|
Okay, got it. Less parity data kicking around while retaining recoverability.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:So on the minimum dick counts, Wait, we are supposed to be going for minimum dick? I've been doing IT wrong this whole time! HPL posted:Okay, got it. Less parity data kicking around while retaining recoverability. There ya go. It's good practice to try to work out the useable storage of different drive/RAID combos to make sure you have it down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think I've got the reasoning behind the answer. I was thinking that there are three new disks of equal size, but if the disks were of different sizes, a parity array would allow for max space, whereas a mirrored array would be stuck at the least common denominator of two of the drives. I just labbed an example up on a server here at work because I'm loving bored. First thing to realize, Windows Storage Spaces is sort of like RAID, but it is not RAID, it's storage virtualization using ReFS. I still don't understand the behinds the scene stuff yet. I'm sure there's some whitepaper out there that gets into the details. Some of the concepts are similar, but it's not apples to apples really. Anyway, I took a 2012R2 server and added 3 disks to it. 20GB, 20GB and 30GB.  Then I created a Test Storage Pool of those 3 disks  Now I created a new Virtual Disk using that storage pool. The shots below represent the differences between using a Mirror, Parity, and Simple layout in that order. Mirror provides 32GB of usable space, Parity 36GB, and Simple 57GB of space. Mirror and parity will both survive a failure of one of the 3 drives in the storage pool. Simple will not. Parity will give you the most usable space using those 3 physical drives, while withstanding 1 physical drive failure.   
skipdogg fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:I just labbed an example up on a server here at work because I'm loving bored. Oh, we're talking about WSS. That's a little more complicated than RAID. Just memorize this: quote:Resilient storage. Storage Spaces provides three storage layouts (also known as resiliency types): https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831739.aspx
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
^^^ of course MS isn't using standard RAID numbers and has their own termsKillHour posted:Wait, we are supposed to be going for minimum dick? I've been doing IT wrong this whole time!  fantastic typo, good job me
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
HPL posted:Join a debate club, because half of the MCSA questions are tricks and traps. I completely agree, if anything a Microsoft Exam should start with test.txt and a Powershell Prompt that'll time out after an hour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:^^^ of course MS isn't using standard RAID numbers and has their own terms Well, in 5 minutes of researching, it seems like all 3 setups are striped. So it's not entirely the same as standard RAID. The same concepts of mirroring vs. parity should still apply, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:^^^ of course MS isn't using standard RAID numbers and has their own terms It's not standard RAID so why would they use standard RAID numbers? RAID5 doesn't just mean "one drive worth of parity" it means "data is stopped across all drives in the raid set and the parity block shifts by one block for each concurrent stripe." Storage spaces uses slabs and metadata to track their assignment rather than rote algorithmic placement, so it's not RAID anything, it's probably closer to an n+m erasure code.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
How much experience with AWS do you need for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate cert? Could I do it by labbing the objectives or do I need deeper production experience? Edit - that is the most entry level cert they have, right? Swink fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Is memorizing the flags for show conn protocol tcp on ASA a waste of time if I'm taking the 210-260? Been getting some questions over them in the practice test but I'm not sure what objective they would fall under and they aren't in the OCG
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Seems a bit excessive for the CCNA level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
That's what I was thinking, might go ahead and look into them anyways as they don't seem that complex. A for inbound session and B for outbound is the main difference right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Swink posted:How much experience with AWS do you need for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate cert? Could I do it by labbing the objectives or do I need deeper production experience? I studied for the cert but haven't taken the test, so I'm not exactly sure what's on it. Through studying though you should be able to at least try everything under the AWS free tier and get enough experience to pass. I think half the test is knowing the numbers (how much poo poo costs), a quarter is knowing the name of each service, and a quarter is useful experience on how different AWS products work together to build a whole solution (ec2 linked to s3 using rds in a vpc presented by a load balancer and accessed by r53 address)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Everything's all fun and games until wildcard masks anyways. Finished day 3 and wildcard masks didn't bother me at all. VLMS need some time to sink in though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
A cool trick for wildcard masks someone showed me is to take a full /32 'mask' and subtract the subnet mask for the host IP you're trying to define and you'll have the wildcard mask.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Wildcard masks are easy sauce. If you can do subnetting it's just the opposite of the subnet mask. 255.255.252.0 is 0.0.3.255.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
VLSM is something that eventually just clicks for people. Often visibly. As in, you can see it on their face when they finally get subnetting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Always, always double-check your subnetting-type questions by working it out in binary. It only takes a minute and unless you're super network man, chances are it will help you catch a snag or two, especially on the Cisco exams where there's no going back after hitting "next".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
HPL posted:Always, always double-check your subnetting-type questions by working it out in binary. It only takes a minute and unless you're super network man, chances are it will help you catch a snag or two, especially on the Cisco exams where there's no going back after hitting "next". Time permitting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:Finished day 3 and wildcard masks didn't bother me at all. Give me a mask that defines all the odd addresses starting at 10.1.0.1  My instructor made sure we understood the bitwise math involved in these and would always give us super jank questions like this. They aren't hard if you actually understand the masks and you will certainly never actually USE them, but they're fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
