|
CLAM DOWN posted:Just wrote my GIAC GSEC exam, 95%. Highly recommend this course (SEC 401 at SANS) if your company pays for it (it's not financially reasonable to do it on your own, like 8k plus travel expenses) but a really rewarding experience if security interests you. Take a class with Eric Cole if you can. Nice, congrats! Would love to take that course some day - we'll see.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Just wrote my GIAC GSEC exam, 95%. Highly recommend this course (SEC 401 at SANS) if your company pays for it (it's not financially reasonable to do it on your own, like 8k plus travel expenses) but a really rewarding experience if security interests you. Take a class with Eric Cole if you can. Way to go bro! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
I need to get off my rear end and study for the VCP550 (then the VCP6 catchup), but there are some areas I need to focus on. I'm pretty drat comfortable in vmware (fat client, web interface, dipping my toe into vCLI); I went from 0 to a two-host iscsi-backed HA/DR cluster with the appliance in about 4 hours and that included racking, cabling, and firmware updates to the dl380g7 hosts. I have already taken the class, previous company paid for it and I have the exam authorization in my myLearn profile. I plan on having the current company pay for the exam. I'm weak on Resource Pools, vApps, Host Profiles, and monitoring/metrics and what they truly mean. I know the exam stresses facts and figures, but what else should I be focusing on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
KillHour posted:You can download eval versions of Windows server from MS that work for 180 days. This right here. Also just snapshot your VM's when they are setup to reset the time when it comes around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
CompTIA is coming out with a new security cert, which appears to want to compete with the CEH.quote:CompTIA is looking for IT security professionals with experience in one or more of the following IT security fields:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Ozu posted:CompTIA is coming out with a new security cert, which appears to want to compete with the CEH. I totally want to be a CompTIA certified SAC. Bonus points if there is a BAL specialization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
devmd01 posted:I'm weak on Resource Pools, vApps, Host Profiles, and monitoring/metrics and what they truly mean. I know the exam stresses facts and figures, but what else should I be focusing on? Those particular topics factored pretty heavily into mine, as well as vCOPS, and it went quite a bit more in-depth than I was prepared for. Stay clear of MeasureUp's practice test. It wasn't even close to an accurate representation of the topics or depth of questions and gave me a horrible false confidence going in. I was passing the practice tests consistently with 90+% and was literally one question from failing the actual exam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
The VCP5-DV is really broad and covers basically everything. Outside of the basic virtualization functionality you may get questions on vROPS (my test had a good number of these), features available at different license levels, storage and thin provisioning, the difference between VSS and VDS, Update Manager and the steps to perform and update, configuration maximums...lots of things basically. You don't need to know it all to pass because it's so broad you won't get a ton of questions on any one thing, but you should try to be at least passably conversant in all of those areas. I'd pay particular attention to vROPS as that's one I mostly skipped over and it features a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
VCP550 tests on a lot of broad categories, but the nice thing is that for the most part you don't have to memorize all the maximums and minimums like you did in VCP510 - just a few of the most obvious ones like extents, total VM memory and disk configurations, etc. They'll test you on various network settings, throttling, what vSS can do versus vDS, Storage, and especially troubleshooting. I had a lot of questions about troubleshooting, and you get minimal information and have to derive a lot from it. They loved asking questions about the various editions of vCenter and vSphere, with what features are available for each, and asking you which one you need to select to get this feature that the customer is wanting. A few questions about HA and FT and what are the pre-requisites for FT. Basically, yeah, you need to have a general knowledge about pretty much everything. It sucks, and took my a year to prep after failing the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
I took the VCP6-NV yesterday and passed, if anyone has any questions about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:I took the VCP6-NV yesterday and passed, if anyone has any questions about it. How did you study? Edit: Did you do a lab or anything? I'm still waiting on the new study guides to come out in May/June before I get into studying for it, unless the 5.5 books should be good enough. InevitableCheese fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
