, in the right light.

Touche, sir. The Checkpoint VPN client requires the Java plugin (!!) and is markedly inferior -- I daren't touch the server side. Too bad; I used to use a lot of FireWall-1 years ago.

The open-source POSIX IPsec client for Cisco and open-source AnyConnect client 'OpenConnect' work very well, however, despite Cisco's business practises.

Cisco's 64bit VPN client requires a reghack to work

It also requires a reghack to work on Windows 8.

And it is missing the ability to leave VPN connected when you log off and also dropped the ability to start the VPN before logon--something that would save our users eery once in a while--like once a week.

So, changing the VPN dialer configuration like the following:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/ ... a37c.shtml

Doesn't work? If not, good to know.

 

[sryan2k1]

ronelson[/url]":14fo5oeq]

MAC address bitness is different on 64 bit clients.

But why? My Cisco client, as crappy as it is, doesn't require me to upgrade the firewall just to support 64 bit client software. The packets on the wire should look the same.

It's entirely possible the handshake / encryption the 64 bit client uses is newer and requires an upgrade at both ends.


We use AnyConnect so *shrug*

 

[LTParis]

VMware vServer Appliance 5.1 Update 1 does not give you the ability to change the IP address out of the gate.
When the wizard is used, and you reassign the certificate after an IP change, the server will not boot.
Spent 2.5 hours with VMware support, 4 different vServer OVA deployments, and some headaches to fix this.
Ultimately I had to go and execute the script via SSH to change the IP before the wizard is launched.

If you do not reissue the cert, the appliance does works, however:
SSO/AD integration is affected (inoperable)
Hardware Status is affected (gives a unable to load data err)
Storage View is affected (straight does not see anything)

Update, missed one thing

 

[Digitlman]

What the fuck, VMWare?

 

[Barmaglot]

From all the stories, it sounds like the appliance is an early beta pushed into production. Coupled with the lack of vendor integration (backup software, SAN tools, etc), I doubt I'll be installing it before vSphere 7 or so.

 

[ferzerp]

vCenter 5.1 is pretty much a "People want us to not rely on windows, so, vomit out a rewrite as quickly as possible and shove it out the door, regardless" scenario.

I'm not just talking the appliance either. It's the whole thing.

 

[afidel]

ferzerp[/url]":hj7mi21r]vCenter 5.1 is pretty much a "People want us to not rely on windows, so, vomit out a rewrite as quickly as possible and shove it out the door, regardless" scenario.

I'm not just talking the appliance either. It's the whole thing.

Agreed 110%, they took a requirement from a few hosting providers and small/midsized businesses and turned it into something that pisses off the other 99% of their customer base. I'm hoping they fix most of the stupid parts in time for vsphere 6 or 6U1, in the meantime I'm upgrading from 5.0U1 to 5.0U2 so I don't have to deal with the idiocy. There's nothing "must have" in 5.1 for my environment so it's easy for me to wait it out.

 

[ferzerp]

afidel[/url]":k1xbvb8z]

ferzerp[/url]":k1xbvb8z]vCenter 5.1 is pretty much a "People want us to not rely on windows, so, vomit out a rewrite as quickly as possible and shove it out the door, regardless" scenario.

I'm not just talking the appliance either. It's the whole thing.

Agreed 110%, they took a requirement from a few hosting providers and small/midsized businesses and turned it into something that pisses off the other 99% of their customer base. I'm hoping they fix most of the stupid parts in time for vsphere 6 or 6U1, in the meantime I'm upgrading from 5.0U1 to 5.0U2 so I don't have to deal with the idiocy. There's nothing "must have" in 5.1 for my environment so it's easy for me to wait it out.

I'd have passed on it as well, but unfortunately, some systems got upgraded without my blessing, and then I needed to bring them in to the large farm. The VM count was high enough that it was hard to justify the work required to try to roll them back to hardware version 8, and I bit the bullet and went 5.1.

 

[LTParis]

Since my install was fresh I thought it would be a no-brainer. Just glad it's working now.

 

[Rick25]

That despite Western Digital branding their Red drives as the preferred choice for a NAS, the Acronis software that they provide won't install unless you've got a Red (or maybe any WD) drive physically installed on the system you're adding the software to....kinda defeats the purpose of a "NAS" branding for a drive. Either remove the offered software or allow it to work.....

 

[ferzerp]

Rick25[/url]":1j1j9bs8]That despite Western Digital branding their Red drives as the preferred choice for a NAS, the Acronis software that they provide won't install unless you've got a Red (or maybe any WD) drive physically installed on the system you're adding the software to....kinda defeats the purpose of a "NAS" branding for a drive. Either remove the offered software or allow it to work.....

Well, that one is interesting...

I use reds in my home server for media and backup storage.

