Use Veeam Agent for Windows. Entirely free.
Easy. Works time after time.
@emad-r said in Windows restore from system image (Windows 7 Professional):
Really? When was the last time you install Windows 7? It took over 5 hours to install all the updates.
In I.T bench world, you can tick the option to install updates automatically, and give the client the machine and it will install updates by itself. No one has to babysit the whole thing (unless you really love that person you are helping).
Also I love system image modder by the name of murphy78, what he does is incorporates Windows 7 updates in the base installation image, without corrupting anything.
Yeah, can do this but every so often expect the call: "My PC that you repaired yesterday is so slow." - They won't appreciate it's doing a bazillion updates. IMO - should get to them up to date and ready.
Hi folks,
We're getting a 1 Gbps Fibre line installed. I've never had one before, so a quick question on equipment if I may...
The fibre comes from Openreach to an ADVA FSP150CP. That's expected. Same as our 100 Mbps fibre line.
The ISP (HSO) plans to install an Huawei S3700-28TP to connect to the ADVA, and present us 1 x 1GbE port to then use the line, by connecting that to our firewall. I expected that...
My question is, we only need to use one port to access the line from our firewall. Isn't a 28 port S3700-28TP excessive?
Our existing 100 Mbps Fibre line uses an 8 port Juniper between our firewall and the ADVA and takes up only a little room... It seems excessive to have a 1U switch sitting in my rack for 1 port. Is it? Shouldn't they be providing me with a much smaller device here like the Juniper...
Best,
Jim
@networknerd said in Using In-Memory Databases, Anyone?:
- They actually point out in the podcast that they had the best success with in-memory databases on local storage or SAN (NAS not a good choice) and that ethernet was the networking avenue of choice.
Not sure what this means... not that I know about this, but, if its in memory, its in... memory, right? So, what does it have to do with local storage, SAN, or NAS? 
Anyway, other databases load what is used frequently in to memory so its quick to access. Its why lots of places would build an SQL server with a ton of RAM - so that SQL can put what is used often in to RAM (fast) and keep it available... right?
Hey Folks,
So, we have a physical box (2008R2), with SQLServer. Today, we used Disk2VHD to virtualize this. Simple.
That all went fine. The server is up and running. The application using the database on client machines over the network is fine and works. The old machine off and ready to be destroyed.
(The VM has the same MAC/IP etc)
The weird part... when physical was used, SSMS could be used from desktops to connect to the instances. Now after the above, that doesn't work. But everything else does. Turning the domain firewall off on the SQLServer VM resumes access from clients via SSMS...
So, how could that happen... doesn't P2V do an 'exact copy' process? It was applicable before, but now doesn't work...
Any ideas?
Best,
Jim
I haven't looked at this for a while, but, how much is the cost to just purchase the domain name, and point that to an instance in AWS, or Azure, or VLTR etc? May cost more, but i'd look in to it...
Just manage the instance yourself...
I like the video; I'm not sure how helpful it is though.
@scottalanmiller said in What Is RAID 0? SAMIT Video:
@jimmy9008 said in What Is RAID 0? SAMIT Video:
I like the video; I'm not sure how helpful it is though.
Well, if you already know RAID 0. But lots of people don't, and I want to be complete.
Yes, it's good to be complete. If anybody asked me, I'd just pointing them here - probably.
Hey folks,
I'm donating a few older servers to charity and want to wipe the arrays. I usually go to DBAN for this (as the drives are donated too), but it is failing to run on all these servers - so gave up and using Ubuntu boot disk instead which is running perfectly...
So, one of the servers has 6TB of 7.2k SAS drives. I'd usually run this where I cant get DBAN to work:
sudo shred -n 1 -v -z /dev/sda
That will fill the whole drive with random data fully, (one pass), and then fill with zeros (second pass). I think that's correct anyway.
The data its self isn't really that important or a worry to the company if found. But we should make a decent attempt in wiping it. So I just want to do a reasonable wipe to make a 'quick effort' rather than 'best effort'... and we don't want to wait days and days for the process to finish. Being a 6TB array (in raid 0), it would take a long time... So, how secure is running this instead?
sudo shred -n 0 -v -z /dev/sda
That would do no first random pass, and will just fill the drive with zeros right?
Is that pretty much cleaned? Or would getting the data bac be trivial?
I imagine zeros, rather than random and then zeros, would be much faster - and still pretty secure wipe - but want to check as no experience on the recovery side of what is possible...
So, use -n 1, or -n 0 would be fine?
Best,
Jim
@tim_g said in Hyper V replica VS DFS:
@jimmy9008 said in Hyper V replica VS DFS:
@tim_g said in Hyper V replica VS DFS:
@jimmy9008 said in Hyper V replica VS DFS:
Also remember, replica/DFS is not a backup. This is useful if you are using it for some sort of DR, but its not a backup (just saying in case this was for a backup).
It can be used as hardware redundancy and to speed up file access in remote locations.
Yes, it has many uses. But my point was its not a backup. So, wanted to make sure this wasn't in place for a backup.
Good call! He did mention a secondary offsite server... but never mentioned the reason. Could be for backup?
My thoughts exactly. Hence saying what I said 
If using replica from A -> B, and if they think its a backup.... just wait for the VM on A to get ransomware... and bad times as yep - B also has the locked files.
Hyper-V Replica is not a backup. Its a DR type thing. DFS is not a backup, its a file distribution system.
@hobbit666 said in Office + RDS + Citrix + Licensing = Confused:
Actually I might need to look at this a different way. Maybe remove Access and keep it on the desktops instead of RDS.
If I have 400 users accessing the server but only 50-60 need any form of Office, what's the cheapest way of doing it?
