RE: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Ken Schaefer]

eSATA is faster than firewire400 (I haven't tested Firewire800).

eSata > Firewire400 > USB 2.0

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 5:37 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: R: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

Why not a firewire card ?


GuidoElia
HELPPC

-Messaggio originale-
Da: Miguel Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Inviato: lunedì 24 marzo 2008 22.26
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

Hi,

  I have an old DL380 G2 server running SBS 2003.

  I need to find a better way to backup this machine, since USB 1.1 is too slow 
and hangs most of the services.

  I have researched on HP, but nobody is sure in the forums if it is possible 
to use a USB 2.0 card in these servers. Some people claim that although is a 
PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it supports PCI 2.2 should be fine.

  I'm considering also to check if it would be better to get a eSATA card 
instead and plug a eSATA external drive.

  Specs of the machine: 200 Gb of RAID 1+0 drives and
2 Gb of RAM running on Windows 2003.

  What people recommend me?

  Thanks,

  Miguel

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

R: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[HELP_PC]

Why not a firewire card ? 


GuidoElia
HELPPC

-Messaggio originale-
Da: Miguel Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Inviato: lunedì 24 marzo 2008 22.26
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

Hi,

  I have an old DL380 G2 server running SBS 2003. 

  I need to find a better way to backup this machine, since USB 1.1 is too slow 
and hangs most of the services.

  I have researched on HP, but nobody is sure in the forums if it is possible 
to use a USB 2.0 card in these servers. Some people claim that although is a 
PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it supports PCI 2.2 should be fine.

  I'm considering also to check if it would be better to get a eSATA card 
instead and plug a eSATA external drive.

  Specs of the machine: 200 Gb of RAID 1+0 drives and
2 Gb of RAM running on Windows 2003.

  What people recommend me?

  Thanks,

  Miguel
  


  __
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!
Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente. 
http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

[Ken Schaefer]

Given that WSUS stores just about everything in a database, I suspect that 
there isn't such a file (except the updates themselves).

Updates seem to be stored in tbUpdate table, and the 
tbUpdateSummaryForAllComputers seems to tell you how many computers have each 
update. What  I haven't worked out is where approvals for each group of 
computers is actually stored.

Cheers
Ken

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 3:43 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

Well, thanks for trying, but I don't want to manually generate a list of 
updates for any particular client.  That's what the WUA API is for.

I want to find a thing on the WSUS server that is timestamped with the last 
time any update was approved, disapproved, or declined.  The specific change I 
don't care about - I just want to know if ANYTHING changed regarding approved 
updates on the entire WSUS server.

Did an admin work at the WSUS MMC and change something?
Did an update arrive from MS that was auto-approved?

If the answer to either queston is YES, I want to know when that happened.  I 
don't care about what groups, or which updates, or anything else.

The client will know the last time it did a search for updates.   If the 
timestamp on the server is newer than the client's last search, then the client 
will know to initiate a new search for updates.

I guess I was hoping somebody might already know the answer . I'm sure there's 
one or more files on a WSUS server, somewhere, that only get a new timestamp 
when the approved updates change.  I'm sure I can find this out experimentally.

Carl


From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed
I believe the way the process works:


a)  Client contacts a web service on the WSUS server.

b)  This returns an XML manifest of approved patches for that particular 
client based on the client's group memberships (client-side or server-side 
targeting).

c)   The client checks the contents of the manifest against its currently 
installed patches. If it detects that patches need to be installed, it then 
downloads them from WSUS

So, if you want to know if approvals had changed you need to know:

a)  When the client last contacted the WSUS server

b)  What groups the client was in
And you could manually generate a list of updates that have now been approved. 
As well as a list of updates that had now been set to be removed (if any). But 
what you'd with such a list I'm not 100% sure.

Cheers
Ken

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 6:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

Just wondering if anyone knows a way that a client can see whether approvals 
have changed on a WSUS server, without actually going through the whole WUA 
check-for-updates business.

And if there's nothing that an external client could see on the WSUS server 
(having only http: access to it), is there something that a script running on 
the WSUS server could do to figure out the same question?Because then the 
script could update a file that the client could see from http.

Problem is that check-for-updates can take upwards of a minute, and I'd like to 
skip it if the nothing has changed over in WSUS-ville.  The users are twiddling 
thumbs while waiting for update status to be verified before being granted 
access to the LAN via VPN.

thanks all,
Carl

















~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Windows XP: Going, going ... gone?

[Sam Cayze]

Thank goodness for XP's activation-less volume licensing.  I will miss it when 
I have to part with it... 

-Original Message-
From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Windows XP: Going, going ... gone?

Interesting Computerworld article on this:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articl
eId=9070119&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1
or here if the above wraps unusably: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yq3u3g

Microsoft's PDF on downgrade rights (URL is in the above article) has some 
interesting language:

The OEM vesions [sic] of Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate 
include downgrade rights to Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Microsoft 
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition. Customers may not downgrade to Windows 2000 Professional from 
Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate

PDF URL http://preview.tinyurl.com/25o7fg

Looks like activation is going to be a PITA though.  From the above PDF:

  Q. What about product activation? When a previously licensed version of 
Windows XP Professional is used for the downgrade, won´t activation fail 
on the new PC? 
  A. When an end user is using their downgrade rights offered under the 
License Terms in Windows Vista Business and Ultimate versions and they use 
both Windows XP media and a product key that was previously activated, 
they will be unable to activate on-line over the Internet, due to the 
hardware confi guration change when installing on the Vista system. In 
these cases the end user will be prompted to call the Activation Support 
Line and explain their circumstances to the Customer Service 
Representative. Once it is determined that the end user has a valid Vista 
Business or Ultimate license, the Customer Service Representative will 
help them activate their software.   

The shipping of XP SP3 (best guess for that now is late April, 2008) *_MAY_* 
extend mainstream support for XP.

Here's hoping MS will extend XP's end-of-sales date beyond June.

A



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Windows XP: Going, going ... gone?

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

Interesting Computerworld article on this:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articl
eId=9070119&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1
or here if the above wraps unusably: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yq3u3g

Microsoft's PDF on downgrade rights (URL is in the above article) has some 
interesting language:

The OEM vesions [sic] of Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate 
include downgrade rights to Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Microsoft 
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition. Customers may not downgrade to Windows 2000 Professional from 
Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate

PDF URL http://preview.tinyurl.com/25o7fg

Looks like activation is going to be a PITA though.  From the above PDF:

  Q. What about product activation? When a previously licensed version of 
Windows XP Professional is used for the downgrade, won´t activation fail 
on the new PC? 
  A. When an end user is using their downgrade rights offered under the 
License Terms in Windows Vista Business and Ultimate versions and they use 
both Windows XP media and a product key that was previously activated, 
they will be unable to activate on-line over the Internet, due to the 
hardware confi guration change when installing on the Vista system. In 
these cases the end user will be prompted to call the Activation Support 
Line and explain their circumstances to the Customer Service 
Representative. Once it is determined that the end user has a valid Vista 
Business or Ultimate license, the Customer Service Representative will 
help them activate their software.   

