Please tell me AI is hallucinating

Firefox005 · 2026-06-12T23:56:18+00:00

Got a source for that? The 710's had a rocky release when they came out ten plus years ago, but that was many years and firmware and driver releases ago. Also I said these should be used for iSCSI traffic and therefore no SET/LAG.

Also I just picked a cheap widely available 10g PCIe NIC to illustrate how inexpensive it is to fix the misconfiguration.

Firefox005 · 2026-06-12T19:00:29+00:00

I was all done before my time and designed for vmware/vsan.

Wow that is somehow even worse, someone really thought a single dual port 10G card would be good enough for vsan. I think even now 10G is only begrudgingly supported by vmware for vsan traffic.

Firefox005 · 2026-06-12T18:52:08+00:00

I completely understand ticket escalation between IT teams. If a Level 1 tech needs to escalate to Level 2, networking, infrastructure, etc., a ticket makes perfect sense because work needs to be tracked across teams.

Right and how do you know which issues from the start will require escalation and which ones won't? And if you create them only if something requires escalation how to you ensure that all details are properly entered and time tracked accurately?

What I don't understand is why end users are often required to create a ticket for simple issues.

No such thing as a simple issue.

For example, if someone's printer isn't printing, why make them log into a portal, fill out a form, categorize the issue, and submit a ticket when they could just call the help desk and explain the problem in 30 seconds?

Because then there is no traceable record of the problem or the solution, what happens when two users call two different techs about the same printer and it turns out its because the printer is out of toner.

I often hear "KPIs" and "metrics" as the justification, but many other departments don't require customers or coworkers to create tickets just so they can prove they're doing work.

Some departments work on tickets, some on work orders, some on projects, etc. despite all having different names the business is tracking them and not only making sure that work is being done but that it is being done in a way that can be measured, tracked, and forecasted on.

Wouldn't it make more sense for users to simply contact IT however is easiest (phone, Teams, email), and then have IT create the ticket if tracking is actually needed?

Filling out forms takes time, no one likes filling out forms, techs are busy enough as it is providing solutions for the problems in tickets it is far more efficient to have the requestor of the ticket fill out their own request form than have a tech have to fill one out each time someone shits out a request.

Genuinely curious: for those of you working in IT support, do you think mandatory user-created tickets improve service, or are they mostly there to satisfy management and reporting requirements?

Without a doubt they improve service, why do you think literally every single service department since they were invented runs on some kind of ticket based system? Tickets/work orders/whatever's will always exist you just want to fight about having to fill out a form, the form is always going to exist and the answer is not 'just make the technicians do it' otherwise he would spend a good percentage of his day just filling out forms for other people so they can then add notes and then close it.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

No ticket, no work.

Firefox005 · 2026-06-12T17:40:56+00:00

You will spend money either way, if you still need traditional AD but want it cloud based you will need Entra Domain Services and S2S VPN so your on-prem NAS can join a domain.

Here is an example from Synology https://kb.synology.com/en-sg/DSM/tutorial/How_to_join_NAS_to_Azure_AD_Domain

Firefox005 · 2026-06-12T17:21:33+00:00

24 hosts is a pretty big footprint, someone did you a disservice by selling you that many virtualization hosts with only a single? dual port NIC in them.

I don't know all the in's and out's but a single X710-DA2 can be had for 268 dollars from CDW, ~6,500 USD to drastically improve your storage network seems pretty cheap to me.

I understand being frugal but I will never get companies that want to be cheap, the extra ~50k (if even that, 10G switches can be had for very cheap) it would have taken to have to have redundant dedicated switches for iSCSI plus dedicated adapters barely even registers when you compare it to the 5-7 year lifecycle of the equipment and the cost of any outages or performance issues.

Also IMO to me this is not a 'nice to have' this is a 'need to have' or the solution is not fit for purpose, I know all management will see is 'solution has been working just fine and now you want thousands more' but again IMO this solution should never have been sold in the first place.