Guessing if all 50 need a mailbox then E3 via the Office365 plans
OR
50 Volume Licenses if I went down that road and keep 365 mailboxes separate.Or do I need to license for the total number accessing the servers even if they don't need office?
I could be wrong, but, if they don't have a license in 365, opening Word, Excel, Outlook etc wont work. It will open, then ask for activation, and close. For those with a license, it will open, activate, and they can work. So, just buy the E3 plans as needed for those that need it and install to the servers. Those with a license will work, those without wont.
@scottalanmiller said in eh? you want to what? something about my DNS and Domain?:
Why are you talking to them? Move your DNS to CloudFlare. Done.
Agree, entirely.
I'd probably back everything up. Twice. Then test restores work...
Then, i'd disk2vhd everything and verify all are working.
I'd likely then move all the 300GB SSDs in to Server 2 and provision as a Hyper-V host with Raid 5 array. Giving about 1.5TBs of space. I'd put all the VMs on to that host and run as production. (May need to revisit licensing).
Then, make server 1 Hyper-V host with 4 x 4TB drives in raid 10 (about 8TB usable or so), and setup that host to be a replica server target for server 2 VMs, with a few replica copies of each VM as it has the space. I'd probably move most RAM from Server 3 into Server 1 if its compatible.
Server 3
Get some more large drives and provision as a backup target of some form.
Or something along those lines anyway.
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@coliver
Right now, I'm planning on one host with multiple VMs. So if I had this separate, internal network, methinks performance would be better on a virtual private switch, rather than using virtual external switches bound to a physical NIC that is a part of a separate VLAN on the physical switch.
If the VMs are on the same host no need to give them internal and external virtual NICs. They will communicate over the external virtual switch, but the traffic wont go to the physical NIC/out to the LAN.
You only want internal switch between VMs where they are only supposed to talk with each other/not be on a LAN.
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
On performance, you're right about VLANs, they're designed for security. I guess you could argue you'd reducing potential broadcast traffic, but in this situation that wouldn't matter, as the number of devices is the same. It looks more and more like the separate-network-for-server-to-server communication is unnecessary.
I didn't think they were for security...
I thought VLANs were purely for segregation of traffic to make quality of service/planning better. Yeah sure, something on VLAN1 wont interact with VLAN2... but its the same switch/hardware/cables. So I presume if I can get access to that kit with Wireshark or something id be able to get the traffic regardless of VLANs, and the fact they are VLANs wouldn't matter... Could be wrong here though (probably am)...
I'm doing these checks with PRTG locally, at even 75 servers the main screen is crazy to look at.
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Firewall:
@jimmy9008 said in Virtual Firewall:
@scottalanmiller said in Virtual Firewall:
If doing this, I'd recommend moving to Ubiquiti for your actual firewall, no upside to anything else in this range. Ubiquiti is the best.
Then the UTM VM for all those other functions. Or it can be multiple VMs, no reason to have all the functions in one. Like web proxy and AV could be two different VMs from different vendors, in theory.
If that UTM function is being handed over to the VM, why not keep M300 as the actual firewall which has not been the problem? The firewall part of the M300 has been great, its the UTM feature that i'd look to me moving off to the VM.
Just to make it easier to save money and unify management long term. It would be no rush, but at least make the plans now. You don't want to end up in a spot where the Watchguard gets replaced with something else incredibly silly later on. Sometimes it's worth investing well now (we are talking like $85) to make sure the right stuff is in place so that expensive stuff doesn't get bought again down the road.
Yes, that makes sense. Other things in the pipeling will take priority over this currently though. Will add to investigate this to my list. Ta Scott.
Hi folks,
I've been pushing the company to put myself in place to manage the helpdesk and training teams, decision making, strategy etc; in reality this is only a team of two that are both working helpdesk and training, excluding myself who does not work in this team... Currently.
Helpdesk offer support to the subscribers of our websites (Not IT support for the office). Training offer services to teach subscribers how to use the service (Not internal IT training).
The company currently does not charge for either service. What do you think about that?
Personally, I would like a basic helpdesk SLA and training for standard customers included in the subscription, but we should have premium options, for those that wish to use those premium options...
For example, currently if a subscriber wants training we are sending out one of the trainers internationally, at a cost to us (flight, hotel, expenses, salary, travel time) without charging the customer anything apart from the original subscription... I would like that to be a premium service chargeable to the client. The basic subscription would include remote live training directly to them, that's included and standard... However if they want the premium face to face it is an option, but charged.
The helpdesk is currently a mess. We have no SLA, no real targets. Generally, the two team members have been replying within around one business day to requests. That's not great, but they have no complaints from subscribers. I'd like to see a formal SLA where we, as part of a standard subscription, will respond to queries within one UK business day. Should clients wish to have a more responsibility experience, say within 4 UK business hours, or 2 UK business hours, we could have packages for that as a 'premium service'. Do you think that's fair? Currently, no real ticketing system is in place so I'd start that from ground up.
I believe we should offer standard including helpdesk and training, but also monetize the service by having premium options. What's best practice here? Is what I suggest reasonable?
By doing this customers will get a better experience, with fixed SLAs for support, and we potentially are able to charge for premium options helping to cover the cost for training and helpdesk.
Thoughts?
Best,
Jim
@dbeato said in Dell DPACK vs Dell Live Optics:
@krisleslie said in Dell DPACK vs Dell Live Optics:
So far it's pretty nice! I can monitor it remotely at home
You can see the DPACKview below
https://app.liveoptics.com/dpackviewer/390257Which is exactly what is replacing.
That view looks the same a DPACK to me... though I guess that since its 'live' what they are saying is the data shown is to the second? Rather than running for a few days and waiting for complete results?
Having to drive somewhere to swap the drive each week sounds like such a PITA. Bet you cant wait to get that sorted.
