Search Results

Search found 710 results on 29 pages for 'redundant'.

Page 19/29 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

• What is the best way to create a failover cluster for my IIS website?

  - by ObligatoryMoniker

  Our eCommerce website www.tervis.com currently runs on two servers: SQL server: 2005 x 86 on Windows Server 2003 Standard x86 with a single dual core processor and 4 gb of memeory IIS server: Windows Server 2008 Web edition x64 with dual quad core hyper threaded processors and 32 gb of memory Tervis.com's revenue has steadily grown to the point where we need to have redundant servers deployed with a fail over mechanism so that we do not have any down time. Because the SQL server is so underpowered compared to the web server my thought was to purchase: 2 x SQL Server 2008 R2 web edition x64 single processor license 2 x Windows Server 2008 R2 Web Edition Licenses 1 x New Physical dual quad core 32 GB server 1 x F5 Load Balancer I need the Windows Server 2008 R2 Web Edition licenses so that I can run SQL and IIS on the same box for both of these servers. The thought is to run this as an active/passive fail over cluster that could be upgraded to an active/active cluster if we purchased the additional SQL licensing. The F5 load balancer would serve as the device that monitors the two servers and if the current active one stops responding then fails over to using the other server. To be clear this is not windows clustering but simply using a load balancer to fail over between two computers so that you now have a cluster in the general sense. Is this really the best way to accomplish what I need? Is there some way to leverage the old server 2003 SQL server to function as the devices that funnels http requests to the appropriate active server and then fails over if a problem occurs? Is there any third party clustering software that might help me accomplish this in a simpler fashion?

  Read the article

• DAS vs SAN storage for serving 2 to 4 nodes

  - by Luke404

  We currently have 4 Linux nodes with local storage, arranged in two active/passive pairs with storage mirrored using DRBD, running virtual machines (actually using Xen Hypervisor) for typical hosting workloads (mail, web, a couple VPS, etc.). We're approaching the (presumed) maximum IOPS of those servers, and we're planning to migrate to an external storage solution with two active nodes, with capacity for up to four active nodes. Since we're an all-Dell shop I've done some research and found the MD3200 / MD3200i products should be the ones we're looking for. We are pretty sure we won't be attaching more than 4 hosts on a single storage and I'm wondering if there is any clear advantage for one or the other. In theory I should be able to attach 4 SAS hosts to a single MD3200 (single links on a single controller MD3200, or dual redundant SAS links from each host to a dual-controller MD3200), or 4 iSCSI hosts to a single MD3200i (directly on its 4 GigE ports without any switch, again with dual links for the dual controller option). Both setups should let us implement live VM migration since all hosts can access all the LUNs at the same time, and also some shared filesystem like GFS2 or OCFS2. Also, both setups should allow full redundancy of the whole system (assuming dual controllers in the storage). One difference I can see is that the DAS solution is actually limited to 4 hosts while the iSCSI one should be able to grow to more hosts (adding two GigE switches to the mix). One point for the iSCSI solution is that it would allow us to start out with our current nodes and upgrade them at a later time (we can't add other SAS controllers, but they already have 4 GigE ports each). With the right (iSCSI|SAS) controllers I should be able to connect diskless nodes and boot them off the external storage which I think is a good thing (get rid of any local storage). On the other hand, I would have thought the SAS one to be cheaper but it seems like an MD3200 actually costs a little less than an MD3200i (?) (please note: I've used Dell gear in my examples since that's what we're looking for but I assume the same goes with other vendors) I would like to know if my assumptions above are correct, and if I'm missing any important difference between the two setups.

