[00:00:05] *** The_Machine has quit IRC
[00:41:44] *** eastz0r has quit IRC
[00:46:57] *** gnoze5 has joined #Citrix
[00:47:21] <gnoze5> my dear virtualizers.
[00:48:01] <IcePee> my dear gnoze5.
[00:51:13] <kdavy_> Esteemed sirs, i am coming to you with an important business proposal. I am the legitimate son of King Mbuma
[00:53:03] <IcePee> kdavy_, really?
[00:53:04] *** gblfxt has quit IRC
[00:53:17] <IcePee> please, do tell...
[00:53:21] *** gblfxt has joined #Citrix
[00:53:32] <kdavy_> yes, see, there is a large sum of money in my late fathers bank account, and i need help transferring it out of the country
[00:53:38] <kdavy_> :D
[00:55:24] <IcePee> is this virtual money? Well, this is a virtual chat room.
[00:56:11] <gnoze5> this is a barebone chat room.
[00:56:23] <gnoze5> insulting notion for it to be virtualized
[00:56:37] <kdavy_> but if we virtualize it, it'll become slower
[00:57:47] <gnoze5> we just need more hosts and 200k storagre
[00:58:16] <kdavy_> and a full-time employee to watch the performance. i volunteer for the job
[01:00:53] <gnoze5> and pat the servers
[01:02:51] <gblfxt> sql anywhere
[01:04:37] <kdavy_> sql anywhere what?
[01:04:40] <kdavy_> sql is everywhere
[01:05:15] <gblfxt> ah, sql anywhere is crashing on an assertion error on my xenapp server
[01:06:02] <kdavy_> what is sql anywhere doing on a xenapp server?
[01:06:22] <kdavy_> meh, opensolaris forums are slooooow right now
[01:07:12] <gblfxt> came with the program installed on qb, lol
[01:07:46] <kdavy_> OHHH qb, thats right
[01:10:20] <gblfxt> all our qb use one db manager on a file server, which workes good, just have to backup the file server and all in one spot
[01:11:02] <kdavy_> yeah, same here
[01:11:27] <gblfxt> bad part is, if one qb db corrupts, which is fairly often, then all of that version crash
[01:12:34] <gblfxt> so im thinking of somehow seperating all the sql anywhere db server instances, so only the corrupt db user is affected
[01:12:35] <kdavy_> gblfxt, on an unrelated note - i overheard something from our helpdesk today. according to QB Support they no longer accept payroll uploads from any version prior to 2011. Does that sound like BS to you?
[01:13:12] <kdavy_> the official fix is to upgrade all customers to QB 2011
[01:13:41] <gblfxt> yes, yes it does, lol, they support all the way back to 2008 still, which ends support this month i think
[01:17:21] <kdavy_> qblfxt: quoting an email from QB Support (found the ticket) "Anything below QB 2011 will not be supported for payroll uploads past April 14th"
[01:20:32] <gblfxt> qb support are easily confused, i would get a 2nd opinion from them
[01:20:53] <kdavy_> ok, just spoke to the helpdesk guy. the actual message QB sent to the customer (i now have it in PDF form) was obscured by several layers of bullshit
[01:21:14] <kdavy_> nevermind
[01:22:18] <gblfxt> should be may 31, anything older than qb 2009
[01:22:34] <kdavy_> ya, as i said several levels of bullshit
[01:22:55] <kdavy_> the letter from QB actually makes sense, what's in our ticketing notes makes no sense
[01:23:35] *** zachbb has joined #Citrix
[01:25:31] <zachbb> Hey all, I have a problem.  I want to stack a bunch of vm on a xenserver a i was told i could put 7 per core.
[01:25:54] <kdavy_> zachbb, you can put as many per core as you want, there is no hard limit
[01:25:55] <zachbb> I was seeing if any one has done that and what there performace was?
[01:26:16] <kdavy_> but obviously you still cannot exceed 100% total CPU utilization
[01:27:28] <zachbb> ok, from your experance how many can you relisticly put on a server
[01:27:42] <kdavy_> my ratio of vCores to pCores in production is from 2.25:1 to 3:1, but once again that REALLY depends on your workload
[01:27:43] <zachbb> i know it depends on what kind of vm
[01:28:04] <kdavy_> my workload is XenApp 5 hosts with ~20 users per VM
[01:28:33] <kdavy_> so I'm mostly ram-bound, CPU usage rarely exceeds 50%, which is my threshold for rebalancing
[01:29:53] <zachbb> 2.25:1 to 3:1 so basically 3 vm to 1 core is that what your saying
[01:29:59] <kdavy_> yes
[01:30:04] <kdavy_> no
[01:30:07] <kreign> kdavy it's fixed.
[01:30:18] <kreign> and by 'fixed' i mean 'sorta kinda, it's still running fbsd'
[01:30:22] <kdavy_> 3 vm cores to 1 physical core. each vm has more than one virtual core
[01:30:36] <kdavy_> kreign: congrats. did you have to sell your soul?
