[00:05:10] *** smemp has quit IRC
[00:07:53] <kdavy_> yo
[00:32:58] *** _bradk has joined #Citrix
[00:47:22] <Ownage> why don't you ask him
[00:51:37] <kdavy_> ask who?
[00:51:44] <kdavy_> ah
[00:54:15] *** kreignf has joined #Citrix
[00:54:16] *** kreignj has quit IRC
[00:56:23] <kdavy_> so i've been looking for low profile brackets for QLogic 2460 FC cards. the only guy i found who has them in stock is asking $85 per bracket... for a bent piece of steel with 2 screw holes
[00:56:40] <Ownage> sorry?
[00:56:50] <Ownage> are you talking about the little metal thing inside the case?
[00:56:59] *** BigSamoan has left #Citrix
[00:57:40] <Ownage> and low profile as in the shorter of the two
[00:57:45] <manoot> thats correct.
[00:57:48] <manoot> so it seems lol
[00:57:58] <Ownage> wow man what a rip
[00:58:13] <Ownage> isn't that just a single fiber port
[00:59:08] <Ownage> http://www.codemicro.com/store/product/39m603902/New this? 30$
[00:59:57] <kdavy_> Ownage: yep
[01:00:12] <kdavy_> the metal bracket that secures the FC card to the back of the case
[01:00:43] <kdavy_> i ended up making them myself from the full-profile ones... took less than 10 minutes per bracket
[01:00:51] <kdavy_> using a hammer and a dremel toolkit
[01:01:50] <kdavy_> Ownage: i've seen the IBM ones, but first of all $30 is still too damn expensive, and second, there's no guarantee that they're for the right card
[01:05:42] <Ownage> yes and yes
[01:06:08] <Ownage> in the meantime, we have 2 xeon servers we purchased each for $85
[01:09:06] <kdavy_> Ownage: what kinda xeon, the Netburst based ones?
[01:09:27] <kdavy_> if so that's not surprising
[01:09:34] <Ownage> some old crappy one, but still the point remains on how expensive that piece of metal is
[01:09:46] <kdavy_> Ownage: i know
[01:09:52] <Ownage> we got them from geeks.com they have really cheap stuff sometimes
[01:10:00] <kdavy_> well, nothing beats a Dremel toolkit
[01:10:45] <Ownage> yessss
[01:59:55] *** smemp has joined #Citrix
[02:19:39] <Ownage> anyone have xenserver questions im bored
[02:39:32] *** smemp has quit IRC
[05:08:40] *** scsinutz has joined #Citrix
[05:18:28] *** katano has joined #Citrix
[05:47:51] *** The_Butcher has joined #Citrix
[06:04:38] *** The_Butcher has quit IRC
[06:04:58] *** The_Butcher has joined #Citrix
[06:34:25] *** The_Butcher has quit IRC
[06:38:28] *** SpyderZ has joined #Citrix
[06:49:44] *** Guest39379 has quit IRC
[06:50:09] *** kris_ has quit IRC
[07:12:24] *** _bradk has quit IRC
[07:17:39] *** kdavy_ has quit IRC
[07:38:14] *** kdavy has quit IRC
[07:53:55] *** George___ has joined #Citrix
[07:54:17] *** George___ is now known as _George
[07:54:32] *** _George is now known as _Giorgio
[07:59:07] *** kdavy has joined #Citrix
[08:19:23] *** waynerr__ has joined #Citrix
[08:22:41] *** lesrar has quit IRC
[08:48:05] *** Meson has quit IRC
[08:48:30] *** Meson has joined #Citrix
[09:31:15] *** SpyderZ has quit IRC
[09:43:16] *** Forconin has joined #Citrix
[10:28:27] *** nelloz has joined #Citrix
[10:28:45] <nelloz> hi to all...
[10:29:01] <nelloz> i have a little problem with load evaluator...
[10:29:51] <nelloz> i set a load evaluator with range ip address with only only one ip (internal lan) from 10.64.1.59 to 10.64.1.59 for testing
[10:31:22] <nelloz> this load evaluator worker well until this night the server reboot and looses this setting of load evaluator. the strange thing is that all my users were connected to that server where i applied the load evaluator.
[10:32:19] <nelloz> i have already check this ctx documents : http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX117070 and many other but i don't find anything
[10:47:22] *** katano has quit IRC
[11:18:07] <_Giorgio> nelloz:
[11:21:09] <nelloz> Any suggestions ?