  Read the article

• Prevent nginx from redirecting traffic from https to http when used as a reverse proxy

  - by Chris Pratt

  Here's my abbreviated nginx vhost conf: upstream gunicorn { server 127.0.0.1:8080 fail_timeout=0; } server { listen 80; listen 443 ssl; server_name domain.com ~^.+\.domain\.com$; location / { try_files $uri @proxy; } location @proxy { proxy_pass_header Server; proxy_redirect off; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto https; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Scheme $scheme; proxy_connect_timeout 10; proxy_read_timeout 120; proxy_pass http://gunicorn; } } The same server needs to serve both HTTP and HTTPS, however, when the upstream issues a redirect (for instance, after a form is processed), all HTTPS requests are redirected to HTTP. The only thing I have found that will correct this issue is changing proxy_redirect to the following: proxy_redirect http:// https://; That works wonderfully for requests coming from HTTPS, but if a redirect is issued over HTTP it also redirects that to HTTPS, which is a problem. Out of desperation, I tried: if ($scheme = 'https') { proxy_redirect http:// https://; } But nginx complains that proxy_redirect isn't allowed here. The only other option I can think of is to define the two servers separately and set proxy_redirect only on the SSL one, but then I would have duplicate the rest of the conf (there's a lot in the server directive that I omitted for simplicity sake). I know I could also use an include directive to factor out the redundancy, but I really want to keep just one conf file without any dependencies. So, first, is there something I'm missing that will negate the problem entirely? Or, second, if not, is there any other way (besides including an external file) to factor out the redundant config information so that I can separate out the HTTP and HTTPS versions of the server config?

  Read the article

• For enabling SSL for a single domain on a server with muliple vhosts, will this configuration work?

  - by user1322092

  I just purchased an SSL certificate to secure/enable only ONE domain on a server with multiple vhosts. I plan on configuring as shown below (non SNI). In addition, I still want to access phpMyAdmin, securely, via my server's IP address. Will the below configuration work? I have only one shot to get this working in production. Are there any redundant settings? ---apache ssl.conf file--- Listen 443 SSLCertificateFile /home/web/certs/domain1.public.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /home/web/certs/domain1.private.key SSLCertificateChainFile /home/web/certs/domain1.intermediate.crt ---apache httpd.conf file---- ... DocumentRoot "/var/www/html" #currently exists ... NameVirtualHost *:443 #new - is this really needed if "Listen 443" is in ssl.conf??? ... #below vhost currently exists, the domain I wish t enable SSL) <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin [email protected] ServerName domain1.com ServerAlias 173.XXX.XXX.XXX DocumentRoot /home/web/public_html/domain1.com/public </VirtualHost> #below vhost currently exists. <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName domain2.com ServerAlias www.domain2.com DocumentRoot /home/web/public_html/domain2.com/public </VirtualHost> #new -I plan on adding this vhost block to enable ssl for domain1.com! <VirtualHost *:443> ServerAdmin [email protected] ServerName www.domain1.com ServerAlias 173.203.127.20 SSLEngine on SSLProtocol all SSLCertificateFile /home/web/certs/domain1.public.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /home/web/certs/domain1.private.key SSLCACertificateFile /home/web/certs/domain1.intermediate.crt DocumentRoot /home/web/public_html/domain1.com/public </VirtualHost> As previously mentioned, I want to be able to access phpmyadmin via "https://173.XXX.XXX.XXX/hiddenfolder/phpmyadmin" which is stored under "var/www/html/hiddenfolder"

  Read the article

• IIS replication - Is it possible

  - by Ian

  Hi All, I have a requirement for a client that I have a centralised system that all his satellite branches can work on. Currently this is a ASP.net web forms app running under IIS 7 on win 2008 RC 2 using an SQL backend. The client has now requested that each branch have a local server, so that in the event that the internet connection is down, the branches productivity does not suffer. His other request is that everything can be updated via the central hub and using some mechanism the updates filter down to the individual sites. What are my options here? I see the following as possible options: Multiple redundant internet connections controlled by load balancers SQL replication for the DB (What is better, snapshot, merge or transactional) Roll my own IIS sync service the periodically checks if there is a new version of the web app and downloads it (I hope there are better option than this) Something way better I don’t yet know about (I hope this is the one I need) One of my clients concerns are that the branches are often in very remote areas where everything from technicians to internet is hard to find and very scarce. Any ideas, suggestions, tips etc are welcome. Thanks all