[01:30:56] <kreign> kdavy_, yeah I got the RHEL support contract
[01:31:14] <kreign> kdavy_, er, I mean, I just said 'fuck it' and risked a reinstall
[01:31:21] <kdavy_> lol
[01:31:33] <kreign> looks like the documentation (from my forensic work) and version control paid off
[01:31:41] <kdavy_> i was a bit confused about RHEL part until i realized you were joking
[01:32:41] <kreign> kdavy_, i'm really interested in your 'zfs limitations' article.
[01:32:44] <kreign> ;p
[01:32:53] <kreign> or some usecass I can tryu
[01:32:58] <kreign> usecases i can try
[01:33:11] <kreign> 'don't do this or it'll break'
[01:33:26] <kdavy_> yeah, that'll take me a while
[01:34:07] <kdavy_> today i had a 2 hour conference call with some high-profile folks at Nexenta - they showed me a whole bunch of awesome shit
[01:34:23] <kdavy_> $200/hr well worth it in this case
[01:34:57] <kreign> kdavy_, ... that's what you paid them?
[01:35:00] <kreign> for the conference?
[01:35:12] <kdavy_> well, yes, pretty much
[01:35:19] <kreign> ... huh.
[01:35:20] <ScottCochran> kdavy_ is Nexenta being sued for ZFS usage?
[01:35:31] <kreign> can you share what kind of conference it was, what kind of things were covered?
[01:36:03] <kreign> zfs or nexenta centric?
[01:36:06] <kdavy_> they won't let you purchase the HA cluster plugin without 2 days of dedicated consulting, but since i had everything up and running already by the time of purchase, they agreed to lower that to 1 day of consulting, by the hour
[01:36:28] <kdavy_> ScottCochran, no they're not being sued
[01:37:14] <kdavy_> kreign, we covered pretty much everything on my setup, and a lot of zfs and nexenta internals that i wasn't aware of
[01:37:39] <kreign> kdavy interesting; what? :P
[01:38:12] <kreign> kdavy_, can you buy the HA cluster from a 3rd party and not pay that 2 day cnosulting fee?
[01:38:18] <kdavy_> such as the fact that they do support ALUA for FC multipathing even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the docs
[01:38:30] <kreign> an additional $1600 in non-product is -somewhat- unappealing
[01:38:47] <kreign> kdavy huh. bad documentation?
[01:38:54] <kdavy_> kreign, trust me it's well worth it, the guys i talked to know what they're doing
[01:39:44] <ScottCochran> kdavy_ This is what I was talking about, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/nexenta_comment_on_netapp_coraid/
[01:39:47] <kdavy_> not bad documentation, it's stuff that they haven't written a user-friendly interface for and therefore can't officially market it
[01:40:02] <kreign> kdavy how does the method of keeping two nodes in sync work for full-HA multipath storage?
[01:40:11] <kreign> kdavy independent arrays + zfs snapshotting?
[01:40:13] <kdavy_> ScottCochran, that article is ancient in zfs time spans
[01:40:53] <kdavy_> kreign, dedicated quorum drive on the shared storage + network heartbeat + RS232 heartbeat
[01:41:15] <ScottCochran> lol its from a few months ago
[01:41:16] <kreign> kdavy ok, I really don't understand 'quorum drive'
[01:41:23] <kreign> how do the hosts access the drive concurrently?
[01:41:52] <kdavy_> + SCSI-3 reservations on drives by whichever node running the active volume, so if anyone else touches it the appliance will panic to protect data
[01:43:14] <kreign> ... if another host touches the quorum disk the nexenta box kernel panics?
[01:44:19] <kdavy_> no, any disk but the quorum disk
[01:45:13] <kdavy_> the nodes heartbeat across the quorum disk, so there is no reservation placed on it. one node writes last access timestamp to sector 36, the other - to sector 38
[01:46:22] <kdavy_> we covered 16 different cluster failure scenarios during the call today - all of them are covered
[01:49:18] <kdavy_> next version will improve the clustering so it doesn't require a dedicated quorum drive
[01:51:18] <zachbb> I'm still not getting my head around this.  I have a power edge 1950 with 2 dual core cpu. meaning i have 4 cores i could do 12 vm
[01:52:04] <zachbb> is there a number of sockets per core?
[01:52:35] <kdavy_> zachbb, you could do 100 VMs on a single core CPU if you want. they will just all be sharing the same core and performance will be miserable
[01:53:36] <zachbb> lol, In the free vertion is there a limmit of how many vcpu you can give out?
[01:54:04] <kdavy_> no
[01:54:50] <zachbb> so is the best thing to do is just keep adding vm's and check performace and when it gets high, move some of them off to another server
[01:55:53] <kdavy_> essentially
[01:56:06] <kdavy_> until you get bottlenecked by something other than CPU, that is
[01:56:14] <zachbb> sorry if im asking some really basic questions
[01:57:23] <kdavy_> that's alright, we're here to help
[01:57:46] <zachbb> citrix offers a work load balancer that could help with this problem
[01:58:29] <kdavy_> you mean the workload balancing feature in xenserver?