According to Amazon the Jang RHCSA/RHCE book has been pushed back to April. Guess I'm postponing my exam.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:According to Amazon the Jang RHCSA/RHCE book has been pushed back to April. Guess I'm postponing my exam. Haha. Is he just trolling at this point? That's almost 2 full years since RHEL 7 was released. I wouldn't hold your breath for this book ever coming out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Just had my first day of ICND1 training. This is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Haha. Is he just trolling at this point? That's almost 2 full years since RHEL 7 was released. I wouldn't hold your breath for this book ever coming out. Good point but in all honestly his previous books are extraordinary well written and worth the wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:Just had my first day of ICND1 training. Weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Weirdo. Let him enjoy it while it's still fresh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:Just had my first day of ICND1 training. Savour your excitement. Make it last as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:Just had my first day of ICND1 training. Everything's all fun and games until wildcard masks anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
ChubbyThePhat posted:Everything's all fun and games until wildcard masks anyways. Triggered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Ugh, failed ICND2 today. Going to circle back around to Odom and go through it again cover to cover and keep reviewing my Anki deck. I think I need to lab it up more this time too, any recommendations for that? I've tinkered around in GNS3, but would appreciate something more structured.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
beepsandboops posted:Ugh, failed ICND2 today. Going to circle back around to Odom and go through it again cover to cover and keep reviewing my Anki deck. Sorry to hear this, dude.  ICND2 is a huge jump up in difficulty from ICND1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Sorry to hear this, dude. This is why my instructor strongly pushed students to do the ccnax instead. You can float your icnd2 questions with easier icnd1 gimmies. Worked for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:This is why my instructor strongly pushed students to do the ccnax instead. You can float your icnd2 questions with easier icnd1 gimmies. Worked for me. I was strongly considering this. Anyone else have an opinion on it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I was strongly considering this. Anyone else have an opinion on it? I would agree, but know that my opinion is heavily slanted because I already know the material.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Good point but in all honestly his previous books are extraordinary well written and worth the wait. Yeah no doubt. Just saying that at this point I'm wondering if there's a major problem (dude's heart isn't in it anymore, health problems, new editor that's a monumental dick, whatever) and it's just not going to come out at all. If someone's seriously interested in pursuing the Red Hat certs, you might as well suck it up and start on another guide because this is the third or fourth time it's been pushed out and I no longer have any confidence it's getting released at all. If you start studying now, you'll already have the cert and be spamming out updated resumes by the time Jang's book comes out--if it's not delayed again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
MCSA question: How does a parity storage space yield more usable space than a mirror storage space? Doesn't a parity space split the storage into three parts as opposed to two for a mirror?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
HPL posted:MCSA question: How does a parity storage space yield more usable space than a mirror storage space? Doesn't a parity space split the storage into three parts as opposed to two for a mirror? This is an example of one of those terrible exam questions. You need at least 3 disks to use parity spaces, while you only need 2 disks for a mirror space. If you move from Mirror storage (50% physical usage of 2 disks due to 1:1 copies), to a parity space, it's implied you're using 3 disks now and will get the space advantages that come with using a parity disk. I'm still not clear on the voodoo behind it, but using a 3 disk parity setup you can store like 40G of files on 30GB of physical disk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
HPL posted:MCSA question: How does a parity storage space yield more usable space than a mirror storage space? Doesn't a parity space split the storage into three parts as opposed to two for a mirror? This is actually a decent simple diagram:  RAID 1 = mirrored, RAID 5 = parity (RAID 0 = striped) Does that make sense? It has to do with how different RAID models split up the fault tolerance bits, when mirrored you have a 1:1 ratio of storage to fault tolerant bits, with a RAID 5 model you have parity blocks that are distributed. And yeah, as the comment above said, you only need 2 disks for mirrored, but parity/RAID 5 is 3 minimum. there are I/O speed considerations too but that's outside the scope of your question and you can delve quite deep into storage topics like that