I passed my Security+!  Really happy since I was convinced I was gonna fail it about half way through due to how lovely the wording was on a lot of the questions.Up next CCENT! This one I already have a lot of experience with thankfully so I can hopefully knock it out in a month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
By the end of this summer I'll need to either renew my CCNA or take another exam to keep it current. I don't do a ton of networking now these days as I'm about 60-70% windows sysadmin and SCCM work. The networking I do work with is mostly related to that or the few small ASAs we have in remote offices. If I take the 210-260 IINS is that a worthwhile exam? I'd like to learn more about security and it would be nice to learn some of these strange sourcefire commands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Zeratanis posted:I passed my Security+! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Give me a mask that defines all the odd addresses starting at 10.1.0.1 That would just be 10.1.0.1 in binary, would it not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That would just be 10.1.0.1 in binary, would it not? Unless I misunderstood what you posted as I haven't read every post, the number 10 in decimal is not 10 in binary, it's 1010.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Give me a mask that defines all the odd addresses starting at 10.1.0.1 Wait, what? A subnet mask that defines non-sequential addresses?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Unless I misunderstood what you posted as I haven't read every post, the number 10 in decimal is not 10 in binary, it's 1010. I mean it's the decimial number in binary. So 00001010.00000001.00000000.00000001.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I mean it's the decimial number in binary. So 00001010.00000001.00000000.00000001. Ohhhh yeah, sorry I misread your post
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Passed 70-410 the second go around with room to spare. I still say it's crap. They should call it 70-412 parts 1, 2 and 3 instead of 70-410, 70-411 and 70-412 because if you go into the first two knowing only 410 or 411-level stuff, you're as good as gone. They've cleaned up the test since last fall when I took it the first time. Way less bullshit "which tab do you click first" questions and "list the 500 operations in proper order that you need to carry out in order to..."-type questions. The test overall is a lot clearer and sensible and more in line with what you would see from the other organizations. Again, the scope of the 410 is way outside the 410 itself, so do not take this exam until you're done studying the 410/411/412 trifecta. Dr. Arbitrary posted:Time permitting. Of course, but building up your binary conversion speed is a very valuable skill that applies to many areas beyond Cisco. I've mentioned it before, but it's probably lost in the shuffle by now, but the Cisco Binary Game is excellent for getting fast at binary while killing time. HPL fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That would just be 10.1.0.1 in binary, would it not? It would be 0.0.0.1 because it only has to match the last bit in the address. Conversely if you started at 10.1.0.0, a mask of 0.0.0.1 would only match even addresses. Doug posted:Wait, what? A subnet mask that defines non-sequential addresses? Of course you would never use it, but it is technically something you can do with a wildcard mask. ChubbyThePhat fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:It would be 0.0.0.1 because it only has to match the last bit in the address.  Also, just so this isn't a single .gif reply, anyone got any pro-tips for OSCP? My class starts this weekend and I think I should be terrified, but I just wanted to confirm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:It would be 0.0.0.1 because it only has to match the last bit in the address. Back in the day you used to have to do a lot of funky wildcard masks to cut down on the number of ACL entries since you only had so much TCAM space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Failed the 210-260 AGAIN. Got an 840, needing 860 to pass. Got the same same labs, and it bugged out at the same point. Both labs were super easy, but I was not able to complete the second objective for lab 2, which would have cost me at least those 2 percentage points. I called Pearson and they said too bad, so I filed a complaint with the BBB. Can't wait for that to go nowhere and for me to be out another $250 for no reason. I'm not sure if these are the only labs in rotation, but if they are I can't wait to have to get an even higher percentage of theory questions right to pass since I'll be unable to complete that lab.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Zeratanis posted:I passed my Security+! gently caress...I don't do well when questions are vague. Im taking Sec+ in a couple days what did you use to study?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Vadun posted:Failed the 210-260 AGAIN. Why didn't you tell the proctor during the exam?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
I'm the guy who had to reschedule his CISSP last week because of the snow. I rescheduled it for next Wednesday. I just found out we're supposed to get more snow Tuesday night. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Why didn't you tell the proctor during the exam? Because If I started speaking it would have been a slew of curses, and i would have gotten thrown out. Had to calm down beforehand
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
I'm taking it tomorrow. I've read elsewhere that it's still broken as poo poo. Makes me feel good about spending time in it instead of, say, the CCIE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
ZteleME posted:gently caress...I don't do well when questions are vague. Im taking Sec+ in a couple days what did you use to study? Darill Gibson book with professor Messer to fill in any blanks as I got close to the date. I wanna say know your ports but the amount of material I got involving ports was very...small. Your test might be very different from mine though. I will say definitely know your cryptography inside and out though, since that was the subject that threw me off the most on the exam itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Failed 210-260. Simulator was indeed bugged. Also stupid, because doing the configuration via CLI is way faster for what it was asking. I really wish Cisco would let you go straight for the NP exams if you already have one instead of making you do the NA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:54
|
|