[01:58:40] <zachbb> yea
[01:59:09] <kdavy_> it's only available in Enterprise and Platinum editions - $2500 or $5000 per server
[01:59:22] <ScottCochran> i ujust set WLB for my current project
[01:59:33] <ScottCochran> setup*
[01:59:39] <zachbb> WLB?
[01:59:45] <zachbb> work load bal
[01:59:49] <zachbb> never mind
[01:59:54] <ScottCochran> ya
[02:00:12] <zachbb> you set it up, scrip or manualy
[02:00:41] <ScottCochran> what do you mean?
[02:00:59] <ScottCochran> WLB?
[02:01:04] <zachbb> you set up a wlb for them, i was just wondering how you do that
[02:01:20] <kdavy_> from XenCenter
[02:02:11] <ScottCochran> oh... It is an application you install on a Windows server.  After you install you point your XenServer Cluster to the server you installed the WLB service on
[02:02:18] <kdavy_> but you'll also need a SQL server to use WLB, and it cannot be hosted in a VM on the XS pool you are balancing
[02:02:43] <ScottCochran> kdavy_  I have it on a VM in the same pool
[02:03:54] <kdavy_> ScottCochran, ok, rather I wouldn't recommend it. WLB is very fickle when it comes to communication between the pool, the windows service and the database server
[02:04:15] <kdavy_> if your pool dies WLB is guaranteed to break until you intervene manually
[02:05:02] <zachbb> so with a WLB you can manage how much processing power each vm uses?
[02:05:43] <kdavy_> you can't manage, but you can police
[02:05:48] <kdavy_> and rebalance
[02:05:55] <kdavy_> mostly rebalance
[02:06:34] <ScottCochran> kdavy_ Not sure I agree.  This is the same argument with virtualizing vCenter in VMware.  Now VMware recommends virtualizing it in the same pool it manages.  ALl that stops is the balancing of VMs.  Not a critical operation
[02:07:13] <ScottCochran> Now Citrix is putting WLB into a VPX so unless you have multiple clusters than it will be going in the cluster it manages
[02:07:50] <ScottCochran> zachbb What are you trying to accomplish?
[02:09:07] <zachbb> too much! our company use to do voip. know they want to do vm's.  we are trying to figure out pricing for each vm
[02:09:41] <zachbb> and how we can manage it so not one vm is using all the resources
[02:09:59] <zachbb> and my boss is on a shoe string of a budget
[02:11:12] <gnoze5> its the hype!
[02:11:59] <zachbb> true
[02:14:36] <zachbb> i'm trying to figure out how people are pricing out there vms
[02:23:36] <zachbb> i guess i scared every one away with that question
[02:24:11] <ScottCochran> zachbb Well I hope you are not planning to use XenServer for that type of infrastructure.  VMware is much more sophisticated with Chargeback and vCloud Director, etc
[02:25:03] <zachbb> yea we look deeply in both and citrix for use work out that best
[02:25:40] <zachbb> i just wish there was some affordible traing
[02:25:59] <ScottCochran> Training?  For what
[02:27:25] <zachbb> lol, i have been using all the online recources and they are great! but in denver we have no user group left.  I can find any one here that has much experance
[02:28:34] <ScottCochran> No I mean what Training are you looking for?  What technology?
[02:29:59] <zachbb> xenserver; SR, clustering, data recover, I'm starting to look at scripts for backup
[02:35:40] <zachbb> any idea where to find more info
[02:35:40] <ScottCochran> So you guys are sold on XenServer for hosting customers infrastructure?
[02:35:56] <zachbb> yea
[02:36:42] <ScottCochran> are you using Platinum licensing?  WHat kind of SAN?
[02:37:04] *** gblfxt has quit IRC
[02:38:03] <zachbb> I wish, running on free and just moving to advanced. SAN DL440
[02:39:44] *** Faithful has joined #Citrix
[02:40:34] <Faithful> Hey guys is there a cluster filesystem like ZFS or GFS for windows?
[02:41:27] <ScottCochran> Wow, thats not good.  You wont get WLB, StorageLink, VM Protection and Recovery, Site Recovery, and the list goes on
[02:44:15] <zachbb> yep, that is why im writing back up scripts ;-)
[02:44:21] <ScottCochran> yea you should tell your boss not to start a hosting company and put ppl's data at risk...
[02:44:36] *** gblfxt has joined #Citrix
[02:44:41] <ScottCochran> Can you even afford an actual backup product?