The shipping of XP SP3 (best guess for that now is late April, 2008) *_MAY_* 
extend mainstream support for XP.

Here's hoping MS will extend XP's end-of-sales date beyond June.

A



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Mike Sullivan]

I think this guy has a pretty good explanation of the limits of 32 bit
systems.

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm


On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> beyond that, which are not clear or well documented.  The poorly
> >> documented/unclear part is that XP apparently sometimes recognizes
> >> much less than 4 GiB of RAM -- far more so than that which can be
> >> explained solely by other hardware using up physical address space.
> >> That isn't about PAE.
> >
> >  Do we have any properly documented examples of this happening?
>
>   I don't have any references to hand, no.  I had seen one really good
> blog post from an MS employee that seemed to make sense of it all, but
> now I can't find it again.  :-(  And I should qualify this by saying
> that it's entirely possible, even likely, that it's not Win XP alone
> that's causing these issues, but some combination of Win XP on certain
> motherboards, or maybe certain drivers, or some such thing.
> Unfortunately, there's so much murk and misinformation surrounding
> these issues that good information is hard to find.  Trying to do a
> web search just finds cargo cult voodoo, repeatedly demonstrating that
> a little knowledge can be a dangerous think.  That's part of the
> reason why I think it's important to be clear when stating what limits
> cause what -- virtual address size, address bus, PAE, motherboard,
> chipset, OS imposed, etc.
>
> >  I'm also interested in where you may have found "poor documentation"
> around this issue.
>
>   Well, if it was well-documented, I'd have lots of references.  :)
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
> ~   ~
>



-- 
Mike Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

[Carl Houseman]

Well, thanks for trying, but I don't want to manually generate a list of
updates for any particular client.  That's what the WUA API is for.
 
I want to find a thing on the WSUS server that is timestamped with the last
time any update was approved, disapproved, or declined.  The specific change
I don't care about - I just want to know if ANYTHING changed regarding
approved updates on the entire WSUS server.
 
Did an admin work at the WSUS MMC and change something?
Did an update arrive from MS that was auto-approved?
 
If the answer to either queston is YES, I want to know when that happened.
I don't care about what groups, or which updates, or anything else.
 
The client will know the last time it did a search for updates.   If the
timestamp on the server is newer than the client's last search, then the
client will know to initiate a new search for updates.
 
I guess I was hoping somebody might already know the answer . I'm sure
there's one or more files on a WSUS server, somewhere, that only get a new
timestamp when the approved updates change.  I'm sure I can find this out
experimentally.
 
Carl


  _  

From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 7:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed



I believe the way the process works:

 

a)  Client contacts a web service on the WSUS server. 

b)  This returns an XML manifest of approved patches for that particular
client based on the client's group memberships (client-side or server-side
targeting). 

c)   The client checks the contents of the manifest against its
currently installed patches. If it detects that patches need to be
installed, it then downloads them from WSUS

 

So, if you want to know if approvals had changed you need to know:

a)  When the client last contacted the WSUS server

b)  What groups the client was in

And you could manually generate a list of updates that have now been
approved. As well as a list of updates that had now been set to be removed
(if any). But what you'd with such a list I'm not 100% sure.

 

Cheers

Ken

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 6:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

 

Just wondering if anyone knows a way that a client can see whether approvals
have changed on a WSUS server, without actually going through the whole WUA
check-for-updates business.

 

And if there's nothing that an external client could see on the WSUS server
(having only http: access to it), is there something that a script running
on the WSUS server could do to figure out the same question?Because then
the script could update a file that the client could see from http.

 

Problem is that check-for-updates can take upwards of a minute, and I'd like
to skip it if the nothing has changed over in WSUS-ville.  The users are
twiddling thumbs while waiting for update status to be verified before being
granted access to the LAN via VPN.

 

thanks all,

Carl

 

 

 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: XP Sp2 network download offline?

[Ken Schaefer]

The download appears to work. Just the "thank you for downloading" page seems 
to be missing

Cheers
Ken

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 3:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: XP Sp2 network download offline?

I'm trying to download SP2 at:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-
8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en
When I click download, it goes to:
http://www.microsoft.com/library/errorpages/smarterror.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/d
ownloads/info.aspx

H. Did SP3 come out and I missed something?

Dave


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

XP Sp2 network download offline?

[Groups]

I'm trying to download SP2 at:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-
8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en
When I click download, it goes to:
http://www.microsoft.com/library/errorpages/smarterror.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/d
ownloads/info.aspx

H. Did SP3 come out and I missed something?
 
Dave
 
 ---
|Beach Computers|
|Affordable Hosting Solutions   |
|http://www.beachcomp.com   |
 ===
|Cheap Domain Warehouse |
|Get Your Own Dot!  |
|http://www.cheapdomainwarehouse.com|
 -- 


Disclaimer and confidentiality note:

The contents of this communication are intended/meant only for addressee(s)
and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the
contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
The contents of this e-mail shall not be forwarded to any third party. If
you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete
it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender
of the error by reply email, so that the sender's address records
can be corrected.
Views and opinions are solely those of the sender unless clearly indicated
as being that of Beach Computers or any of it's affiliated companies.
Beach Computers cannot assure that the integrity of this communication has
been maintained or that it is free of errors, virus, interception or
interference.





~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> beyond that, which are not clear or well documented.  The poorly
>> documented/unclear part is that XP apparently sometimes recognizes
>> much less than 4 GiB of RAM -- far more so than that which can be
>> explained solely by other hardware using up physical address space.
>> That isn't about PAE.
>
>  Do we have any properly documented examples of this happening?

  I don't have any references to hand, no.  I had seen one really good
blog post from an MS employee that seemed to make sense of it all, but
now I can't find it again.  :-(  And I should qualify this by saying
that it's entirely possible, even likely, that it's not Win XP alone
that's causing these issues, but some combination of Win XP on certain
motherboards, or maybe certain drivers, or some such thing.
Unfortunately, there's so much murk and misinformation surrounding
these issues that good information is hard to find.  Trying to do a
web search just finds cargo cult voodoo, repeatedly demonstrating that
a little knowledge can be a dangerous think.  That's part of the
reason why I think it's important to be clear when stating what limits
cause what -- virtual address size, address bus, PAE, motherboard,
chipset, OS imposed, etc.

>  I'm also interested in where you may have found "poor documentation" around 
> this issue.

  Well, if it was well-documented, I'd have lots of references.  :)

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

OT Please disregard - test message

[Amer Karim]

Sorry - just changed my subscription address and wanted to confirm I can
still post to the list.

 

Regards,

Amer Karim.

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Ken Schaefer]

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 12:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

> However, Windows XP apparently has some additional limitations
> beyond that, which are not clear or well documented.  The poorly
? documented/unclear part is that XP apparently sometimes recognizes
> much less than 4 GiB of RAM -- far more so than that which can be
> explained solely by other hardware using up physical address space.
> That isn't about PAE.

Do we have any properly documented examples of this happening?

Other than video cards using "system memory", I'm not aware of any other 
examples.

I'm also interested in where you may have found "poor documentation" around 
this issue.

