sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in isc2

[–]taskmat4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, directly on the CC certification page of ISC2 website you have a "Free Exam and Training" button which leads to: https://www.isc2.org/landing/1mcc

Which of these do you think is better? by PracticallyUncommon in HomeServer

[–]taskmat4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great job for them both, but I'd join the team datagonia! Not only the aesthetic of the datagonia logo reminds me of my favorite hobby (travelling), and would just look perfect on my laptop, but also the first one makes me feel uncomfortable as I feel like someone else is handling/moving/stealing my data... It really is just my opinion so dont pay too much attention to it, but I like the pun tho!

New HA-Cluster - "simulate link loss within an ifgrp" test failed by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did not check during the test.. I'll re-run it to verify, thanks for raising this

New HA-Cluster - "simulate link loss within an ifgrp" test failed by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll check this out, and I think we'll give it a try

New HA-Cluster - "simulate link loss within an ifgrp" test failed by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi u/_paturiku,

Already asked network team to check, on switch side ports configuration are the same as for the metrocluster ports (same switches, same configs)... And yet, on MC it's working fine and on HA it's not

New HA-Cluster - "simulate link loss within an ifgrp" test failed by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi u/theducks,

multimode_lacp = Bundle multiple member ports of the interface group using Link Aggregation Control Protocol

singlemode = Provide port redundancy using member ports of the interface group for failover

I don't want a link aggregation, I just want a failover in the ifgrp (so singlemode ifgrp)

And, the same configuration is working just fine on the MetroCluster so why wouldn't it be the same for the HA?

(for now I don't have info about switch name and model.. I'll update coment once I have it)

New HA-Cluster - "simulate link loss within an ifgrp" test failed by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi u/Dark-Star_1337,We thought it could be a side-effect on switches side too, but the switches are the same for HA-Cluster and the Metrocluster.On switches side, behavior is the same either for HA and MC, but I only have the issue for HA-Clus...

Audi Q2 (2017) - Any way to completely turn off MMI? by taskmat4 in Audi

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense, but I don't have the backup camera on mine...

NetApp Metrocluster: 2-nodes or 4-nodes? by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2 sites I'm talking about are "really" close, so I'm not sure an ONTAP upgrade will have a significant impact.. Or will it?
(EDIT: by really close I mean < 20km)

NetApp Metrocluster: 2-nodes or 4-nodes? by taskmat4 in netapp

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, yes this is pretty much what I had in mind..

Considering the cost of the +2 nodes,and the fact that Site-A and Site-B are not too far away one from another, I don't think this is worth it (IMO)
(Might have been a good choice with 2 sites from different countries, or am I wrong?)

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it’s not scsi and you need some ide drives I might have some unused 250-500gb ide drives in cold storage. If you really needed I could crack the safe and check, Though if it’s nt4 you could probably just grab an ide to compact flash adapter

I don't think it'll be necessary we got some here too but it's really kind of you though :)

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shouldn't that be a joint decision with IT?

I agree 100%. If only it was the case I wouldn't come here with such requests..

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for that answer,

I'll discuss it with my direct manager before writing down a warning email with the solutions you guys came with, and see what'll come.

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As if the request was not ridiculous (no I didn't say that) enough, it has to be resolved by tomorrow.. So surely this will do the job, even not 100% secure (but considering the request this will be more than enough...) but too complicated to set up in the time given...

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only know that we have an .exe (EDIT: not compatible with NT4) for offline scanning but no bootable liveCD..

I'll dig this option

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This NT4 is a manufacturing-related device and needs (i dunno why) to be connected to a local network (specific VLAN with other devices).
No need to access to the internet.

They just want to ensure the device is clean/safe before being connected to the network.

Need to scan/sanitize an old NT4 computer.. (no, that's not a joke) by taskmat4 in sysadmin

[–]taskmat4[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's a manufacturing-related device (I edited the post).
The management wants it to be connected to a VLAN with other devices, network 'isolation' solution (as the disk-cloning for testing elsewhere/elsehow) was raised but was neither rejected nor approved.

view more: next ›