[02:45:42] <zachbb> like phd, not really but we have ran xen open for many years with our own scripts
[02:46:47] <zachbb> that is one of the things we are checking out. If we buy $2,500 or $5,000 lincens how many vm do we need to sell and how many can we put on the server
[02:47:57] <ScottCochran> PDH is the best so get it when you can, or at least Platinum edition XenServer...
[02:49:29] <zachbb> using platinum edition can you send the back ups to an nfs shair and program it to delete the last old copy
[02:49:45] <ScottCochran> aren't you are selling VM's for a monthly cost?  The $5k is one itme fee...
[02:50:20] <ScottCochran> Yes you can send to NFS or CIFS, schedule, keep a set number of backups, etc
[02:51:07] <ScottCochran> Dont you guys get Service Provider Licensing from Citrix?
[02:51:44] <kdavy> ScottCochran: back. the point in keeping management services, even as insignificant in comparison as WLB, on a dedicated physical host is so you can set it and forget it, and not have to keep people on call every time there needs to be maintenance done. i think that in the long term keeping management separate from everything else lowers the overhead of operations
[02:53:29] <ScottCochran> kdavy still not sure how you figure that in a virtual environment.  You simply put the hosts in maintenance mode and the management VM will continue working on the new host
[02:53:35] <zachbb> i agree with both scott and kdavy, we should use platinum so we do not have to mess around with it so much
[02:54:03] <kdavy> for example, not sure about XS 5.6 FP1 - havent tested that yet - but in 5.6 downtime of a previously configured WLB service introduced a delay of 30 seconds when starting every VM (it was waiting for the optimal server recommendation from WLB and would only let you start something until after the 30 second timeout)
[02:58:41] <ScottCochran> kdavy why are your VMs going down?  What I can say is from being a consultant and working in large commercial and federal environments, most places have a NO physical server mentality and everything must be virtualized
[03:00:02] <ScottCochran> We work closely with Microsoft, Citrix, and VMware architects and I cant remember the last time a design called for a dedicated physical server for management, or anything else really...
[03:00:25] <ScottCochran> zachbb Why dont you get SPLA licensing?
[03:01:46] <ScottCochran> zachbb  If you want to restrict VM's CPU and Memory based on policy then use Windows Server 2008 R2 System Resource Manager, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc732553.aspx
[03:02:31] <zachbb> I have not looked into spla licensing, can you tell me a little about it
[03:02:48] <ScottCochran> zachbb Dedicate yourself a VM to be the Resource Manager and setup policies to apply to others.  This will of course only work with Windows guest
[03:04:51] <ScottCochran> zachbb here is a good article on SPLA, http://community.citrix.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=65732882
[03:08:44] <zachbb> does windows system resource manger come with 2008 or is it an add on
[03:09:53] <ScottCochran> Comes with 2008 R2
[03:10:12] <ScottCochran> This article is also good from Brian Madden on SPLA... http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2009/06/08/yay-citrix-finally-creates-a-service-provider-licensing-program.aspx
[03:10:38] <ScottCochran> Are you hosting Microsoft or Linux VMs?
[03:11:48] <zachbb> as of right now, 75% of our machines are linux with open source and the xenservers are about 50 % 50%
[03:13:16] <zachbb> with this spla, do you know what an average cost per vm is?
[03:14:21] <kdavy> ScottCochran: large commercial and federal environments have large budgets - large enough to guarantee an SLA no matter what. i have an SLA too, but it has the opposite effect
[03:16:11] <kdavy> sometimes things break, and even things that are supposed to be failproof aren't perfect
[03:16:19] <ScottCochran> kdavy Not sure what that means.  Wouldn't they just buy physical servers will their large budgets?  It's not about budget.  If properly designed you do not need dedicated physcial servers for management
[03:16:57] <ScottCochran> zachbb Not sure.  You should call Citrix and talk to them about SPLA
[03:18:10] <kdavy> ScottCochran: all i'm trying to prove is, a management server cannot depend on the things it manages for uptime. would you have a server you use to manage your SAN and your fabric boot from said SAN? Would you have a server that has XenCenter installed be in a XenServer VM?
[03:19:21] <kdavy> after all, would you have the central network monitoring system (we use WhatsUp Gold, but it can be anything) rely on various different components of the datacenter setup, all of which are likely to fail?