Thanks

Cheers
Ken

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Mike Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This isn't just about PAE.  In some cases, XP apparently refuses to
>> recognize RAM located below the 4 GiB mark on the physical address
>> bus, but which is not used by other hardware.  Exact circumstances and
>> explanations are unclear and/or poorly documented.
>
>  Well, what I'm talking about is about PAE.

  Well... good for you.  :)  The thread, and my first message in it
(the one you replied to), was about how and why Windows XP utilities
RAM -- or not.  That's apparently not just about PAE.

> That is if we're talking about 4GB of memory, 4GB of physical address space,
> and Windows XP/2K3.  I don't think it's poorly documented or worded 
> necessarily. XP
> is built with the restriction by design as plainly mentioned on Microsoft's 
> PAE webpage:

  Yes.  I know.  I've said so.  Several times now.  :)  On i386,
without PAE, you have a 4 GiB physical address space.  Hardware other
than RAM will always eat into that.  Thus, you can never address a
full 4 GiB of RAM.

  However, Windows XP apparently has some additional limitations
beyond that, which are not clear or well documented.  The poorly
documented/unclear part is that XP apparently sometimes recognizes
much less than 4 GiB of RAM -- far more so than that which can be
explained solely by other hardware using up physical address space.
That isn't about PAE.

  I never meant to suggest that Windows XP supports PAE.

  One point I was making, originally, was that with PAE, a "32-bit" OS
can utilize more than 4 GiB of RAM, and that some versions of "32-bit
Windows" can do so, and thus it isn't a processor limitation that
keeps Win XP from using 4 GiB of RAM.  But *that* is unrelated to the
other apparent limits mentioned above.

>> Hardware which properly supports the full PCI spec, and with
>> software which properly handles physical addresses above 4 GiB, can
>> support physical addresses above the 4 GiB mark.  Those physical
>> addresses will be mapped into the 4 GiB virtual address space.
>
>  What's the point?  If XP (and some 2K3/8's) can't address above that barrier
>  then what good would it do to run them in a system that only supports up to
>  4GB in the first place?

  The point of my explaination above was to try to increase mutual
understanding.  It seemed like there was some confusion over what I
was trying to communicate.  I was not trying to suggest that putting
hardware above the 4 GiB physical address mark would be useful to
Windows XP.

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Mike Gill]

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > All 32bit OS's have this limitation, even Windows Server.
> 
>   No, they do not.

I qualified my statement by mentioning PAE. Granted, 10 years of time is
what it is and I should have worded that statement better.
 
> This isn't just about PAE.  In some cases, XP apparently refuses to
> recognize RAM located below the 4 GiB mark on the physical address
> bus, but which is not used by other hardware.  Exact circumstances and
> explanations are unclear and/or poorly documented.

Well, what I'm talking about is about PAE. That is if we're talking about
4GB of memory, 4GB of physical address space, and Windows XP/2K3. I don't
think it's poorly documented or worded necessarily. XP is built with the
restriction by design as plainly mentioned on Microsoft's PAE webpage:

"Total physical address space is limited to 4 GB on these versions of
Windows [1]"

> You are ignoring the difference between virtual address space and
> physical address space.

No, I'm just not talking about virtual address space, see above.

> Hardware which properly supports the full PCI spec, and with
> software which properly handles physical addresses above 4 GiB, can
> support physical addresses above the 4 GiB mark.  Those physical
> addresses will be mapped into the 4 GiB virtual address space.

What's the point? If XP (and some 2K3/8's) can't address above that barrier
then what good would it do to run them in a system that only supports up to
4GB in the first place? It puts you right back at the beginning of the
conversation. XP (and some 2K3/8's) will ignore the boot time mapping of
address space and remap devices below the 4GB barrier if they start out
above [2]. Something notable from HP's website:

"Expansion cards and embedded devices such as PCI, PCI-X, and PCI-Express
devices require memory that is mapped below 4 GB. [3]"

So again, you're right about "some hardware", but it's only really relevant
to OS's that are not bound by the restriction to physical address space
below 4GB. I dunno, I don't think were worlds apart here, it's just a
complex subject. I was just trying to avoid the complexity and keep it
simple.
 
-- 
Mike Gill


[1] http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx
[2] http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/PCI-rsc.mspx 
[3]
http://h2.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?objectID=c0088
3105&dimid=1438676018&dicid=alr_mar07&jumpid=em_alerts/us/mar07/all/xbu/emai
lsubid/mrm/mcc/loc/rbu_category/alerts



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Miguel Gonzalez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  So in theory PCI express cards could work in these
>  slots?

  No.  Sorry, I should have mentioned that.  "PCI" and "PCI Express"
are two very different things.  They are neither machanically nor
electrically compatible.

  PCI exists in a variety of revisions and variants, but they're all
incremental evolutions of the same standard.  All are a parallel
electrical bus design.  PCI supports 32-bit or 64-bit bus width, and
speeds of 33 MHz, 66 MHz, or 133 MHz.  For the most part,
narrower/slower cards can work in wider/faster slots.  Likewise, some
wider/faster cards can also work in narrower/slower slots (although
that's less common).  There's also different voltage levels; very old
PCI cards are 5 volts, and won't work in newer 3.3-volt-only slots
(dual voltage slots also exist).  PCI-X ("PCI Extended") is just a
name for some subset of the above.

  PCI Express -- PCI-E or PCIe -- is a whole 'nother beast.  PCI-E is
a serial, point-to-point design  Technically, it is not a bus at all,
but a collection of ports coming out of the PCI-E controller hub.
PCI-E has a range of connector sizes.  Bigger connectors have more
"lanes" (serial data channels) and thus are faster.  The smallest and
slowest is PCI-E x1 (a single "lane"); common larger sizes are 8x and
16x.

  PCI and PCI-E share technologies above the "data link layer" (to
borrow from the OSI model), so they're not completely different.  So,
for example, drivers for a PCI card may also work for a PCI-E card.
But if your server has PCI slots, you need PCI cards.  Likewise PCI-E
cards and slots.  A lot of motherboards have both PCI and PCI-E slots.

>  If so, It is better they are 64 bits instead of 32
>  bits although they are PCI express?

  PCI-E, being a serial bus, doesn't have the 32-bit/64-bit bus width
distinction.  The clock rates are different, too.  This makes an
apples-to-apples comparison harder.

  But for USB, or even a single SATA drive, even the slowest PCI slot
is going to be plenty fast enough.  A 32-bit slot running at 33 MHz
works out to 1056 megabit/sec.  USB Hi-Speed is 480 megabit/sec.
SATA, in theory, can do 1500 or 3000 megabit/sec, but no single hard
drive touches that.  Sustained throughput of around 500 megabit/sec is
more realistic.

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

[Ken Schaefer]

I believe the way the process works:


a)  Client contacts a web service on the WSUS server.

b)  This returns an XML manifest of approved patches for that particular 
client based on the client's group memberships (client-side or server-side 
targeting).

c)   The client checks the contents of the manifest against its currently 
installed patches. If it detects that patches need to be installed, it then 
downloads them from WSUS

So, if you want to know if approvals had changed you need to know:

a)  When the client last contacted the WSUS server

b)  What groups the client was in
And you could manually generate a list of updates that have now been approved. 
As well as a list of updates that had now been set to be removed (if any). But 
what you'd with such a list I'm not 100% sure.

