|
I think actually doing without things like vMotion etc wouldn't be too bad in this use case. We just migrated a bunch of services out of an office closet and into the datacenter proper, but that left me with a handful of DL360 G8s sitting in a rack. Thinking about scoring major points with the developers by giving them the servers for an on-prem lab, with the condition that hey, these are YOUR servers, we're not supporting it. Just add them to an existing vCenter, throw their new hosts in a cluster and let them provision whatever they like on the server's local disks.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:Thinking about scoring major points with the developers by giving them the servers for an on-prem lab, with the condition that hey, these are YOUR servers, we're not supporting it. This way lies madness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Can't you do some sort of distributed storage using localstores on VMware?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Can't you do some sort of distributed storage using localstores on VMware? Internet Explorer posted:This way lies madness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
If the choice for something in production is between local and VSAN, I would always go VSAN. You loose way too much resiliency without some kind of redundancy on the storage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:I think actually doing without things like vMotion etc wouldn't be too bad in this use case. We just migrated a bunch of services out of an office closet and into the datacenter proper, but that left me with a handful of DL360 G8s sitting in a rack. Thinking about scoring major points with the developers by giving them the servers for an on-prem lab, with the condition that hey, these are YOUR servers, we're not supporting it. Just add them to an existing vCenter, throw their new hosts in a cluster and let them provision whatever they like on the server's local disks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:If the choice for something in production is between local and VSAN, I would always go VSAN. You loose way too much resiliency without some kind of redundancy on the storage. VSAN isn't free. It's not even inexpensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
If you just want to give them a playground that they can break, why not use hyperconverged Hyper-V or oVirt? I guess maybe you have VMware licenses to burn, but they're developers. You know there are good odds they'll do "critical" work on a VM on a local datastore that bites the dust when someone else decides they really need a 3tb disk on their VM and they delete the other guy's, because it's powered off and "nobody is using it"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Look at https://h20392.www2.hpe.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do?productNumber=VSA1TB-S
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Look at https://h20392.www2.hpe.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do?productNumber=VSA1TB-S If the servers meet the pretty modest requirements Nutanix CE is probably a better option from a simplicity perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:Thinking about scoring major points with the developers by giving them the servers for an on-prem lab, with the condition that hey, these are YOUR servers, we're not supporting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:I think actually doing without things like vMotion etc wouldn't be too bad in this use case. We just migrated a bunch of services out of an office closet and into the datacenter proper, but that left me with a handful of DL360 G8s sitting in a rack. Thinking about scoring major points with the developers by giving them the servers for an on-prem lab, with the condition that hey, these are YOUR servers, we're not supporting it. Just add them to an existing vCenter, throw their new hosts in a cluster and let them provision whatever they like on the server's local disks. I'd give them the servers, an isolated subnet and let them install and configure everything themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I am at a loss here and I am sorry if this is the wrong thread for my problem, but I think it might be related to Citrix. I am experiencing a weird problem at work. We used to buy our computers from the IT-business that run and provide our servers. That IT-business would set them up and configure them before they were delivered to us. Recently we bought new computers from a different supplier. We work through Citrix and the problem I am having is related to printing. We usually install the printers locally and the Citrix will fetch them. The problem is with the new computers we are using, no matter what, in the Citrix environment they will print what the printer is set to locally. So even if I put it to A3, it will come out in A4 or whatever the printer has been configured to locally. On the old computers set up by our IT-business I can do a fresh install of a printer and use the same drivers as on the new computer, and it will have no problem printing exactly what I put it to in the Citrix environment. I've tried talking to support at the IT-business but they have not been able to solve the problem. Could this have to do with Group Policies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Perplx posted:I'd give them the servers, an isolated subnet and let them install and configure everything themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Miguel Prado posted:I am at a loss here and I am sorry if this is the wrong thread for my problem, but I think it might be related to Citrix. Printer issues in Citrix are supper common and it can get really complicated really quickly. I think what you are describing may be getting lost in translation, but by locally I assume you mean you have Windows clients that are connecting to a Citrix connection, which you install a local printer on, which then gets mapped to the Citrix server? What sounds like is happening is that you are getting a universal print driver mapped in the Citrix session. This can be controlled by Group Policy, it can also be controlled in a bunch of other ways. Take a look at your printer mapping settings on the old Citrix farm and compare to what they are in the new Citrix farm. Depending on what version you had in the old and what version you have in the new, these could be in vastly different places and have vastly different settings. If your current IT consultants do not work with Citrix or at the very least Remote Desktop Services, it does not surprise me they are running into problems figuring it out. If you are going to run Citrix, be sure to have a business relationship with someone who knows Citrix, because it will be a constant problem for you otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:This is basically the plan, yeah. I appreciate the concern from other people, but I am not the goon in the well who gets pulled into a spiral of increasing responsibility. I am the goon who fills the well with cement if the developers don't manage it themselves. More the point, I think, is that you could be the goon who gives them a flexible, maintainable environment that they can then try to muddle through instead of a total boondoggle (a bunch of servers with no redundancy or ability to migrate), then walk away. But there's no good reason not to at least try to give them something good to start with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