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Okay, I looked at the question a little more carefully. There are three physical disks. You want fault tolerance for a single disk failure. You want to maximize the amount of files that can be stored in the storage space. So creating a mirrored space won't help because then half of the mirrored space would be 1.5 disks, which is kind of useless, so the storage space of a properly effective mirrored space would be one physical disk. Still, why does a parity array allow for more file storage? It'll be one drive for data, one for the mirror and one for the parity, so it'll end up being a total of one disk of storage, won't it? I mean the parity space is way better than the mirrored space, no argument there, but how does it allow for more file storage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:This is actually a decent simple diagram: My problem with that diagram is that the RAID5 setup has twice as much live data as either of the other setups. It gives the impression that RAID 5 is less space efficient than it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Okay, the diagram that Clam posted kind of makes sense. I'll have to chew on this one a bit more. I mean I could go the brute memorization route and just keep parroting that "parity allows for more file storage space than mirrored", but I would really like to actually understand what the heck is going on. HPL fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Yeah no doubt. Just saying that at this point I'm wondering if there's a major problem (dude's heart isn't in it anymore, health problems, new editor that's a monumental dick, whatever) and it's just not going to come out at all. If someone's seriously interested in pursuing the Red Hat certs, you might as well suck it up and start on another guide because this is the third or fourth time it's been pushed out and I no longer have any confidence it's getting released at all. If you start studying now, you'll already have the cert and be spamming out updated resumes by the time Jang's book comes out--if it's not delayed again. Great points however the problem is the remaining Red Hat Certifications paths aren't that great or extraordinarily expensive (Official RH Training).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Can you post the full text of the question? edit: This might help as well http://blogs.technet.com/b/yungchou/archive/2012/08/31/windows-server-2012-storage-virtualization-explained.aspx skipdogg fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Question, What do you all recommend for MCSA/MCSE Training? Ideally something with labs and my initial thoughts were CBT Nuggets and Sybex <$Whatever>.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:Okay, the diagram that Clam posted kind of makes sense. I'll have to chew on this one a bit more. I wrote a primer on RAID a while back that might make more sense to you. http://dssvideo.com/blog/technology/raid-basics.html You don't have a disk for data and a disk for a copy of that data like you do with RAID 1. You have data on all disks in the array, and every n bits (where n is the number of disks) is a "parity bit". Easy way to think of parity bits is with a simple word problem: "The binary string 1x0 has an odd number of 1's. What is x?" The knowledge that the number of 1's is odd is the "parity" information. That takes only 1 bit of information to store (where 0 is even and 1 is odd), so the full string with parity is 1001, meaning you need 4 bits to store 3 bits of information with parity. Does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
I think I've got the reasoning behind the answer. I was thinking that there are three new disks of equal size, but if the disks were of different sizes, a parity array would allow for max space, whereas a mirrored array would be stuck at the least common denominator of two of the drives. loving Microsoft, man. Tab8715 posted:Question, HPL fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think I've got the reasoning behind the answer. I was thinking that there are three new disks of equal size, but if the disks were of different sizes, a parity array would allow for max space, whereas a mirrored array would be stuck at the least common denominator of two of the drives. I think you're still confused. You can't set up a RAID 5 with different sized disks. Striped just has less space overhead by its design. Here's an example of how data and parity would be written on a 4 disk array: RAID 1: DATA | PARITY | DATA | PARITY RAID 5: DATA | DATA | DATA | PARITY As you can see, the RAID 5 array is able to fit 50% more data on 4 disks than the RAID 1, just by the fact that it needs less parity to provide redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
HPL posted:It'll be one drive for data, one for the mirror and one for the parity, so it'll end up being a total of one disk of storage, won't it? I mean the parity space is way better than the mirrored space, no argument there, but how does it allow for more file storage? Not quite. RAID 5 will actually give you two drives for data, and 1 for parity, that's how the parity bits work, just like KillHour outlined. So on the minimum dick counts, RAID 1 gives you 1 disk for data (and 1 for the mirror) and RAID 5 gives you 2 disks for data and 1 for parity. For RAID 5, you can only lose 1 disk without data loss, you need to have the other 2. Am I making sense? e:fb kinda
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 19:31
|
|