Samba Server Configuration in Centos 6.2
-
@PSX_Defector said:
The big red V may be dumb, but even they can implement it with stability and speed says something else.
Only that they throw money at it. Or use it in a specific way that works. Or happen to be on firmware that does what is needed.
Cisco acknowledged the problem, but didn't have a fix for it.
-
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I have to keep my opinions of Cisco in check because I work for one of their biggest support partners. There are people on staff here who WROTE protocols Cisco uses. Dual-CCIE level guys and above.
Every reseller claims this stuff. You hear it daily. I don't take any Cisco partner seriously who says these things. If they were half that good they'd work for Cisco. That they don't tells us this isn't a reasonable statement.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I have to keep my opinions of Cisco in check because I work for one of their biggest support partners. There are people on staff here who WROTE protocols Cisco uses. Dual-CCIE level guys and above.
Every reseller claims this stuff. You hear it daily. I don't take any Cisco partner seriously who says these things. If they were half that good they'd work for Cisco. That they don't tells us this isn't a reasonable statement.
I've spoken to some of the guys here. There definitely are people here who do know their stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Every reseller claims this stuff. You hear it daily. I don't take any Cisco partner seriously who says these things. If they were half that good they'd work for Cisco. That they don't tells us this isn't a reasonable statement.
Have you see how many certs and years of experience most people on spiceworks claim they have? Yet they know very little.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I have to keep my opinions of Cisco in check because I work for one of their biggest support partners. There are people on staff here who WROTE protocols Cisco uses. Dual-CCIE level guys and above.
Every reseller claims this stuff. You hear it daily. I don't take any Cisco partner seriously who says these things. If they were half that good they'd work for Cisco. That they don't tells us this isn't a reasonable statement.
Have you see how many certs and years of experience most people on spiceworks claim they have? Yet they know very little.
Yeah, true.
-
And if you look at their website, their idea of a "system engineer" includes requiring an A+ and a high school diploma. I don't think "high end" defines this place. I'm sure they are a fine, low cost MSP. But as AJ knows, they are struggling to pay entry level rates. Not the sign of a place able to afford good Cisco people, even in a market like ours where Cisco people are routinely out of work because they are a dime a dozen these days.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
big red V
Who is that?
Not to be confused with the big pink V.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I've spoken to some of the guys here. There definitely are people here who do know their stuff.
How can you determine that? I'm sure they are moderately qualified networking guys, but they are a reseller, not a consultancy. Their job is to be sales people and sound impressive.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@PSX_Defector said:
The big red V may be dumb, but even they can implement it with stability and speed says something else.
Only that they throw money at it. Or use it in a specific way that works. Or happen to be on firmware that does what is needed.
Cisco acknowledged the problem, but didn't have a fix for it.
Considering the big red V is a bunch of cheap motherfuckers, that certainly ain't it. Our previously cushy deal with HP should have easily kept us swimming in blades for x86 and Itanium for a long time. Guess they wanted a change or we got them super dirt cheap.
Firmware is a big problem with the platform, I will agree there. Long development cycles for issues, no sense of urgency, etc. etc. But our standard at the time was simple, UCS chassis, B200 blades, some IOMs and a combined ethernet/fibre channel fabric connected to NetApp SANs, we didn't seem to have much of an issue. Some even had their beautiful Nexus switches in there, a thing of elegance.
I had never seen one of the platform's before I began a large environment upgrade. I had no problem supporting it, neither did my colleagues.
-
UCS normally starts cheap because of the strong lock-in. It's good for getting the short sighted people hooked.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
Firmware is a big problem with the platform, I will agree there. Long development cycles for issues, no sense of urgency, etc. etc.
That's a problem with Cisco. If you are running Cisco, no one sees you as running important workloads. Cisco doesn't understand enterprise like HP and others do.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I've spoken to some of the guys here. There definitely are people here who do know their stuff.
How can you determine that? I'm sure they are moderately qualified networking guys, but they are a reseller, not a consultancy. Their job is to be sales people and sound impressive.
I wasn't talking to sales guys. I was talking to our L2s.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
big red V
Who is that?
Not to be confused with the big pink V.
It's only the big red V a few days of the month.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I wasn't talking to sales guys. I was talking to our L2s.
You are using your L2s as an example that the "double CCIEs who write the protocols for Cisco" are truly qualified?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And if you look at their website, their idea of a "system engineer" includes requiring an A+ and a high school diploma. I don't think "high end" defines this place. I'm sure they are a fine, low cost MSP. But as AJ knows, they are struggling to pay entry level rates. Not the sign of a place able to afford good Cisco people, even in a market like ours where Cisco people are routinely out of work because they are a dime a dozen these days.
They aren't struggling. That's good pay for Syracuse for entry level. Besides, after six months you go up to $15.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
They aren't struggling. That's good pay for Syracuse for entry level. Besides, after six months you go up to $15.
It's NOT good pay for Syracuse, it's less than you make at Staples. It's pathetic pay, actually. It's less than the most entry level pay for in Rochester (an even more depressed market) was several years ago. $11/hr was the starting pay for zero experience, zero skill call center work in 2008.
And like we've said before, the $15/hr in six months is marketing. You can't keep stating that. Bottom line is, it's a shop that pays $10/hr for entry level. That's a business that is struggling, big time.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
And if you look at their website, their idea of a "system engineer" includes requiring an A+ and a high school diploma. I don't think "high end" defines this place. I'm sure they are a fine, low cost MSP. But as AJ knows, they are struggling to pay entry level rates. Not the sign of a place able to afford good Cisco people, even in a market like ours where Cisco people are routinely out of work because they are a dime a dozen these days.
They aren't struggling. That's good pay for Syracuse for entry level. Besides, after six months you go up to $15.
I was looking at a job at Cisco direct as Level 3 UCS engineer paying close to $55 an hour.
$15 is not good pay for a Cisco certified goon.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I wasn't talking to sales guys. I was talking to our L2s.
You are using your L2s as an example that the "double CCIEs who write the protocols for Cisco" are truly qualified?
I'm just saying WE HAVE dual-CCIE guys. Those aren't the guys I was talking to.
-
And for $10 they make you go into the office too. $10 if they let you work from home and had crazy benefits or something, sure. Maybe. Everyone has different priorities. But $10 having to commute daily isn't an acceptable rate in any US market. Nor any Canadian market.
