@Dashrender said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @Pete-S said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @wrx7m said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @Pete-S said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @wrx7m said in Planning for New ESXi Hosts - Which CPU Metrics Should I Use?: @Pete-S They list both the 61xx and 62xx as options for the R740XD. Good! What CPUs do you have in the R720 today? 1 or 2 CPUs? Do you want the new ones to be faster or just capable of running more VMs? I have 2 x E5-2609 CPUs in each server. I would like faster, but more VMs would be the priority. The E5-2609 CPUs are at the low end of what was available at the time so no problem there. Actually, are you looking to keep the old servers around for testing and such? In that case you could just drop in refurbished CPUs that are faster and/or has more cores for very little money. If the server can take E5-2600 V2 you can get up to 12 core CPUs. yeah, but Windows licensing is an issue, assuming multiple CPUs... for a test server, not likely worth going over the 16 cores. Not to mention the test server might require licensing (if needed beyond the 90 day test period for something). Two 8-cores would be an option. For instance two E5-2690. They are 2.9 GHz base frequency and have 8 cores. About $100 each when buying refurbished. About 50% faster per core (2609 have no turbo) and about 3 times faster multicore performance. Has more cache and faster memory transfer speed. Was a very high end CPU at the time. Was listed at $2000 while the E5-2609 was $300. The fastest 8-core E5-2600 V2 CPU is the E5-2667 V2. 8 cores and base frequency of 3.3 GHz. It will likely also be an option for the R720XD. V2 uses 22nm technology so uses less power with the same clock speed and can fit more cores or run higher frequencies.

@Obsolesce said in Deploy Azure resources with Terraform: @IRJ said in Deploy Azure resources with Terraform: @Obsolesce said in Deploy Azure resources with Terraform: @IRJ said in Deploy Azure resources with Terraform: @Obsolesce @IRJ said in Deploy Azure resources with Terraform: @Obsolesce Yeah good stuff. I have a couple Udemy courses on it. Something I didn't see in this article was that Cloud Shell has Terraform built in... so you really don't even need to install it. I try to keep things serverless and source controlled, so I wouldn't want to install Terraform. As long as it uses the latest version of terraform. There are many differences between current and last release. Cool. Yeah 11 vs 12 are much different. Alot of things have to be redone

@wrx7m said in Video Conferencing Hardware - Suggestions?: @scottalanmiller said in Video Conferencing Hardware - Suggestions?: I'm doing video conferencing stuff this week, too! What are you deploying? I am leaning toward the higher end logitech stuff to integrate with SFB/Teams and Slack. If I do that, I will most likely pull the trigger on the Barco CSE-200+ for wireless presentation- something we haven't had before. We have just had a direct HDMI cable to a large monitor. Cheap Logitech right now to get started. We are talking to Yealink to find out about their high end stuff. But likely we are going to go with just Logitech gear and maybe soft phones or something like that.

@connorsoliver said in Troubleshooting Common Hardware Problems - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: If you get the blue screen of death on windows, do you have to reinstall the operating system? Or is there a simpler way to fix it? Most of the time, you do nothing. It happens to every system, sometimes. It's just a crash. You will 99% of the time just restart the computer and move on.

@Pete-S said in PFsense hardware ?: Yes, it makes sense. Ubiquity and pfsense are not really the same thing though. Ubiquity is a router like any consumer Asus or whatever but with a much better OS. Pfsense is a freebsd computer with a web gui. They are good for slightly different things. You could say the same thing about Cisco or whatever. All router hardware below five figures is kind of the same. Ubiquiti is definitely built better than any consumer gear I've seen, but the basics are the same. I've seen pfSense on the same kind of hardware. EdgeOS is Vyatta based, though. Purpose built to be a router. pfSense is putting a router on top of something desired for general use. I've never seen a pfSense setup that I'd consider ready for production use. Most I've seen are worse than consumer gear because it's either unsupported consumer gear rebranded, or just old PCs without maintenance.

@scottalanmiller said in NTG NY Offices Relocation (Shopping the NTG "Store"): @travisdh1 said in NTG NY Offices Relocation (Shopping the NTG "Store"): @scottalanmiller said in NTG NY Offices Relocation (Shopping the NTG "Store"): @travisdh1 is here, just took the HP Integrity and the SunFire Blade. Probably won't be firing them up for a couple of weeks till after I get settled in at the new place, but man these were some sought after pieces of equipment in their day. I still remember hackers using the SunFire workstations to reprogram smart cards, got all the channels available on DirectTV for free. We found the serial cables less than an hour after you left! That figures. I've got the workstation tho, one of the things that were always way more expensive than I could ever hope to actually buy. Just because they first came out around Y2K doesn't mean I won't spend too many hours poking it.

@dafyre said in Wireless presentation solutions for business: I could see something like a wireless VGA / HDMI transmitter and receiver set up. That way, at least any device with a VGA or HDMI connection could wire in and present with few issues. Tried a few of those (good ones) in some conference rooms. They are great on paper, but works poorly in practice. We boxed ours up and moved on.

Meh, what difference does it really make? If anything, I'm glad. Having high quality hardware allowed a lot of shops to try to justify buying something that was fundamentally wrong for an unrelated reason.

It's using the Intel controller. . . powershell.exe get-disk

@eddiejennings said in Determining resources for hypervisor: @black3dynamite said in Determining resources for hypervisor: Instead of using Fedora as a firewall VM, how about using VyOS? https://wiki.vyos.net/wiki/User_Guide I was thinking of that as well, since the OS for the ERLs. EdgeOS and VyOS are cousins, both descended from Vyatta.

ERL with an AC Lite AP at home as well as many clients. Zero issues.

@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise: @scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise] The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of. But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house." Prove this. Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such. Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with. But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software. Cost has nothing to do with that. I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two. You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims. I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware. If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism. It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff. You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is. But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source! This is correct, it is not our job to do research when you are the one claiming a fact. It is the reader's job to verify, but the reader cannot do that without the initial facts. Yes, I know you already answered. Just closing my part of the conversation.

Both of my R710s and my DL380 have 8 cores. The R710s were under $200 and the DL380 was like $230

@EddieJennings said in Laptop and Korora: And now I wait. Awesome About the laptop, not the waiting.

@JaredBusch said in Ubiquiti switches: UniFi vs EdgeMax: @coliver said in Ubiquiti switches: UniFi vs EdgeMax: @thwr said in Ubiquiti switches: UniFi vs EdgeMax: Mh, is the EdgeSwitch able to run a VPN tunnel on its own? I need to connect a "remote" office to my server room. The office is in the 3rd floor, my server room in the basement and I need to run through a "public" patch room (primary cabling junction for the building). Like: 3rd floor "remote" office -> fiber -> public patch room -> fiber -> my Serverroom (basement) -> Office I doubt it has the ability to configure a VPN that seems like an edge device is needed for that. It does not. That would be the router's job. Yeah, could have been. Probably the same software behind the scenes etc.