amazon web services – Relocation of the local infrastructure in Azure / AWS

I'm new to Server Fault (by StackOverflow) and please tell me if this is not the place to ask this general question.
Basically, our company is trying to move from a local infrastructure to a cloud infrastructure. We are considering Azure / Aws.

Currently, some virtual machines are running on our local server. A server with the domain controller, a file server, a database server and one for our websites with IIS installed. With our Exchange, we have already gone online with Office365 and Azure Active Directory.

However, we also wanted to move the other servers to the cloud. For example, we thought we could create virtual machines in Azure and connect them all to the same Active Directory by connecting them to the same virtual network. Would that be the right approach?

Suppose we set everything up like this. If I had informed myself correctly, we would need to set up a site-to-site connection so that we could access all of these servers through our local network.
Is it even possible to join the Active Directory on our local network running on a domain controller on a virtual machine in Azure?

Another question, what is the performance? Of course it will be slower than having everything in the house, but our files are not very big and the requests are not too big.

Once again, I am net contributor to this stack exchange and mainly a programmer. However, we are a small company and I try to modernize our infrastructure a bit. I am not an expert in networking, so I ask you experts to gather some knowledge here. So please be nice :)!

DNS – How do I create a virtual IP over the local network only?

With Apache Local Server ..
I manage my projects with virtualhosts, so it's easy to work with more than one project and view the results in my browser

using hosts file I use my device IP (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) as (site1.local, site2.local, etc ..) and then use virtualhost to listen to all these virtual hosts

Now I noticed that the browser on my responsive website looks different because it supports more features than the same browser on the mobile

I need to access all my projects in the same way that the virtualhost and hosts file does, but on every device on my local network

I tried to make Apache listen to the IP of my device, but it only serves one project and does not use that IP, so I can not just type mysite.local, but always xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to the browser must pass

I need a way to set up a virtual IP address or a virtual host on the local network so I can listen to it quickly

python – Repeated result reading local XML

Good night, I have to capture two attributes of an XML (Date and Type) until I could get the script to return the values, but it repeats itself in the print result and I can not understand why.

link to xml:

https://api.calendario.com.br/?ano=2019&estado=RS&city=MONTENEGRO&token=aWFnb21vcmFlc3RAZ21haWwuY29tJmhhc2g9MjA0NzQ3MjM4

Code:

import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
tree = ET.parse (? calendar.xml?)
root = tree.getroot ()

for child in root.iter (& # 39; type & # 39;):
if child.text == & # 39; national holiday & # 39 ;:
for data in root.iter (& # 39; date & # 39;):
print (data.text, child.text)

Only part of the result:

01/01/2019 national holiday
05/03/2019 national holiday
04/03/2019 national holiday
03/06/2019 national holiday
20/06/2019 national holiday
20/11/2019 national holiday
01/04/2019 national holiday
05/12/2019 national holiday
02/11/2019 national holiday
10/12/2019 national holiday
21/04/2019 national holiday
17/10/2019 national holiday
15.10.2013 national holiday
28/10/2019 national holiday
01/05/2019 national holiday
12/06/2019 national holiday
11/08/2019 national holiday
07/09/2019 national holiday
15.11.2013 national holiday
25/12/2019 national holiday
21/04/2019 national holiday
19/04/2019 national holiday
20/09/2019 national holiday
24/06/2019 national holiday
01/01/2019 National holiday -> here begins to repeat and will do 5x more
05/03/2019 national holiday
04/03/2019 national holiday
03/06/2019 national holiday
20/06/2019 national holiday
20/11/2019 national holiday
01/04/2019 national holiday
05/12/2019 national holiday
02/11/2019 national holiday

Local Installation – Using the Package Builder with WordPress

Lately, I've been looking at build tools, especially those that enable PostCSS, and therefore allow you to build a build process that automatically repairs, shrinks, and concatenates my WordPress site, among other things.

One of the most up-to-date tools for this purpose seems to be Parcel, which also boasts a file-less configuration, and therefore has the advantage that it is easiest to start the package.

Parcel, however, seems to need an index.html file as an "entry file" to start with, and I'm not sure how this would work with the WordPress index.php.

Has anyone succeeded in getting Parcel running with a local WordPress installation, and if so, how would that happen? If not, use other build tools as part of your development workflow and why / why not?

Is this a robust way to use Azure backup to protect local VMs?

What's wrong with this idea?

My hedge account for Azure Clouds includes approximately $ 460 / month for "protected instances" ($ 10 / instance / month * 46 instances) and approximately $ 250 for bandwidth and storage. The number of protected instances includes about 20 VMs and databases. (This is the entire local infrastructure, we do not run VMs or DBs in the cloud.)

So why can not I delete the VMs and databases as separate instances and protect them with file backups on the host servers, making sure that the folders containing the virtual machine and the disk folders in the instance protected by the host server are covered? It looks like I could save $ 200 / month on protected instances. Bandwidth and storage are probably the same.

