Search Results

Search found 416 results on 17 pages for 'redundancy'.

Page 12/17 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

• Domain Environment + Certificate Authority + Server 2008 R2

  - by user1110302

  I have recently been delegated the task to setup a CA in our domain environment and have a question on why Microsoft does somethings the way they do lol. I have been trying to read up on what the best practices are for going about this task, and have decided that in an ideal CA environment you should have one “offline” Root CA, and then two subordinate CAs for redundancy/issuing the certs. That is all good, I understand how this works and why, but in messing with a sandbox I have setup, the way you go about adding certificate authorities to a domain environment seems extremely trivial and against all of their best practices… Dooes anyone know what the purpose is of an Enterprise Root CA that is integrated into Active Directory? From what I have read, once you setup an Enterprise Root CA that is integrated into Active Directory, it stays with Active Directory for the long haul and must not be turned off/renamed/touched under any circumstances. If this is true, that seems to go against the practice of setting up a standalone root CA, adding the subordinates, and then taking the root offline. Thanks for any feedback you may have to offer!

  Read the article

• How do I use a self encrypting drive?

  - by Unique_Key

  I recently purchased a Micron RealSSD c400 self encrypting drive, and I am having a few issues when trying to get it recognized by my laptop (HP Elitebook 8440p running Windows 7 x64; also tried on a custom-built desktop). When I try to initialize the drive from disk management, I get a CRC error; also, when attempting to partition it from Windows setup, the program can't create the partitions. I also tried with UBCD, nothing. I assume this is due to drive security, but I haven't been able to find much information about this online; do I need a management software or something? I'm completely stumped here. EDIT As requested, when I try partitioning the device from Windows setup I get a 0x80300024 error; when I try initializing it from disk management, I get a "Data error (cyclic redundancy check)" message, and the event log shows the following under System: Source: VDS Basic Provider, message: unexpected failure. error code 490@01010004 (2x) Source: Virtual Disk Service, message: VDS fails to write boot code on a disk during clean operation. Error code: 80070001@02070008 (1x) Source: Disk, message: The device \Device\Harddisk2\DR2 has a bad block (2x) The security logs show nothing related. Also, when attempting to configure it from UBCD (utility: HDAT2), I get an error along the lines of "can't edit partition information" or something to that tune.

  Read the article

• Migrating Windows 2003 File Server Cluster to Windows 2008 R2 Standalone?

  - by Tatas

  We have a situation where we have an aging Windows 2003 File Server Cluster that we'd like to move to a standalone Windows Server 2008 R2 VM that resides in our Hyper-V R2 installation. We see no need to keep the Clustering as Hyper-V is now providing our Failover/Redundancy. Usually, in a standalone file server migration we migrate the data, preserving NTFS permissions and then export the sharing permissions from the registry and import them on the new server. This does not appear possible in this instance, as the 2003 cluster stores the sharing permissions quite differently. My question is, how would one perform this type of migration? Is it even possible? My current lead is the File Server Migration Toolkit, however I can find no information on the net about migrating from cluster to standalone, only the opposite. Please help. UPDATE: We ended up getting the data copied over (permissions intact), but had to recreate the shares manually by hand. It was a bit of a pain but it did in the end work out.

  Read the article

• Will having 2 MX records pointing to different mail server types cause delivery issues?

  - by Lyken

  I've inherited a setup where the mail server is exchange 2010. For some reason, I'm not sure why there is 2 MX records setup. One being the exchange server which is the higher priority while the external (non-exchange) server is the secondary mx record. I don't believe this was done for redundancy reasons as the other mail server is not set to route mail back to the exchange server (it's just the webhosts email for their hosting) The client has been experiencing disappearing email, however after my investigations its not actually disappearing, but exchange is successfully receiving the mail and then passing it on to the external server. It isn't happening all the time, just with some email messages from some domains. My question: Is exchange passing the mail on because it can see the secondary MX record and is configured (somewhere) to send mail out? If so, how do I stop it? Is it as easy as just removing the second MX record pointing to the external mail server and exchange will stop passing mail on? I'm not exchange expert so I'm kinda stumped. Exchange MX tools are saying everything is setup and configured correctly from an external point of view.

