I don't believe there is a mass restore function. You'll likely need to do something like this through the cli.

https://help.nextcloud.com/t/mass-restore-files-from-recent-version-or-find-all-files-with-0-length/78741

Libre office works well to, especially if you have additional needs besides just appending.

@wrcombs He's facepalming the fact that someone, thought adding APs (regardless of settings) would fix the issue.

In particular the fact that these are so close together.

@dafyre no, the label changes, week 1, week 2 etc.

The reason for wanting for check in some duration (5m) is because apparently these people can't be bothered to actually swap the drive every week.

So, eject the drive, and check in 5 if the disk uid is still around and reconnect

@pete-s said in Ha-lizard on the XCP-NG 8.2 in 2021. Progress of my deployment:

@dustinb3403 said in Ha-lizard on the XCP-NG 8.2 in 2021. Progress of my deployment:

@fabiorpn said in Ha-lizard on the XCP-NG 8.2 in 2021. Progress of my deployment:

So we are betting on this solution. We are hopeful.

Quoting this again, so you don't need High Availability, you just need near HA, 99.9% uptime. Use Continuous Replication, I assume you've installed Xen Orchestra to administer these hypervisors, correct?

If not, see my github

I was thinking the same thing. The only thing is that there is no fail-over mechanism in Xen Orchestra for this right?

So if one host fails, you have to start the replicated VMs on the other host manually. Is that correct?

You're asking "how do we ensure the system is running" and the challenge to that is even with HA, the Host doesn't know that the guest is actually hosting services, it just knows that it's powered up (or attempting to start).

The services this guest is providing (and if its running or not) is something of a fuzzy situation.

You can get the guest to automatically start on the remote if a host goes offline by enabling HA (auto start) with best effort for the pool.

But this is again a "fuzzy" situation because running to the Host means "I see it has "power" so it must be running."

Running to your users means "I can access the services this system is hosting." Your mileage may vary...

@pete-s said in Ha-lizard on the XCP-NG 8.2 in 2021. Progress of my deployment:

@dustinb3403 said in Ha-lizard on the XCP-NG 8.2 in 2021. Progress of my deployment:

There are too many unknowns to solidly answer this, but the two options I would be looking at would be CR or just a standard pool with HA turned on for the VM's.

But you need shared storage for a standard pool with HA. So either your have a SPOF in which case HA doesn't really make sense or you're back to finding some kind of hyperconverged solution.

Or do you mean to restore the VM from backup on the second host?

With many HA systems you still have a single point of failure, the SAN. . .

A converter is the best thing I've used, we used this at my last position, but its only 100M and 1080p.

@stacksofplates said in Managing Publicly hosted Linux Servers through Cockpit:

@dustinb3403 said in Managing Publicly hosted Linux Servers through Cockpit:

@stacksofplates said in Managing Publicly hosted Linux Servers through Cockpit:

@dustinb3403 said in Managing Publicly hosted Linux Servers through Cockpit:

@stacksofplates said in Managing Publicly hosted Linux Servers through Cockpit:

There's a big movement now around SBOM with tools like in-toto, SPIFFE/SPIRE, TUF, and a lot more. We are working with gov't clients and they are headed towards requiring SBOM information for each release.

It's been mandated that software now include a SBOM (see my recent post in IT news).

Yeah but that mandate is only for open source (for whatever dumb reason). I'm all for SBOMs for open source software, but it's ignoring the fact that the issue has historically come from closed source software. An SBOM is much less effective when you already have access to 99% of what's included in the product.

Well it mentions open source specifically, but also targets close source

Ah I read the first part. It made it sound like it was only open source.

Not that anyone but the US Government will know what is actually included in any specific closed source software

@fredtx usually the process is far simpler than you'd expect.

@irj just reserving the space

@gjacobse I was wondering what denable was lol... good eye.

Corrected it

Makes me think of the classic blade chassis, and while they worked they weren't really efficient with a low end backplane...

@scottalanmiller said in Postfix Script to send email automatic:

This is the industry standard way, it's so quick, easy, efficient and standard that no one ever considers reinventing the wheel because the wheel is so good.

People have repeatedly reinvented the wheel. . . .

@nadnerb said in Ransomware Isn't the Problem, IT Departments Are:

meatware being meatware

@voip_n00b said in Proxmox VE 7.0 Released:

@jaredbusch yes

Mark one product off of the options list....

If the business had this system that was their bread and butter, that is going to cost so much money and time to ensure doesn't go offline, and they still let it happen.

Then this is entirely the businesses fault and stop supporting stupid fucking decisions..... like trying to get a 2003 Server to P2V and continue running it.

There was certainly virtualization options back 6 years ago, hell I moved 3 organizations to completely virtual within that time span...

@eleceng At this point you're probably fucked, someone may have a 2003 server key lying around but that isn't a long term solution.

I'd cut my losses and move to a new OS and simply export whatever data is on the drives.

How long has Server 2003 been EOL'd, 6 years? And this system was still physical until very recently. . .

Sunk cost fallacy here, there can't be that much value in this server to offset the cost of just moving to a new platform.

If you can host it yourself, I know @scottalanmiller is running Tactical RMM, I assume all of NTG is using it, globally.

Could save you some long term costs if you can manage and support it yourself.

@gjacobse said in WinRM: Security Question:

@eddiejennings said in WinRM: Security Question:

@gjacobse said in WinRM: Security Question:

Here, it's turned off by design as a security risk, which to some degree I can see and agree with, but now I'll have to annoy users and in some cases drive across town to perform a minor task I could have done with PS.

What's the specific risk?

Well - that is my question and I don't know that I will get any more of an answer other than:

"Remote Powershell execution"

I feel as if I had a tool in the box and it's been welded so it can't be used.

WinRM in and of itself could of course be used for malicious intent. But so can Manage Engine or any other remote management tool. Someone picked WinRM and said "No" because they don't know how it works or how to secure the environment from abuse.