  Read the article

• VMware NAS/iSCSI recommendations - smallish organization

  - by Bubnoff

  I have two VMware servers - ESX + ESXi. Two backup NAS boxes. The current NAS boxes are low-cost and unsuitable for running VMs from. Support NFS only. Slow. My plan is to have a dedicated iSCSI/NAS for storing and running VMs. Two additional low-cost boxes for backup. I'm looking for advice regarding 2 things really: Recommendations as far as VMware architecture/design for a smaller organization. Less than 20 Virtual Machines. 2 servers + 2 x 1.5 terabyte backup NAS boxes. A good NAS/iSCSI box with your recommendation on RAID config ...I would go with 6 or better. I'm trying to design an installation that is both fast and reliable/redundant. If you have any experiences to share or your current configuration including network design ( switches, fiber ...etc ), I will be enormously thankful. I'm not married to this idea, so if you have a design not using iSCSI NAS boxes ...let er rip. Cost? Can we stay around $5,000 ( on top of already stated components )? Links to info are welcome also. Thanks for reading! Bubnoff

  Read the article

• iSCSI performance questions

  - by RyanLambert

  Hi everyone, apologies for the long-winded post in advance... Attempting to troubleshoot some iSCSI sluggishness on a brand new vSphere deployment (still in test). Layout is as such: 3 VSphere hosts, each with 2x 10GB NICs plugged into a pair of Nexus 5020s with a 10gig back-to-back between them. NICs are port-channeled in an active/active redundant fashion (using vPC-mac pinning for those of you familiar with N1KV) Both NICs carry service console, vmotion, iSCSI, and guest traffic. iSCSI is on a single subnet/single VLAN that is not routed through our IP network (strictly layer2) Had this been a 1gig deployment, we probably would have split the iSCSI traffic off onto separate NICs, but the price/port gets rather ridiculous when you start throwing 4+ NICs to a server in a 10gigabit infrastructure, and I'm not really convinced it's necessary. Open to dialogue/tech facts re: this, though. At this point even a single VM guest will boot slowly to iSCSI storage (EMC CX4 on the same Nexus 5020 10gig switches), and restores of VMs from iSCSI take about twice as long as we'd expect them to. Our server folks mentioned that if we split the iSCSI off onto its own NIC, performance seems significantly better. From a network perspective, I've run through the variables I can think of (port configuration errors, MTU problems, congestion etc.) and I'm coming up dry. There really is no other traffic on these hosts other than the very specific test being performed at the time. Important thing to note is that guest traffic works just fine... it seems storage is the only thing affected by whatever gremlin exists. Concluding that we're not 'overutilizing' the network infrastructure since we're doing hardly anything, I'm just looking for some helpful tips/ideas we can use to resolve this... preferably without hurling extra 10gig NICs that are going to sit around 10% utilization while we've got 70+% left on our others.

  Read the article

• Remote paging with Nagios when network is down and email won't work -- cellular modems and alternatives

  - by Quinten

  What is the best option for remote paging when network services are down? I'm looking for a solution that can let me know when network services are down during off-hours only, and especially when email/smtp services are out. Therefore, it needs to be redundant to our network and power supply. I'm imagining a cellular modem is one option. What's the price range for these? Is anybody using them and feel that they are worth the cost? I'm imagining that it's something we would end up sending an emergency page ~ 1x/month at most, so I'd like the pricing to reflect that--I don't mind a high per-page cost as long as it has a low recurring cost. Another option would be to expose at least one server to remote ping, and run a check script on a remote server. Are there paid options for this? Currently, we run Nagios on a Linux VM on a Windows 2008 Hyper-V host. It would be great if the solution would work in that environment, but I know it's tricky with external devices, and we could move Nagios to a standalone workstation if needed.