[11:21:26] <_Giorgio> hi
[11:21:35] <nelloz> hi
[11:21:56] <_Giorgio> did you check that your load evaluator is still enabled on that specifick citrix server?
[11:22:17] <nelloz> if u want whe can speak in italian...
[11:22:26] <_Giorgio> what i mean to say is did you say that your specifick server has that load evaluator
[11:22:33] <_Giorgio> no i am Dutch :)
[11:22:46] <_Giorgio> George is already taken on this network
[11:24:34] <_Giorgio> nelloz: please reply
[11:27:35] <nelloz> sorry.. i checked twice time that load evaluator was assigned to that server
[11:28:14] <nelloz> in this load eval. i set only the ip range in this format from 10.64.5.59 to 10.64.5.59 and nothing else..
[11:28:39] <_Giorgio> you want that everybody logs on to that specifick server right
[11:29:04] <nelloz> i don't know if , when the server reboot, it loose that settings of load evaluator
[11:29:36] <nelloz> no i want that only one person could log in that server
[11:30:33] <nelloz> i have also check with this ctx http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX118640
[11:30:36] <_Giorgio> no it should not loose that information because it is static information and should save it in his datastore
[11:30:48] <nelloz> but the load eval. was right ...
[11:31:35] <_Giorgio> looks like it was not saved to the datastore
[11:31:41] <nelloz> i might that , probably , it is corrupted in the data store , so i found thi article ctx http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX117070 to try
[11:31:59] <_Giorgio> so after reboot server dont know of the existance of that evaluator
[11:32:29] <nelloz> but i'm a little bit afraid to do a  dscheck /full servers /clean
[11:32:30] <_Giorgio> let me look that document
[11:32:52] <_Giorgio> try dsmaint /lhc or something like that
[11:32:53] <nelloz> my datastore is located in sql server enviroment
[11:33:05] <_Giorgio> then the server gets new information from the datastore
[11:33:15] <nelloz> i colud try to do a backup before
[11:33:19] <_Giorgio> you run citrix 4.5?
[11:33:29] <_Giorgio> Yeah alwasy backup first
[11:33:32] <nelloz> yes citrix 4.5
[11:33:38] <_Giorgio> but dsmaint doesnt do much
[11:33:48] <_Giorgio> only erases lhc
[11:34:01] <_Giorgio> and asks for new information from datastore
[11:34:21] <nelloz> i know when the server reboot the ima service contacts the datastore for newly update informations
[11:34:44] <_Giorgio> yeah it should
[11:35:33] <_Giorgio> dsmaint recreatelhc
[11:35:38] <_Giorgio> thats the command
[11:35:55] <nelloz> another info regharding this issue is that all my users are connecting through Program Neighborhood
[11:36:09] <_Giorgio> and when they try they cant connect?
[11:37:26] <nelloz> i saw that all my users where connected only on that server.. seems like it was the only one that was enabled logon
[11:38:06] <_Giorgio> okay how many servers you have in your citrix farm?
[11:39:03] <nelloz> wait , maybe i have found the solutions
[11:39:45] <nelloz> could you answer me if is it right what i'm tell now :
[11:41:02] <_Giorgio> Yes it is right
[11:42:04] <_Giorgio> what you want to do is possible
[11:42:07] <nelloz> may when the user connect with the Program Neighborhood , it points to a web interface or it can points directly to the servers xenapp ? otherwise it needs a xenapp service site for work ?
[11:42:20] <_Giorgio> Yes
[11:42:40] <_Giorgio> You can change in program neighbourhood http+tcp to tcp only
[11:42:47] <_Giorgio> then give in the ip address
[11:43:05] <_Giorgio> then PN only looks for that ip address
[11:43:25] <_Giorgio> and tries to connect to the published application on that server
[11:43:56] <nelloz> so pn don't need a xenapp service site for work
[11:44:24] <_Giorgio> what you mean by xenapp service?
[11:44:33] <_Giorgio> you mean like a agent or what?
[11:44:35] <nelloz> 'cause i was thinking that the ip presented to the xenapp server was by the web interface and not the client ip..
[11:44:58] <nelloz> sorry for my english ...
[11:45:13] <nelloz> we have a web interface with a few web site
[11:45:20] <_Giorgio> Look in your PN settings and change http+tcp to tcp only
[11:45:46] <_Giorgio> give right ip address
[11:45:51] <_Giorgio> and it should work
[11:45:58] <nelloz> some with web site and some with xenapp service site
[11:47:38] <nelloz> let me check one thing...
