AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.
-
So why do vendors like these not want their applications virtualized?
-
@jmoore said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So why do vendors like these not want their applications virtualized?
In this case it can be. But the complete incompetence of their software support just reinforces how out of touch they are with the 35+ year old technology they offer. -
So the tech said something inaccurate, so what? That happens just about everyday in every company on earth.
BTW, the title on the thread is misleading. AVImark didn't state anything.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@jmoore said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So why do vendors like these not want their applications virtualized?
In this case it can be. But the complete incompetence of their software support just reinforces how out of touch they are with the 35+ year old technology they offer.Ok thanks
-
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So the tech said something inaccurate, so what? That happens just about everyday in every company on earth.
BTW, the title on the thread is misleading. AVImark didn't state anything.
Fair enough, I'll edit. But this is what the company MUST expect given the level of techs they employ.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
Also worth noting, the tech wasn't told that the system was virtual, he was told it was accessed remotely and he applied "remote" as "virtual". So the tech wasn't responding to anything being virtual, at all.
I'm not sure what the tech was told. Client may have mentioned it. It may have been given to them as a reason why she had to remote into it vs. being on the server.
Just going by the write up.
-
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
BTW, the title on the thread is misleading. AVImark didn't state anything.
Who is Avimark if not their representative? We can't cherry pick which employees "are avimark" and which aren't to suit our needs. The tech is Avimark as much as any other employee, and the tech is the selected representative to the customer, and the one that determines if support is given or not.
So more than anyone else, the tech's providing support ARE Avimark. Until someone overrides him, it's the level that impacts support that defines "what Avimark says" more than anything else. Because this is where the rubber is hitting the road.
Marketing people can and will say anything to get a sale, and if they lie, that's the company lying. If a tech refuses to honour what marketing does, that's the company refusing support. It's crazy to say that when the company makes an official statement to a customer that it doesn't count unless it's what you want to hear.
-
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So the tech said something inaccurate, so what? That happens just about everyday in every company on earth.
What makes it inaccurate? This is their official support channel's word on the matter. Accuracy is determined by what the tech says and nothing else (until overridden by a higher tech.) So as it stands, this is the truth of the matter.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
BTW, the title on the thread is misleading. AVImark didn't state anything.
Who is Avimark if not their representative? We can't cherry pick which employees "are avimark" and which aren't to suit our needs. The tech is Avimark as much as any other employee, and the tech is the selected representative to the customer, and the one that determines if support is given or not.
So more than anyone else, the tech's providing support ARE Avimark. Until someone overrides him, it's the level that impacts support that defines "what Avimark says" more than anything else. Because this is where the rubber is hitting the road.
Marketing people can and will say anything to get a sale, and if they lie, that's the company lying. If a tech refuses to honour what marketing does, that's the company refusing support. It's crazy to say that when the company makes an official statement to a customer that it doesn't count unless it's what you want to hear.
It could have been well said that an Employee of Avimark stated this. It is clear that the employee contradicted the documentation but to say that is what Avimark said is a little over the top.
-
What I'm hearing is a "vendors get unlimited free passes" mentality and here is why this is dangerous....
Tell marketing to promise anything that they want. Then tell your techs to not honour it. If someone complains, just point to the other party and say "whatever issue you have is not official." It's a free pass and no matter what the company actually supports or does, we excuse them because "companies can do no wrong."
Mistakes happen, but this doesn't appear to be a mistake. Could it be? Maybe. But that's not what experience says with this vendor.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So the tech said something inaccurate, so what? That happens just about everyday in every company on earth.
What makes it inaccurate? This is their official support channel's word on the matter. Accuracy is determined by what the tech says and nothing else (until overridden by a higher tech.) So as it stands, this is the truth of the matter.
And this is far more than just a simple mistake by a tech. It's more than a faux paus.
He is explicitly saying the company doesn't support virtual servers and referencing their hardware requirements (which are set by the company.) Of course he is wrong, but is it up to the consumer to train their techs?
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
It could have been well said that an Employee of Avimark stated this. It is clear that the employee contradicted the documentation but to say that is what Avimark said is a little over the top.
No, to say they DIDN'T say it is WAY over the top. Because they SAID IT. There is one and only one source of truth to support, and that's what the person giving the support says and does. To use ANYTHING other than that is crazy and completely untruthful.
The support person is THE one and only voice of the company here. Anything else is just "something on a website that doesn't hold up when tested."
You are using "someone that we don't know who it is put on a website" to be a greater source of truth than "when tested to see if true, was determined to be false." The actual support channel said it wasn't supported. There's nothing else that matters.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
He is explicitly saying the company doesn't support virtual servers and referencing their hardware requirements (which are set by the company.) Of course he is wrong, but is it up to the consumer to train their techs?
No, it's up to the company to step in and correct through the proper support channel. Until they do so, the entire organization has stood by the statement.
-
@scottalanmiller I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
-
As an employer, if I have a tech hired to speak for me and they say something wrong, and they control the actions of the company, and I decide not to have someone above them step in and correct them and actually do the thing that they refused to do, they are my voice and have decided what the company does and stands for. If I claimed anything else, I'd be a liar.
Why would Avimark get a pass that none of us would get if we hired someone that said something wrong, defied our published requirements, and didn't do anything to correct them? What makes Avimark special that you don't treat them like everyone else?
-
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
The simple fact that it's horrible software with horrible support is WHY we deal with it. It's a great opportunity for us to provide better support than the company itself can.
We have suggested our clients move to a better platform (Vetastic.com) for example. But at the end of the day, if clients call in and want I.T. support, we aren't going to just tell them no. That makes 0 sense whatsoever.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@scottalanmiller I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
LOL. So this is insane. So you are saying that because I get paid to fix issues, and I'm willing to get paid to fix issues, that therefore any lies from someone creating those issues that hurts my customers is somehow approved by me? This is crazy. That doesn't imply that, at all.
What kind of statement is this? And why would you say such a thing? Why are people willing to go to such lengths to try to make the actions of a bad vendor appear valid?
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
The simple fact that it's horrible software with horrible support is WHY we deal with it.
Just like all the people who get paid to support Windows, or cars that break down. There is a MASSIVE gap between "I'm willing to help a customer who needs help" and "I support the people who intentionally put them in a position of needing help."
That's like saying that any doctor that treats a wounded citizen supports the gangs that shot them.
WTF!!! The lack of logic in the desperate attempt to defend vendors at any cost boggles the mind.
-
@scottalanmiller I am not making them valid, that is the point. Just because a tech said that you always confirm it not just one tech. Will you do the same if one of your techs said a wrong or mistake statement?
I am not giving them a pass, I am actually saying that this way overblown out of proportion.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
We have suggested our clients move to a better platform (Vetastic.com) for example. But at the end of the day, if clients call in and want I.T. support, we aren't going to just tell them no. That makes 0 sense whatsoever.
I've sensed a lot of snobbery that suggests a lot of people claim and I don't believe them one iota, that they only support customers who do 100% what they say and recommend and fire every customer who doesn't do exactly as IT says. No customer, anywhere, does that. There has started to be a trend in people putting down anyone in IT that doesn't have owner-level control and force their own systems end to end with no outside input and therefore any willingness to help anyone with anything is seen as not just accepting, but having caused the issues.
No break fix allowed in this mentality. No end user mistakes. People need to get off their pretentious high horses, In the real world we have to help real clients who pay their bills. Not all of us are independently wealthy and can have totalitarian control over every line of code deployed to our customers.