  Read the article

• Route all wlan0 traffic over tun0

  - by Tuinslak

  I'm looking for a way to route all wlan0 traffic (tcp and udp) over tun0 (openvpn). However, all other traffic originating from the device itself should not be routed through tun0. I'm guessing this could be realized using iptables or route, but none of my options seem to work. # route add -net 0.0.0.0 gw 172.27.0.1 dev wlan0 SIOCADDRT: No such process Info: This is because the VPN server is not redundant, and wlan users are not really important. However, all services running on the device are fairly important and having a VPN virtual machine with no SLA on it is just a bad idea. Trying to minimize the odds of something going wrong. So setting the VPN server as default gateway is not really an option. I also want all wlan0 user to use the VPN server's IP address as external IP. Edit with the script provided: root@ft-genesi-xxx ~ # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 172.27.0.17 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.13.37.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 172.27.0.0 172.27.0.17 255.255.192.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 root@ft-genesi-xxx ~ # ./test.sh RTNETLINK answers: No such process root@ft-genesi-xxx ~ # cat test.sh #!/bin/sh IP=/sbin/ip # replace with the range of your wlan network, or use fwmark instead ${IP} rule add from 10.13.37.0/24 table from-wlan ${IP} route add default dev tun0 via 127.72.0.1 table from-wlan ${IP} route add 10.13.37.0/24 dev wlan0 table from-wlan

  Read the article

• What to look for in a switch with LAN/WAN verses an iSCSI SAN?

  - by Luke

  I'm setting up a VMWare ESXi 5 environment with 3 server nodes. Dell recommended 2x Force10 S60 switches shared (iSCSI SAN, LAN/WAN). The S60 switches are extremely powerful. They have 1.25 GB of buffer cache, < 9us latency. But they are very expensive (online price ~$15k per switch, actual quote a little less). I've been told that "by the book" you should at least have 2 internal switches for SAN, and 2 switches for LAN/WAN (each with a redundant). I know some of the pros and cons of each approach. What I'm wondering is, would it be more cost effective to disjoin the SAN from LAN with less expensive switches? The answer to this question highlights what I should be looking for in a switch for the SAN. What should I be looking for in a LAN/WAN switch, in comparison to the SAN? With the above linked question for the SAN: How is buffer latency measured? When you see 36 MB of buffer cache, is that shared or per port? So 36 MB would be 768kb or 36MB per port? With 3 to 6 servers how much buffer cache do you really need? What else should I be looking at? Our application will be heavily using HTML5 websockets (high number of persistent connections). The amount of data being sent is small; Data sent between client <- server isn't broadcasted (not a chat/IM service). We will be doing some database reporting too (csv export, sums, some joins). We are a small business and on a budget. We'd probably only be able to spend no more than $20k on switches total (2 or 4).

  Read the article

• Turn computer into DAS (Direct Attached Storage)

  - by Damon

  Can we build a direct attached storage by taking a computer/server, adding an HBA, and installing some appropriate software? We would use Debian as a host OS for both the DAS and the server. If so, what software do we use? And do we simply need a HBA for the DAS and the Server? Or do we need more hardware? The goal is to use an older server that does not have enough room for drives but does have ECC memory, server processors, redundant power supplies, dual nics, etc. Then find any boxes, server or not, the key being having enough room for 8-12 drives, fans, etc. and turning them into a DAS; build two of these DAS's and have them connected to the server. Eventually we want to have two servers using DRBD and associated services like heartbeat and pace maker to create an HA setup for our server(s) but that will take a long time to configure since I have no experience with anything related to DRBD (yet) and have a learning curve I have to get past, not to mention the additional cost of more hardware (two servers vs one).

  Read the article

• Server 2008 R2 domain windows update strategy

  - by Joost Verdaasdonk

  Let me explain my question a bit. We are a small company that have now made the first move to a bigger network. For now the network contains of 5 servers 2008 R2 (dc,sql,web,etc..). Everything we need is now in place but for now we cannot afford to finish the network by implementing redundant systems. (secondary dc, dns, sql cluster, etc...) For some people this is hard to understand but this is the current situation. (and we are aware and will fix this when we can) Because we want to keep our system secure and up to date I've made sure that all systems are updated regularly. The problem is ofc that the nr of updates Microsoft rolls out that need a system reboot seam to occur more often. (maybe I'm wrong and it just feels like this) ;-) In our domain servers depend on each other for services (like SQL, WEB, or whatever) so just rebooting a server at will is NOT a good idea! For now I update all of them without rebooting at once. After all are up to date I bring them down in the order they are depended on each other. After this I reboot all of them in the inverse order. I understand ofc that if I DID have redundancy in my system that updating and rebooting would not be such a problem because the server task could be taken over by another node but this is something we generally need to add when we can. So my question is. If you read my above situation can you suggest me more Update strategies or general ideas that could help me do this process in a better / faster way? Thanks for your thoughts!