[11:47:41] *** _Giorgio is now known as _Giorgio_XenApp_
[11:47:47] <_Giorgio_XenApp_> okay
[11:47:56] *** _Giorgio_XenApp_ is now known as _Giorgio
[11:50:59] <nelloz> i describe to u how is organized the connection setting : i have registered in the dns (domain controller) various host A with the name ica. all of these host points to the ip of the xenapp servers. so the program Neighborhood is set to find the ica name,
[11:51:51] <_Giorgio> ok
[11:53:00] <nelloz> but i d'ont know if the PN setting , is HTTP or TCP ot HTTP+TCP .. i have to check that. but in case that it is like this ? the load evaluator is not applied for that setting ?
[11:54:58] <nelloz> can PN setting overcome the load evaluator applied to a server ?
[11:55:15] <nelloz> i don't think so..
[11:55:47] <_Giorgio> Well you have 3 load evaluators now right: Standard, Advanced and your load evaluator is this right?
[11:56:11] <nelloz> yes
[11:56:16] <_Giorgio> of what load evaluator did you make a copy?
[11:56:21] <_Giorgio> standard or advanced?
[11:56:44] <nelloz> i create a new load evaluator
[11:56:53] <_Giorgio> with only the ip setting?
[11:57:04] <nelloz> yes with only ip setting
[11:57:12] <nelloz> and applied to only one server
[11:57:23] <_Giorgio> okay
[11:57:37] <_Giorgio> and when you connect what wil happen
[11:57:51] <_Giorgio> as you say you connect throught DNS called ICA right
[11:58:08] <nelloz> yes throught the ica name
[11:58:14] <_Giorgio> exactly
[11:58:40] <_Giorgio> so you have to be lucky to get to that one server with that load evaluator agree?
[11:58:51] <nelloz> now i have rollback the load evaluator
[11:59:13] <nelloz> let me do the changes and i'll tell you
[11:59:17] <_Giorgio> okay
[12:09:13] <nelloz> in the afternoon i 'll give u feedback.. for now thak u very much..
[12:09:17] <nelloz> bye
[12:09:25] *** nelloz has quit IRC
[12:19:05] *** apollo13 has left #Citrix
[12:25:01] *** _Giorgio has quit IRC
[14:33:53] *** smemp has joined #Citrix
[14:38:53] *** finnzi has joined #Citrix
[14:48:10] *** smemp has quit IRC
[15:18:11] *** Faithful has joined #Citrix
[15:18:46] *** Faithful1 has joined #Citrix
[15:37:26] *** pl-6 has joined #Citrix
[15:37:40] <pl-6> hello
[15:37:55] <pl-6> I was just checking out XenDesktop -
[15:38:04] <pl-6> does anyone know if applications have to be built for this ?
[15:38:26] <pl-6> or say- if I write a database application in vb.net  that normally runs on a client with remote database,  is it seamless to run that on Xendesktop ?
[15:39:02] <pl-6> in other words, does Citrix/XenDekstop take care of everything at application layer such that I as a developer don't have to code 'towards' Xendesktop ?
[15:39:43] *** Faithful1 has quit IRC
[15:39:43] *** Faithful has quit IRC
[15:39:45] *** Meson_ has quit IRC
[16:09:37] *** tom_wurm has joined #Citrix
[16:11:38] *** Ownage has quit IRC
[16:12:42] *** Ownage has joined #Citrix
[16:22:01] <zaf> pl-6, it's just a VM running a desktop OS
[16:22:13] <zaf> well, not "just", but you get the idea
[16:27:41] *** pl-6 has quit IRC
[16:42:30] *** kdavy_ has joined #Citrix
[16:43:22] <kdavy_> morning
[16:44:37] <kdavy_> anyone know what DLL's are used by the XenApp Load Evaluator logic?
[16:50:54] *** The_Butcher has joined #Citrix
[16:52:24] *** The_Butcher has quit IRC
[16:54:54] <kdavy_> hmm looks like lmssal.dll
[16:57:23] <kdavy_> which doesn't do me any good really
[17:18:11] *** ruinah has joined #Citrix
[17:18:34] <ruinah> Having trouble with Citrix Receiver for Android and a CAG 5.0 VPX, WI 5.3.
[17:19:43] <kdavy_> ruinah: what's it doing?
[17:19:52] <ruinah> the site works fine from PC's and laptops and such but I can't for the life of me make the receivers work.
[17:19:54] <kdavy_> or, rather, what isn't it doing?