Cheers
Ken

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 March 2008 6:38 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

Just wondering if anyone knows a way that a client can see whether approvals 
have changed on a WSUS server, without actually going through the whole WUA 
check-for-updates business.

And if there's nothing that an external client could see on the WSUS server 
(having only http: access to it), is there something that a script running on 
the WSUS server could do to figure out the same question?Because then the 
script could update a file that the client could see from http.

Problem is that check-for-updates can take upwards of a minute, and I'd like to 
skip it if the nothing has changed over in WSUS-ville.  The users are twiddling 
thumbs while waiting for update status to be verified before being granted 
access to the LAN via VPN.

thanks all,
Carl







~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Martin Blackstone]

I used an IOGear USB 2.0 card in one of those. Plain old PCI.

-Original Message-
From: Miguel Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

Thank you guys for the answers :)

So in theory PCI express cards could work in these
slots?

If so, It is better they are 64 bits instead of 32
bits although they are PCI express?

Thanks,

Miguel


--- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Miguel Gonzalez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some people claim that although is a
> >  PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it
> supports
> >  PCI 2.2 should be fine.
> 
>   "Smaller/slower" PCI cards will generally work
> fine in a
> "bigger/faster" slot.  So you can take a 33 MHz,
> 32-bit PCI card and
> stick it in a slot that can accept a 133 MHz, 64-bit
> card, and it will
> still work.  Any given PCI bus will operate at the
> speed of the
> slowest device on that bus, so doing so can impact
> performance.  Most
> servers have multiple PCI buses, so this may not be
> as bad as it
> sounds.
> 
> >   I'm considering also to check if it would be
> better
> >  to get a eSATA card instead and plug a eSATA
> external
> >  drive.
> 
>   USB has more overhead, so all other things being
> equal, eSATA is
> faster than USB.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with
> Ninja!~
> ~
>

>  ~
> 



  __ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! 
Más formas de estar en contacto.
http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Phil Brutsche]

Negative.

Be careful not to confuse PCI-X (64-bit PCI at up to 133Mhz) with PCI-E
(PCI Express).

A DL380 G2 is a dual PIII server and would have been new in 2001 or 2002
- 3 to 4 years before pci-e started becoming common.

Miguel Gonzalez wrote:
> So in theory PCI express cards could work in these slots?

-- 

Phil Brutsche
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Miguel Gonzalez]

Thank you guys for the answers :)

So in theory PCI express cards could work in these
slots?

If so, It is better they are 64 bits instead of 32
bits although they are PCI express?

Thanks,

Miguel


--- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Miguel Gonzalez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some people claim that although is a
> >  PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it
> supports
> >  PCI 2.2 should be fine.
> 
>   "Smaller/slower" PCI cards will generally work
> fine in a
> "bigger/faster" slot.  So you can take a 33 MHz,
> 32-bit PCI card and
> stick it in a slot that can accept a 133 MHz, 64-bit
> card, and it will
> still work.  Any given PCI bus will operate at the
> speed of the
> slowest device on that bus, so doing so can impact
> performance.  Most
> servers have multiple PCI buses, so this may not be
> as bad as it
> sounds.
> 
> >   I'm considering also to check if it would be
> better
> >  to get a eSATA card instead and plug a eSATA
> external
> >  drive.
> 
>   USB has more overhead, so all other things being
> equal, eSATA is
> faster than USB.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with
> Ninja!~
> ~
>

>  ~
> 



  __ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! 
Más formas de estar en contacto. 
http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

[Joe Heaton]

So what did you end up with, as far as space taken?
 
Joe Heaton
 



From: Benjamin Zachary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:54 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)



I think I made mention of that too, that in the common
files/Symantec/virus defs folder you will find tons of .tmp folders
which can be deleted. The thing set off a ton of alarms on my monitoring
software because a lot of my pc's dropped to low disk space (under 25%)
after 4-5gb all of a sudden dumped on there haha

 

 



From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:41 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

 

Wow, so 4GB on the client side?  That's crazy.

 

Joe Heaton

 

 



From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

An FYI on total disk space for those that are interested:

 

The SEP11 client and SEPM take 4gb+ of disk space when you take into
account all the supporting files, installers, etc.  4.25gb is minimum I
sawl with only one set of 32-bit and 64-bit client installers
installers.

 

This thing is such a boated piece of crap.  Its unbeleivable.


-- 
ME2 

 

 






~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Jim Majorowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even though it's not rated for use in Windows 2003, I found an Adaptec Card
>  at Best Buy that worked ...

  There are standards for the USB/host interface (OHCI, UHCI, EHCI),
so in theory, most cards should work fine in Windows, without needing
special drivers.  Maybe an INF to give it the PCI IDs.  In theory.

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Miguel Gonzalez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people claim that although is a
>  PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it supports
>  PCI 2.2 should be fine.

  "Smaller/slower" PCI cards will generally work fine in a
"bigger/faster" slot.  So you can take a 33 MHz, 32-bit PCI card and
stick it in a slot that can accept a 133 MHz, 64-bit card, and it will
still work.  Any given PCI bus will operate at the speed of the
slowest device on that bus, so doing so can impact performance.  Most
servers have multiple PCI buses, so this may not be as bad as it
sounds.

>   I'm considering also to check if it would be better
>  to get a eSATA card instead and plug a eSATA external
>  drive.

  USB has more overhead, so all other things being equal, eSATA is
faster than USB.

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Jim Majorowicz]

Even though it's not rated for use in Windows 2003, I found an Adaptec Card
at Best Buy that worked, when I was in a pinch over a system with a failed
backup drive that had died.  I wish I had the model number.  The one I kept
for the workbench here at the office got snagged by a co-worker for a
project and I haven't seen it since...

-Original Message-
From: Miguel Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 2:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

Hi,

  I have an old DL380 G2 server running SBS 2003. 

  I need to find a better way to backup this machine,
since USB 1.1 is too slow and hangs most of the
services.

  I have researched on HP, but nobody is sure in the
forums if it is possible to use a USB 2.0 card in
these servers. Some people claim that although is a
PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it supports
PCI 2.2 should be fine.

  I'm considering also to check if it would be better
to get a eSATA card instead and plug a eSATA external
drive.

  Specs of the machine: 200 Gb of RAID 1+0 drives and
2 Gb of RAM running on Windows 2003.

  What people recommend me?

  Thanks,

  Miguel
  


  __ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!
Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Eldridge, Dave]

Same situation but with an older Dell. I bought a Promise tx4302 esata PCI card 
with two external 500gig drives. Price was cheap. I will have it installed 
tomorrow. I will update then.

-Original Message-
From: Miguel Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

Hi,

  I have an old DL380 G2 server running SBS 2003. 

  I need to find a better way to backup this machine,
since USB 1.1 is too slow and hangs most of the
services.