  Read the article

• How do you handle data archiving?

  - by 20th Century Boy

  Backups are one thing, but long term archival is another. For example, you might be required to store emails for 7 years, or keep all project data indefinitely. I used to save archives to tape, but then I've had tapes get destroyed (drives rip the tape out). So...write to 2 tapes I hear you say. Is that what others do? Have 2 (or more) tapes of the same data for redundancy? But then the other issue is that tapes cannot usually be read by different backup software vendors. Eg if you go from Arcserve - Backup Exec - Commvault over 10 years you would need to keep all 3 systems so that you could restore old data. Likewise for hardware. Old tapes might not be barcoded. Might not be compatible with the new library etc etc. So do you keep old tape hardware AND old software just in case you might need to restore a 10 year-old file? Or...when you move to a new backup system do you migrate all archived data to the new system and re-archive it onto new tapes? That could be a huge job. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Getting started with webserver clustering.

  - by Ernie

  I work for a small ISP, and we host about 250 domains and all the stuff that goes along with that: DNS, mail, spam filtering, and backups. Currently, we have separate DNS servers (two of them) and mail servers (outgoing mail is actually on the secondary DNS server, but was previously on its own server). In the past, this was done as an insurance measure. The last thing we need is for some doofus (usually yours truly) to hose a server, taking out DNS and mail right along with it, or for spammers to jam our incoming SMTP server, preventing outgoing mail from being sent too. In the past, this was a problem, and our servers were set up the way they are now to combat it. However, clustering solutions like Sun's Cobalt RAQ (in days of olde) and Virtualmin appear to cater to an all-in-one approach, then deal with failures through redundant servers. I have avoided this thus far, but we've been using Virtualmin on our web server for a while now, and I'd like to expand into using it for a high availability cluster. Our networking partner has recently built a datacenter that has eliminated all of our other bugaboos like network, cooling, and power issues, so now the only thing left to go wrong is me hosing a server, which happened earlier this month. One of the bigger reasons we've avoided going this route is because our hardware requirements aren't particularly high. One server easily handles all the sites we host (most of them are flat sites). Also, load-balancing routers tend to be expensive and complicated. All that I'm really expecting to do is building a two-node cluster for redundancy so that when I hose a server (however rare that might be), we're not out for 8-12 hours while I rebuild it. What I need to know is how to get started, and if I'm really in a position to bother with this kind of thing at all.

  Read the article

• Installation of Active Directory on separate VM from DNS does not entierly work - not sure why

  - by René Kåbis

  Not sure what I am doing wrong here. I have a moderately midrange server (16 cores, 2Ghz, 32GB ECC REG RAM, 6TB storage, nothing too extreme) where I am running Hyper-V (Server 2012 R2 Enterprise) in order to provision virtual machines. So why an AD separate from DNS? I want redundancy. I want to be able to move VMs and back them up individually and not have too many services on any one VM. I have already provisioned a VM with DNS, and have set it up right -- essentially, I have: Set up Static IP’s for everyone involved. Installed the DNS service on the DNS VM. Created a forward lookup zone and a reverse lookup zone (primary zone) xyz.ca Configured the zones to use nonsecure and secure dynamic updates (i will change this to secure later after the domain controller is online). Created a A record for the DC in the forward lookup zone (and a reverse ptr) Changed DC’s DNS server (network settings) to the new DNS server. Checked that I can ping the dns server from the new DC by hostname. When I went ahead and did a DCpromo on the DC, and un-cheked the “install DNS” option, everything seemed to go well (no error messages), but I saw no changes on the DNS server whatsoever (no additional settings). Plus, the DNS server seems to be unable to join the domain, as it claims that the domain is not discoverable. As a final note, I do run Symantec Endpoint Protection, which includes a firewall and most settings set as default. I have not yet tried turning this off, but my experience has been that if a service would open up a port on a Windows firewall, it would do the same through Symantec. There is pretty tight integration these days with corporate-class AV and Windows. I have a template vhdx fully set up (just short of any special roles and features) that I can use to replace the current AD VM with, so doing this all over again is not too much skin off of my nose.