  Read the article

• What is the difference between a PDU and a power strip (both 120V, 15A)?

  - by rob

  I just chatted with an APC rep about upgrading the UPSes at our office. She recommended a single higher-capacity 6-outlet Smart-UPS to replace the four Back-UPS units we currently have. When I asked how she recommended plugging in all the current devices, she recommended using a APC's AP9567 PDU, but said not to use a power strip. At first she said I had to use an APC brand PDU, but after I inquired about using a Tripp-Lite PDU, she said any brand PDU would be fine. The APC PDU previously referenced looks like a standard 120V power strip with overload protection but no surge protection. Other than overload protection (which seems redundant if plugging into the UPS), is there something else I'm missing, or should any power strip (without surge protection) be fine? Edit: I didn't mention it earlier, but we don't have a proper rack--though I did still plan to mount the PDU or power strip to something. I guess I'm wondering if there's any special reason I should pay as much as $180 for the low-end APC PDU (which just looks like a power strip to me) vs. $20-$30 for a workbench power strip.

  Read the article

• What is the best private cloud storage setup

  - by vdrmrt

  I need to create a private cloud and I'm searching for the best setup. These are my 2 most important requirements 1. Disk and system redundant 2. Price / GB as low as possible The system is going to be used as backup setup which will receive data 24/7 over SFTP and rsync. High throughput is not that important. I'm planning to use glusterfs and consumer grade 4TB hard-drives. I have worked out 3 possible setups 3 servers with 11 4TB HDD Setup up a replica 3 glusterfs and setup each hard drive as a separate ext4 brick. Total capacity: 44TB HDD / TB ratio of 0.75 (33HDD / 44TB) 2 servers with 11 4TB HDD The 11 hard-drives are combined in a RAIDZ3 ZFS storage pool. With a replica 2 gluster setup. Total capacity: 32TB (+ zfs compression) HDD / TB ratio of 0.68 (22HDD / 32TB) 3 servers with 11 4TB consumer hard-drives Setup up a replica 3 glusterfs and setup each hard-drive as a separate zfs storage pool and export each pool as a brick. Total capacity: 32TB (+ zfs compression) HDD / TB ratio of 0.68 (22HDD / 32TB) (Cheapest) My remarks and concerns: If a hard drive fails which setup will recover the quickest? In my opinion setup 1 and 3 because there only the contents of 1 hard-drive needs to be copied over the network. Instead of setup 2 were the hard-drive needs te be reconstructed by reading the parity of all the other harddrives in the system. Will a zfs pool on 1 harddrive give me extra protection against for example bit rot? With setup 1 and 3 I can loose 2 systems and still be up and running with setup 2 I can only loose 1 system. When I use ZFS I can enable compression which will give me some extra storage.

  Read the article

• Faster, secure, protocol/code required for long-distance transfer.

  - by Chopper3

  I've ran into a problem and I'm looking for a new secure protocol/client/server that's faster over a 1Gb/s fibre link - let me tell you the story... I have a pair of redundant, diversely-routed, 1Gb/s links over a distance of around 250 miles or so (not dark fibre but a dedicated point to point link, not a mesh). At the 'client' end I have a HP DL380 G5 (2 x dual-core 2.66Ghz Xeon's, 4GB, Windows 2003EE 32-bit), at the 'server' end I have a HP BL460c G6 (2 x quad-core 2.53Ghz Xeons, 48GB, Oracle Linux 5.3 64-bit). I need to transfer around 500 x 2GB files per week from the client to the server machines per week - but the transfer NEEDS to be secure. Using both iPerf or regular FTP I can get ~80MB/s of transfer pretty consistently, which is great. Using WinSCP or Windows SFTP I can't seem to get more that ~3-4MB/s, at this point the server's CPU is 3% busy while CPU0 of the client goes to ~30% utilised. We've tried editing various TCP window sizes with little success. Both ends are connected to quite low-usage Cisco Cat6509's with Sup720's. I can replace the client machine with a newer machine and/or move it to Linux - but this will take time. Clearly these single-threaded secure Windows clients are introducing too much latency doing their encryption. So a few questions/thoughts; Are there any higher performing secure protocols or client software for Windows that I could try? I'm pretty protocol-gnostic so long as it'll work between Windows and Linux. Should I be using hardware to do the encryption, either in the client or the network parts? If so what would you recommend? I'm not convinced that just swapping the server would be that much faster, the CPU was only at 30% but then again that's higher than I'd have expected given the load - moving to Linux at the client end may be a better idea but would be quite disruptive. Am I missing a trick? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Running router as virtual machine, can it be realible ?

