AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@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?
No, I'd have someone above them step in and remedy it. Not allow one tech to control the conversation.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
I am not giving them a pass, I am actually saying that this way overblown out of proportion.
You are absolutely giving them a pass, in every way. You are saying absolutely anything to excuse that they don't provide that support.
-
@CCWTech I know you and NTG suggest NTG better platform and I am not suggesting to not support it. What I am suggesting is that we know the software sucks and you support it but because you have to support it you need to work with them as well. SO yeah the customer needs to pay double support in a sense. You will still need them for working on the issue.
-
@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.:
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
I am not giving them a pass, I am actually saying that this way overblown out of proportion.
You are absolutely giving them a pass, in every way. You are saying absolutely anything to excuse that they don't provide that support.
I am not.
-
@scottalanmiller I am sure this is way too much drama for a software thread.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@CCWTech I know you and NTG suggest NTG better platform and I am not suggesting to not support it. What I am suggesting is that we know the software sucks and you support it but because you have to support it you need to work with them as well. SO yeah the customer needs to pay double support in a sense. You will still need them for working on the issue.
But what does that have to do with the conversation? Of course we support them. This thread is about a vendor not providing support. Nothing to do with anyone else.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@scottalanmiller I am sure this is way too much drama for a software thread.
I agree, that's why I think it was inappropriate.
I'm not sure what made people want to take a post about how a vendor was refusing support for something necessary and promised, and turn it into drama of defending the vendor and making it about how supporting someone is then accepting the situation. There was no reason for any of that.
-
I understand, vendors are our bread and butter and if we piss them off, we can lose money and that a lot of people are afraid of looking adversarial to vendors so are willing to defend them out of self preservation. But this is a big problem in IT, customers struggle to find real IT that is going to represent them and defend them and act in their interests instead of the interests of the vendors. This is why vendors do so much to give kick backs, provide margins, etc. Even small ones, because it endears their IT reps to them and makes them feel like partners and reps of the vendor and emotionally feel like they have to act in their interest.
But when we call ourselves IT, that means working for the customer, not the vendors.
-
@scottalanmiller So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
-
@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 So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
If I understand you correctly, the customer was told by support that they wouldn't support it and that the server would lose data or completely crash.
-
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@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 So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
If I understand you correctly, the customer was told by support that they wouldn't support it and that the server would lose data or completely crash.
Yeah, because they didn't care about the data by reapplying information or modifying the system and making the customer feel incompetent since they were not "IT". In which case it was wrong of that tech.
-
@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 All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
So many companies hide behind this, where you have to call in, hold for 20-30 minutes get a crappy tech and then rinse and repeat.
This proves that companies KNOW they are giving out bad information but don't care. Or, don't care to a degree that they even care to know if that is happening.
In that case, the company has to 'own' what the techs are telling clients. There is no plausible deniability that it was just one tech that messed up.
-
If Scott asked me to go look at a situation here in my local area on behalf of NTG, for that time I consider myself a representative and part of NTG during that time. So anything I say or recommend would be the same as if someone drove down here from NTG and assessed the situation. That's how I would look at it.
-
@jmoore said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
If Scott asked me to go look at a situation here in my local area on behalf of NTG, for that time I consider myself a representative and part of NTG during that time. So anything I say or recommend would be the same as if someone drove down here from NTG and assessed the situation. That's how I would look at it.
And, of course, if you said something wrong like "Oh no, you use Windows, NTG doesn't support that", and we just left that as it was (having learned about it), that's establishing that that is official. But if we correct it "Oh sorry, he was mistaken, we don't ONLY support Windows is what he meant, of course we support Windows", then that's fine. People make mistakes, there's a way to correct mistakes. But once you hire someone to be your official representative, and you have nothing else to countermand that, it's as official as it can be.
-
@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 All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
This is a tough one, because there are two parts. One is that the tech said something wrong about the support. And the second they flat out lied out risks.
Escalating can be done by the customer, but the customer doesn't have the knowledge or resources to do so easily. Especially when faced with totally falsified facts coming from the only person who , in theory, is supposed to actually know. Any escalation means more than asking for verification, but calling out someone as a liar.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@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 All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
So many companies hide behind this, where you have to call in, hold for 20-30 minutes get a crappy tech and then rinse and repeat.
This proves that companies KNOW they are giving out bad information but don't care. Or, don't care to a degree that they even care to know if that is happening.
In that case, the company has to 'own' what the techs are telling clients. There is no plausible deniability that it was just one tech that messed up.
This is seemingly the root of it. AviMark - are customers calling and getting to management and complaining that techs are telling them (the customer) information that contradicts their own published statements, AND management is not doing anything about it?
-
@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.:
@jmoore said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
If Scott asked me to go look at a situation here in my local area on behalf of NTG, for that time I consider myself a representative and part of NTG during that time. So anything I say or recommend would be the same as if someone drove down here from NTG and assessed the situation. That's how I would look at it.
And, of course, if you said something wrong like "Oh no, you use Windows, NTG doesn't support that", and we just left that as it was (having learned about it), that's establishing that that is official. But if we correct it "Oh sorry, he was mistaken, we don't ONLY support Windows is what he meant, of course we support Windows", then that's fine. People make mistakes, there's a way to correct mistakes. But once you hire someone to be your official representative, and you have nothing else to countermand that, it's as official as it can be.
Holy cow - now there's some spin for ya... of course it's all completely accurate, but it keeps it looking like he simply made a word choice mistake, instead of the actual rather huge mistake that he did make. More of a saving face move...
-
@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.:
@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 All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
This is a tough one, because there are two parts. One is that the tech said something wrong about the support. And the second they flat out lied out risks.
Escalating can be done by the customer, but the customer doesn't have the knowledge or resources to do so easily. Especially when faced with totally falsified facts coming from the only person who , in theory, is supposed to actually know. Any escalation means more than asking for verification, but calling out someone as a liar.
Right - so if the customer doesn't know - how is management ever supposed to find out to fix the problem?
This whole thread wouldn't exist if not for the OP's involvement in the project, and he KNOWS the tech is wrong - and hopefully, on behalf of his client - he will call management at the vendor and inform them of the mistakes of their tech. Now - the question is who pays for that time? His client? himself/his company? In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
-
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@CCWTech said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@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 All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
So many companies hide behind this, where you have to call in, hold for 20-30 minutes get a crappy tech and then rinse and repeat.
This proves that companies KNOW they are giving out bad information but don't care. Or, don't care to a degree that they even care to know if that is happening.
In that case, the company has to 'own' what the techs are telling clients. There is no plausible deniability that it was just one tech that messed up.
This is seemingly the root of it. AviMark - are customers calling and getting to management and complaining that techs are telling them (the customer) information that contradicts their own published statements, AND management is not doing anything about it?
No way to get to actual management. Tech support is the face of the company. You can talk to a low level supervisor but that's it.