  Read the article

• What to do when launchpad is down?

  - by Jon

  As I am writing this (Friday, November 8, 2013 at 9:59:18 PM EST) launchpad is down. Apparently there is a power failure (https://twitter.com/launchpadstatus/status/398980619880775680). I tried running sudo apt-get update on my Ubuntu install. However, I simply get stuck on this: Ign http://ppa.launchpad.net precise InRelease 100% [Waiting for headers] Being a Ubuntu newbie, I tried to point my sources.list file to a different source. I backed up the original sources.list and then deleted the entire file to start afresh. I then added the following lines to it: deb http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu/ precise main deb-src http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu/ precise main I figured that since I have a different mirror, there would be no problem updating. I was wrong. I get stuck at the same place. I have several questions: Why do I need to hit launchpad? I do not reference it in my sources.list file at all. Is this something where the mirror redirects me to launchpad? Is there a good article out there that I can read on how exactly this whole apt-get update thing works that will help me understand why it is hitting launchpad? Is there any way to get my Ubuntu to update while launchpad is down? Isn't there any redundancy for the launchpad servers?

  Read the article

• Creating basic, redundant gigE or IB storage network for Xen?

  - by StaringSkyward

  With only a modest budget, I want to move my 4 xen servers over to network storage -either NFS or iSCSI which will be determined based on how well it performs when we test it (we need good throughput and it must continue to work through link and switch failure tests). We may add another couple of xen servers at some point when this is done. I don't know much about the design and operation of storage networks, so would really appreciate some hints from those with experience. The budget is around $3,800 excluding the storage appliance. I am currently thinking these are my options to remain on budget: 1) Go for used infiniband hardware and aim for 10gb performance. 2) Stick with gig ethernet and buy some new switches (cisco or procurve) to create a storage-only ethernet LAN. Upgrade to 10gigE later but try to use hardware capable of it where possible to reduce upgrade costs. I have seen used, warrantied infiniband switches at reasonable prices (presumably because big companies are converging on 10gbit ethernet?) and the promise of cheap 10gb is attractive. I know nothing about IB, so here come the questions: Can I buy 2 x switches and have multiple HBAs in my xen and storage nodes to get redundancy and increased performance without complexity or expensive management software costs? If so, can you point me to some examples? Do NFS and iSCSI work just the same regardless? Is IB a sensible choice or could/should I use ethernet or FC on the same budget - I'm keen not to get boxed into a corner for future upgrades, however. For the storage I am likely to build a storage server using nexentastor with the intention that I can later add more disks, SSDs and add another server to provide a failover option at the storage level. An HP LeftHand starter SAN is also under consideration, too. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Load Sharing Regarding Large Websites

  - by JHarley1

  Hello, I have a question regarding Load Sharing for large websites. My Understanding: So if you have a website that has millions of fits a day you will need to have an architecture that can support this sort of pressure. You can either do one or two things: Invest in a single large server that has huge amounts of processing power, memory and storage (such as Microsoft's TerraServer). Spread the load of your website across a number of machines. Let me tackle the second approach, so you have a collection of machines all running Web Server Software and all having access to identical copies of the websites pages. You can either spread the load across these machines using a cyclic pattern in a DNS or you can use a Load Ballancing Switch. The advantages of this approach is: - Redundancy - servers can fail and the others would "pick up the slack" - Incremental - the ability to easily add new machines to this set-up. My Question's Is there a Virtual approach to this issue of load balancing now? If the website runs from a database - is there still only a single copy of the database? If a user had a session running on one Server (e.g. they had gone to www.example.org and had been assigned to Server 2 - were they had created a session) if they refreshed the website (and were allocated Server 3) would they still have their session? What are the other disadvantages associated with Load Balancing? Many Thanks, J

  Read the article

• Backup software for incremental swapped-out drives?