[17:20:09] <ruinah> On the Droid 1 I enumerate all of the info (username, domain, pw, etc)
[17:20:11] <kdavy_> for receiver you need PNagent, it will not work with WI
[17:20:30] <ruinah> i thought in CAG 5 it has to be WI only
[17:21:01] <kdavy_> citrix receiver doesnt support WI, period
[17:21:08] <ruinah> ok
[17:21:20] <kdavy_> on the CAG you need to create a redirect to PNagent (also called a Services Site)
[17:21:27] <ruinah> so where do I setup the PN Agent site then? I can't do that within the CAG I dont think
[17:21:33] <ruinah> ahhh
[17:21:34] <kdavy_> on an IIS server
[17:22:02] <ruinah> so basically this won't use WI moving forward either? It always has to be a PN agent site?
[17:22:09] <kdavy_> that's as far as i can get you - i'm not using CAG myself
[17:22:16] <kdavy_> correct, most likely
[17:22:22] <ruinah> how else can I get Android devices connected?
[17:22:29] <kdavy_> that's the only way
[17:22:32] <ruinah> we have users that will want the Motorola Xoom soon and the Galaxy tabs
[17:22:35] *** kreignf has quit IRC
[17:22:57] <kdavy_> same issue with iPhone/iPad - can't use WI for them either
[17:23:12] <ruinah> so I have an IIS box inside that runs the WI for the CAG now
[17:23:20] <ruinah> can I create a PN Agent (services) site inside that
[17:23:28] <ruinah> and then do the re-direct you are talking about?
[17:23:34] *** theamoeba has joined #Citrix
[17:23:44] <ruinah> so if my user types like mobile.domain.com/pnagent or something thats how they can get to it?
[17:27:46] <tabularasa> kdavy_: what are you trying to do?
[17:31:04] <ruinah> i am trying to get receivers working on Android devices oeriod
[17:31:06] <ruinah> period
[17:31:12] <ruinah> with CAG VPX 5.0
[17:31:31] *** theamoeba has quit IRC
[17:32:25] *** kreign has joined #Citrix
[17:32:39] <ruinah> kdavy was telling me that WI won't work for that, and I have to setup a PN Agent (services) site and then re-direct the CAG there
[17:33:02] <tabularasa> yup, pretty much
[17:33:12] <tabularasa> i was asking kdavy_ what he was trying to do with the dll
[17:33:15] <ruinah> can anyone tell me exactly how to do that?
[17:33:25] <ruinah> oh sorry :(
[17:33:50] <kdavy_> tabularasa: i'm trying to figure out if it's possible to override load evaluator logic with completely custom-defined rules
[17:34:09] <tabularasa> wow
[17:34:42] <kdavy_> tabularasa: especially to load balance based on username and past performance history of the user
[17:35:44] <kdavy_> all the data is in the resource manager database... problem is that load evaluators don't care about past data - only about the current situation
[17:36:14] *** Trixboxer has joined #Citrix
[17:39:21] *** aaron2k has joined #Citrix
[17:40:26] <ruinah> does anyone know the CAG VPN 5.0 here?
[17:40:46] <ruinah> VPX I mean
[17:41:29] *** aaron2k has quit IRC
[17:50:37] *** kprojects has joined #Citrix
[18:20:11] *** scsinutz has joined #Citrix
[18:21:23] *** scsinutz has quit IRC
[18:21:42] *** scsinutz has joined #Citrix
[18:21:52] *** scsinutz has left #Citrix
[18:36:30] *** ruinah has quit IRC
[18:56:15] *** OmNomSequitur has joined #Citrix
[19:19:50] *** ruinah has joined #Citrix
[19:31:10] <makson> kdavy_: newest version of Citirx reciecer for IPAD can use web interface
[19:31:24] <ruinah> thats what I thought
[19:31:49] <ruinah> Android seems to be the big problem. Requires WI 5.4 to make it work. Why did they change the theme again in 5.4? I kind of liked the all black theme.
[19:31:57] <makson> kdavy_: it's not such a nice seamless expereince as the reciever though. as in listing all your apps and like a workspace. you woul just have to close reciever then go back to safari to launch the next app.
[19:32:04] <ruinah> wonder if there is a way to skin it back to black.
[19:32:56] <makson> ruinah: I'm sure there is, White actually grew on me really like the search feature.
[19:33:00] *** Meson has quit IRC
[19:33:12] <makson> ruinah: what cag version are you using?
[19:33:47] <ruinah> 5.0 vpx
[19:33:48] *** Meson has joined #Citrix
[19:34:34] <makson> ruinah: I haven't worked with android with latest reciever, i know there was an issue with 5.0, and there was a maintence release which fixed reciever issues did you dowload that?
