@pauska I set it as a replica to save bandwidth since we have WSUS already...I took it off replica since I'm moving all the clients over...and it defaults to those selections
@Iain I'll be pleasantly surprised when it actually happens. I don't for a minute believe that it won't get pushed down the queue for sprint agendas at the drop of a hat.
@Iain yes, and the number of people who consider the .SE sites nothing more than an actual game in which you gather points & medals makes me nauseous. I had to stop reading the mSO comments on other questions. One of them was actually talking about techniques to game the audits and minimize vote count to achieve gold status faster.
@Iain Based on his post I certainly believe that it will happen, they seemed to be too far down the planning and design to reasonably assume it will get abandoned. I'm more wondering about the timelines and what's actually reasonable estimates.
@Iain Dude. 6-8 weeks means Never. That's 3-4 sprints out. If it's not actually in the next sprint agenda, it won't get there unless you're in the meeting pushing for it.
They've been talking about it for years. That's two dozens sprints a year.
@Magellan that's cause your idea sucked. (kidding I upvoted it and the 2 comments)...note that my "dupe vote" isn't even the linked dupe that it ended up with.
And @MDMarra - System Center Advisor is reporting everything...sucks that it can't email me alerts...but it's good enough for a central sort of "MBSA" report.
@TheCleaner I'm pretty sure that's what it was tagged with originally. same # of votes, answers, and Atwood's shit-ass -80 answer telling us to fuck off.
@Iain Stack Exchange's timetables slide more than a professional mud wrestling competition... So I wouldn't hold your breath on the split happening soon.
Traversing all blocks to verify nothing leaked ...
No leaks (block sum matches space maps exactly)
bp count: 3070988
bp logical: 288896970752 avg: 94072
bp physical: 214790432768 avg: 69941 compression: 1.35
bp allocated: 221141716992 avg: 72009 compression: 1.31
bp deduped: 16585818112 ref>1: 167366 deduplication: 1.08
SPA allocated: 204555898880 used: 6.84%
I'll make a few dozen more VMs and see what happens.
@MichaelHampton What happened when it wasn't booting? Just curious as I had a problem recently with fBSD 10 booting a root ZFS. Mine panicked somewhere between boot and loader.
@FalconMomot schedule isn't looking good for Sunday afternoon. =( Need to finish up the nursery for the babies and that's the only afternoon that Lady and I can work on it. Don't think I can get a hall pass for an outing on Sunday.
@ewwhite Is this any closer for your client? It stops short of saying "don't Active Directory over the intertubes, dummy!" but "unsupported configuration" seems a bit closer to a "don't do it" than any other MS document I've seen so far.
Active Directory over NAT has not been tested by Microsoft.
We do not recommend Active Directory over NAT.
Support for issues related to Active Directory over NAT will be very limited and will reach the bounds of commercially reasonable efforts very quickly.
(Presumably, there'd need to be some NATing or dual-homing involved to have a DC on the public net and serving internal DNS.)
@Basil I'm not familiar with NetApp, but probably considering NetApp uses a lot of FreeBSD's code.
Dedupe basically sucks, it's slow, takes a crapload of RAM, sucks the life out of througput... So unless you're getting some serious savings from it, you shouldn't be using it.
@pauska If nothing else, holding the dedupe table in cache will suck down ARC. I've been told that "old" dedupe pools run slow for some reason or another.
@pauska @ChrisS My understanding of Netapp dedupe is that they go through their filesystem and any time they see a duplicate, they permanently replace all pointers to that data with pointers to the non-duplicate data.
@ChrisS No, a netapp volume is a bunch of pointers to pages of disk. Modifying or adding to a file changes those pointers and puts new pages on the disk
they call is "WAFL", and it's what lets their snapshots and dedupe work well. I also thought that was how ZFS worked, and that was why they were in a lawsuit with Netapp
@pauska Which will hopefully change once/if they move beyond a couple guys, a workspace and a pile of VC money. Most startups don't contribute shit to anything, because they're too busy starting up to do anything else. (Or at least, I always thought.)