  I have researched on HP, but nobody is sure in the
forums if it is possible to use a USB 2.0 card in
these servers. Some people claim that although is a
PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it supports
PCI 2.2 should be fine.

  I'm considering also to check if it would be better
to get a eSATA card instead and plug a eSATA external
drive.

  Specs of the machine: 200 Gb of RAID 1+0 drives and
2 Gb of RAM running on Windows 2003.

  What people recommend me?

  Thanks,

  Miguel
  


  __ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!
Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente. 
http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately via e-mail 
if you have received this e-mail by mistake; then, delete this e-mail from your 
system.

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

HP DL380 G2 and USB 2.0

[Miguel Gonzalez]

Hi,

  I have an old DL380 G2 server running SBS 2003. 

  I need to find a better way to backup this machine,
since USB 1.1 is too slow and hangs most of the
services.

  I have researched on HP, but nobody is sure in the
forums if it is possible to use a USB 2.0 card in
these servers. Some people claim that although is a
PCI-X 64 bits 66/33 Mhz slot, as long as it supports
PCI 2.2 should be fine.

  I'm considering also to check if it would be better
to get a eSATA card instead and plug a eSATA external
drive.

  Specs of the machine: 200 Gb of RAID 1+0 drives and
2 Gb of RAM running on Windows 2003.

  What people recommend me?

  Thanks,

  Miguel
  


  __ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo!
Disfruta de una bandeja de entrada más inteligente. 
http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

ah thanks for the tip.  I'm going to have to watch that carefully...

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Benjamin Zachary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I think I made mention of that too, that in the common
> files/Symantec/virus defs folder you will find tons of .tmp folders which
> can be deleted. The thing set off a ton of alarms on my monitoring software
> because a lot of my pc's dropped to low disk space (under 25%) after 4-5gb
> all of a sudden dumped on there haha
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 24, 2008 4:41 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)
>
>
>
> Wow, so 4GB on the client side?  That's crazy.
>
>
>
> Joe Heaton
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)
>
> An FYI on total disk space for those that are interested:
>
>
>
> The SEP11 client and SEPM take 4gb+ of disk space when you take into
> account all the supporting files, installers, etc.  4.25gb is minimum I
> sawl with only one set of 32-bit and 64-bit client installers installers.
>
>
>
> This thing is such a boated piece of crap.  Its unbeleivable.
>
>
> --
> ME2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

nonono..  Thats the total for the server with the SEP11 client and
SEPM(manager).


On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Joe Heaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Wow, so 4GB on the client side?  That's crazy.
>
> Joe Heaton
>
>
>  --
>  *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)
>
>   An FYI on total disk space for those that are interested:
>
> The SEP11 client and SEPM take 4gb+ of disk space when you take into
> account all the supporting files, installers, etc.  4.25gb is minimum I
> sawl with only one set of 32-bit and 64-bit client installers installers.
>
> This thing is such a boated piece of crap.  Its unbeleivable.
>
> --
> ME2
>
>
>


-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

[Benjamin Zachary]

I think I made mention of that too, that in the common files/Symantec/virus
defs folder you will find tons of .tmp folders which can be deleted. The
thing set off a ton of alarms on my monitoring software because a lot of my
pc's dropped to low disk space (under 25%) after 4-5gb all of a sudden
dumped on there haha

 

 

  _  

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:41 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

 

Wow, so 4GB on the client side?  That's crazy.

 

Joe Heaton

 

 

  _  

From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

An FYI on total disk space for those that are interested:

 

The SEP11 client and SEPM take 4gb+ of disk space when you take into account
all the supporting files, installers, etc.  4.25gb is minimum I sawl with
only one set of 32-bit and 64-bit client installers installers.

 

This thing is such a boated piece of crap.  Its unbeleivable.


-- 
ME2 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

[Joe Heaton]

Wow, so 4GB on the client side?  That's crazy.
 
Joe Heaton
 



From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 1:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)


An FYI on total disk space for those that are interested:
 
The SEP11 client and SEPM take 4gb+ of disk space when you take into
account all the supporting files, installers, etc.  4.25gb is minimum I
sawl with only one set of 32-bit and 64-bit client installers
installers.
 
This thing is such a boated piece of crap.  Its unbeleivable.

-- 
ME2 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Symantec CleanWipe (Was: Official time: 1 hour 3 minutes)

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

An FYI on total disk space for those that are interested:

The SEP11 client and SEPM take 4gb+ of disk space when you take into account
all the supporting files, installers, etc.  4.25gb is minimum I sawl with
only one set of 32-bit and 64-bit client installers installers.

This thing is such a boated piece of crap.  Its unbeleivable.

-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Speed Question

[David Mazzaccaro]

Ah - my bad... I was thinking bandwidth at each site's T1... not between
sites.

 

 



From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Speed Question

 

I have 25 sites and our AE said they didn't have anything like that.

They have a bandwidth coming in and out of their routers chart but
nothing from site 1 to site 3 etc...

- Original Message - 

From: Dennis Rogov   

To: NT System Admin Issues
  

Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:41 PM

Subject: RE: Speed Question

 

Not sure we just got it and we have AT&T. 

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for
use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is
waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please
immediately notify me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the
original copy and any copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 





From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Speed Question

 

I have MPLS between 7 sites.  Doesn't your provider offer this?
Mine does. 

They use MRTG which I assume maybe you could as well?

 





From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Speed Question

 

I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2
sites. Does anyone know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed
of the connection between the two sites?

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for
use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is
waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please
immediately notify me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the
original copy and any copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






__




This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
System.




For more information please visit
http://www.messagelabs.com/email 





__




 
 
 

 

 
 





__




This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.




For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 




__





~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Speed Question

[David W. McSpadden]

I have 25 sites and our AE said they didn't have anything like that.
They have a bandwidth coming in and out of their routers chart but nothing from 
site 1 to site 3 etc...
  - Original Message - 
  From: Dennis Rogov 
  To: NT System Admin Issues 
  Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:41 PM
  Subject: RE: Speed Question


  Not sure we just got it and we have AT&T. 

   

  Dr

   

   

  Dennis Rogov

  Senior Network Analyst 
  THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

  379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

  Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.peergroupinc.com
  [This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the 
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or 
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by 
any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you 
are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, 
and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email 
in error please immediately notify me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete 
the original copy and any copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

   


--

  From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:34 PM
  To: NT System Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: Speed Question

   

  I have MPLS between 7 sites.  Doesn't your provider offer this?  Mine does. 

  They use MRTG which I assume maybe you could as well?

   


--

  From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:31 PM
  To: NT System Admin Issues
  Subject: Speed Question

   

  I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2 sites. Does anyone 
know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed of the connection between 
the two sites?

   

  Dr

   

   

  Dennis Rogov

  Senior Network Analyst 
  THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

  379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

  Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.peergroupinc.com
  [This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the 
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or 
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by 
any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you 
are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, 
and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email 
in error please immediately notify me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete 
the original copy and any copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

   

   

   

  

 





__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Speed Question

[David Mazzaccaro]

I would ask if they offer it through a customer portal.  