[19:35:35] *** pesadill1 has joined #Citrix
[19:36:28] <ruinah> makson: was that was maintenance release for the CAG?
[19:37:18] *** gblfxt has quit IRC
[19:37:57] <ruinah> I see there is a maintenance release 5.0.1 now........
[19:38:34] *** gblfxt has joined #Citrix
[19:39:07] <makson> ruinah: yes, you need that tofix the issue your refering to
[19:40:49] <ruinah> makson: thanks. I see it's a fairly large file. I don't see any documentation on how to upgrade that. I will check out the appliance and see if inside there are upgrade options.
[19:42:22] <ruinah> It looks like I can snapshot the box, and the configuration and then just upload the file. Wonder if it's really as easy as that or if there are other steps involved.
[19:47:08] <makson> ruinah: I believe those are the steps, there is an option to upgrade inside gui.
[19:47:19] <makson> you can snapshot the box at the VM level as well just incase something goes wrong.
[20:01:41] *** Elias_Rus has joined #Citrix
[20:04:44] <ruinah> yeah, I will absolutely snapshot it at the VM level. I tried taking a snap inside the CAG but it never does anything. I would assume it would list the snapshot but it doesn't
[20:07:55] *** Makuew has quit IRC
[20:08:42] <ruinah> nevermind, you have to highlight the release and then take the snapshot. I have backups now.
[20:29:32] <Trixboxer> to destroy a snapshot completely (including storage) should I use snapshot-destroy or snapshot-uninstall ?
[20:32:10] <ruinah> trixboxer: are you talking about within Xenserver?
[20:32:29] <Trixboxer> yeah, I have a common storage
[20:34:35] <ruinah> i think destroy will take care of the disks themselves
[20:34:45] <ruinah> not sure the uninstall th ough
[20:37:38] <Trixboxer> hmm
[20:37:58] <Trixboxer> xe help snapshot-uninstall says that it destroys VDI
[20:38:12] <Trixboxer> doe that mean storage disks will also be deleted ?
[20:52:19] *** ruinah has quit IRC
[20:55:41] *** finnzi has quit IRC
[21:03:54] *** Trixboxer has quit IRC
[21:13:22] *** KaiForce has joined #Citrix
[21:18:56] <Ownage> it will destroy the vdi for the snapshot
[21:19:02] <Ownage> it won't touch your vm's disks
[21:21:10] <Ownage> destroy means remove the snapshot and leave the disk. uninstall means remove both. neither of them affect the parent vm
[21:23:23] *** flippytheclown has quit IRC
[21:38:45] <kreign> any of you guys warehouse your citrix xenserver and/or windows logs?
[21:39:23] *** pesadill1 has quit IRC
[21:40:05] <Ownage> nope
[21:40:21] <Ownage> it's a rare environment that needs ancient logs
[21:50:30] *** Elias_Rus has quit IRC
[21:58:15] *** scsinutz has joined #Citrix
[21:58:53] *** OmNomSequitur has quit IRC
[21:59:30] *** neillom has quit IRC
[21:59:49] *** unop_ has quit IRC
[21:59:50] *** unop has joined #Citrix
[22:04:37] *** neillom has joined #Citrix
[22:04:38] *** scsinutz has quit IRC
[22:05:11] *** scsinutz has joined #Citrix
[22:06:13] *** kprojects has quit IRC
[22:07:32] *** gardib_ has quit IRC
[22:07:51] *** gardib has joined #Citrix
[22:20:47] <kreign> Ownage, sorry, what I meant wasn't warehousing but log analysis
[22:26:02] *** neillom has quit IRC
[22:26:07] *** unop_ has joined #Citrix
[22:26:13] *** unop has quit IRC
[22:31:06] *** Meson has quit IRC
[22:36:09] *** neillom has joined #Citrix
[23:04:35] <Ownage> you're asking if anyone analyzes their logs? I do when needed but not anything extensive
[23:09:55] *** KaiForce has quit IRC
[23:18:19] *** denon_ has joined #Citrix
[23:20:06] *** denon has quit IRC
[23:27:56] *** tooms has quit IRC
[23:34:29] *** tooms has joined #Citrix
[23:40:35] *** denon_ is now known as denon
[23:40:36] *** denon has joined #Citrix
[23:45:55] <gblfxt> yes, i use central logging, and have various ways to analyze, any specific method you have in mind?
[23:57:03] *** spinewr has joined #Citrix
[23:57:29] *** spinewr has quit IRC





top