I decided against signing up to it since they have all this text about how you have to do this as an employee of a company and accept the gift on behalf of your company, which requires you to disclose it to your company, which for me would then require me to fill out gift paperwork to make sure it isn't a vendor bribe, which would then require me to share with the entire IT group that I was taking it and keeping it for personal use, which would result in at least one Director probably using this as an opportunity to say he did a favor for me.
A whole lot of work for something that will brick in a year if no one cracks the firmware in time.
I heard it was easy but apparently they were passing out MR18's, which are hackable, until recently.
edit: This is probably why they temporarily shut down the program. To get the new models into the line so people would stop grabbing them to throw OpenWRT onto.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
New global ransomware is in the wild. Reports in Ukraine, France, and Spain already and spreading fast.
I'm guessing this is what the patches in June were to fix, and why Microsoft Patched XP again this month. They warned at the time there was something coming. This was probably it.
I'm actually glad I was able to patch before this wave hit.
So Microsoft's recommendation is to join your physical hyperv host to the domain of the virtual domain controller it hosts.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? This feels like keeping the keys to the bank in the vault.
It is bad. We had issues back in the day when we did that with the old Software based Server2. The actual machine was joined to the domain... and couldn't start up since it couldn't login since there was no domain controller to authenticate with. And then since it couldn't log in it couldn't start the virtual machine, because it couldn't log in, because the virtual machine wasn't turned on.
Maybe it's different now?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
New global ransomware is in the wild. Reports in Ukraine, France, and Spain already and spreading fast.
I'm guessing this is what the patches in June were to fix, and why Microsoft Patched XP again this month. They warned at the time there was something coming. This was probably it.
I'm actually glad I was able to patch before this wave hit.
Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, keep your stuff patched!
So Microsoft's recommendation is to join your physical hyperv host to the domain of the virtual domain controller it hosts.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? This feels like keeping the keys to the bank in the vault.
It is bad. We had issues back in the day when we did that with the old Software based Server2. The actual machine was joined to the domain... and couldn't start up since it couldn't login since there was no domain controller to authenticate with. And then since it couldn't log in it couldn't start the virtual machine, because it couldn't log in, because the virtual machine wasn't turned on.
Maybe it's different now?
well I mean, even if a machine is domain joined if you have a local admin account on it you should still be able to log in to it that way.
I have no opinion as to whether it's a good thing or not to do as I haven't looked too much into it in a hyper-v environment. My gut would tell me no.
So Microsoft's recommendation is to join your physical hyperv host to the domain of the virtual domain controller it hosts.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? This feels like keeping the keys to the bank in the vault.
It is bad. We had issues back in the day when we did that with the old Software based Server2. The actual machine was joined to the domain... and couldn't start up since it couldn't login since there was no domain controller to authenticate with. And then since it couldn't log in it couldn't start the virtual machine, because it couldn't log in, because the virtual machine wasn't turned on.
Maybe it's different now?
I don't see why a failure to login to the domain would stop the virtualization services from starting? That seems odd to me.
I know MS tries to make the case that a DC machine should be this special snowflake and not run other server services( which is bullshit but hey they throw enough obstacles in there to make it easier just to play along). There are two ways around that, virtualize the DC or run it on it's own piece of hardware.
Both would work but in this new world of virtualization the second option seems a waste of resources.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So Microsoft's recommendation is to join your physical hyperv host to the domain of the virtual domain controller it hosts.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? This feels like keeping the keys to the bank in the vault.
It is bad. We had issues back in the day when we did that with the old Software based Server2. The actual machine was joined to the domain... and couldn't start up since it couldn't login since there was no domain controller to authenticate with. And then since it couldn't log in it couldn't start the virtual machine, because it couldn't log in, because the virtual machine wasn't turned on.
Maybe it's different now?
I don't see why a failure to login to the domain would stop the virtualization services from starting? That seems odd to me.
Back in the day the VMs didn't autostart themselves.