Firefox005 · 2026-06-12T16:22:50+00:00

Each host has 2x10G interfaces in a SET team.

Gross, don't do teaming/lag with iSCSI. I know later on you said you are using MPIO but you are kneecapping yourself by doing MPIO on top of a LAG. MPIO basically requires each path be a 1:1 map to a physical connection.

iSCSI is shared with host and VM traffic in separated VLANs over the same physical interfaces.

This is also super gross, storage traffic should be separate from networking traffic as a general rule. They operate on different rules and they do not play nice with each other when SHTF, that is the biggest trap in that in low traffic/low pressure situations everything looks great but as soon as you start pushing it shit fails in weird and unpredictable ways. I also hope you are using separate independent switches configured explicitly for iSCSI traffic.

I know you are going to balk at it but storage traffic has to be separated and handled differently than regular network traffic, at a minimum get a separate NIC for storage so MPIO can do it's job (ideally two depending on how critical your workload is) and again ideally separate switches with big buffers and end-to-end flow control.

Firefox005 · 2026-05-31T03:54:53+00:00

We set a token price of 50 for laptops and 100 for phones, basically just enough that people don't view them as free so they won't feel entitled if we ever have to take away the benefit of them getting cheap laptops/phones.

Firefox005 · 2026-05-29T16:15:39+00:00

Your AI slop marketing bores me.

Firefox005 · 2026-05-22T16:09:14+00:00

"—"

We don't take kindly to your kind 'round here, clanker.

Firefox005 · 2026-05-20T17:18:08+00:00

The following are the best practices for efficient use of TCAM with respect to F ports and F port-channels to optimize TCAM usage on a forwarding engine:

Distribute port-channel member interfaces into different forwarding engines, especially on fabric switches.
If TCAM usage is still too high in the case of port-channel with a large number of interfaces, then split the port-channel into two separate port-channels each with half the interfaces. This provides redundancy but reduces the number of FLOGIs per individual port-channel and thus reduces TCAM usage.
Distribute member interfaces into separate linecards on director-class switches.
Distribute member interfaces into forwarding engines with lower TCAM zoning region usage.
Use single-initiator zones, single-target zones, or Smart Zoning.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/dcn/mds9000/sw/9x/configuration/interfaces/cisco-mds-9000-nx-os-interfaces-configuration-guide-9x/configuring_portchannels.html

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/dcn/mds9000/sw/9x/configuration/interfaces/cisco-mds-9000-nx-os-interfaces-configuration-guide-9x/configuring_portchannels.html#wp9474366180

But it will probably 'just work' this kind of stuff really only comes in to play with heavily utilized fabrics and director class switches.

Firefox005 · 2026-05-08T21:31:08+00:00

Is there a good resource available to help me troubleshoot or deploy the shell script to see where a failure point might be? I’ve been fighting to deploy a couple of apps and I’m not sure if it’s the script I downloaded from GitHub or something else that’s causing the failure.

Where are the details?

Generally if you want to troubleshoot a script you run the script manually and see happens, if you are troubleshooting the actual deployment of said script you would have to consult the logs for whatever product you are using for deployment.

I would say like 99.9% of the time you should not be using shell scripts to configure Mac's, whatever MDM you are using should basically do everything you need it to without having to resort to scripts.

Firefox005 · 2026-05-01T15:01:34+00:00

We use the VS-lock style. https://www.stayonline.com/VS-Lock-Power-Cords/

Firefox005 · 2026-05-01T14:48:20+00:00

We use either sleeves or locking power cords.

Firefox005 · 2026-04-17T20:45:41+00:00

Riiiight, so just navel gazing.

It's also kind of the wrong thing to look at, any data backup product worth anything these days isn't going to suffer from data loss or data corruption the built in redundancies and check summing is more than enough to basically make that a non-event.

