System with 12 CPUs will not boot
in [General Linux]
|
From: John Hasler on 10 Jul 2010 09:17 Hadron writes: > It has a LOCAL monitor (frequently via a monitor/knd switch) in a > secure room and NO ssh or vnc access quite frequently. I find it > amazing so many idiots in this group dont seem to understand REAL > security. Who the hell said anything about "security"? I just asked why the server had a monitor. In most cases a monitor on a server is a waste of money, space, and electricity, but there are valid reasons for one. In the "locked server room with armed guard" scenario (not the one that was under discussion AFAIK), however, the monitor and keyboard probably should be locked in a closet in the server room when not in use. The monitor should certainly not be left hooked to one of the servers running a screensaver. > Its the old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing once > more. As you regularly demonstrate. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: John Hasler on 10 Jul 2010 10:06 Huge writes: > So, putting a physical console on a box makes it secure? Taking it off makes it (marginally) more secure. > What about all the connections that box needs to act as a server... His don't have any. They're "secure". > How are you going to manage physical consoles in a data centre with > 5000 servers in it... If it is a top secret national security facility, by wheeling one physical console around from machine to machine. In other words, at great inconvenience and expense. More likely even NSA uses SSH. -- John Hasler jhasler(a)newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
From: mjt on 10 Jul 2010 10:08 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:54:39 -0500 Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote: > At least retrospectively, paying very substantial contract fees would > not yield benefits commensurate with the expense. Depends on the organization. I assume you're with a small outfit, who can "get by" without the advantage of falling back on a service contract. I can see this is a scaling perspectives view. You're talking about "dozens" of servers. I deal with clients such as DoD contractors, large corps, and such. To put it into perspective, *one* department within a local county government runs a zSeries with 800+ instances of Linux (SLES). So, my bad for not scaling down. > As of now, admining many dozens of these boxes is not even my full > time job and I spend, perhaps, 2-3 hours a week at most administering > them. So, maybe the sysadmin at your organization should be handling the sysadmin work? -- Arbitrary systems, pl.n.: Systems about which nothing general can be said, save "nothing general can be said." <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: Ignoramus30064 on 10 Jul 2010 10:30 On 2010-07-10, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > HoneyMonster writes: >> Red Hat, with a support contract, you berk. > > Professional paid support is available for every major distribution. > Canonical would sell him a support contract for Ubuntu. So would many > others. > >> I hear this a lot. "How can it be serious if you are not paying to >> anyone". > > The problem is that the PHBs can't understand that because it is open > source non-"vendor" support is not inferior: the "vendor" is not in the > privileged position of having sole access to the source. They seem to > actually want sole-source support. OK, you got me, what is "PHB"? >> The box with the screensaver has been up 274 days and shows extremely >> cute pictures. > > Why does a server have a monitor at all? I have a shelf with a few machines that sits in a roomful of people. I wanted one of them to show alternating cute pictures to lighten up the appearance. i
From: Ignoramus30064 on 10 Jul 2010 10:40
On 2010-07-10, mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:54:39 -0500 > Ignoramus30064 <ignoramus30064(a)NOSPAM.30064.invalid> wrote: > >> At least retrospectively, paying very substantial contract fees would >> not yield benefits commensurate with the expense. > > Depends on the organization. I assume you're with a > small outfit, who can "get by" without the advantage > of falling back on a service contract. I tend to think about not in terms of size, but in terms of being able to solve our own problems. > I can see this is a scaling perspectives view. You're > talking about "dozens" of servers. I deal with clients > such as DoD contractors, large corps, and such. To put > it into perspective, *one* department within a local > county government runs a zSeries with 800+ instances > of Linux (SLES). So, my bad for not scaling down. I thought a lot about this. My general goal is to enable us to use less servers rather than more, everything else being equal. That was one of the big advantages of Linux migration, we could get more from every box and could scale down the number of servers that we had. That said, if we were to need more machines, I think that what I have (scripts and such) would scale easily to perhaps 500 machines, and I would not need to work much harder. Beyond that, I would need to make changes. I still do not see why I would need a support contract if I had more machines. >> As of now, admining many dozens of these boxes is not even my full >> time job and I spend, perhaps, 2-3 hours a week at most administering >> them. > > So, maybe the sysadmin at your organization should be handling the > sysadmin work? > I am the sysadmin for the linux boxes. It is just not my full time job. i |