  - by Kr1stian

  Hi all Does anyone here run their routing through virtual machine, have virtual machine setup as main router/getaway etc ? If yes, how many clients are using this kind of setup ? For those who are wondering why I'm asking this. I got assignment for my internship to create all in one "box" which would do routing and be IP PBX in one time ( only open source solutions can be used, expect RouterOS). The routing part is currently done through RouterOS and for VoIP they want to use sipXecs. RouterOS supports virtualization through KVM, but RouterOS itself only supports 2GB of memory ( and wont support more in near future). sipXecs needs allot more than 2GB. I told them that we could solve this problem by putting RouterOS as virtual machine to 64bit hostOS ( e.g. CentOS), and other virtual machine would run sipXecs. By that we would be able to use whole memory. But they told me that it's to risky to do something like that and that they need something with "enterprise stability/reliability". I told them that we could make redundant image of each VM which would automatically start if one VM stop's working, but I was told the same thing. So this is why I asked those question above, to see if I really suggested something that's not good to do, or maybe this is something completely normal and it can be done with "enterprise stability/reliability" :) Thank you for answers, Kristian

  Read the article

• VOIP and internet connection speeds [cable vs. fiber]

  - by microchasm

  Our office is migrating to IP telephony. We have less than 10 employees that will be using the phones. We currently have cable internet, and they just bumped the speeds: There is a data center that was just recently built in our building, and we were considering co-lo'ing there in the near future. As a result, they offered us access to their triple-redundant internet, but it's quite expensive. They are offering 3mbps committed with up to 10mbps burst for $250/month (discounted). We pay ~$120 for our cable (which the plan was to keep--at least for TV). I want the phone system and LAN to be as separate as possible. Was thinking about keeping the cable for LAN, and using the other connection for the phones (until I saw the price). Now I'm thinking it might make sense to add on to our existing cable setup, and change our phone to only have DSL as a backup for the cable. Is there any real benefit to the fiber? Especially for the price? Any other suggestions or ideas? Thanks.

  Read the article

• HP DL380 G3 2U For Basic Web Server in 2012

  - by ryandlf

  I have an opportunity to pick up a used HP DL380 G3 2U for $100. I'm looking for a basic entry level web server that I can host a small - medium size website on and more or less learn the ins and outs of running my own web server before I bite the bullet and spend a couple grand on a server. The specs are: Dual (2) Intel Xeon 2.4GHz 400MHz 512KB Cache 4GB PC2100 ECC Registered Memory 6 x 72GB 10K U320 SCSI Hard Drives Smart Array 5i RAID Controller Redundant Power Supplies DVD/Floppy, Dual Intel GB NIC's, USB Or would I be better off spending a couple hundred bucks on something like: this new HP Seems like the only major difference is SATA and a bit of storage, but I will likely be implementing a separate storage system of some sort anyways. I guess it also wouldn't hurt to mention that I plan on running a linux server distro, so would the hardware be likely to support linux with a system that is 4 generations old? I don't mind spending a couple hundred extra dollars if its a better solution, but as mentioned previously I am simple looking for a server to learn on and probably use for a year or so while I put together a small - medium size website.