[03:21:47] <kdavy> you always want to eliminate the weakest links - in our company, all servers are hosted at a colo facility, and we have DSL and Cable connections to the internet to manage them via VPN. putting management services at the office would be stupid because the ISP is more likely to fail than the colo - so management server has to be hosted as well
[03:22:19] <kdavy> which isn't a problem because there is plenty of space at the colo cage for an extra box or two
[03:22:58] <kdavy> next comes storage and virtualization, two more abstraction layers that are likely to fail whether you expect it or not
[03:23:14] <kdavy> so you run bare-metal and on local storage
[03:24:59] <kdavy> now as for the network connectivity from the colo to the outside world, you can't really do anything about it from a customer perspective - but you can still manage a down site via a 3G modem in case something happens to the network equipment in your cage. for example split-brain between two firewalls - had that happen
[03:29:41] <kdavy> you work with large deployments - large enough to make it viable to not depend on colo facilities, i presume. in that case a network administrator can always run upstairs to the server room and figure out what's wrong on the spot. we work with SMB's that can't afford to have a server rack built up to industry standards, and can't afford (or don't want to gamble with) hiring a full-time employee to manage their stuff
[03:31:45] <kdavy> so, physical management server: $5k (very generously). an hour of downtime if you can't manage your stuff remotely no matter what happens and quickly restore service: $100k in lost customer productivity, which we are liable for by SLA
[03:32:09] <kdavy> easy decision if you ask me
[03:41:52] <ScottCochran> kdavy You make good points that I 100% agree with but you are talking about a different management than me.  I was simply refering to vCenter and WLB.
[03:43:46] *** _bradk has joined #Citrix
[03:46:10] <kdavy> ScottCochran: ok i got a bit carried away :)
[03:47:45] <kdavy> a dedicated management server is always a good idea though, as long as it has a better uptime probability than all of the things it manages combined. in a small environment the sysadmin's workstation should do the job just fine
[04:15:07] *** Faithful has quit IRC
[05:51:51] *** echelog-2 has joined #Citrix
[06:02:46] *** echelog-2 has joined #Citrix
[06:48:31] *** zachbb has quit IRC
[07:23:43] *** _bradk has quit IRC
[07:28:23] *** ScottCochran has quit IRC
[07:38:11] *** ScottCochran has joined #Citrix
[08:01:36] <gblfxt> dual monitors
[08:01:51] <gblfxt> citrix cannot handle them
[09:18:55] *** tom_wurm has quit IRC
[09:20:06] *** Stormshadow has quit IRC
[09:47:15] *** eastz0r has joined #Citrix
[10:26:44] *** Gaelfr has joined #Citrix
[10:39:25] *** bhodgens_ has joined #Citrix
[10:41:25] *** Orazz has quit IRC
[10:42:53] *** kreign has quit IRC
[10:45:25] *** Jenius has joined #Citrix
[10:47:07] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[10:53:21] *** Gaelfr has joined #Citrix
[11:09:36] *** Trixboxer has joined #Citrix
[11:55:00] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[12:35:30] <eastz0r> Hi all, If a XenServer 5.6 slave host fails, it is possible just to move the local storage (HDD) to another server of the same spec? Or would these cause problems?
[12:53:27] <jduggan> if its the same server it should just work
[12:53:34] <jduggan> just be careful if its a raid setup etc
[13:03:51] *** Jenius has quit IRC
[13:29:52] *** gnoze5 has quit IRC
[13:31:36] *** Gaelfr has joined #Citrix
[13:32:30] <Trixboxer> Hi, any specific document available to boot xenserver from SAN ?
[13:35:33] *** Gaelfr_ has joined #Citrix
[13:37:42] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[13:37:42] *** Gaelfr_ is now known as Gaelfr
[13:50:48] <eastz0r> thanks jduggan, will give it a shot
[14:01:58] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[14:02:45] <tabularasa> morning peeps
[14:19:29] *** Gaelfr has joined #Citrix
[14:51:41] *** gnoze5 has joined #Citrix
[15:05:32] *** The_Machine has joined #Citrix
[15:19:45] *** gnoze5 has quit IRC
[15:24:41] *** cathederal has joined #Citrix
[15:57:12] *** gnoze5 has joined #Citrix
[15:57:18] *** gnoze5 has quit IRC
[15:57:48] *** denon_ has joined #Citrix
[16:01:09] <ScottCochran> morning all
[16:01:16] *** denon has quit IRC
[16:01:51] *** denon_ is now known as denon
[16:01:52] *** denon has joined #Citrix
[16:32:06] <kdavy_> yawn. morning
[16:41:39] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[16:41:46] *** Gaelfr has joined #Citrix
[16:53:25] <tabularasa> morning
[16:55:33] *** kreign has joined #Citrix
[16:55:45] <tabularasa> open house today at the office... yay
[16:56:25] <kreign> tabularasa, what's that mean?
[16:56:28] <kreign> 'open house'
[16:56:35] <kreign> some sales/marketing thing?
[16:56:46] <kreign> OMG I hate my vendors
[16:57:19] <tabularasa> we open our doors for our customers to come check out our new building
[16:57:53] <kdavy_> heh, before you turn the building into a mess?
[16:58:10] <tabularasa> pretty much.  :)
[16:58:23] <kreign> tabularasa, does your new building have everything freshly cabled in a pretty customer-facing server room?