evol262 posted:More the point, I think, is that you could be the goon who gives them a flexible, maintainable environment that they can then try to muddle through instead of a total boondoggle (a bunch of servers with no redundancy or ability to migrate), then walk away. But there's no good reason not to at least try to give them something good to start with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
My shorthand comment wasn't along those lines. I'd be more concerned with the absolute mess a year or two later when they've had no consistency or thought for maintainability and then you and your team get called in to unfuck it and it becomes a giant political cluster-gently caress. Id' also be concerned with starting a precedent encouraging shadow-IT, just because I've seen the ramifications once that culture catches on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Printer issues in Citrix are supper common and it can get really complicated really quickly. I think what you are describing may be getting lost in translation, but by locally I assume you mean you have Windows clients that are connecting to a Citrix connection, which you install a local printer on, which then gets mapped to the Citrix server? What sounds like is happening is that you are getting a universal print driver mapped in the Citrix session. This can be controlled by Group Policy, it can also be controlled in a bunch of other ways. Take a look at your printer mapping settings on the old Citrix farm and compare to what they are in the new Citrix farm. Depending on what version you had in the old and what version you have in the new, these could be in vastly different places and have vastly different settings. Thank you for taking the time to answer me. You are correct but there is no new farm, it's the same one. They only difference is that the computers we have started using now are not configured by our IT consultants. On the old HPs I can install a printer on the windows client and then log onto the citrix, and I can print different specifications with no problems whatsoever. On the new Lenovos I can install the printer on the local windows client fine but in the citrix I am bound to print whatever the printer is set to locally. A temporary solution has been installing the same printer but with different default settings. So one printer for A4 portrait and then a different for A3s etc. This is however without mapping them to the server. I think the term for these are Auto created client printers? When I print from one of the server mapped printers it works fine, even on the Lenovo. So I guess a solution would be to map all the printers to the server? We are a construction company and therefore have a printer at each project, which could make this quite the task as soon as the Lenovos become the dominant computer at the sites. For some reason I am seen as the most IT competent person at this company so fixing this problem has been put me. Edit: I spoke to the IT consultants and they claim that the HP's group policies have not been altered in any way. But when I try to start windows defender it will give me the "this app is deactivated because of group policies" what gives? Miguel Prado fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Oh boy. They don't know what they're doing, and with Citrix and printing that's dangerous. When your users logon to Citrix are they logging into a full desktop session or are they just launching a seamless app? Either way, if you can stumble your way to a Print dialog box and look at the names of the printers on a working versus a non-working session you should be able to get some hints. "Citrix Universal Printer" - this is a generic print device that's mapped in the remote session which also uses a generic driver. Basically (IIRC) it's a glorified print-to-XPS plugin that sends the XPS file to the local client and presents a local print dialog once the remote print job is finished. The idea there is that there's no need to install or manage any kind of print drivers on the VDI, it just renders the print job and shoots it down to the client and lets the client use whatever black magic it has installed locally to actually print the document. "[blah blah printer and model] (from [CLIENTPCNAME] in session [x])" with a description of "Auto Created Client Printer [CLIENTPCNAME]" is an automatically mapped printer created by Citrix during the logon process based on what printers are installed on the client. This may either use a native driver or a Universal driver, but it generally means that it's actually printing from the VDI itself. Citrix policies can be set to influence what drivers are used with certain kinds of printers, to deny mapping certain printers, etc. They can also be set to map only the user's default printer or to map all printers installed on the client. "[blah blah printer and model] (from [CLIENTPCNAME] in session [x])" with a description of "Auto Restored Client Printer [PRINTERNAME]" is an auto-retained and auto-restored client printer created during logon, BUT this information is stored in the user's profile. It's synced on the remote and local profiles and is generally a pain in the rear end. I've worked cases where these entries are cumulative and never cleared, leading one user to stack up a shitload of printers that get connected each time they launch an app. I don't know of any good reason they should be used instead of auto created printers. That's not even all of the printer settings available, but the main reason I went down that rabbit hole is to express that every single printer related setting can be set and is affected by Citrix policies. Something's absolutely jacked up. Can you get a couple screenshots or just the text of the names and notes field of printers created when connecting from an HP versus a Lenovo? That might provide a clue as to what's not firing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
I have a Virtualbox VM where the DNS (virtualbox 10.0.2.3) has stopped working for no apparent reason. I have another VM that uses the same DNS which works. Anyone seen this before?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
ayyyyyyyyyyy
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Can I assume CCM = Cisco Call Manager? Also I saw your tweet before your post lol I'm @GarbageDotNet
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
cheese-cube posted:Can I assume CCM = Cisco Call Manager?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
How did you ONLY generate an 8gig delta with a volume that size over 3+ years?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:How did you ONLY generate an 8gig delta with a volume that size over 3+ years?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
An ex-colleague of mine ran someone's on-premises lovely mail server with about 2TB of mailboxes from a snapshot that was about five levels deep. "It's not very quick". No poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:It handles our IVR or something, and our phone system is hosted elsewhere, so I don't think this machine does a lot of disk io. This vm is also notoriously slow, but my boss doesn't believe snapshots would impact performance. He is going to let me remove it this weekend, though. Look at co-stop. If that VM has >0 co-stop, that's your problem. At least you should be able to consolidate fairly quickly. I once ran into a snapshot that was a year old... for a spam filter for something like 10k mailboxes. [Edit: Took 4 days to consolidate. Don't remember the size but it was huge.]