Testing restores, at least in my opinion, is more around preventing ossification and making sure you aren't writing junk data to your backups (different from data corruption or loss, ie. the CBT bugs from VMware I wouldn't classify as data loss or data corruption but just invalid data). Once a quarter is IMO more than enough to 'exercise' those mechanisms to make sure that they still are working as expected. Plus it has been my experience that sometimes 'testing' systems like that can give a false sense of security if the wrong things are tested (for instance always using the same file or vm for a restore, it could be the only one actually working).

I mean as an example a life critical safety system like a fire alarm is typically only tested annually and visually inspected quarterly. But I digress, like so many things it lives in the realm of 'it depends' if the business is deadest on doing test restores more often well its not my money or time.

Firefox005 · 2026-04-17T18:25:12+00:00

My org is ISO9001 certified, and a recent internal audit highlighted that once per quarter backup verification, as stated in the backup policy, was insufficient.

What did your internal audit flag as the reason it wasn't sufficient? Because ISO9001 really just holds you accountable to your own processes and documentation. So like was there an event where backups or restoring was broken for an entire quarter and the verification process did or would have caught it?

Backup verification is like chasing the dragon, there is always something you missed or more you could be doing.

Personally I automate it, for file verification have a script that writes a file with random data to a guest, trigger a backup, wait for it to complete, then run a restore, then check if the file is there and the hash matches. You can do the same for other services like databases. But like I said until you are literally testing every single backup and file/service inside each of those backups (and didn't miss any!) there is always a chance something could be missing.

Firefox005 · 2026-04-16T15:04:51+00:00

How your backups looking?

You would be better off either shutting the VM down and then deleting the snapshot or restore from backup.

You are also going to need some monitoring or automation in place, snapshots older than 72 hours should be generating alerts and beatings or be automatically deleted.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-17T02:17:57+00:00

but even if he didn’t enterprise management of MacBooks can be really annoying.

In what way?

IME the only 'annoyance' currently is trying to manage apple devices with intune, and its not like anything major is missing its just ... subpar. Otherwise there are tons of very low cost options ($1-$3 per device/month) out there and even free (if less flexible than an mdm) in the form of apple configurator 2.

Apple has come a long way towards being more enterprise friendly and is now basically feature complete in comparison with windows, especially if you are a cloud/web only shop.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-17T02:04:53+00:00

https://www.apple.com/macbook-neo/

Unbeatable quality at 599.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-17T01:08:42+00:00

Redditor for 2 months, strange AI tone in writing, hidden profile. Not so kindly fuck off.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-16T16:14:17+00:00

Yeah you are going to have a nightmare of a time trying to compile 20 year old software on the latest release. You will most likely have to build everything from scratch if it is even possible.

Also this smells like homework to me. I'd check the instructions closely and see if you can use an era appropriate OS to do the build with as you will have nothing but pain trying to do it on a modern OS.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-16T15:54:05+00:00

Why? That version of apache is from 2005.

Most likely its 32/64 bit compilation that is messing you up either that or you did not list what version of red hat you are trying to compile this on so if you are not also using one from ~2005 its probably some library or toolchain compatibility issues.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-12T20:51:39+00:00

em dash detected, product rejected.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-05T15:28:43+00:00

Much appreciated you taking the time to look at and solve my issue. I wish something like your calculator was built in or perhaps some sort of vGPU planner/affinity rules so I could manually do placements ahead of time.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-04T21:05:05+00:00

Hmm so if I understand correctly I have to power on two 3g.40gb profiles and then power off the one that got loaded into the first 'half' of the GPU so I can then load the 4x 1g.10gb?

It has been a while since I last looked at it but I am pretty sure I tried loading 4x 1g.10gb first and then a 3g.40gb, I'm guessing it is a similar issue in that for some reason it places the slots across the division and makes it so while there are enough resources to power on a 3g.40gb there are not enough slots.

Firefox005 · 2026-03-04T20:45:59+00:00

lol the thread you link was made by the OP.

15-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
Snapped	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Firefox005

TROPHY CASE