I would suspect they do.

 

 



From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:42 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Speed Question

 

Not sure we just got it and we have AT&T. 

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 



From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Speed Question

 

I have MPLS between 7 sites.  Doesn't your provider offer this?  Mine
does. 

They use MRTG which I assume maybe you could as well?

 



From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Speed Question

 

I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2 sites. Does
anyone know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed of the
connection between the two sites?

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Speed Question

[Dennis Rogov]

Not sure we just got it and we have AT&T. 

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 



From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Speed Question

 

I have MPLS between 7 sites.  Doesn't your provider offer this?  Mine
does. 

They use MRTG which I assume maybe you could as well?

 



From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Speed Question

 

I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2 sites. Does
anyone know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed of the
connection between the two sites?

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Speed Question

[Sam Cayze]

I have had this bookmarked for a while but never tried it...
http://www.ixiacom.com/products/performance_applications/pa_display.php?
skey=qcheck

 

I little easier than MRTG imo.

 

 

From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 2:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Speed Question

 

I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2 sites. Does
anyone know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed of the
connection between the two sites?

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.peergroupinc.com
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Finding out if WSUS approvals have changed

[Carl Houseman]

Just wondering if anyone knows a way that a client can see whether approvals
have changed on a WSUS server, without actually going through the whole WUA
check-for-updates business.
 
And if there's nothing that an external client could see on the WSUS server
(having only http: access to it), is there something that a script running
on the WSUS server could do to figure out the same question?Because then
the script could update a file that the client could see from http.
 
Problem is that check-for-updates can take upwards of a minute, and I'd like
to skip it if the nothing has changed over in WSUS-ville.  The users are
twiddling thumbs while waiting for update status to be verified before being
granted access to the LAN via VPN.
 
thanks all,
Carl
 
 
 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Ninja Problem (ot)

[Tom Strader]

Should we start addressing you as:

VANILLA ALEX??

DOH!
 

-Original Message-
From: Alex Eckelberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Ninja Problem (ot)

Dennis, 

Can you post this on the Ninja list?

http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=ninjabl
ade


Alex



-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: re: Ninja Problem

Nope .  Now that exchange is running, what happens when you
re-enable the ninja sinks?  Any clues in the event viewer? 

Dennis


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Ninja Problem (ot)

[Alex Eckelberry]

Dennis, 

Can you post this on the Ninja list?

http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=ninjabl
ade


Alex



-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: re: Ninja Problem

Nope .  Now that exchange is running, what happens when you
re-enable the ninja sinks?  Any clues in the event viewer? 

Dennis


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Speed Question

[David Mazzaccaro]

I have MPLS between 7 sites.  Doesn't your provider offer this?  Mine
does. 

They use MRTG which I assume maybe you could as well?

 



From: Dennis Rogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Speed Question

 

I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2 sites. Does
anyone know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed of the
connection between the two sites?

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Speed Question

[Dennis Rogov]

I am currently putting in an MPLS between my 2 sites. Does
anyone know of a shareware tool that will show me the speed of the
connection between the two sites?

 

Dr

 

 

Dennis Rogov

Senior Network Analyst 
THE Peer GROUP an informed medical communications company 

379 thornall street, 12th floor  | edison, nj 08837 usa

Direct: 732-205-8376 | fax: 732.321.0636 |Cell:732.861.2277

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.peergroupinc.com  
[This e-mail and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or
lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify
me at (732) 205-8376 and permanently delete the original copy and any
copy of any e-mail, and any printout thereof. ]

 

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Ninja Problem (ot)

[Greg Olson]

(OT)
Sorry couldn't resist:
Ninja rap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFLGRidfFo4&feature=related


-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: re: Ninja Problem

Nope .  Now that exchange is running, what happens when you 
re-enable the ninja sinks?  Any clues in the event viewer? 

Dennis


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So.. now we have to wait until SP2 to do upgrades?

  Yup!

  Hey, why not -- the first release of Windows NT was 3.x, after all.  ;-)

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: robocopy question

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Bill Krumel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using the ETA switch which is supposed to give an on screen estimated 
> time.

  The ETA is written to whatever the output is set to.  So if you're
using a log file, it gets written to the log file, not shown on
screen.  The /TEE switch may fix that, but I've never tried it for the
ETA.  The ETA is given per-file, not for the entire copy, so I've
never found it very useful (unless I'm copying one giant file, in
which I don't use a log).

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Ben Scott]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Mike Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually said more than the point to where you cut me off and disagreed
>  with me.

  Um... that doesn't mean what you wrote was completely correct.  :)
If you want a line-by-line reply:

>>It's actually not a processor issue.
>
> Well, kinda but not really. It's an architecture limit of 32bit.

  Most any i386-compatible Intel or AMD system made in the past ten
years is not, strictly speaking, limited to 32 bits in all aspects of
the design.  In particular, the processor's address bus is generally
36 bits wide, and PCI supports 64-bit addressing even with a 32-bit
bus.

>> In Windows XP, Microsoft made the
>> decision to just cordon off the upper part of the 32-bit virtual
>> address space, reserving it for kernel, device drivers, and hardware
>> I/O.  Windows Server doesn't have that restriction (neither does
>> Linux).
>
> All 32bit OS's have this limitation, even Windows Server.

  No, they do not.

> Certain versions of Windows Server
> 32bit, as well as 32bit Linux and *BSD that support PAE, are able to fully
> address and use 4GB (or more) of memory.

  This isn't just about PAE.  In some cases, XP apparently refuses to
recognize RAM located below the 4 GiB mark on the physical address
bus, but which is not used by other hardware.  Exact circumstances and
explanations are unclear and/or poorly documented.

> Now, while XP and Win2003 STD/SBS/WEB also support PAE, it's for other 
> purposes
> and Microsoft has limited the OS to not be able to address memory outside of 
> the
> 4GB barrier hich it must be able to do if you want to see all 4GB.

  You need to use PAE if you want to address a full 4 GiB of RAM,
since there will always be some space on the physical address bus
reserved for hardware I/O regions.  However, XP reportedly often
recognizes considerably less available RAM than that which is reserved
for other hardware .

> Only 4GB of address space exists on the 32bit architecture unless your OS
> supports more *and* supports PAE.

 You are ignoring the difference between virtual address space and
physical address space.

  "Virtual memory"[1] means that the addresses the processor is using
internally get translated by the memory management unit before being
put on the address bus.  The OS, device drivers, and application
software all work with the virtual address space.  OS and device
drivers also have to worry about the physical address space.  The OS,
because it's in charge of managing the mappings between virtual and
physical, and drivers, because hardware of course exists on the
address bus.

[1] Processor terminology.  This is not disk swapping/paging, which is
also sometimes called "virtual memory".

  On the i386 platform, the virtual address space is always limited to
4 GiB (32 bits), regardless of PAE or anything else.

