Stopped at my local Best Buy the other day. Needed an SSD that was locked behind glass. After attempting to get help for a half hour I ordered one on eBay from the parking lot and drove home. I've honestly tried to support brick and mortar where I can but I give up.
My understanding is that allows one server to present storage from multiple 'back end' servers, thus still being a single point of failure, right?
Maybe, it could be separate shares on separate servers presented as a single 'host' by a Windows cluster, this would be more storage efficient than replication and the only single point of failure would be any given back end server that would only affect 1-2 shared folders rather than all of them, which might be acceptable. Or I could be way the hell off with my understanding of DFS....
Edit: Did a bit more research, it seems DFS does do a redundant namespace that can handle failover. That might actually be exactly what I need. Thanks!
I understand that, I've tried both domain=CompanyWork and domain=CompanyWork.internal in my cred file and directly in fstab both result in the permission error when mounting the TrueNAS share but work just fine when mounting a share provided by Windows Server.
I'm assuming the domain=ip should be the IP address of the AD server right? That's what I entered and still no luck. Same permission denied error as my past attempts.
Not arguing, I like the idea. But would the people in power just ensure the business failed after that so they could rebuild their non employee owned business thus fucking over the employees even more?
I'd agree the OPNsense UI is probably more intuitive if you've never touched PFSense but I found the OPNsense UI difficult coming from many years of PF.
9999 Teams
Stopped at my local Best Buy the other day. Needed an SSD that was locked behind glass. After attempting to get help for a half hour I ordered one on eBay from the parking lot and drove home. I've honestly tried to support brick and mortar where I can but I give up.
Looks like Gluster also requires 3 servers.
My understanding is that allows one server to present storage from multiple 'back end' servers, thus still being a single point of failure, right?
Maybe, it could be separate shares on separate servers presented as a single 'host' by a Windows cluster, this would be more storage efficient than replication and the only single point of failure would be any given back end server that would only affect 1-2 shared folders rather than all of them, which might be acceptable. Or I could be way the hell off with my understanding of DFS....
Edit: Did a bit more research, it seems DFS does do a redundant namespace that can handle failover. That might actually be exactly what I need. Thanks!
Automatic failover, basically should a VM lock up in a way that monitoring/HA failover isn't triggered can another VM be picking up the slack.
I understand that, I've tried both domain=CompanyWork and domain=CompanyWork.internal in my cred file and directly in fstab both result in the permission error when mounting the TrueNAS share but work just fine when mounting a share provided by Windows Server.
I'm assuming the domain=ip should be the IP address of the AD server right? That's what I entered and still no luck. Same permission denied error as my past attempts.
Not arguing, I like the idea. But would the people in power just ensure the business failed after that so they could rebuild their non employee owned business thus fucking over the employees even more?
To be fair, if someone made a blowjob machine that required an OS, it would probably be Linux. Just sayin.
I'd agree the OPNsense UI is probably more intuitive if you've never touched PFSense but I found the OPNsense UI difficult coming from many years of PF.
I've been using an R210ii with PFSense for like 8 years now. It's been rock solid and only sips like 20 watts.