But yeah I had to log in with the local account to even do anything. Kind of defeats the purpose of being on a domain controlled computer.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
upon further analysis, the security patch referenced there is the march one. So if you're not patched to the level 3 months ago because of WannaCry... yeaaaaaaa
New Windows update breaks Crystal Reports Viewer runtime if it's older than 13.0.18.
I mean, no biggie. That's only... over 100 customers....
quick google clocks that version as from somewhere between 2008 and 2011?
that's a solid meh/10
update your shit people
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+6
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
Anyone have any good recommendations for backing up locally?
In the past we had tape drives but that was a nightmare to maintain. I just want something I can plug in and copy from network shares nightly.
I don't need 100000000000k rpm drives or anything, but there's 500gigs of data (4-6 tb would be a good future proofing I think)
I want to avoid tapes, and would rather use a device that's got hard drives.
I would say that any NAS that can create a share that your backup software can point to will do the trick. That's the whole point of the QNAP i just got in yesterday actually. I'm planning on going from Tape only to disk + tape. I just have no fucking rails to mount the QNAP.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm planning on keeping tape backups around as a weekly full backup because I want an offline method that won't be affected if we get hit bad with some kind of ransomware or something similar. Tape will be the most cost effective solution for that in my environment in the medium term.
Anyone have any good recommendations for backing up locally?
In the past we had tape drives but that was a nightmare to maintain. I just want something I can plug in and copy from network shares nightly.
I don't need 100000000000k rpm drives or anything, but there's 500gigs of data (4-6 tb would be a good future proofing I think)
I want to avoid tapes, and would rather use a device that's got hard drives.
I would say that any NAS that can create a share that your backup software can point to will do the trick. That's the whole point of the QNAP i just got in yesterday actually. I'm planning on going from Tape only to disk + tape. I just have no fucking rails to mount the QNAP.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm planning on keeping tape backups around as a weekly full backup because I want an offline method that won't be affected if we get hit bad with some kind of ransomware or something similar. Tape will be the most cost effective solution for that in my environment in the medium term.
Carbonite will take over for that for us.
What software do you use for QNAP to backup to?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Anyone have any good recommendations for backing up locally?
In the past we had tape drives but that was a nightmare to maintain. I just want something I can plug in and copy from network shares nightly.
I don't need 100000000000k rpm drives or anything, but there's 500gigs of data (4-6 tb would be a good future proofing I think)
I want to avoid tapes, and would rather use a device that's got hard drives.
I would say that any NAS that can create a share that your backup software can point to will do the trick. That's the whole point of the QNAP i just got in yesterday actually. I'm planning on going from Tape only to disk + tape. I just have no fucking rails to mount the QNAP.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm planning on keeping tape backups around as a weekly full backup because I want an offline method that won't be affected if we get hit bad with some kind of ransomware or something similar. Tape will be the most cost effective solution for that in my environment in the medium term.
Carbonite will take over for that for us.
What software do you use for QNAP to backup to?
Right now we're on backupexec, it's what we use to backup to tape and it can do backup to network shares, so I'm going to continue to leverage that. I don't love backup exec but it's the tool we have, and I should be able to set it up to just yank a point in time backup off to tape on a schedule, probably once a week. Pretty much exactly what I'm looking for out of this.
So Microsoft's recommendation is to join your physical hyperv host to the domain of the virtual domain controller it hosts.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? This feels like keeping the keys to the bank in the vault.
I forgot to add on my previous comment about DC's that if you want to use hyper-v clustering, your hosts have to be on the domain. The cluster object itself could be separate from AD (AD-detached), but it is not recommended or not supported for most scenarios. I believe 2012 added Bootstrapping that allows cluster/nodes to boot without needing to contact AD first.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Posts
Then you have to hack it into something else or pay the cost to reactivate it.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Good for a while and then you need to root them and put Linux on them to make them usable.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
booooooooo
Welcome to the brave new world where soon everything will have a monthly/yearly cost.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Hardware as a service was dumb when they tried it in the late 90s and it's still dumb today.