I have a fairly generous SLA for restoring data from the cloud, so I do not need more than one restore point every 24 hours. We also only run local DB backups with a finer resolution to protect against routine DB problems.

Is there a reason why backups of VHD files on the host server are inconsistent?

Differential Equations – Warnings with NDSolve on wave PDE. "Use maximum number of grid points", "Warning: scaled local spatial error estimate"

Version 12 under Windows 10.

I can not imagine what should be changed in this call NDSolve to make it happy.

This PDE is solved by DSolve, but NDSolve gives many warnings. and if you try to draw the solution, after a long time Manipulate just breaks off as every step takes a long time. Because of these warnings, there is an error in the solution.

This wave PDE is the standard PDE. On a rectangle, all 4 edges are set with the start position and the initial velocity zero.

Delete everything[t, U, x, y];
L = 2; (* x dimension *)
H = 3; (* y dimension *)
c = 0.3; (* Wave velocity *)
f1[x_?NumericQ] : = Piecewise[{{x, 0 <= x <= L/2}, {L - x, L/2 < x <= L}}];
f2[y_?NumericQ] : = Piecewise[{{y, 0 <= y <= H/2}, {H - y, H/2 < y <= H}}];
pde = D[U[x, y, t], {t, 2}]== c ^ 2 * Laplace[U[x, y, t], {x, y}];
ic = {u[x, y, 0] == f1[x]* f2[y], Derivative[0, 0, 1][U][x, y, 0]    == 0};
bc = {u[x, 0, t] == 0, U[0, y, t] == 0, U[L, y, t] == 0, U[x, H, t] == 0};
numericalSol = First @ NDSolve[{pde, ic, bc}, U, {x, 0, L}, {y, 0, H}, {t, 0, 20}]

Mathematica Graphics

Enter image description here

Although Manipulate displays the starting position correctly, it is very slow to play. Every step takes forever to move.

Mathematica Graphics

I tried to use these options as suggested in the comment here

Method -> {"MethodOfLines",
"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"TensorProductGrid", "MaxPoints" -> 101}}

And tried to increase the MaxPoints, but they had no effect. In my opinion NDSolve Do not like the initial position above, given with piecemeal but I do not see anything wrong with it:

    Plot3D[f1[f1[f1[f1[x]* f2[y], {x, 0, L}, {y, 0, H}]

Mathematica Graphics

Here is the Manipuliercode, with which the solution can be played over a longer period if necessary

Manipulate[
Plot3D[{Rate[{Evaluate[{Bewerten[{Evaluate[U[x, y, t] /. numericalSol]}, {x, 0, L}, {y, 0, H},
Base Style -> 15,
Image Margins -> 5,
Mesh -> 25,
PerformanceGoal -> "Speed",
BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 0.4},
PlotRange -> {Automatic, Automatic, {-1, 1.4}},
ImageSize -> 500,
ColorFunctionScaling -> False,
ColorFunction -> ColorData[{"TemperatureMap", {0, 1}}].
AxesLabel -> {"x", "y", "U (r, 0)"},
SphericalRegion -> True,
ViewPoint -> {0,796, -2,725, 0,5471}
].
{{t, 0, "time"}, 0, 20, .1, Appearance -> "Labeled"}
]

Any suggestions on what to change in the call NDSolve above to remove these warnings and improve the manipulation function?

Network – The local ISP subnet is 192.168.1.x and causes problems with VPN access

I could not figure out why I ended a client-based VPN connection to a remote site with one 192.168.1.x Subnet until I find out that the internet service provider's modem is running 192.168.1.x Subnet for their own purposes.

I would prefer not to add a routing statement on my own workstations as this is very painful and productive. So I'd like to add a route statement to my firewall (the gateway in front of my ISP's subnet) to fix the situation.

However, I have no idea how to do this or how to formulate Google Search to get close to what I want to do. Do I want a null-route statement, a statement that sends packets to loopback? No idea, but it feels like a "divide by zero" situation.

In the end, I want every device on my internal private subnet behind my firewall to think there is no device 192.168.1.0 Subnet out there. This should force all traffic over the VPN.

What can be done to fix this?

  • Internal private subnet: 172.16.16.0
  • Internal GW: 172.16.16.1 (PFsense fw)
  • ISP provided internal subnet: 10.0.10.0
  • ISP GW: 10.0.10.1 (VZ modem)
  • ISP-provided device subnet: 192.168.1.0

Traceroute without VPN to be active:

Track the route to 192.168.1.1 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 8 ms 12 ms 4 ms kcactc-fw [172.16.16.1]
  2 10 ms 8 ms 5 ms 10.0.10.1
3 10 ms 9 ms 13 ms 192.168.1.1

Open subspaces of compact local spectral spaces

By Prop. 16 of Hochster's paper on spectral spaces we know that locally quasi-separated spectral spaces allow an open topological embedding in a spectral space. The question is, what happens if we drop the quasi-separation hypothesis? Is there a local spectral space that does not allow open topological embedding in a compact local spectral space?