 

[afidel]

ferzerp[/url]":2unm07rn]

Rick25[/url]":2unm07rn]That despite Western Digital branding their Red drives as the preferred choice for a NAS, the Acronis software that they provide won't install unless you've got a Red (or maybe any WD) drive physically installed on the system you're adding the software to....kinda defeats the purpose of a "NAS" branding for a drive. Either remove the offered software or allow it to work.....

Well, that one is interesting...

I use reds in my home server for media and backup storage.

Yep, I use a red drive in my HTPC because it's silent and doesn't do the micro-pause thing that introduced glitches in recordings with my previous drive when recording two HD streams at the same time. I'm using Crashplan for backups and have never been an Acronis fan so I didn't even take the media out of the package.

 

[Rick25]

I've got two in a Synology (with a package so that get's backed up to Crashplan). I wanted to be able to use the Acronis software to grab an image of my laptop in case the HD crash and also store that on the Synology.....wonder if I could shut it down, slave one drive up to the laptop with an adapter long enough to do the install.

 

[Danger Mouse]

....that it seems you cannot use the @ symbol in a SNMP community string on NX-OS, but you CAN on IOS.

 

[M. Jones]

dlp[/url]":2ress1ae]
MAC address bitness is different on 64 bit clients.

As though someone doesn't know of the existence of endianness and htonl() or something equally ridiculous?

 

[M. Jones]

Barmaglot[/url]":5kc79umg]From all the stories, it sounds like the appliance is an early beta pushed into production.

It was before. Considering that a few people worldwide use and pay for vCenter, I anticipated that it would be much more mature by now.

The first one used DB2 internally, but I believe someone said they were changing to PostgreSQL.

 

[LTParis]

I can confirm they are using Postgre now.

 

[dlp]

ronelson[/url]":2c2o6utp]

MAC address bitness is different on 64 bit clients.

But why? My Cisco client, as crappy as it is, doesn't require me to upgrade the firewall just to support 64 bit client software. The packets on the wire should look the same.

M. Jones[/url]":2c2o6utp]

dlp[/url]":2c2o6utp]
MAC address bitness is different on 64 bit clients.

As though someone doesn't know of the existence of endianness and htonl() or something equally ridiculous?

I...I meant that as a joke...I didn't think MAC addresses a) would have any relation to the OS bitness, b) would matter to an endpoint you are connecting to for the purpose of creating a VPN tunnel (VPN relies on layer 2 info?). I was hoping to just sound stupid.

 

[sryan2k1]

.I didn't think MAC addresses a) would have any relation to the OS bitness

They don't.

b) would matter to an endpoint you are connecting to for the purpose of creating a VPN tunnel

They don't.

 

[M. Jones]

dlp[/url]":3qmrhvbh]I was hoping to just sound stupid.

It did, but in the same way that Dilbert cartoons too-closely resemble real life.

 

[dlp]

sryan2k1[/url]":37u67830]

.I didn't think MAC addresses a) would have any relation to the OS bitness

They don't.

b) would matter to an endpoint you are connecting to for the purpose of creating a VPN tunnel

They don't.

Or at least it was supposed to be...two serious replies made me second guess myself.

 

[CanSpice]

M. Jones[/url]":10uovmk5]Cloudera's Hadoop seems not to let you relocate or expand existing HDFS. Who would go out of their way to buy Hadoop?!

Uh, what? What do you mean by "relocate or expand existing HDFS"?

 

[dredphul]

that the Cisco UCS C240 M3S is advertised as a 2U product, but actually requires 3U of space as all the air vents are on top of the unit.

Found buried in the install guide:

Do not block the air vents on the top of the server's cover. Do not stack another server directly on top of the C240 server. Doing so blocks the proper airflow, which could result in overheating, higher fan speeds, and higher power consumption.

Glad this was discovered before the units were racked.

 

[afidel]

dredphul[/url]":hft1iuob]that the Cisco UCS C240 M3S is advertised as a 2U product, but actually requires 3U of space as all the air vents are on top of the unit.

Found buried in the install guide:

Do not block the air vents on the top of the server's cover. Do not stack another server directly on top of the C240 server. Doing so blocks the proper airflow, which could result in overheating, higher fan speeds, and higher power consumption.

Glad this was discovered before the units were racked.

Uh, yeah that would be an RMA finding for me. What retard thought that was an ok design decision?

 

[dredphul]

afidel[/url]":2mjegxf9]

dredphul[/url]":2mjegxf9]that the Cisco UCS C240 M3S is advertised as a 2U product, but actually requires 3U of space as all the air vents are on top of the unit.

Found buried in the install guide:

Do not block the air vents on the top of the server's cover. Do not stack another server directly on top of the C240 server. Doing so blocks the proper airflow, which could result in overheating, higher fan speeds, and higher power consumption.

Glad this was discovered before the units were racked.

Uh, yeah that would be an RMA finding for me. What retard thought that was an ok design decision?

What evil marketing guy forced the engineers to shrink what's supposed to be a 3U or 4U design to a 2U design? I think that's what happened here.