Monday, August 23, 2010

OpenSolaris

At my previous company we were a heavy user of Solaris, and we also had a lot of legacy specific SCO systems as well. 3-4 years ago, some person (who shall remain nameless) was pushing Opensolaris as "the future", personally I thought the guy was way off base. He did deploy some of it, and it worked well, the problem would be the support and future for another player in the x86/64 market. There was no future, I saw it, but apparently other people in management didn't. I then read this article:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/requiem-os-opensolaris-board-closes-shop-961?source=rss_infoworld_news

I love being right J

Sorry to see you go, but it's for the better. Oracle hopefully will invest more resources into Linux which it hasn't been doing as much since the Sun purchase.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Thoughts on the McAfee Intel purchase

I've been waiting for quite a while for a major security firm to be purchased by one of the big boys. I am glad that Intel was the first one to start this trend, because they are generally only a hardware player. If security were embedded at that level it would create a differentiator from other competitors, weather they are x64 based or other chips (Oracle, IBM). Security has become very commoditized and consolidated over the last several years.

You haven't seen much innovation in several years either. Is that because we've solved the problem? I think not… Is that because there isn't capital in this market? Nope… I think the main reason is due to the massive consolidation and the work needed to integrate all of these smaller companies together. You are also seeing players like Microsoft developing a larger security portfolio, as well as network vendors integrating more security features and products into their appliances. If you look back 5 years ago, there wasn't much as far at UTM (Unified Threat Management) devices, now every firewall vendor has one, you can find hundreds of products both commercial and open source in this area.

Some other thoughts on how security is being embedded across the stack are by Bruce Schneier, who is a superb writer and author as well as a great cryptographer.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/08/intel_buys_mcaf.html

http://www.schneier.com/essay-196.html

http://www.schneier.com/news-060.html

Thursday, August 5, 2010

ESXi 4.0 – 4.1 Planning

Writing this thanks to gogo wireless… Love this service.

I'm going to start upgrading our hosts to 4.1 next weekend probably. Going to try update manager even though it crashed and burned on my 3.5-4.0 upgrade and I ended up using the host utility. I know the command line upgrader works.

I read this on the spiceworks message board:

Resolution:

This is worth knowing as it's a bug and definate gotcha.

VMWare said:

"I had one of the escalation engineers for Update Manager look at the log and here is what he said

The customer imported the pre-upgrade offline bundle which is NOT needed and in fact causes problems.

[2010-07-28 13:36:55:781 'DownloadOfflinePatchTask.DownloadOfflinePatchTask{9}' 3700 INFO] [vciTaskBase, 530] Task started...

[2010-07-28 13:36:55:781 'DownloadOfflinePatchTask.DownloadOfflinePatchTask{9}' 3700 INFO] [downloadOfflinePatchTask, 123] Upload offline bundle: C:\Windows\TEMP\vum8205261630712700578.pre-upgrade-from-ESX4.0-to-4.1.0-0.0.260247-release.zip

We are working on correcting the situation so this doesn't happen. The existing pre-upgrade bundle will be replaced and we are working on a KB for those that have gotten into the situation (iKB 1024805). Unfortunately, there is no easy workaround once VUM is in this situation. A reinstall/DB reinit is suggested."

The end result is that VUM didn't want to reinstall cleanly so I had to nuke my Vcenter server and rebuild it from scratch.

So, DON'T APPLY THE PRE-UPGRADE PACKAGE IF YOU ARE USING UPDATE MANAGER TO UPGRADE YOUR ESX HOSTS!

:)


 

Maybe useful next weekend J