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Look at co-stop. If that VM has >0 co-stop, that's your problem. At least you should be able to consolidate fairly quickly. I once ran into a snapshot that was a year old... for a spam filter for something like 10k mailboxes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:How did you ONLY generate an 8gig delta with a volume that size over 3+ years?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah, that is definitely bad. Anything over 0 co-stop is problematic. Spikes that high will seriously impact performance. Be very careful consolidating that, as during the consolidation process performance will be even worse and once you start consolidating, you can't stop. It may very well take more than 2 days. It's a good idea to have a VMware alert for old snapshots - https://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1018029 The good news is once you consolidate that beast you're going to be a hero. Performance should be much, much better.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
RVTools is great for checking for snapshots, as well.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
madsushi posted:RVTools is great for checking for snapshots, as well. I randomly use this to check, my coworker is a monster.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Here's some backstory on that host: It is on a non-standard Dell PowerEdge R210 II (most of our other stuff is HP), which has no out-of-band management, and is not in our vCenter Server. It runs ESXi 5.1 and has a single Server 2008 VM for our callcenter autoattendant? I think? I think I mentioned IVR earlier but that's actually a different machine. The R210 II has a single power supply, and this bit us in the rear end about a year ago, when one side of the redundant power at our datacenter died, and this server was plugged into that circuit, so it went down. We run a callcenter so it was kind of a big deal. My boss and coworker went to the datacenter but it wasn't coming back up, so they brought the host back to the office, heard the drive clicking, I unplugged that disk and it powered back up, and they ran back to the datacenter to put it back in and ordered a new drive. This host had 8GB of memory, all of which is assigned to that single VM, and since we're looking at a software update, my boss decided that instead of anything else, we'd put more memory onto this host. Tonight we took it down and put 16GB in it so now it has 20GB. The VM has 16GB. While taking it down, it didn't come back up, and one of the hard drives was clicking. I removed that disk, and it booted normally while complaining about a degraded array. Everything about this garbage is a ridiculously horrible clusterfuck and I sent an email to my boss explaining that we need to spin up a new VM, in a cluster we currently have, or onto one of two VM hosts we are currently not using, and we need to do it now or this server may disappear all of a sudden some day. Whether or not it's true, I'm going to claim that the VM snapshot writes may make the VM stop responding forever, but the only remaining physical disk going dead is a very real possibility. and my boss will order a replacement hard drive instead, and I will murder him
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
 I... Ah...wow.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
I had something similar for four CUCM VMs. Running on standalone hosts, local storage, no backups. Ended up doing full VM level backups with Veeam (used VeeamZIP at the time), then migrated to a temporary shared datastore (hosts were 4.1), then moved to a host in a real cluster, then migrated to a production datastore. I didn't have any lingering snapshots though (I don't think anyone here knew how to access those ESXi hosts). Edit: Actually the Unity VM had a corrupted VMDK, so I had to do a database backup/restore to get that piece of poo poo moved.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
We are going to order a new hard drive, and my boss wants to get a new VM spun up in the next couple of weeks but it should not be in a clustered environment, because of resource contention, and it should be on that machine's local store, because of resource contention. Also we should revisit vSAN.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:We are going to order a new hard drive, and my boss wants to get a new VM spun up in the next couple of weeks but it should not be in a clustered environment, because of resource contention, and it should be on that machine's local store, because of resource contention. Also we should revisit vSAN. We just did a VSAN standard quote for a customer and it's better than the last one I saw on cost. Still not cheap, but at least competitive with a low cost array.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
H2SO4 posted:Lots of useful information regarding Citrix and printing I'll get some screenshots next week, thank you for the information. I installed Citrix 4.4.3 on the lenovos and now they have no issues. It solves the problem for now but I have no guarantees it will last.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 12:28
|
|