"The Meraki MR33 is now being handed out as part of the Free AP offer from Meraki.
There is no clear method to supporting OpenWRT on this hardware yet, however there is a discussion ongoing at https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=70514"
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
A whole lot of work for something that will brick in a year if no one cracks the firmware in time.
edit: This is probably why they temporarily shut down the program. To get the new models into the line so people would stop grabbing them to throw OpenWRT onto.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
dat beam shaping
There are no rails.
Because why would anyone want rails with a rack mountable QNAP....
These are literally 2U rack mountable NAS devices and the rail kit you need to mount them in a rack is optional? What the fuck.
(yes, I know you can use a rack shelf, but you shouldn't need to.)
I understand not everyone needs them, but they should be included by default with the option to remove them to get a discount or something.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone else? This feels like keeping the keys to the bank in the vault.
What is the difference between a virtualized DC and a non virtualized DC? I am not seeing the inherent problem with that.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I'm guessing this is what the patches in June were to fix, and why Microsoft Patched XP again this month. They warned at the time there was something coming. This was probably it.
I'm actually glad I was able to patch before this wave hit.
It is bad. We had issues back in the day when we did that with the old Software based Server2. The actual machine was joined to the domain... and couldn't start up since it couldn't login since there was no domain controller to authenticate with. And then since it couldn't log in it couldn't start the virtual machine, because it couldn't log in, because the virtual machine wasn't turned on.
Maybe it's different now?
Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, keep your stuff patched!
well I mean, even if a machine is domain joined if you have a local admin account on it you should still be able to log in to it that way.
I have no opinion as to whether it's a good thing or not to do as I haven't looked too much into it in a hyper-v environment. My gut would tell me no.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
Both would work but in this new world of virtualization the second option seems a waste of resources.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Back in the day the VMs didn't autostart themselves.
But yeah I had to log in with the local account to even do anything. Kind of defeats the purpose of being on a domain controlled computer.
And if you have more than one, they shouldn't be running on the same host.
I found this on Reddit and it seems handy if you want to have a quick glance at the top options for a problem.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
So patch your shit!
upon further analysis, the security patch referenced there is the march one. So if you're not patched to the level 3 months ago because of WannaCry... yeaaaaaaa
Patch. Your. Shit.
In the past we had tape drives but that was a nightmare to maintain. I just want something I can plug in and copy from network shares nightly.
I don't need 100000000000k rpm drives or anything, but there's 500gigs of data (4-6 tb would be a good future proofing I think)
I want to avoid tapes, and would rather use a device that's got hard drives.
I mean, no biggie. That's only... over 100 customers....
quick google clocks that version as from somewhere between 2008 and 2011?
that's a solid meh/10
update your shit people
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
I would say that any NAS that can create a share that your backup software can point to will do the trick. That's the whole point of the QNAP i just got in yesterday actually. I'm planning on going from Tape only to disk + tape. I just have no fucking rails to mount the QNAP.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm planning on keeping tape backups around as a weekly full backup because I want an offline method that won't be affected if we get hit bad with some kind of ransomware or something similar. Tape will be the most cost effective solution for that in my environment in the medium term.
Carbonite will take over for that for us.
What software do you use for QNAP to backup to?
Right now we're on backupexec, it's what we use to backup to tape and it can do backup to network shares, so I'm going to continue to leverage that. I don't love backup exec but it's the tool we have, and I should be able to set it up to just yank a point in time backup off to tape on a schedule, probably once a week. Pretty much exactly what I'm looking for out of this.
It's Crystal Viewer for Visual Studio.
The June monthly rollup seems to be the culprit, KB4022726.
It's CV for VS, so it's not that old.
I forgot to add on my previous comment about DC's that if you want to use hyper-v clustering, your hosts have to be on the domain. The cluster object itself could be separate from AD (AD-detached), but it is not recommended or not supported for most scenarios. I believe 2012 added Bootstrapping that allows cluster/nodes to boot without needing to contact AD first.