But we may have technicians from time to time login and open an additional session so we may need extras to cover that.
Will these technicians be logging in from the already licensed devices? Or from elsewhere?
I hope not to do an in place upgrade :P
No. But I find it satisfying to see your responses to so many of my google searches for AD and IIS issues! :)
I bet I run into your posts on other sites at least once a week....
Interesting read but unfortunately they don't have enough SSDs and have not had them long enough to draw any real conclusions.
And their use case is for boot drives - which isn't really applicable to normal server workloads. And they likely use lower spec consumer SSDs too which makes it even harder to draw any conclusions for servers where you normally see standard enterprise SSDs.
They made that clear, and were up front about it.
The other factor we listed was drive days, the number of days all the drives in each cohort have been in operation without failing. The wide disparity in drive days causes a big difference in the confidence intervals of the two cohorts as the number of observations (i.e. drive days) varies significantly.
Your response makes it look like you are disputing the article. I don't see anything disappointing at all in that article. They made it perfectly clear this is what they know now, based on different drive day cohorts. Then they said it would be a a couple of years before they had enough data to form a more clear understanding.
Over the next couple of years, as we get a better idea of SSD failure rates, we will be able to decide whether or not to add the AFR to the SSD versus HDD buying guide checklist.
They never mentioned a use case, only a test case. And they explain why they think the boot drives are a reasonable measure of the drive in the real work load.
In our case, describing these drives as boot drives is a misnomer as boot drives are also used to store log files for system access, diagnostics, and more. In other words, these boot drives are regularly reading, writing, and deleting files in addition to their named function of booting a server at startup.
Do not see any DNS changes yet.
Try now :)
> na.skyetel.com Server: cdns01.comcast.net Address: 18.104.22.168 Non-authoritative answer: Name: na.skyetel.com Addresses: 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 > server 220.127.116.11 Default Server: one.one.one.one Address: 18.104.22.168 > na.skyetel.com Server: one.one.one.one Address: 22.214.171.124 Non-authoritative answer: Name: na.skyetel.com Addresses: 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11
Okay. Let's look again at the idea of a script to kill and restart the software. Once you have a script working that can kill the software on demand, and start the software on demand. move the script to a GPP.
Use GPP (Group Policy Preferences) to create scheduled tasks that uses the "On workstation lock" and "On workstation unlock" event to trigger your script.
We have an insurance card scanner at each desk. I don't see this changing.
Not sure how to read this response.
TSScan is software not hardware. It will allow a session on an RDP server to see that locally attached twain scanner. But RDP is not an option. (yet!) :)
I keep thinking about this. It's the kind of problem I love to tackle. :)
If the scanner redirector from terminalworks does indeed allow you to use the scanner with you insurance/single use issue, then mandatory roaming profiles may work well for you.
BTW: for some reason, I think the termnalworks software disconnects the link to the scanner if the RDP session goes into a disconnected state. This should work well for insurance/one user issue.
Another idea is and RDS setup.
My biggest concern about this is the scanner. I have no idea if it will work in a multi-user environment like RDS. In fact I doubt it will since it won't work in a multi-user environment like Windows 10.
Have you considered TS Scan by Terminal works? https://www.terminalworks.com/remote-desktop-scanning
We use it for RDP scanning from remote USB scanners and it works great. You can test it for a trial period to see if it will handle multiple clients to one remote scanner. I think it will; one at a time.
What are your thoughts on Using Zerotier as a VPN to highly secure networks?
How will you be configuring access to the network assets and resources? Devices at the other end of a VPN are only as secure as their environment. Be sure to consider all protections before making your decision.
Sometime HR problems with employees are your biggest security risk. For example, an employee who leave their laptop unattended in a Panera and their password is on a sticky note. Sounds silly, but it happens. When this happens, your very Secure VPN is not so secure! :)
We just had a similar issue across several customers. It was a Windows Update issue.
For us, in all cases, there was a window update that needed to run, not normal ones that run unattended, but the "Feature Update Windows 10, version 21H1". Once run, and rebooted, all printers and ports returned.
Some users lost all GPO delivered printers and some users had all of the Ports disappear from the Ports tab in Print Server Properties:
Click on a printer, then:
Every house for sale around here gets snatched up by companies for rental property. Quick lipstick reno, $2k a month for a 3/2. Which is why my house has doubled in value in 6 years of ownership. My neighbor turned down a cash offer (as is, no inspection) of nearly 300k, probably triple what he paid 12 years ago.
We're into Short-Term Rental Arbitrage (AKA AirBNB Arbitrage). It works really well for passive income.
I never had an issue with Cisco ATAs connected to a cloud service behind Sonicwall devices. I don't recall setting anything up, but I am curious enough to review my setup notes to confirm.
We have not either. We have many Cisco SPA ATAs in service. All of them behind Sonicwalls. This is the only one connected to Skyetel.
Turning SIP Transformations on in the Sonicwall made it so the SPA122 would register with Skyetel, however it killed the phones that register with VitalPBX.
The solution turned out to be using a Firewall Rule to turn on SIP Transformations for ONLY the ATA. All is good now.
Here is the SIP Transformation turned on and set for Rule Based
And here is the Rule:
I have ATAs setup with other providers behind Sonicwall Firewalls without issue, so this has me stumped about how to make it work.
I was on the phone with Skyetel support for a couple of hours, and they were not much help. They said the Sonicwall is not configured right, which I already new was a possibility.
The ATA will not register to Skyetel when behind the Sonicwall.
I think it comes down to this:
The ATA's outgoing port is something in the 13k+ range and it goes to port 5060 at Skyetel. It appears Skyetel answers back to the ATA on 5060, even though it sees the traffic coming in on the high port. Of course, there's no path back to the ATA on 5060, it's on the higher port.
Since Skyetel only answers on 5060, I think I need to force my ATA to send the registration request out on 5060, but I can see how to do that.
I think my options are ATA goes out on 5060, or the Sonicwall NATs it to be so.
The same ATA and same (unchanged) Sonicwall work just fine to other sip providers.
Any thoughts or ideas for me to try?