  - by user13743

  We're using Acronis Home 11 to backup our main Windows machine at the office. We have a set of portable hard drives that we swap out each week, for redundancy. We have incremental sets ( a new diff of the entire series each night) building on each drive. However, from time to time, Acronis gets confused and sometimes makes a new full backup. This eats up a lot of drive on the disks. Also, I have to trick the Acronis script each time I swap out a drive and point it to the new incremental backup set. Finally, if a drive gets full, there's no way to partition the backup set on a drive. I found this out the hard way, and now one drive is full with one backup set. So now on the other drive, I have three folders of backup sets. When one starts to get full, I delete the oldest one and start a new set. That way one single drive never gets filled up with one single backup set. I'm looking for a backup software that can backup Windows in incremental sets, and doesn't get tripped up with swapped out drives. Is there a better solution?

  Read the article

• HAproxy with MySQL Master-Master Replication incredibly slow

  - by Yayap

  I have two MySQL servers in multi-master mode, with an HAproxy machine for simple load balancing/redundancy. When I am connected to one of the servers directly and try to update about 100,000 entries, it is completed including replication in about half a minute. When connecting through the proxy it takes usually over three whole minutes. Is it normal to have that type of latency? Is something amiss with my proxy configuration (included below)? This is getting really frustrating as I assumed the proxy would do some sort of load balancing, or at least have little to no overhead. #--------------------------------------------------------------------- # Example configuration for a possible web application. See the # full configuration options online. # # http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.4/doc/configuration.txt # #--------------------------------------------------------------------- #--------------------------------------------------------------------- # Global settings #--------------------------------------------------------------------- global # to have these messages end up in /var/log/haproxy.log you will # need to: # # 1) configure syslog to accept network log events. This is done # by adding the '-r' option to the SYSLOGD_OPTIONS in # /etc/sysconfig/syslog # # 2) configure local2 events to go to the /var/log/haproxy.log # file. A line like the following can be added to # /etc/sysconfig/syslog # # local2.* /var/log/haproxy.log # log 127.0.0.1 local2 # chroot /var/lib/haproxy # pidfile /var/run/haproxy.pid maxconn 4096 user haproxy group haproxy daemon #debug #quiet # turn on stats unix socket stats socket /var/lib/haproxy/stats #--------------------------------------------------------------------- # common defaults that all the 'listen' and 'backend' sections will # use if not designated in their block #--------------------------------------------------------------------- defaults mode tcp log global #option tcplog option dontlognull option tcp-smart-accept option tcp-smart-connect #option http-server-close #option forwardfor except 127.0.0.0/8 #option redispatch retries 3 #timeout http-request 10s #timeout queue 1m timeout connect 400 timeout client 500 timeout server 300 #timeout http-keep-alive 10s #timeout check 10s maxconn 2000 listen mysql-cluster 0.0.0.0:3306 mode tcp balance roundrobin option tcpka option httpchk server db01 192.168.15.118:3306 weight 1 inter 1s rise 1 fall 1 server db02 192.168.15.119:3306 weight 1 inter 1s rise 1 fall 1

  Read the article

• CDN Rerouting on 404 (file not yet in synch with original storage)

  - by Alan Ristic

  Here is the problem. I've setup my app(on EC2) to store uploaded images directly on Amazon S3. I'd like to be able to serve static files(cdn) from my 'home' server so I wrote script that does sync from S3. But there is a window of (at least) one minute in synch. Now I see two solutions on the problem of pics not been available on 'home' server here: 1.I write script on EC2 (where the app resides) to fetch from DB pics that have status of "not-yet-synch", which is default state when user uploads picture. The script then does a ping to picture and if it gets OK response, updates DB from "not-yet-synch" to "synch". 2.Prefered solution would be to let apache (in this case) redirect request for an image if it sees 404 (e.g. doesent find image requested) to S3. This way I wouldn't need script from solution 1. So what approach do you suggest I take in solving this redundancy problem? Or what is practice in production environments? To further clarify; I'd like so serve images first from 'home' server, if that fails serve them from S3. Tnx, Alan