  With i386 PAE, the physical address space and the processor's
address bus are expanded beyond 32 bits.  PAE gives us 36 address bus
lines, and at least that much address space inside the processor (the
spec may, in theory, support more than a 36 bit physical address --
I'm not sure, don't feel like looking it up, and with only 36 bus
lines, it's academic).  This lets the processor address more than 4
GiB worth of hardware -- hardware meaning both regular RAM, and things
like I/O regions, ROMs, etc.

> Resources for your video card, the BIOS, etc. also need
> address space *below* the 4GB barrier.

  Hardware which properly supports the full PCI spec, and with
software which properly handles physical addresses above 4 GiB, can
support physical addresses above the 4 GiB mark.  Those physical
addresses will be mapped into the 4 GiB virtual address space.

> PAE enables address space above the 4GB barrier so the memory that
> wasn't usable below it can then be made available above it.

  Correct, but does not explain all reported situations.

> Just say'n.

  Likewise.  :)

-- Ben

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram

[Mike Gill]

I actually said more than the point to where you cut me off and disagreed
with me. Oo

-- 
Mike Gill

> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:56 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Making XP recognize 4Gb Ram
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Mike Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> In Windows XP, Microsoft made the
> >> decision to just cordon off the upper part of the 32-bit virtual
> >> address space, reserving it for kernel, device drivers, and hardware
> >> I/O.  Windows Server doesn't have that restriction (neither does
> >> Linux).
> >
> >  That statement is vague to the point it's not correct. All 32bit
> OS's have
> >  this limitation ...
> 
>   No, they don't verbose explanation



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

robocopy question

[Bill Krumel]

I have the following robocopy I am using to copy files from one server
to another

via a crossover cable.  I am using the ETA switch which is supposed to
give an

on screen estimated time.  However, no ETA is ever displaying.  My log
file shows

the time it took and throughput but while the script is running I get no
estimated time

left.  

 

Any ideas on why my ETA is not working and what I can do to get an on
screen estimated

time left?

 

robocopy \\192.168.1.1\SOURCE 
\\192.168.1.2\DESTINATION   /ETA /E
/SEC /LOG+:\\192.168.1.2\log.log /R:10 /W:30

 

Thanks!


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Way OT: Anyone have a copy of "Wucha dun did now?"

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

For the curious, The Smoking Gun has a copy online:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0831073ghetto1.html



On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   All jokes aside, I'd really like to take a look at this composition.
>
>
>  "Wucha dun did now?" -- The subtitle of a "Ghetto Handbook" distributed
> by a Houston school district police officer to enable readers to speak "as
> if you just came out of the 'hood."
>
>
> This was mentioned in the 'Politically incorrect word or phrase for 2007'
> list:
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN2043540320080321
>
> --
> ME2
>
>


-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Pop Quiz

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

On 24 Mar 2008 at 8:44, Joe Heaton  wrote:

> Strange, I use IPScan all the time, but it has never come back with
> logged-in username.  Only the hostname. 

I get usernames on machines running Win2k.  The WinXP firewall apparently 
blocks the username, or maybe WinXP responds differently.

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
+---+




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

[Jacob]

So.. now we have to wait until SP2 to do upgrades?

-Original Message-
From: Kelsey, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:51 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

That is correct!  So everybody that normally waits for SP1 can go ahead
and start upgrading!  :)

***
John C. Kelsey
DuBois Regional Medical Center
(:  814.375.3073  
*:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


-Original Message-
From: Rick Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:42
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?


I've just installed a shiny new pair of Windows Server 2008 x64 machines
from VL media.

Computer properties shows the OS as Service Pack 1 ... I found that
strange.  Can anyone here doublecheck their own new shiny 2008 and see
if I'm just seeing things?

curious,

Rick

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Way OT: Anyone have a copy of "Wucha dun did now?"

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

All jokes aside, I'd really like to take a look at this composition.


 "Wucha dun did now?" -- The subtitle of a "Ghetto Handbook" distributed by
a Houston school district police officer to enable readers to speak "as if
you just came out of the 'hood."


This was mentioned in the 'Politically incorrect word or phrase for 2007'
list:

   http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN2043540320080321

-- 
ME2

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

[Art DeKneef]

I have the same thing on my two boxes here. Figured it was because it was
sharing the code base with Vista and someone forgot to change that line of
code.

Art

-Original Message-
From: Rick Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:46 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

I've just installed a shiny new pair of Windows Server 2008 x64 machines
from VL media.

Computer properties shows the OS as Service Pack 1 ... I found that strange.
Can anyone here doublecheck their own new shiny 2008 and see if I'm just
seeing things?

curious,

Rick

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

[Russ Clark]

That is correct. Once Vista & W2K8 server are both using the same code
base, MS decided to keep them at the same SP level.

Russ Clark

-Original Message-
From: Rick Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:42 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

I've just installed a shiny new pair of Windows Server 2008 x64 machines
from VL media.

Computer properties shows the OS as Service Pack 1 ... I found that
strange.  Can anyone here doublecheck their own new shiny 2008 and see
if I'm just seeing things?

curious,

Rick

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

[Kelsey, John]

That is correct!  So everybody that normally waits for SP1 can go ahead
and start upgrading!  :)

***
John C. Kelsey
DuBois Regional Medical Center
(:  814.375.3073  
*:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
***


-Original Message-
From: Rick Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:42
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?


I've just installed a shiny new pair of Windows Server 2008 x64 machines
from VL media.

Computer properties shows the OS as Service Pack 1 ... I found that
strange.  Can anyone here doublecheck their own new shiny 2008 and see
if I'm just seeing things?

curious,

Rick

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

HP NX8220 Bios Unlock

[Joseph L. Casale]

I know there are many resources to unlock the bios online, but anyone know any 
method that they have used before successfully?

Thanks!
jlc

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: RegCreateKeyEx Error

[Webster]

 

 

From: James Kerr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: RegCreateKeyEx Error

 

I have a number users that are connecting to a 2003 terminal server at a
different company that get an error while connecting using the RDP client. 

 

RegCreateKeyEx result5

 

The one or two times I have seen the error message "RegCreateKeyEx Result
5", there was something being loaded that required a login in with
administrative rights.  It required Regmon to find the culprit.

 

Webster


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

seeking corroboration, server 2008 std is SP1 already?

[Rick Berry]

I've just installed a shiny new pair of Windows Server 2008 x64 machines from 
VL media.

Computer properties shows the OS as Service Pack 1 ... I found that strange.  
Can anyone here doublecheck their own new shiny 2008 and see if I'm just seeing 
things?

curious,

Rick

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Pop Quiz

[Joe Heaton]

Strange, I use IPScan all the time, but it has never come back with
logged-in username.  Only the hostname. 


Joe Heaton

-Original Message-
From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 8:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz

On 21 Mar 2008 at 14:13, Matt Plahtinsky  wrote:

> What would be the quickest way to find out what workstation a user is 
> logged into, Other than walking up to the user and looking at the pc?

IPScan (freeware from Angryziber) usually shows me the logged-in
username when I scan a Windows 2000 domain, but this is mostly with
Windows 2000 workstations, which don't have the WinXP firewall running.

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
+---+




~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: OT: Squid Configuration

[Tom Strader]

HA, me too Dennis. 

