Andreas Reiff's questions

I am using Data Protection Manager 2016 and have configured "System State Backup" on a server. The server has the agent installed, Windows Server Backup feature enabled, and the configured dpm user is in the backup operator group.

The backup keeps failing with meaningless messages in DPM admin console. "Recommended action" leads to same result.

I have tracked down in the eventviewer of the to be backed up server (see also https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2008-R2-and-2008/cc734395(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN )

- <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">
- <System>
  <Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-Backup" Guid="{1DB28F2E-8F80-4027-8C5A-A11F7F10F62D}" /> 
  <EventID>19</EventID> 
  <Version>3</Version> 
  <Level>2</Level> 
  <Task>0</Task> 
  <Opcode>0</Opcode> 
  <Keywords>0x4000000000000000</Keywords> 
  <TimeCreated SystemTime="2021-05-19T08:27:32.395701700Z" /> 
  <EventRecordID>161</EventRecordID> 
  <Correlation /> 
  <Execution ProcessID="2760" ThreadID="856" /> 
  <Channel>Microsoft-Windows-Backup</Channel> 
  <Computer>vm</Computer> 
  <Security UserID="S-1-5-11" /> 
  </System>
- <EventData>
  <Data Name="HRESULT">0x8079005f</Data> 
  <Data Name="BackupTime">2021-05-19T08:27:32.394029700Z</Data> 
  <Data Name="BackupTarget">J:</Data> 
  <Data Name="NumOfVolumes">0</Data> 
  <Data Name="VolumeNames" /> 
  <Data Name="ErrorMessage">%%2155413599</Data> 
  </EventData>
  </Event>

I do not know where the faulty "BackupTarget" is coming from, there is no J: drive. From descriptions found on the net, DPM is supposed to backup the system state to the C: drive (that has reasonable amount of free space).

Is it possible to have (preferrably with Windows-on-board tools of Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows Server 2016) to have a software raid mirror on 2 encrypted disks? (Locally preferred.)

From what I know, I have to use an SSD for normal/fast hardware encryption (at least via Bitlocker), so I am planning to put 2 ssd disks into a SW mirror.

I want to achieve 2 things:

1) theft protection
 a) if hardware gets stolen, drives are useless to thief

2) failure protection
 a) if a drive fails, the other takes over and the failed drive can be replaced
 b) if the pc fails, the drives run in another pc (or at least can be recovered)

The drives will be home of some VM hard drives, so they don't need to be bootable/system drive.

They should unlock automatically on Windows startup though, in order to reboot the machines unattended, also to have the hyper-v vhds available straight away.

Is this possible? If so, how is this possible?

I have read a lot about how bad domain controller snaphots are due to possible inconsistencies being created. They all seem to be only related to the case of having multiple DCs, like you have in a medium to large company.

What I am not sure about:

1. When I have only 1 DC (very small company), are there negative implications from reverting to snapshots?
2. Do I get inconsistencies if I have only 1 DC, but made changes to AD (affecting other computers) since the snapshot was created? Can I somehow resync?
3. I am running Hyper-V hosts newer than 2012, though I think the "new" USN mechanism is only for DC-DC synchronisation, so in my case (reverting to snapshot) it isn't an advantage, but also no disadvantage?

Many thanks!

I have 2 VOIP SIP accounts. One is for a landline (incoming). The other should be purely outgoing and allows for calls to my mobile phone. Basically I want to connect the landline to my mobile phone. With VOIP on my mobile phone, call quality is often bad, and generally, data connections (voice) never seem to be as good as a voice connection. Also, battery usage is a lot higher.

So I want to set up a server/(program on a linux server) to listen on the incoming VOIP account, and then use the other VOIP account to phone my mobile.

If possible:

• the original caller id should be displayed
• the outgoing VOIP account should only be used (connected) when a call needs to be forwarded so I can use the same account on another place (not at the same time)

I did set something similar up on my DSL router (FritzBox) losing the caller id and also having the added DSL delay, so I would prefer a solution running on a linux host with better connection (less latency).

Is that possible at all? What solution would I need?

Since I am having problems with rhodecode (db problems when upgrading) I reverted rhodecode to an old version (1.3.6->1.5.1->1.3.6). Beaker is a dependency and should have been reverted to 1.6.3 but sticks to 1.6.4 - with no error message either during the Rhodecode downgrade or a manual attempt.

Manually trying to downgrade yields

server:~# pip install beaker==1.6.3
Downloading/unpacking beaker==1.6.3
  Downloading Beaker-1.6.3.tar.gz (52Kb): 52Kb downloaded
  Running setup.py egg_info for package beaker
Installing collected packages: beaker
  Found existing installation: Beaker 1.6.4
    Uninstalling Beaker:
      Successfully uninstalled Beaker
  Running setup.py install for beaker
Successfully installed beaker
Cleaning up...
server:~# pip freeze
Babel==0.9.6
Beaker==1.6.4
FormEncode==1.2.4
Mako==0.7.0
Markdown==2.1.1
MarkupSafe==0.15
Paste==1.7.5.1
PasteDeploy==1.5.0
PasteScript==1.7.5
[...]

So I am still at 1.6.4. Also dependent Rhodecode still stumbles upon this.

How to I downgrdae to 1.6.3? (Running on Ubuntu with Python 2.6.6.)

This week, someone started to send spam-mails through my postfix-smtp access (I verified by logging in through telnet from an arbitrary pc and sending mails with any ids myself) on my server, with recipient and target being [email protected]. Since I have a catchall and mail-fowarding to my google account, I received all those (many) mails.

After a lot of configuration (I lost track of what change did what, going through dozends of topics here and over the net) that hole seems fixed. Still, what hapened?

Does port 25 need to be open and accepting for my catchall to work?

What configuration did I do wrong?

I remember the first thing I changed (that had an effect) was the inet_interface setting in main.cf, only later to find out that if this does not say "all", my mail to mydomain.com does not get forwarded any more.