  Read the article

• DAS vs SAN storage for serving 2 to 4 nodes

  - by Luke404

  We currently have 4 Linux nodes with local storage, arranged in two active/passive pairs with storage mirrored using DRBD, running virtual machines (actually using Xen Hypervisor) for typical hosting workloads (mail, web, a couple VPS, etc.). We're approaching the (presumed) maximum IOPS of those servers, and we're planning to migrate to an external storage solution with two active nodes, with capacity for up to four active nodes. Since we're an all-Dell shop I've done some research and found the MD3200 / MD3200i products should be the ones we're looking for. We are pretty sure we won't be attaching more than 4 hosts on a single storage and I'm wondering if there is any clear advantage for one or the other. In theory I should be able to attach 4 SAS hosts to a single MD3200 (single links on a single controller MD3200, or dual redundant SAS links from each host to a dual-controller MD3200), or 4 iSCSI hosts to a single MD3200i (directly on its 4 GigE ports without any switch, again with dual links for the dual controller option). Both setups should let us implement live VM migration since all hosts can access all the LUNs at the same time, and also some shared filesystem like GFS2 or OCFS2. Also, both setups should allow full redundancy of the whole system (assuming dual controllers in the storage). One difference I can see is that the DAS solution is actually limited to 4 hosts while the iSCSI one should be able to grow to more hosts (adding two GigE switches to the mix). One point for the iSCSI solution is that it would allow us to start out with our current nodes and upgrade them at a later time (we can't add other SAS controllers, but they already have 4 GigE ports each). With the right (iSCSI|SAS) controllers I should be able to connect diskless nodes and boot them off the external storage which I think is a good thing (get rid of any local storage). On the other hand, I would have thought the SAS one to be cheaper but it seems like an MD3200 actually costs a little less than an MD3200i (?) (please note: I've used Dell gear in my examples since that's what we're looking for but I assume the same goes with other vendors) I would like to know if my assumptions above are correct, and if I'm missing any important difference between the two setups.

  Read the article

• Redis as substitution for Memcache

  - by Boban P.

  We have distributed web app, and for now, as session handler, we use two separate instances of memcache in redundancy, so everything that is written in one memcache is also written in other. Memcache is fairly easy to install, use, and maintain but we have one problem: if one memcache fail, everything is fine, php comunicate with other instance which has all data (although, half of connections have a delay because they try to use failed one, wait a little, and then contact other memcache). When failed instance comes back to life again, it starts up empty. If established session request data from that instance, session fails, and user logs out, and that happens to half of users.So, we are thinking about to switch to redis for session handling, and maybe keep memcache for cache only. My questions are: If we setup redis instances as master-slave, and if master fails, can sentinel promote slave as new master and when old master comes back to life, will it stay as slave or not? Is redis call malloc at startup to allocate part of memory, like memcache or varnish, or it calls malloc for every key inserted? And what are pros and cons of that?

  Read the article

• Prevent nginx from redirecting traffic from https to http when used as a reverse proxy