I have a client whose workforce is comprised entirely of remote employees using a mix of Apple and Windows 7 PCs/laptops.
The users don't authenticate against a domain at the moment, but the organization would like to move in that direction for several reasons. These are company-owned machines,...
@ewwhite Yeah, I'm still trying to dig up something explicitly (or more implicitly) on-point from MS, but am absolutely shocked at how hard it is. It seems that everyone in the world except Microsoft says "don't put your domain controller on the internet.
@ewwhite 1. Having a Twitter feed on your front page makes me cringe. 2. A webpage doesn't impart direction... And a Wiki page of "ideas" isn't much organization for development.
> The Microsoft Corpnet is “open” in the sense that routers are not performing firewalling or packet filtering functions. Instead, communication security is enforced at the endpoints of communication by using the built-in Windows Firewall, which protects against unsolicited incoming communication, and a domain isolation deployment, which requires the use of Internet Protocol security (IPsec) for incoming connection attempts to corporate resources. Because there is equivalent support for IPv6 in both Windows Firewall and IPsec in versions
@HopelessN00b And Microsoft doesn't say "don't put your domain controllers on the Internet" because... they put their domain controllers on the Internet.
I'm posting this as answer mainly because everyone has their own "educated opinion" based on experience, 3rd party info, hearsay, and tribal knowledge within IT, but this is more a list of citations and readings "directly" from Microsoft. I used quotes because I'm sure they don't properly filter...
@MichaelHampton A very good reason no to say that, if I must say. Of course, advising Ed's client to setup their network in the same fashion as MS has setup theirs... well, is an event we could probably make a fortune selling ticket to.
@Hennes Myth, actually. For the most part, those BSD-web servers (hotmail) were acquired in a purchase, and just took an ungodly amount of time to migrate off of.
@MichaelHampton No, they just want to put their active directory on the intertubes, like Microsoft does. MS does it, so it must be a good idea, for everyone, right?
@TheCleaner Puts my Google-fu to shame. If you wanna remind me when it's open for bounty, I'll throw a bounty to ya for that goodness. (Or there's a small chance I'll remember on my own).
BTW, I also think it is VERY EASY to say DOMAIN CONTROLLER == ACTIVE DIRECTORY, which isn't quite the case. AD FS proxies and other means (forms based auth for OWA, EAS, etc.) offer a way to "expose" AD itself to the web to allow clients to at least to attempt to authenticate via AD without exposing the DCs themselves.
Go on someone's OWA site and attempt to login and AD will get the request for authentication on a backend DC, so AD is technically "exposed"...but is secured via SSL and proxied through an Exchange server.
Yeah, closest I can with all my Googling and permutations of DC, AD, public, internet, etc., was a thing about RDOCs being suited for deployment into perimeter/DMZ networks. I am ashamed. :(
[don't touch WSUS] ... or breath on, look sideways at, think about, or anything that could even conceivably upset it in any possible manner. And you went and uninstalled the thing.
@pauska So, from a naked (no WSUS installed, SCCM is) setup ...do I just install the WSUS role, configure local update storage, and leave it (cancel out of post-install)?
@NathanC If it helps, I found it easier to just start from scratch (a freshly deployed, base Server 2012 VM), rather than worrying about uninstalling or reconfiguring or whatever each time I screwed something up. Took me 3 or 4 runs until I finally got SCCM 2102 installed in some manner or fashion.
@voretaq7 >As noted below in the comments, this question specifically addresses how the functionality delivered to "complete" the supposed-Duplicate function question is not sufficient, and requests a CHANGE to the designed functionality detailed there.
Guess that isn't yours now that I'm looking at this post history
I have a client whose workforce is comprised entirely of remote employees using a mix of Apple and Windows 7 PCs/laptops.
The users don't authenticate against a domain at the moment, but the organization would like to move in that direction for several reasons. These are company-owned machines,...
I have a computer that's physically wired to a router.The router has DCHP disabled and I need to find it's IP. Is there any way to do that?
On al fresco machine it is 6 till 7 in the morning