  Read the article

• Backing up 80G hard drive 1G per day

  - by barrycarter

  I want to securely backup my 80G HD, but doing a complete backup takes forever and slows down my machine, so I want to backup just 1G per day. Details: % First hurdle: on the first day, I want to backup the "first" 1G of the hard drive. Of course, there really is no "first" 1G on a hard drive. % After 80 days, I'll have my whole HD backed up... assuming none of my files ever change, which of course they do. So the backup plan/program must also catch file creation/changes as they come along. % The backups must be consistent, in that I can restore my system by restoring the backups sequentially. In other words, "dd if=/harddrive" probably won't work. % The backups should encrypt file contents AND names, but I don't see this as a major hurdle. % Once the backup has backed up everything (even changed files), it can re-backup the first 1G on my hard drive. Even though this backup is redundant, that's OK, because I always want to be backing up something (eg, if I'm backing up to optical media, the older media might start going corrupt). Is there a magic backup plan/program that does this? In reality, I want to do this for multiple machines with multiple drives each, but think that solving the above will solve the general case.

  Read the article

• Suggestions for transitioning to new GW/private network

  - by Quinten

  I am replacing a private T1 link with a new firewall device with an ipsec tunnel for a branch office. I am trying to figure out the right way to transition folks at the new site over to the new connection, so that they default to using the much faster tunnel. Existing network: 192.168.254.0/24, gw 192.168.254.253 (Cisco router plugged in to private t1) Test network I have been using with ipsec tunnel: 192.168.1.0/24, gw 192.168.1.1 (pfsense fw plugged in to public internet), also plugged in to same switch as the old network. There are probably ~20-30 network devices in the existing subnet, about 5 with static IPs. The remote endpoint is already the firewall--I can't set up redundant links to the existing subnet. In other words, as soon as I change the tunnel configuration to point to 192.168.254.0/24, all devices in the existing subnet will stop working because they point to the wrong gateway. I'd like some ability to do this slowly--such that I can move over a few clients and verify the stability of the new link before moving critical services or less tolerant users over. What's the right way to do this? Change the netmask on all of the devices to /16, and update gateway to point to the new device? Could this cause any problems? Also, how should I handle DNS? The pfsense box is not aware of my Active Directory environment. But if I change DNS to use the local servers, it will result in a huge slowdown as DNS queries will still be routed over the private t1. I need some help coming up with a plan that's not too disruptive but will really let me thoroughly test the stability of the IPSEC tunnel before I make the final switch. The AD version is 2008R2, as are the servers. Workstations are mostly Windows XP SP3. I have not configured the 192.168.1.0/24 as a site in AD sites and services.

  Read the article

• Better way to write Apache site-configuration?

  - by user195697

  I have a question regarding the config files in /etc/apache/sites-available. For example I have a site configured in there like this: <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /usr/share/agendav/web/public ServerName agendav.mysite.tld # Logfiles: CustomLog /var/log/apache2/access_agendav.log combined ErrorLog /var/log/apache2/error_agendav.log LogLevel warn <Directory /usr/share/agendav> Options Indexes DirectoryIndex index.php php_flag magic_quotes_gpc Off php_flag magic_quotes_runtime Off </Directory> </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:443> DocumentRoot /usr/share/agendav/web/public ServerName agendav.mysite.tld SSLEngine on SSLCertificateFile /etc/apache2/ssl/apache.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/apache2/ssl/apache.key # Logfiles: CustomLog /var/log/apache2/access_agendav_ssl.log combined ErrorLog /var/log/apache2/error_agendav_ssl.log LogLevel warn <Directory /usr/share/agendav> Options Indexes DirectoryIndex index.php php_flag magic_quotes_gpc Off php_flag magic_quotes_runtime Off </Directory> </VirtualHost> As you see the Directory directive is redundant in both http and https part of the site. Is it valid to move the Directory directive at the beginnung so it is valid for both blocks or do I have to keep it in there twice? Thanks!