[16:58:35] <tabularasa> we have a datacenter
[16:58:36] <tabularasa> so, yes
[16:58:42] <kreign> server room, data center
[16:58:43] <kreign> same thing
[16:59:16] <tabularasa> to me a "server room" is a closet with 1 rack thats cabled poorly and overheating
[16:59:20] <tabularasa> :)
[17:09:03] <kdavy_> i concur. to me a "server room" is a sign of a new client, the more poorly cabled the better
[17:14:57] <makson> Morning everyone
[17:15:15] <makson> haven't been around as much been real busy with work. :\
[17:20:52] <tabularasa> yeah, i hear ya, buddy
[17:23:23] <kdavy_> hey, any recommendation on a decent software reseller? i'm getting tired of Insight taking 48 hours for every quote that takes 2 minutes to run through
[17:24:50] <tabularasa> Ingram works good for us
[17:25:29] <kdavy_> ya, i go through Ingram for CSP and SPLA, havent done any retail software through them
[17:25:52] <kdavy_> but their web portal is really convoluted
[17:27:53] <kdavy_> by the way, if anyone is looking for a/v on xenapp boxes, i think i found the best solution
[17:28:48] <kdavy_> Kaspersky 8.0 for Windows Servers Enterprise Edition, comes under Business Space Security licensing
[17:29:50] <kdavy_> $19 per server for 3 years if you get into the 150+ node volume tier, and you can use same licenses for endpoint nodes. no per-user cost, just per server
[17:30:04] <kdavy_> and works great for virtualized XenApp boxes
[17:31:31] *** MSilva01 has joined #Citrix
[17:35:59] <makson> kdavy_: that's good information. LANDesk actually uses Kaspersky engine.
[17:36:25] <makson> kdavy_: how's that compare to other vendors from a price point?
[17:44:09] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[17:48:47] <Trixboxer> Hi, can some one point me the advantages of using xapi http service over "xe" commands ?
[17:56:38] <kdavy_> makson, price point is awesome since other vendors seem to have per-user pricing, or some outrageous per-server pricing
[18:02:04] *** Gaelfr has joined #Citrix
[18:07:19] <kdavy_> makson, the catch is that you can get the cheap licensing if you get it under Business Space Security, standalone licensing is 10x more expensive. My kaspersky rep said this makes no sense to him either, but he just tells everyone to get the Business Space
[18:12:01] <kdavy_> kaspersky also has a great central management solution - i can see it being scalable enough for 100k+ node deployments if necessary
[18:14:26] *** rev78 has joined #Citrix
[18:24:28] <JarianGibson> yo
[18:30:11] <kdavy_> yo
[18:34:25] <kreign> I like kaspersky
[18:34:39] <kreign> we get our small clients the malwarebytes paid service
[18:34:40] *** Gaelfr has quit IRC
[18:34:44] <kreign> which is pretty good
[18:34:53] <kreign> the 'cheap but not going to hose your windows' option...
[18:40:05] *** The_Machine has quit IRC
[18:53:32] *** SpyderZ has joined #Citrix
[19:00:03] *** kprojects has joined #Citrix
[19:04:43] <MSilva01> hi all ...
[19:06:02] *** Bushrod has joined #Citrix
[19:06:24] <MSilva01> when I add a new server to the farm and run qfarm, the output shows all the servers, when i run qfarm /load shows only the new server
[19:07:38] *** The_Machine has joined #Citrix
[19:07:46] <MSilva01> i tried to remove and add the server again to the farm with no success
[19:14:30] <MSilva01> anyone?
[19:26:43] *** Bushrod has quit IRC
[19:52:09] *** OmNomSequitur has joined #Citrix
[19:59:10] *** unop has joined #Citrix
[20:12:05] *** The_Machine70x7 has joined #Citrix
[20:17:00] <tabularasa> MSilva01: any wierd XML errors in the event log
[20:17:11] <tabularasa> did you try enablelb?
[20:24:01] <MSilva01> <tabularasa> no errors
[20:24:21] <MSilva01> lb is already enable ...
[20:28:16] <tabularasa> so, whats the problem?
[20:28:29] <tabularasa> it won't lb to that server?
[20:29:33] *** Tenju has joined #Citrix
[20:33:55] <Tenju> Pretty sure 99.999% the answer is no to this but
[20:34:35] <Tenju> is there a way to prevent users from getting shortcuts of an application if that application already exist on their desktop?
[20:35:17] <Tenju> but they are a part of a group that has access to those particular applications
[20:40:19] *** Alasdairrr is now known as AlasAway
[20:56:42] <tabularasa> just the shortcut?
[20:57:01] <tabularasa> you can publish them an app that doesn't create the shortcut on the desktop, if thats what you mean
[20:57:25] <Tenju> i looked more into it to make sure i'm not nuts its not gonna be possible
[20:57:40] <Tenju> It will be using receiver so it has to publish to desktop or start menu
[20:57:59] <Tenju> and of course they have Word published but also have it installed locally on the image
[20:58:38] <Tenju> so the Citrix shortcut takes over if they are named exactly the same and in the same folder
[20:59:00] <Tenju> I've just suggested funneling the apps to a "Citrix Apps" folder instead
[20:59:17] <Tenju> or labeling so there is some visual cue that it is not local
[21:00:31] <Tenju> If you had the permissions granularity of Policies for Applications that would be awesome
[21:01:49] *** waynerr__ has joined #Citrix
[21:04:42] *** andtrds has joined #Citrix
[21:05:23] *** waynerr has quit IRC
[21:07:00] <andtrds> hello any1 here can help with provision boot manager?
