[06:02] <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?
[07:57] <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
[08:01] <Avere> Alright. Thanks
[13:19] <Nafallo> Avere: for the clients. if you want the server in-house it's normally $2000 to buy.
[13:24] <Avere> So assuming in-house server along with 15 clients : 15*$150+ $225 just for using landscape management
[13:26] <Nafallo> Avere: I can't find the reference to $150 on the homepage?
[13:26] <Nafallo> oh. desktops?
[13:27] <Avere> Yes. https://www.ubuntu.com/support/plans-and-pricing#ua-support
[13:28] <Avere> Turns out UA is needed for both Server and Desktop
[13:30] <Nafallo> Avere: desktops are minimum 50 pcs I believe. you might want to mail sales AT canonical.com
[14:47] <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.
[15:07] <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.