On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lists - Level Five wrote:
> This might be a good time to use AD to deploy shares ...
In my experience, too many things (including Windows Explorer and
Microsoft Office) use and store the UNC path for things, so simply
putting a share link in AD doesn't help you
Thought about that, turned out to be windows anti-malware. The user installed
it on their own via windows update for some reason manually. They already have
vipre running, but what was strange was that it doesn’t affect FF or chrome,
just IE .. even no add-ons … so I removed it and bounced it an
It will work. You will need to disable strict name checking as someone
mentioned. You could look at DFS consolidation roots as a way around the rename.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com
w – 312.625.1438 | c – 312.731.3132
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...
Did you clean your cache?
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Lists - Level Five wrote:
> I have one pc that has IE running really slow. I disabled all add-ons, I
> defaulted the settings (took off auto discover) , I run it in disabled
> add-ons mode. Nothing seems to make a difference (running Vip
This might be a good time to use AD to deploy shares . this way you can
migrate without renaming and such, and you could always add DFS down the
road.
From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Possibly a bri
Agreed.I avoid server name swaps like the plague. Doable, but I prefer
to avoid.
* *
*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…
*
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Crawford, Scott wrote:
> Sounds pretty good, but you can also give it
Well, it should work, regardless.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
> I would prefer to do it that way, but
>
> o- The user population has a bad habit of populating their desktops
> with shortcuts that contain the old server name
>
> and
>
> o- The internal web server has a massi
Good point. I don't really want to mess with a CNAME and the rest -
this might be the impetus to start my long-delayed program of setting
up printers via Group Policy.
Kurt
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 16:34, Crawford, Scott wrote:
> Sounds pretty good, but you can also give it a new name and through
Oh, yeah. Forgot to ask...
Any worries about differences in NTFS between the two OSes? I've done
a little searching, and didn't find anything, but I may not have
looked in the correct places...
Kurt
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 16:12, Jonathan Link wrote:
> Yes, I've done something almost like this.
I would prefer to do it that way, but
o- The user population has a bad habit of populating their desktops
with shortcuts that contain the old server name
and
o- The internal web server has a massive maze of documents that refer
to documents on the file server
Easier just to change the name of t
Sounds pretty good, but you can also give it a new name and through the magic
of DNS point the old name at the new server as a CNAME. You'll need to disable
strict name checking (as was recently discussed), but that gives you a little
bit of coexistence time for at least the printers.
-Orig
All we did was re-ip our dedicated site to site routers with a routable
ip address. So all our machines default to our firewall which then
sends the traffic to the dedicated router.
When we got the Juniper firewalls, we initially had trouble getting the
routes to work properly over the site
Yes, I've done something almost like this. It's slicker 'n snot.
I kept the new sever name, and just did a find/replace in the login script.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
> A scenario for y'all to consider...
>
> I've got a file server (Win2003 R2) running as a VM. It's usi
A scenario for y'all to consider...
I've got a file server (Win2003 R2) running as a VM. It's using the MS
iSCSI connector to connect with the 4 data partitions it's running.
My cunning plan to upgrade is to:
o- Bring up a Win2008 R2 VM
o- Configure all of the print queues on it to match the ol
What are the routing changes you recently made?
That might provide the info we need to understand why this is no longer
functional.
* *
*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…
*
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Jimmy Tran wrote:
> H
Hi All,
We recently made some routing changes to our network in two of our
offices. Some of the machines now, don't see its own local subnet
properly. What happens is if the local routing table doesn't have
172.17.0.0/24 though its own NIC. When it routes, it will go to the
firewall (defaul
You don't actually have to set the MX record for the IP address you
want Trend to use as the Highest priority. You can still use your old
Filter service durring the process, if it is setup at a higher
priority.
Once you've configured the settings on Trend HES, then you change your
MX records to p
Our whole network is basically a bunch of EX-4200's in various stacks. Smb,
afp, nfs, iscsi, you name it. Except for voip. :) But the gui has settings
for voice vlan for a simple switchport and they come in all-POE versions as
well so I have a hard time seeing why they wouldn't work well for voip.
FYI, this one will also do the Serial Number & Make/Model if interested.
-Sam
On Error Resume Next
strComputer = "."
Set objWMIService = GetObject("winmgmts:" _
& "{impersonationLevel=impersonate}!\\" & strComputer & "\root\cimv2")
Set colcomputersystem = objWMIService.ExecQuery
Thanks Anders. I guess the basic question is whether it's any good?
Our needs are reasonably simple on a technical level (I think!).
What we are keen on, if possible, is to try and get a vendor with one OS across
their range. Right now we have an eclectic mix of vendors kit and frankly it's
a
We use EX switches in a stacked configuration. Juniper calls it a Virtual
Chassis. Our VoIP network is totally separate as its a hosted solution and
the vendor wouldn't commit to full responsibility if we put it on the
same switches. That said, what do you want to know?
-Anders
Sent from my iPhon
Kind of like the Builtin Domain Controllers group. ;)
DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE
From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WMI filter for GPO's fo
NO need since I am applying the GPO at a level below the Default Domain
Controllers OU. I have a separate policy for the Audit Settings on the
Domain Controllers.
Z
Edward E. Ziots
CISSP, Network +, Security +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
Email:ezi...@lifespan.org
Cell:401-
I prefer this method for inclusions and exclusions, although it is less
automatic.
* *
*ASB* *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* *Harnessing the Advantages of
Technology for the SMB market…
*
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Kennedy, Jim
wrote:
> Another option to exclude the DC’s is to add them
Another option to exclude the DC's is to add them to a security group and deny
read on the GPO.
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:06 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WMI filter for GPO's for WIndows 2003 Servers,
I was meaning to exclude
I was meaning to exclude DC's since all my DC's are Windows 2008 R2 SP1.
This was more targeted for Windows 2003 Member servers, since they and I
just learned Windows 2008 servers will not obey the advance audit
settings that are reserved for Windows 2008 R2 and Windows 7. So I had
to create differ
26 matches
Mail list logo