[21:07:13] <tabularasa> whats up?
[21:07:21] <tabularasa> Tenju: i guess i don't udnerstand what you are really trying to do
[21:07:50] *** The_Machine70x7 has quit IRC
[21:07:54] *** The_Machine has quit IRC
[21:07:56] <andtrds> hey tabularasa  i am try to create golden image for xen desktop but when i reboot the machine
[21:08:08] *** The_Machine70x7 has joined #Citrix
[21:08:09] *** The_Machine has joined #Citrix
[21:08:18] <andtrds> no vdisk found check pxe boot
[21:08:35] <Tenju> Tabularasa: i didn't explain it very well. I apprecate the help though
[21:09:03] <Tenju> andtrds: do you have the Device assigned to a disk in PVS console?
[21:09:13] <andtrds> yes
[21:10:03] <tabularasa> using PXE or dhcp?
[21:10:22] <tabularasa> i always liked using dhcp option 160 (i think) better
[21:10:23] <andtrds> i have a dhcp server on another machine
[21:10:31] <tabularasa> doesn't matter
[21:10:38] <tabularasa> use dhcp to point it to the right server
[21:11:02] <andtrds> ok let me try again
[21:13:02] <andtrds> i select microsoft services running on another server
[21:14:22] <Tenju> andtrds: on your DHCP you have options 60 and 67 Set?
[21:14:30] <andtrds> yes
[21:15:04] <andtrds> 66 and 67
[21:15:18] <Tenju> yes
[21:15:22] <Tenju> sorry i put 60 up there
[21:15:31] <andtrds> no probe
[21:15:57] <andtrds> still vdisk is not available.please check your network pxe boot
[21:16:13] <Tenju> never seen there error
[21:16:22] <Tenju> single PVS in the farm?
[21:16:27] <andtrds> yes
[21:16:34] <Tenju> no locks on the vDisk in the console?
[21:16:40] <Tenju> well nm it would say it was locked
[21:16:41] <andtrds> nothinf
[21:16:44] <andtrds> nothing
[21:17:39] <andtrds> any ideas?
[21:17:51] <andtrds> i am about 3 hours know trying !!
[21:18:14] <Tenju> firewall on? hehe
[21:18:24] <andtrds> no off
[21:19:01] <andtrds> i ll try to reninstal provisioning server
[21:19:06] <Tenju> so DHCP running on another server PXE running on another server (doesn't matter where u're say its running really from what i've always tried"
[21:19:21] <Tenju> i know the DHCP one matters but not the PXE
[21:19:53] <Tenju> Have you checked to see if you can boot to a vDisk using a BDM file?
[21:19:54] *** Trixboxer has quit IRC
[21:20:15] <andtrds> my lab is pc1=domain,dns,dhcp ,pc2=xendesktop,provisioning,pc3=xenserver
[21:20:34] <andtrds> tenju how can itry that?
[21:21:13] <Tenju> Provision 5.6 on 2008 R2?
[21:21:20] <andtrds> yes
[21:21:38] <Tenju> Start --> All Programs -->Citrix -->Boot Device manager
[21:22:24] <andtrds> provisioning services boot device  manager?
[21:22:37] <Tenju> yes
[21:23:01] <Tenju> Then you can either set the IP static to the PVS server or use the DNS entry to it
[21:23:29] *** AlasAway is now known as Alasdairrr
[21:23:38] <Tenju> Then you can hit Next, Next
[21:23:48] <andtrds> and the burn option?
[21:23:57] <Tenju> and assign a statick IP for the device you are loading
[21:24:05] <Tenju> Citrix ISO
[21:24:15] <Tenju> Image recorder
[21:24:38] <Tenju> put that in a Repository you can access in XenServer and boot to DVD drive
[21:24:53] <andtrds> ok please give me 5 min to test it
[21:24:57] <Tenju> np
[21:32:26] *** kprojects has quit IRC
[21:34:31] <Tenju> andtrds: just read back some you are creating the image? and currently have a blank vDisk?
[21:34:58] <andtrds> i have a blank vdisk
[21:36:05] <Tenju> and in your device collection do you have the machine set to boot to hard disk or vDisk?
[21:36:30] <andtrds> boot from vdisk
[21:36:49] <Tenju> If the disk is blank you shouldn't be booting to it
[21:37:03] <Tenju> are you using XenConvert in the Golden Image machine?