  - by Chris Pratt

  Here's my abbreviated nginx vhost conf: upstream gunicorn { server 127.0.0.1:8080 fail_timeout=0; } server { listen 80; listen 443 ssl; server_name domain.com ~^.+\.domain\.com$; location / { try_files $uri @proxy; } location @proxy { proxy_pass_header Server; proxy_redirect off; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto https; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Scheme $scheme; proxy_connect_timeout 10; proxy_read_timeout 120; proxy_pass http://gunicorn; } } The same server needs to serve both HTTP and HTTPS, however, when the upstream issues a redirect (for instance, after a form is processed), all HTTPS requests are redirected to HTTP. The only thing I have found that will correct this issue is changing proxy_redirect to the following: proxy_redirect http:// https://; That works wonderfully for requests coming from HTTPS, but if a redirect is issued over HTTP it also redirects that to HTTPS, which is a problem. Out of desperation, I tried: if ($scheme = 'https') { proxy_redirect http:// https://; } But nginx complains that proxy_redirect isn't allowed here. The only other option I can think of is to define the two servers separately and set proxy_redirect only on the SSL one, but then I would have duplicate the rest of the conf (there's a lot in the server directive that I omitted for simplicity sake). I know I could also use an include directive to factor out the redundancy, but I really want to keep just one conf file without any dependencies. So, first, is there something I'm missing that will negate the problem entirely? Or, second, if not, is there any other way (besides including an external file) to factor out the redundant config information so that I can separate out the HTTP and HTTPS versions of the server config?

  Read the article

• Device CAL, User Cal or Processor license needed for SQL 2008 (architecture explained inside)?

  - by nycgags

  So we have a number of servers in the Amazon cloud running SQL Server Standard edition to aggregate data. For that purpose we are fine, the licensing is handled by our contract with Amazon, no problem there. For the beefier work, we want to install Enterprise Edition (EE) on our servers processing raw data so that we can take advantage of table partitioning. We currently have 3 servers aggregating data from about 40 node servers, all 43 of these servers are running standard edition which is fine. We also have 4 servers running standard processing the raw data, but I think we can get away with 2 (for redundancy) running Enterprise Edition. We have 2-3 dba's that access these DW servers for maintenance (using the same windows login via remote desktop). So visually: 40 -- 3 -- [2] -- 2 -- 1 nodes -- aggregators -- raw (which we want to run EE) -- calculators -- datawarehouse Nodes PUSH to aggregators, Raws PULL from aggregators, Calculators PULL from Raw, Calculators PUSH to datwarehouse I am specifying the push vs. pull in case that changes how the # of licenses is calculated. Q1) how many device (or user) CAL's do we need? Q2) do I need to speak with someone from MSFT to find out if it is ok to install in the Amazon Cloud (Amazon said we need to verify it is ok in our license terms)? Q3) what happens if another device tries to access a server with the limited number of device CAL's? Q4) Are the device CAL's simultaneous number of devices or total? Q5) Do Device and User CAL's cost the same or is there a difference? Q6) Would we need to buy a processor license (we are hoping not to)?

  Read the article

• Raid 5 with hot spare or RAID 10 with no hot spare?

  - by Boden

  Yes, this is on of those "do my job for me" questions, have some pity:) I'm at the limit for what I can do with the number of hard drives in a server without spending a substantial amount of money. I have four drives left to configure, and I can either set them up as a RAID 5 and dedicate a hot spare, or a RAID 10 with no hot spare. The size of each will be the same, and the RAID 5 will offer enough performance. I'm RAID 5 shy, but I also don't like the idea of running without a hot spare. I'm not so interested in degraded performance, but the amount of time the system is without adequate redundancy. The server and drives are under a 13x5 4 hour response contract (although I happen to know that the nearest service provider is at least 2-3 hours away by car in the winter). I should note that the server also has two RAID 1 arrays which would also be protected by the hot spare. Why don't they make drive cages with 9 bays! Heh.

  Read the article

• External Storage for 2TB of backups and 4TB of data RAID level? HW vs Software?

