I wasn't going to look at the list for the rest of the wekend , until I came across this nugget while mobile browsing on the train home:
Judge: Microsoft documentation unfit for US consumption http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080925-judge-microsoft-documentation-unfit-for-us-consumption.html I wish I had got that Exchange documentation position that I interviewed for a couple of years back. I would have loved to have become absorbed by the project and had the acess to fix things. but anywho... On 9/26/08, Micheal Espinola Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, if only you worked for directly for/with Microsoft... the world > would be a better place! > > Have a good weekend. :-) > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Michael B. Smith > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not that it makes it OK - because it doesn't - but much of what we call >> MOC >> (Microsoft Official Curriculum) is not written by Microsoft. It's written >> by >> a number of companies (recently, some includes even me!) that specialize >> in >> producing courseware or "dumbing down" highly technical data into >> something >> usable by your 'average Joe'. >> >> Once the courseware company completes the work, they hand it over to >> Microsoft, who then massages it to fit the preconceived notion they have >> of >> what courseware should look like. >> >> And, sometimes, this is just wrong. >> >> I recently produced a document to be used in an upcoming training course >> where the Microsoft consultant responsible for reviewing the content >> disagreed with something I wrote. I am NOT suggesting that I know >> EVERYTHING >> - because I don't. Not by far. Believe me, I make mistakes all the time. >> >> But in this case, I _knew_ I was right and she was wrong. It took getting >> someone involved on the product team involved before she would believe >> me... >> >> And I can tell you - I don't think that most courseware people will go to >> that effort. It's not worth it. If I had it to do over, I probably >> would've >> let the point slide. >> >> So...that would be a v1 error that might - or might not - get corrected in >> v2 of the courseware. Depends on who does the update and who reviews it. >> No >> process is perfect. >> >> I took an electronic version of a v1 MOC course early this year and I >> bugged >> 82 errors. Yes, 82. And that courseware was produced by a very reputable >> supplier. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:43 PM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> ...covered with your own dog food. >> >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> roflwaffles >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Matt Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>>> Right way, wrong way then the Microsoft way. >>>> M >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Michael B. Smith >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 11:13 AM >>>> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> This is an argument I've had with many IT folks who just went to various >>>> Microsoft MCP and MCSE classes where they say "separate the volumes" but >>>> don't every say WHY and under what conditions to do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Five minutes with a whiteboard generally convinces them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >>>> >>>> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >>>> >>>> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:35 PM >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Subject: Re: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Where were you when my predecessor setup our sbs? >>>> >>>> Because I was an accountant (disregarding my 12 years of IT experience, >> the >>>> last 7 of which were with Windows servers and Exchange) he completely >>>> ignored my recommendation of not creating logical drives to split swap, >>>> logs, application, database and os. Guess how many partitions there >>>> are, >>>> and how many raid volumes? :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Michael B. Smith >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> IF you are using separate physical volumes. >>>> >>>> Creating a separate logical volume gains you nothing (performance-wise). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >>>> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >>>> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:57 AM >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> I've always heard best practice is to separate out the stores and logs, >>>> and if you have the hardware, the swap and tmp, too. >>>> >>>> -Paul >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:04 AM >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> If you are presuming that that is because the boot volume might fill up >>>> because of log files - well, my opinion is that you should be monitoring >>>> that situation. >>>> >>>> And if you aren't, serves you right. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >>>> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >>>> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: farooq.ahmed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:57 AM >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> yes , i agree but seperating logs might be benificial. >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:53 PM >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> I wouldn't make that so complicated. >>>> >>>> C: OS, applications, logs, pagefile >>>> D: exchange db >>>> >>>> While I always encourage people to "buy high", that's significantly more >>>> "oomph" than you'll need for 75 users. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >>>> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >>>> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >>>> >>>> From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:33 AM >>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>>> Subject: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >>>> >>>> Just checking to see if this is the best way to utilize the drives that >>>> I >>>> have in this server for Exchange 2007. >>>> >>>> My only question is about the Exchange Install drive. How much room >>>> should >>>> I use and does it grow at all? >>>> >>>> Organization >>>> One Exchange server 75 mailboxes >>>> >>>> Server >>>> Exchange 2007 on Server 2008 >>>> Dell PowerEdge 2950 >>>> 2 quad core 2.0ghz processors >>>> 8 Gb of RAM >>>> 2 x 15k 73Gb Drives >>>> 4 x 15k 146Gb Drives >>>> >>>> >>>> RAID 1 = 2 73GB Drives >>>> - OS, Exchange Install, Exchange log Files >>>> C: 20Gb OS >>>> D: 10Gb Exchange Install >>>> E: 40Gb Exchange Log Files >>>> >>>> >>>> RAID 5 = 4 x 146GB Drives >>>> - Page File, Exchange DB >>>> F: 10Gb Page File >>>> G: 400Gb Exchange DB >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for your input >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >>>> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >>>> >>>> >>>> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >>>> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >>>> >>>> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >>>> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >>>> >>>> >>>> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >>>> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ME2 >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ME2 >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >> >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >> > > > > > -- > ME2 > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