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: re: OT: Squid Configuration

Cut it in strips, single hook on top/bottom rig. 

Catch lots of these  -->>   ><(((º> 

(sorry, warm weather coming, I'm getting the fever)

-D


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

[Benjamin Zachary]

Yes. Especially if your sata. I didn't see half this thread, otherwise I
would have just said 'what don said' haha

RAID 10 is where you should be to get the best performance. RAID5 can really
bog down a virtual server and is not recommended in most circles for
production. 


-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:01 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

So should I max my spindles at 12 and set them all up as RAID1+0 as Don
suggested?  Leaving me 1.5 TB?  

Dennis

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

re: OT: Squid Configuration

[Dennis Melahn]

Cut it in strips, single hook on top/bottom rig. 

Catch lots of these  -->>   ><(((º> 

(sorry, warm weather coming, I'm getting the fever)

-D


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

[Dennis Melahn]

So should I max my spindles at 12 and set them all up as RAID1+0 as Don 
suggested?  Leaving me 1.5 TB?  

Dennis

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

OT: Squid Configuration

[Tom Strader]

Need some help configuring Squid on my network.
If some one has time and is willing to assist me off list, I would appreciate 
it.
 
Thanks,
Tom Strader
Server Systems Administrator
NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center
Charlotte, NC 28202
O: 704.379.1285 | F: 704.444.2098
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader 
.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> Swim on over
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> to the PAC
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> and catch some culture 
 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

[Benjamin Zachary]

Missed some of the thread here, but most advocates of virtualization will
say to go for disk speed and forego raid5. Find out a better way to snapshot
your data (san) or failover (drbd/iscsi). If you are running with 250gb
sata's you are going to want to increase your spindles. You do this by a
RAID0 (or 10) to get more performance. Of course each situation is a case by
case, so Im just tossing out the vanilla answers for drives.

On that note, you may want to get your overall disk/cpu/ram usage via
perfmon and that will tell you your needs. 

-Original Message-
From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:11 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

>DATA - 1.25 TB, 4 disks, RAID5
>HotSpare - 250 GB, 1 disk

Seems like you're using 250GB HDDs everywhere.  If there are 4 of these,
in a RAID5 config, then you're not getting 1.25TB;  you're going to get
750GB.  To get your 1.25TB, they would have to be 417GB hard drives.


Joe Heaton

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 5:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

I don't doubt you have the CPU and memory to pull it off, but I would be
concerned about disk contention with so few drives for such heavy apps.
Especially if those are SATA drives.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: trying to save money - going virtual?

I bounced this off a local MS partner and got mixed results. Wondered if
you virtual gurus can give me some advice. Is it enough box to do what
we need?  

"I have this box I was saving for Exch2007 for about 100 users.  Our
needs just changed and I need to add SQL2005 and a MOSS box.  Would it
make more sense to load VI3 Foundation on this box and run Exch2007,
SQL2005 and Sharepoint here?  Then we could get a SAN and another
virtual node later for redundancy as budgets allow.   The RAID5 array is
3-4x our current data storage needs."

Dell PE2900
Dual Qual Xeon E5410 processors
12 GB RAM
OS - 250 GB, 2 disks, RAID1
LOGS - 250 GB, 2 disks, RAID1
DATA - 1.25 TB, 4 disks, RAID5
HotSpare - 250 GB, 1 disk
Dual Gig NICs
Redundant power supplies

Thanks,
Dennis


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

[Joe Heaton]

>DATA - 1.25 TB, 4 disks, RAID5
>HotSpare - 250 GB, 1 disk

Seems like you're using 250GB HDDs everywhere.  If there are 4 of these,
in a RAID5 config, then you're not getting 1.25TB;  you're going to get
750GB.  To get your 1.25TB, they would have to be 417GB hard drives.


Joe Heaton

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 5:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: trying to save money - going virtual?

I don't doubt you have the CPU and memory to pull it off, but I would be
concerned about disk contention with so few drives for such heavy apps.
Especially if those are SATA drives.

-Original Message-
From: Dennis Melahn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: trying to save money - going virtual?

I bounced this off a local MS partner and got mixed results. Wondered if
you virtual gurus can give me some advice. Is it enough box to do what
we need?  

"I have this box I was saving for Exch2007 for about 100 users.  Our
needs just changed and I need to add SQL2005 and a MOSS box.  Would it
make more sense to load VI3 Foundation on this box and run Exch2007,
SQL2005 and Sharepoint here?  Then we could get a SAN and another
virtual node later for redundancy as budgets allow.   The RAID5 array is
3-4x our current data storage needs."

Dell PE2900
Dual Qual Xeon E5410 processors
12 GB RAM
OS - 250 GB, 2 disks, RAID1
LOGS - 250 GB, 2 disks, RAID1
DATA - 1.25 TB, 4 disks, RAID5
HotSpare - 250 GB, 1 disk
Dual Gig NICs
Redundant power supplies

Thanks,
Dennis


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RegCreateKeyEx Error

[James Kerr]

I have a number users that are connecting to a 2003 terminal server at a 
different company that get an error while connecting using the RDP client. 

RegCreateKeyEx result5

Its just happening to a few users, the vast majority don't have any problem. 
Once they get the error they can click OK and continue to logon to the TS 
without a problem. Anyone know why this might be and what the solution is? I am 
going to try to logon from their PCs while logged in as admin and see what 
happens then.

James
 



~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Anyone have experience with Computrace?

[Ziots, Edward]

I agree, 

A lot of times the road to more secure systems is blocked by the
business not understanding the security needs that need to be baked in
throughout the IT systems implementation. ( System Development Life
Cycle, anyone!!)

As we all know business usually want functionality first and think of
security as an afterthought, until, the security researchers, the bad
guys ( Hackers/Phreakers/Wackers/Crackers/other malformed deviants)
basically find the flaws in the code, and write the exploits, which
become the next big exploit, and someone find there pants around there
ankles. Then the business turns around and says, " Why wasn't we secure"
hopefully you keep those emails, showing them you told them about the
flaws, and they chose not to put the pressure on the
vendor/developer/coder to fix the problem before its exploited. 

People usually get lulled into a false sense of security when they keep
adding layer after layer of security products to there network, hoping
that the risk mitigation they think they are putting in by using layers
on top of layers of HIDS/IPS/etc etc are going to save them. It only
takes one mischevious admin or one backdoor to bypass your controls, and
exploit the weaknesses on the system. 

EZ

Edward E. Ziots
Network Engineer
Lifespan Organization
MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA
Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Marc Maiffret [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 11:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Anyone have experience with Computrace?

No problem, it is definitely a two way street for me. I have been on
this list for over 10 years since I was 17 starting eEye and this list
and all of you have been of invaluable help to educate me on where IT is
going so I can think about what that means for security. As I have said
in the past security is a reaction to how people do business, and you
here are the implementers of those business changes. So for that I say
thank you also. 

-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Anyone have experience with Computrace?

Thanks Marc, I'm sure everyone here appreciates your insight, I for one
am glad you have the time to help bring the big picture in focus for us.
Painstakingly sent to you from my Blackberry.


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~