  Read the article

• 5 year old server upgrade

  - by rizzo0917

  I am looking to upgrade a server for a web app. Currently the application is running very sluggish. We've made some adjustments to mysql (that's another issue in itself) and made some adjustments so that heaviest quires get run on a copy of the database on another server was have as a backup, however this will not last that much longer and we are looking to upgrade. Currently the servers CPUs are (4) Intel(R) XEON(TM) CPU 2.00GHz, with 1 gig of ram. The database is 442.5 MiB, with about 1,743,808 records. There are two parts of the program, the one, side a, inserts and updates most of the data. Side b, reads the data and does some minor updates. Currently our biggest day for side a are 800 users (of 40,000 users all year) imputing the system. And our Side b is currently unknown, however we have a total of 1000 clients. The system is most likely going to cap out at 5000 side b clients, with about a year 300,000 side a users. The current database is 5 years old, so we can most likely expect the database to grow pretty rapidly, possibly double each year (which we can most likely archive older records if it comes to that). So with that being said, should we get a server for each side of the app, side a being the master, side b being the slave, any updates made on side b are router to side a. So the question is should i get 2 of these or 1. 2 x Intel Nehalem Xeon E5520 2.26Ghz (8 Cores) 12GB DDRIII Memory 500GB SATAII HDD 100Mbps Port Speed And Naturally I would need to have a redundant backup so it could potentially be 4 of them.

  Read the article

• What are the ways to build a failover cluster?

  - by light

  I have a task where I need to build a failover cluster in two cases: first with servers on Red Hat Enterprise 5.1 and second with SUSE Linux Enterprise 11 SP1. Both cases have SAN. I know there are many ways to build failover cluster, but I can’t find out more, so I need next: The ways to build it? I know only virtualization. Any good book or resource to broad my mind? I’ll be glad to hear any suggestion. Thanks! EDIT #1: failover of servers with bussiness application on it. EDIT #2: will be great to hear summary about solutions with SLES servers? EDIT #3: So if I understand correctly, in my cases the main ways are to use internal solutions or virtualization. So now I have additional questions: Does manufacturer of blades provide some solution? For example HP or IBM. (Without virtualization) Do I need additional server to control "heartbeat" between main and redundant servers? (Virtualization) For example I have several physical servers with VMs. Do I need additional server to control availability of VMs and to move VMs to another physical server in the case their physical server failure? Sorry for my poor English. EDIT #4: Failover of VM or OS on physical server. In both cases will be used SAN , it's not specified, but I think with file system image on it. I started to think that my question is stupid and I need to remake it.

  Read the article

• Is there any any merit to routinely restore a linux system, even if unnecessary?

  - by field_guy

  I do fieldwork with a number of computers running ubuntu performing critical tasks doing fieldwork. The computers are similarly configured with slight variations. Since we've had some configuration issues in the past, my boss is pressing for us to take an image of the installation on each computer, and restore each computer to that image before they are to go into the field. My preferred solution would be to write a common script that checks to ensure that the configuration of the system is correct and that the system is operational. If the computer has been verified, isn't restoring it to that configuration redundant? And are there any inherent problems with doing so? My reluctance stems from the fact that our software and configuration is subject to change in the field, but these changes must be made across all the computers. That means that when a change is made, all the restoration images have to be updated as well. The differences in the configuration of each of the computers live in /etc. In the event that restoration is required, I would prefer to keep a single image containing everything that is common to all machines, and have a snapshot of each computer's /etc directory to be used for restoring the state of that particular machine. What's the better approach?

  Read the article

• How to use SMO.Scripter to generate a "full-script" of DB?

  - by ssg

  What I'm trying to do is a very simple task; I'd like to create a script to generate a database along with tables, SPs and UDFs. This is done with a couple of clicks on SSMS interface. However db.Script() only scripts CREATE DATABASE. Ok, so I iterate over objects one by one and script them individually. Now, what I have is an arbitrary order of CREATEs naturally failing during execution because dependent objects aren't created first. Ok so I set WithDependencies flag so dependent objects ARE scripted first. However this causes redundant CREATE scripts for objects that are already created, and causes around 20x growth in SQL file and generation time. Not to mention the errors hit during execution. I don't know if there is a way to mark objects "already walked in dependency tree", it doesn't seem likely. I might be missing a bigger picture somewhere, but MSDN recommends "Scripter" to generate scripts like the one I want. I had used Transfer class before to transfer table definitions but it fails to create a failsafe script. It doesn't make sense to use a Transfer object to generate a script anyway. I want to do this the way it should be done, and without losing my faith in SMO.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >