|
So a ticket came in... customer's server keeps locking up I've never seen anyone have a Linux server run to the point of maxing out both physical memory and swap space. I'm guessing their jobs for their imaging program wasn't configured correctly.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Been a while since I've seen one of these. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
n3rdal3rt posted:http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2015/07/08/new-york-stock-exchange-halts-trading/ Not me this time, but I've been involved with a ticket that was for an issue which was the lead item in national news and it was a very uncomfortable experience. I was just assisting and I'm still thankful I was at lunch when the ticket came in so it got assigned to some other poor sod as the lead engineer instead of me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Ah well Server 2003 leaves support next week so at least the box will be given about four or five more business-critical applications rather than pay for another 2008/2012 license Fixed
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Ah well Server 2003 leaves support next week so at least the box will be decommissioned I'm not sure there's a lol emoticon big enough for this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
MJP posted:Fixed Think that's bad? I had a client at my previous job who refused to spend any money and was on the company's least expensive MSP contract. Last I worked with the guy, they had several XP machines still on the network and at least 2 servers running 2003. The kicker? He told us, under no circumstances, were we to install patches on ANY of his workstations, partly because of the XP thing, the other part being that one of their XP boxes ran some outdated time clock software and he didn't want to spend money for a new PC and new software. This was the same idiot that had 3 different AV software suites installed on his work PC and couldn't figure out why all 3 would randomly give errors about conflicting software or false positives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:53
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Been a while since I've seen one of these. Disgruntled employee or sheer incompetence?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Disgruntled employee or sheer incompetence? Leaning towards the latter, but hell if I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Ah well Server 2003 leaves support next week so at least the box will be decommissioned You hope so. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Been a while since I've seen one of these. Turn on PAE. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Leaning towards the latter, but hell if I know. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:Not me this time, but I've been involved with a ticket that was for an issue which was the lead item in national news and it was a very uncomfortable experience. I was just assisting and I'm still thankful I was at lunch when the ticket came in so it got assigned to some other poor sod as the lead engineer instead of me.  if it's not behind an NDA of course. Or just link to the news haha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Baconroll posted:Not me this time, but I've been involved with a ticket that was for an issue which was the lead item in national news and it was a very uncomfortable experience. I was just assisting and I'm still thankful I was at lunch when the ticket came in so it got assigned to some other poor sod as the lead engineer instead of me. So the united airlines stuff eh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Turn on PAE. Supposedly, it is on. But this same guy told me he had a 64 bit system initially. After all, why would it have so much RAM if it were only 32-bit? Then I showed him it was 32 bit, and he argued with me about it? And now he's come back saying that PAE is on and it shouldn't matter! Well dude, I can show you right now that your system is completely incapable of using more than 4GB of RAM at the moment. No matter what we do, no more than that is used. So... stubblyhead posted:Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Dude's dumb and malicious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:35
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Supposedly, it is on. But this same guy told me he had a 64 bit system initially. After all, why would it have so much RAM if it were only 32-bit? honestly at this point it just sounds like he doesn't want to be wrong
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
namol posted:So the united airlines stuff eh? Stock exchange probably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Been a while since I've seen one of these. Which version of Server 2003? Apparently that makes a big difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Microsoft_Windows
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 03:18
|
|
Slanderer posted:Which version of Server 2003? Apparently that makes a big difference: Maybe this bit of information led the guy to believe that Server 2003 32-bit supports 64 GB of RAM with PAE on, when in fact the version being used isn't enterprise and therefore doesn't support it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Maybe this bit of information led the guy to believe that Server 2003 32-bit supports 64 GB of RAM with PAE on, when in fact the version being used isn't enterprise and therefore doesn't support it. Oh it is enterprise. But even if PAE is enabled, his system won't use more than 4gb. The problem is that he's running out of memory. This server is running exchange, plus a small MySQL server, and is the domain controller to boot. It chugs and halts along. When he tries to add a backup to the mix, the whole house of cards crumbles. This, of course, means that it's our backup program causing the issue. He just refuses to believe that the system isn't using the available memory despite me showing him it's only ever using 4gb in like four ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Disgruntled employee or sheer incompetence? If it was the former the extra RAM would probably be missing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 03:55
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Oh it is enterprise. But even if PAE is enabled, his system won't use more than 4gb. Isn't PAE meant to allow you to use more than 4gb? Like, that's the purpose. I don't know really anything about PAE, is it some sort of paging thing where the machine can only access 4 gigabytes of memory at a time?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Isn't PAE meant to allow you to use more than 4gb? Like, that's the purpose. I don't know really anything about PAE, is it some sort of paging thing where the machine can only access 4 gigabytes of memory at a time? In practice PAE tends to allow the OS to map various programs' own memory spaces all over a much larger than 4 GB address space, but the programs are still usually bound by 32 bit limits. PAE's primary benefit is making it so that 32 bit machines don't have as much of their RAM address space eaten up by having to map in the video memory etc. So if, for example, exchange is running out RAM due to handling too many things, it's running out of its process address space and thus can't use more than 4 GB of the system's 48 GB of RAM at absolute best, in reality probably a lot less. On 32 bit Windows Server 2003, you can only use more than 4 GB of RAM at all with enterprise which supports up to 64 GB, but even if they had that if the server's not running a whole bunch of processes it'll never get close to using the 48 GB of RAM installed, unless they were intentionally using a RAM drive to eat up some of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Isn't PAE meant to allow you to use more than 4gb? Like, that's the purpose. I don't know really anything about PAE, is it some sort of paging thing where the machine can only access 4 gigabytes of memory at a time? The 4gb limit came from a 32 bit architecture limits the memory address space. Processors and chipsets that support PAE have additional address lines, which allows a memory space of 2^36 bytes instead of 2^32. If the OS kernel supports PAE, it will map multiple page tables to the physical memory. I don't believe this changes the limitation on the size of the virtual address space an individual process can use, though, so you either need to use tricks to get a process to use more memory, or just have multiple processes. PAE is also related to the 3GB barrier, which I vaguely remember but don't have time to refresh my memory on just right now: I think maybe PAE brought the actual memory limit of Windows XP (for instance) from 3gb to 4gb (but no more than that). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:The 4gb limit came from a 32 bit architecture limits the memory address space. Processors and chipsets that support PAE have additional address lines, which allows a memory space of 2^36 bytes instead of 2^32. If the OS kernel supports PAE, it will map multiple page tables to the physical memory. I don't believe this changes the limitation on the size of the virtual address space an individual process can use, though, so you either need to use tricks to get a process to use more memory, or just have multiple processes. Yeah the "3 GB" is just about how video ram and other non-main RAM needs to be mapped into the address space, and as such it's often a waste to get more than about 2.5 to 3.5 GB of RAM in an old 32 bit system because of it. The only way to get real close to your full 4 GB in XP was basically to buy a video card with near-nil video RAM onboard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Isn't PAE meant to allow you to use more than 4gb? Like, that's the purpose. I don't know really anything about PAE, is it some sort of paging thing where the machine can only access 4 gigabytes of memory at a time? Yeah. I worded my post badly. I'm not saying that PAE never allows anyone to go past 4GB. I'm saying that even if he's enabled it here, his system still isn't using more than 4GB. He says PAE is enabled, but he's lied before and, frankly, I don't care. It's not my problem. We've demonstrably proved that his system is not using more than 4GB of RAM, and that his server is crashing because it runs out of memory. Doesn't matter if he's got 48GB installed. It tops out at 4GB. I'm just venting because the guy is both dumb and malicious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Stock exchange probably. Maybe the big NASDAQ hack?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Yeah. I worded my post badly. I'm not saying that PAE never allows anyone to go past 4GB. I'm saying that even if he's enabled it here, his system still isn't using more than 4GB. It's super-easy to check if it really is enabled from the command line. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:13
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In practice PAE tends to allow the OS to map various programs' own memory spaces all over a much larger than 4 GB address space, but the programs are still usually bound by 32 bit limits. PAE's primary benefit is making it so that 32 bit machines don't have as much of their RAM address space eaten up by having to map in the video memory etc. So if, for example, exchange is running out RAM due to handling too many things, it's running out of its process address space and thus can't use more than 4 GB of the system's 48 GB of RAM at absolute best, in reality probably a lot less. Slanderer posted:The 4gb limit came from a 32 bit architecture limits the memory address space. Processors and chipsets that support PAE have additional address lines, which allows a memory space of 2^36 bytes instead of 2^32. If the OS kernel supports PAE, it will map multiple page tables to the physical memory. I don't believe this changes the limitation on the size of the virtual address space an individual process can use, though, so you either need to use tricks to get a process to use more memory, or just have multiple processes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Tomorrow, our infrastructure team is supposed to finish upgrading some servers to 2012R2. You know, ahead of the Server 2003 EOL. 140 servers, 90 of them are done. ~30 Server 2003 boxes left, no big deal. The rest are NT4. 3 of those are Domain Controllers for a domain that exclusively runs an ancient Lotus Notes setup. Think I'll call in a mental health day tomorrow and raise a beer to the memory of servers built when I was in Junior High.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Antioch posted:Tomorrow, our infrastructure team is supposed to finish upgrading some servers to 2012R2. You know, ahead of the Server 2003 EOL. Just finished taking my last two server 2003 boxes I had offline. I'm new at this place so I dont even know why they ever had them in the first place. A whole file/print server for a 1-2 person office? In any event I was all pumped to raise our AD forest to 2012 when I learned our Cisco ACS isnt compatible with it, so hooray upgrade time for me! Looking at replacing it with their new standard ICE but I don't think we'll need any of their mobility offerings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Long-time customer came in. Boss tells me that he wants "a tune-up, virus removal, and recovering some corrupted files..." Those three going together sets off red flags in my mind. So, after plugging it in and making sure the Ethernet isn't connected, I'm greeted with HELP_DECRYPT.jpg automatically opening up. Man has CryptoWall 3.0 and my boss is convinced we can decrypt AES-256.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Long-time customer came in. Boss tells me that he wants "a tune-up, virus removal, and recovering some corrupted files..." pay the ransom and bill it as an expense
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:pay the ransom and bill it as an expense This. So, CW 3.0 stepped up the encryption game a bit, eh? Thankfully *knocks on a stack of Lotus Notes floppies* I haven't had first hand experience with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Long-time customer came in. Boss tells me that he wants "a tune-up, virus removal, and recovering some corrupted files..." No backups huh? I've been hit by Cryptowall a few times now and it just doesn't bother me. I hunt down the person that did it and slash and burn their PC, then I mount my backups and restore over the affected poo poo. Big whoop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:06
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:No backups huh? I am mounting a quixotic effort to sanitize the machine and recover what I can but I am making no promises and I expect to get almost nothing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
NerdsMcGee posted:This. So, CW 3.0 stepped up the encryption game a bit, eh? Thankfully *knocks on a stack of Lotus Notes floppies* I haven't had first hand experience with it. They didn't have to step it up, it was already effectively impractical to break in less than a year, hell in less than a century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:13
|
|
posted:
|
I think you'd experience the heat death of the universe before you could bruteforce an AES-256 encrypted file.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I think you'd experience the heat death of the universe before you could bruteforce an AES-256 encrypted file. You will never need more than this much ram.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:29 |
|
spankmeister posted:I think you'd experience the heat death of the universe before you could bruteforce an AES-256 encrypted file. bitcoin's backed by math and protected by physics
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 19:20
|
|