RE: Riverbed Steelhead appliances v. Cisco WAAS v. Citrix Branch repeater

[John Allhiser]

It depends on your needs:  does it solve a high-profile problem?  Our
reason for looking was to improve performance for certain users when
saving large (20 - 100MB) Excel files across a low latency 100Mbps
ethernet WAN.  

We performed a 1-month P.O.C. with the Steelhead.  After some
fine-tuning, we were achieving a maximum of 600Mbps through a 100Mbps
ethernet WAN.  It did not solve the Excel issue.  I figured it wouldn't
- a terminal server did however.   

Also, if you're looking for pushing more data through a smaller line,
weighing the price of the appliance to the cost of upgrading your line -
there is a bit of a sticker shock with the appliances.  

That said however, I liked the Riverbed product.  Set and forget.

 

 

 

From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Riverbed Steelhead appliances v. Cisco WAAS v. Citrix Branch
repeater

 

Hi Folks,

 

I'm looking at these products.   Any comments, suggestions,
recommendations?  Citrix claims the branch repeater is in part designed
to accelerate/optimize ICA traffic (we plan to deploy Citrix XenDesktop
over the next 12 months if the pilot is successful).  Not that Cisco and
Riverbed products can't do the same.

 

I have not used any of the above and would welcome your comments on
management, ease of use, and does it work as it is claimed to work
(would you buy it again)?

 

 

 

 

Tom Miller
Engineer, Information Technology
Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board
757-788-0528 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message. 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: [OT]: Script Editors

[John Allhiser]

+1 for Primal.  They also have free specialty editors.

 

Have you tried the built-in Powershell ISE for ps1 scripts?   

 

Context is a context aware tabbed notepad, and free.

http://www.contexteditor.org/-- I use this one the most.

 

 

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: [OT]: Script Editors

 

I played with Primal Script a few years back soley for Kixtart
scripting, but I really liked it.  This was 2004-2005 timeframe, I hope
it only got better and didn't inherit any new version quirks

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM, tony patton
 wrote:

Slightly OT, but those of you who write scripts, whats your preferred
editor?

I'm using NotePad++ and VBSEdit at the moment for creating mainly
VBscripts, they both do the job, but looking for something with a bit
more.

Going to take a look at these

AdminScriptEditor http://www.adminscripteditor.com/

PrimalScript http://www.primaltools.com/products/info.asp?p=PrimalScript

They're not cheap, look to have a lot of features and I've got
provisional
approval for the cost.

Just wondering what everyone else was using or other options to look at.

Regards

Tony Patton
Desktop Operations Cavan
Ext 8078
Direct Dial 049 435 2878
email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com

http://www.quinn-insurance.com  

This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents
should not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or
opinions expressed are solely those of the sender and
do not necessarily represent those of QUINN-Insurance, unless otherwise
specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure,
QUINN-Insurance is not responsible for the contents of this message nor
responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the
original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and
outbound e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage
sustained
as a result of any software viruses.



QUINN-Life Direct Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator.
QUINN-Insurance Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK
business.



QUINN-Life Direct Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number
292374 and is a private company limited by shares.
QUINN-Insurance Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number
240768 and is a private company limited by shares.
Both companies have their head office at Dublin Road, Cavan, Co. Cavan.



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: SAN question

[John Allhiser]

Send that one off to Mike Workman, CEO at Pillar.  
http://blog.pillardata.com/pillar_data_blog/2009/12/feature-or-bs-.html

 

He'd love to hear that one - might even be something he hasn't heard.  

 

From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:16 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

 

That's sounds like one straight off BOFH of the day.  How could there be
"cache coherency" between controllers in two physically different boxes
to begin with.  

 



From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: SAN question

I was talking to another prospective SAN vendor this afternoon and they
said that you wouldn't want to have two single-controller machines in a
high-availability configuration because you risk having data corruption
because of lack of cache coherency. 

 

Is this just marketing speak or is this a real potential problem?

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>