  - by Jerry Mayers

  I have a Mac Mini set up as a media center/file server. Currently I just have a hodgepodge mess of external drives for storage. I'm maxed out, and I have some new laptops on the way with much larger drives and I need to work out a good storage solution for backing them up, as well as storing media on the server. I need around 2 TB of storage for the time machine backups from my various systems and around 2 TB more for media. I would like to build this to handle around 6 TB total so I have some growing room. Since I'm using a Mac Mini as the server I need to use external enclosure(s) that support USB 2 or Firewire 800 (preferred) or gigabit Ethernet. Performance of the system isn't a huge concern since the majority of the access from other computers is done over 802.11N. I plan on using 2TB drives, for the final version, but initially I'll try and use my existing 2 (1TB) drives + some new 2TB drives, and swap the 1TB ones out as I fill up. As to the actual questions: Should I use hardware RAID in some enclosure? Because if the enclosure dies I have to find an identical one to get to my data right? Wouldn't a software RAID be better as I can use any method of connecting the drives to the system? Remember OS X server is my OS. What if I had to reinstall OS X, can I restore the software RAID easily? What RAID version should I use? For the 2TB used for the time machine disk I don't see why I need RAID here, just a single 2TB drive since its already the backup, but for the remaining 4TB it would be the only copy of the data so I should build some redundancy. I had a RAID 5 setup using a cheep RAID PCI card years ago running RAID 5 in a 2 TB array and when a drive died it wanted 48 hours to rebuild. Is this crazy slow for a setup of this size or is this to be expected? Any suggestions as to drive enclosures?

  Read the article

• HP/Lenovo alternative to Buffalo iSCSI TerraStation?

  - by Robin Day

  I'm looking at virtualising some of our infrastructure in order to allow for more resiliance and future expandability. We have successfully virtualised on single servers with Direct Attached Storage and are now looking for a more future proof solution using a high powered host (or two) and a SAN (or two). I'm thinking that the host machine will probably be an HP ProLiant DL360 G7 (all of our exisiting infrastructure is HP). Unfortunately, I am new to the world of SANs. From what I can see, the Buffalo Terrastation III is all I would need in order to setup an iSCSI SAN for VMWare to use. However, I'm a little reticent to go that way as it's a bit too "entry level" for my liking. In particular I would be very keen for more redundancy, power, networking, etc. I'm also very aware that you "get what you pay for". Therefore, can anyone reccommend equivalents from the big boys? HP/Lenovo? I have searched high and low on the HP site and seen many options but am struggling to work out if it is all the hardware I will need. Some options appear to need separate controllers from disk enclosures, etc.

  Read the article

• Server 2008 R2 domain windows update strategy

  - by Joost Verdaasdonk

  Let me explain my question a bit. We are a small company that have now made the first move to a bigger network. For now the network contains of 5 servers 2008 R2 (dc,sql,web,etc..). Everything we need is now in place but for now we cannot afford to finish the network by implementing redundant systems. (secondary dc, dns, sql cluster, etc...) For some people this is hard to understand but this is the current situation. (and we are aware and will fix this when we can) Because we want to keep our system secure and up to date I've made sure that all systems are updated regularly. The problem is ofc that the nr of updates Microsoft rolls out that need a system reboot seam to occur more often. (maybe I'm wrong and it just feels like this) ;-) In our domain servers depend on each other for services (like SQL, WEB, or whatever) so just rebooting a server at will is NOT a good idea! For now I update all of them without rebooting at once. After all are up to date I bring them down in the order they are depended on each other. After this I reboot all of them in the inverse order. I understand ofc that if I DID have redundancy in my system that updating and rebooting would not be such a problem because the server task could be taken over by another node but this is something we generally need to add when we can. So my question is. If you read my above situation can you suggest me more Update strategies or general ideas that could help me do this process in a better / faster way? Thanks for your thoughts!

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 - RAID 5 Fails on Reboot

  - by Adam

  Hey, I've got an install of Windows Server 2008 Enterprise. It's running software RAID-5 with five disks. The disks were originally formatted under Windows Server 2003, but came up fine once I installed Windows Server 2008. The issue I'm having is that every time I reboot the server, the RAID comes up with a "Failed Redundancy" - the data stays available. I have 4 disks on a PCI SATA controller, and one of the disks connected to the motherboard's on-board SATA ports. (The other on-board port has the system disk connected.) I was having Disk #4 fail consistently, so I tried swapping the cables on the controller end. I swapped the on-board RAID disk with one on the PCI controller. Same issue now, expect with disk #1. Once the system's up, I can reactivate the RAID, it will resync for a while, then go to "Healthy", and will stay that way for an indefinite amount of time - until I reboot. As soon as I reboot, the disk drops again. I've ruled out disk + cable with the recabling. I don't believe it would be the controller as it seems to work fine most of the time - only failing on reboot, and the other port on the same controller connects the system disk - which is clearly working. I did look in the event log, but didn't see anything particularly relevant (although I didn't know what I was looking for - just looked for anything with a "Warning" or "Error" symbol that looked disk-related :)). I'm not particularly familiar with RAID on Windows, does anyone have any idea why this might be doing this? Any idea how to fix it? Any suggestions appreciated! -- Adam

