| Avere | Ubuntu Landscape needs a UA subscription for more than 10 machines. Should UA be bought for the server running landscape or for every machine? | 06:02 |
|---|---|---|
| ducasse | Avere: you should probably ask canonical directly, but the only canonical channels i can find are #canonical-sysadmin and a pointer to https://wiki.canonical.com/MessagingSystems/InternalIRC | 07:57 |
| Avere | Alright. Thanks | 08:01 |
| Nafallo | Avere: for the clients. if you want the server in-house it's normally $2000 to buy. | 13:19 |
| Avere | So assuming in-house server along with 15 clients : 15*$150+ $225 just for using landscape management | 13:24 |
| Nafallo | Avere: I can't find the reference to $150 on the homepage? | 13:26 |
| Nafallo | oh. desktops? | 13:26 |
| Avere | Yes. https://www.ubuntu.com/support/plans-and-pricing#ua-support | 13:27 |
| Avere | Turns out UA is needed for both Server and Desktop | 13:28 |
| Nafallo | Avere: desktops are minimum 50 pcs I believe. you might want to mail sales AT canonical.com | 13:30 |
| roasted_ | Morning all. Trying to rule out some performance issues I'm having. 14.04 Server, hosting samba shares, gigabit LAN, with 3 clients on 17.10. Clients mount samba share with mount -t cifs via CLI. Performance is slow, about 7 MB/s. If clients mount via GVFS, they get about 68-70 MB/s. If I rsync from clients, I get about 110 MB/s. Mounting cifs via CLI was always the quicker way vs GVFS, but not here. Is there anything on server end that | 14:47 |
| roasted_ | could be contributing? Having a hard time researching it from a "client is the problem" point of view as all sources point to GVFS being the slow one, yet it's the fast one here. | 14:47 |
| roasted_ | just compared another distro (one of these machines dual boots antergos/17.10) and it behaved identically -- GVFS much faster, mount -t cifs over CLI wildly slow. | 15:07 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!