[21:37:09] <andtrds> yes
[21:37:52] <Tenju> So this is what i started doing because i know the added features constantly
[21:38:01] <Tenju> forget the blank vDisk you currently have
[21:38:25] <Tenju> Start the Machine up normally
[21:38:30] <andtrds> ok
[21:38:41] <Tenju> run XenConvert it will ask you where you want ot create the vDisk
[21:38:47] <Tenju> on the Provisioning server
[21:38:50] <Tenju> and i believe ask you for credentials to do so
[21:38:57] <andtrds> yes
[21:38:59] <Tenju> then it will assign the disk properly to that machine
[21:39:48] <Tenju> if that is what you did and you are still having problems. I wouldn't know off the top of my head where the breakdown is
[21:40:02] <Tenju> i would have to try to make the error happen myself
[21:40:52] <andtrds> ok i have my main image in xen server vm ..i install provisioning server and run image wizars
[21:41:28] <andtrds> imaging wizard.set server information
[21:42:18] <andtrds> use existing vdisk
[21:42:33] <Tenju> I normally just let XenConvert make a new
[21:42:46] <Tenju> Use existing has nothing wrong with it
[21:42:52] <Tenju> i just let it create new to prevent any confusion
[21:42:57] <andtrds> anfd then reboot to pxe
[21:43:06] <andtrds> how can i do that?
[21:43:17] <Tenju> It should give u an option to create new vdisk
[21:43:20] <Tenju> instead of use existing disk
[21:43:35] <andtrds> creat new?
[21:43:49] <andtrds> yes
[21:44:08] <andtrds> and thas all?
[21:44:27] <Tenju> yes it will create a new
[21:44:32] <Tenju> and should ask you to reboot
[21:44:39] <andtrds> and when i have to install the xen desktop client ont it?
[21:45:04] <Tenju> you will login
[21:45:16] <Tenju> and it should be connected to the vDisk
[21:45:21] <Tenju> and begin the xen convert process
[21:45:39] <Tenju> You can install the VDA after you have the image
[21:45:47] <Tenju> and then start it in private mode and do the install
[21:46:57] <andtrds> i open the xen convert and select from This machine to Provisionin sevrices vdisk click next: a provisioning services vdisk not found
[21:47:51] <Tenju> in the bottom right corner do you have the Target Device icon?
[21:48:14] <andtrds> no nothing
[21:48:19] <Tenju> its a lil Disk connected to another disk with a white line
[21:48:22] <Tenju> i mean red line
[21:48:33] <Tenju> have you install PVS Target Device on that image?
[21:49:02] <andtrds> how can i see that?
[21:49:14] <andtrds> i have xen convert 2.2
[21:49:40] <Tenju> C:\Program Files\Citrix\Provisoining Services\
[21:49:50] <Tenju> let me know if you see a thing called StatusTray
[21:49:52] <Tenju> in that folder
[21:50:13] <andtrds> yes
[21:50:31] <andtrds> virtual disk status?
[21:50:35] <Tenju> yes
[21:50:50] <andtrds> status=inactive
[21:51:12] <Tenju> does it list a server?
[21:51:20] <Tenju> and Virtual Disk
[21:51:33] <andtrds> no nothing only inactive
[21:51:51] <Tenju> ya for some reason your machine is not talking to the PVS server at all
[21:51:58] <Tenju> I really would have to see whats going on to help you any further
[21:52:09] <Tenju> definitly some type of Network problem
[21:52:20] <andtrds> its possible yes
[21:52:29] <Tenju> make sure that device can ping the provision server
[21:52:56] <andtrds> yes i can ping the server
[21:58:33] <andtrds> no luck
[21:59:30] *** OmNomSequitur has quit IRC
[22:03:34] *** MSilva01 has quit IRC
[22:15:24] *** The_Machine70x7 has quit IRC
[22:15:40] *** The_Machine70x7 has joined #Citrix
[22:30:50] <andtrds> tenju are you still here?
[22:43:07] *** andtrds has quit IRC
[22:43:14] *** IcePee has joined #Citrix
[22:43:45] <Tenju> andtrds: had to do my expense report ;)  had to concentrate or i never get that thing done
[22:44:16] <Tenju> I can't think of what could be wrong without being able to see your environment at this point
[22:52:02] *** IcePee has quit IRC
[23:08:54] *** makson has quit IRC
[23:09:45] *** makson has joined #Citrix
[23:09:46] *** makson has joined #Citrix
[23:10:01] *** ANDTRDS has joined #Citrix
[23:11:35] *** ANDTRDS has left #Citrix
[23:19:02] *** [M]ax has quit IRC
[23:21:02] *** SpyderZ has left #Citrix
[23:27:32] *** waynerr has joined #Citrix
[23:38:35] *** Tenju has quit IRC
[23:41:47] *** Alasdairrr is now known as AlasAway
[23:44:38] *** [M]ax has joined #Citrix
[23:46:31] *** The_Machine has quit IRC
[23:46:38] *** The_Machine70x7 has quit IRC





top