  Read the article

• Whats the best cloud backup solution for a small scale server envoirnment?

  - by nbv4

  I have a server that runs a postgres database that contains about 200MB of data. Currently I have a cron job setup on my home computer which: ssh's into my server runs a remote script which makes a backup of the database scp's that dump over to my local hard drive for storage. Each dump is 20MiB. does this every six hours (one months of backups is roughly 2GiB) The problem with this setup is that if my local machine goes down for whatever reason, no backups will be made. Also, I can't have the cron run from the server, because I can't have it scp'd to my local machine from my server (firewalls and all that crap). My local machine is running Ubuntu 10.04, and my server is Ubuntu 9.10 server edition. I looked into Ubuntu One, but currently it's gui-only. I also looked into dropbox, but it's a pain in the ass to get setup in linux without gui support. Amazon S3 looks good but it's not free (yet dirt cheap). Is there any other alternative that I should look into? I'd prefer something where I can just have my script dump the database into a directory, and have the backup service 'watch' that folder and sync accordingly. I can maybe also have my local machine sync to the cloud backup so I have even more redundancy, plus easy access to my backups for use in testing.

  Read the article

• HP/IBM alternative to Buffalo iSCSI TerraStation?

  - by Robin Day

  I'm looking at virtualising some of our infrastructure in order to allow for more resiliance and future expandability. We have successfully virtualised on single servers with Direct Attached Storage and are now looking for a more future proof solution using a high powered host (or two) and a SAN (or two). I'm thinking that the host machine will probably be an HP ProLiant DL360 G7 (all of our exisiting infrastructure is HP). Unfortunately, I am new to the world of SANs. From what I can see, the Buffalo Terrastation III is all I would need in order to setup an iSCSI SAN for VMWare to use. However, I'm a little reticent to go that way as it's a bit too "entry level" for my liking. In particular I would be very keen for more redundancy, power, networking, etc. I'm also very aware that you "get what you pay for". Therefore, can anyone reccommend equivalents from the big boys? HP/IBM? I have searched high and low on the HP site and seen many options but am struggling to work out if it is all the hardware I will need. Some options appear to need separate controllers from disk enclosures, etc.

  Read the article

• P2V Wouldn't Boot, Rebuilt initrd, Need to Clean Up

  - by Mike Soule

  We have a CentOS 5.4 server (build 2.6.18-164.el5xen). We went to P2V this server so we can have redundancy, the physical only has one PSU. The P2V only completed 99% of the way, we have a VMWare ticket opened, but they marked the ticket as low priority. I was able to boot into a rescue disc of Red Hat 5.4 and rebuild the initrd with the help of this blog post. Now the only issue is the original server had a modified initrd, which was also from a different OS build and made by an outside provider. We do not have a document outlining modifications. My question is, is it at all possible to copy the initrd off of the physical server and replace it on the virtual and some how have the virtual machine boot? Thanks for any input. Edit: I copied the initrd img from the physical and it recreated the original issue. Here is a screen capture of the error. http://i.imgur.com/MqC73.jpg Edit2: echo Scanning logical volumes lvm vgscan --ignorelockingfailure echo Activating logical volumes lvm vgchange -ay --ignorelockingfailure VolGroup00 resume /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol01 echo Creating root device. mkrootdev -t ext3 -o defaults,ro /dev/VolGroup00/LogVol00 echo Mounting root filesystem. mount /sysroot

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >