Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

iday, July 01, 2011 1:03 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff > > ** ** > > Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am up > to the challenge. > > Sent from my POS

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

Gives new meaning to employee training. From: Jacob [mailto:ja...@excaliburfilms.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 5:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff Depends on your talents. From: Rene de Haas [mailto:rene.deh...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

. From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 1:03 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am up to the challenge. Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

Depends on your talents. From: Rene de Haas [mailto:rene.deh...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:55 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff Are you hiring? :) Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob" het volgende: > We had to discipline so

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

> From: Rene de Haas > Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:54:33 > To: NT System Admin Issues > Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" > Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff > > Are you hiring? :) > Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob" het > volgende: >> W

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

No, but I will claim it :-) Sent from my POS BlackBerry wireless device, which may wipe itself at any moment -Original Message- From: "David Mazzaccaro" Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:19:39 To: NT System Admin Issues Reply-To: "NT System Admin Issues" Subject: RE: RE:

RE: RE: Amusing legal stuff

pun intended? From: kz2...@googlemail.com [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 4:03 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff Amen. You need someone to browse pr0n all day, its a tough job, but I am up to the challenge. Sent from my POS

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

: "NT System Admin Issues" Subject: Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff Are you hiring? :) Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob" het volgende: > We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" site. > Not kidding. > > > > From: James Rank

Re: RE: Amusing legal stuff

Are you hiring? :) Op 1 jul. 2011 17:26 schreef "Jacob" het volgende: > We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" site. > Not kidding. > > > > From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subjec

Re: Amusing legal stuff

OL > > > -Original Message- > From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:17 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing legal stuff > > Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n? > > Wow, that's harsh :P > > >

Re: Amusing legal stuff

Hey, if you are a designated pr0n rater then DO YOUR JOB ! On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Joseph Heaton wrote: > Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n? > > Wow, that's harsh :P > > >>> Jacob 7/1/2011 8:23 AM >>> > We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" > site. > No

RE: Amusing legal stuff

Check his email address, it will all make perfect sense. LOL -Original Message- From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:17 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing legal stuff Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n? Wow, that's har

RE: Amusing legal stuff

Disciplined for NOT surfing pr0n? Wow, that's harsh :P >>> Jacob 7/1/2011 8:23 AM >>> We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" site. Not kidding. From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Su

RE: Amusing legal stuff

We had to discipline someone because they surfed a "non-adult related" site. Not kidding. From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 6:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT: Amusing legal stuff We have a user who is facing disciplinary action for o

RE: Amusing legal stuff

Wow, sadly, I think I know that guy! He worked for me about 10 years ago... lol But, in the end, HTTP requests are HTTP requests, regardless of what machine or browser they come from. Evan From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:59 AM To: NT System Admin

RE: Amusing

If so, that's not what we've been told... From: Ken Schaefer [...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing So this doesn't have anything to do with a tricky bit of code that req

RE: Amusing

une 2009 1:10 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing The general plan here is to improve performance when you have large mailboxes. "Most", but not all (granted) folks would say that it's OK to use more disk space if that effectively removes a key performance block

Re: Amusing

Who was actually paraphrasing Pauly. ;) On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Link wrote: > I've said it before. > To paraphrase Henry Hill in Goodfellas "F you, pay me." > > > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ben Scott wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare >> wr

RE: Amusing

most of Microsoft's customers want very performant very large mailboxes. Microsoft is making the necessary changes to meet that desire. From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:06 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amus

RE: Amusing

l.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:40 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Steven M. Caesare wrote: > You can continue to use Exchange as a filesystem. That's your answer to everything. Too many mass emails? We're using it wr

Re: Amusing

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Steven M. Caesare wrote: > You can continue to use Exchange as a filesystem. That's your answer to everything. Too many mass emails? We're using it wrong. Too many old emails? We're using it wrong. Too many attachments? We're using it wrong. At what poin

RE: Amusing

n From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing The statement was: "Who says what's "right," though? That brings us back to trying to force humans to adapt to technology rather than de

RE: Amusing

-sc -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 8:06 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare wrote: > Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios >

Re: Amusing

I've said it before. To paraphrase Henry Hill in Goodfellas "F you, pay me." On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ben Scott wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare > wrote: > > Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios > > illustrate, there indeed can be

Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steven M. Caesare wrote: > Companies are seldom democracies, and as I think both scenarios > illustrate, there indeed can be a "wrong". The thing is, in this case, It's not an internal policy decision. It's Microsoft that's the dictator, and all their customers

RE: Amusing

It's all good. From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 6:47 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing 1) I wasn't really involved in this thread. 2) I certainly didn't say anything to you directly that would've re

Re: Amusing

> > *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:47 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Amusing > > > > As IT professionals, we are resposible for all facets of technology in the > enterprise. User interaction with t

RE: Amusing

:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:49 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing Not really. I am basically a 1 person IT department with 1 other person helping me with PC maintenance, for 200 users at 10 locations, so I have a long list of things I want to /need to/ sh

RE: Amusing

That's why we need minions! -sc From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:49 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing Not really. I am basically a 1 person IT department with 1 other person helping me with PC maintenance, fo

RE: Amusing

Good, good... we agree that some things are indeed 'wrong" from a corporate perspective. Apology accepted. -sc From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:47 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing As IT professiona

RE: Amusing

ining and providing better alternatives that they will readily accept. Ralph From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I was being (somewhat) facet

RE: Amusing

y* was made in a vacuum. You can bet they hear us when we all say the same thing, no special contact through back channels needed. Carl * another disclaimer word From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:08 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE:

Re: Amusing

do have to call something “wrong” for > very valid reasons. > > > > -sc > > > > *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Amusing > > > >

RE: Amusing

hing "wrong" for very valid reasons. -sc From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I agree-but in this context, we weren't talking about behavior that was compromising

RE: Amusing

ake the VPN connection as fast, easy, and reliable as the USB key is for them. John From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain

RE: Amusing

I was being (somewhat) facetious. Menus? Do you guys do intranet? -sc From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:07 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing There are some "all employees" messages sent out - for exam

RE: Amusing

the Exchange team - maybe via some Exchange MVPs or similar and then get some real reasons. That's what I do for IIS issues. Cheers Ken From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 30 May 2009 12:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amu

RE: Amusing

excessive - I se maybe 5 or 10 a week. From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing Good lord. Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees&quo

RE: Amusing

ldn't sacrifice some semblance of structure. -sc -Original Message- From: Charlie Kaiser [mailto:charl...@golden-eagle.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:58 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing One could also argue that if employee behavior frequently compromises stabil

RE: Amusing

*** Charlie Kaiser charl...@golden-eagle.org Kingman, AZ *** > -Original Message- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:26 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing &g

RE: Amusing

Perhaps time is the missing axis? How old is that "40" box? -sc -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 11:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger wrote: >

RE: Amusing

SB keys instead of the redundant and backed up file server is "wrong" even if employees find it convenient to not have to VPN in? I would. -sc From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Sub

RE: Amusing

Good lord. Do you guys simply email everything to the "all employees" DL instead of sending individual emails? -sc From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing 14.5 for

RE: Amusing

people to lose SIS. -sc -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:42 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing But in this case, we're not talking about a new product--we're talking about a new version of a

RE: Amusing

] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing Mine is about 1.7 for 500 users on EX2007 2009/5/29 David Mazzaccaro Mine is at 40. (150 users, 1 E2003 store) Never thought to look at this particular perfmon counter before this post. Id' be interested t

RE: Amusing

System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing 2.1, for about 250 mailboxes. On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:36, James Rankin wrote: > Mine is about 1.7 for 500 users on EX2007 > > 2009/5/29 David Mazzaccaro >> >> Mine is at 40.  (150 users, 1 E2003 store) >> Never thought to look

Re: Amusing

ore this >> post. >> Id' be interested to see what others are reporting >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] >> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >>

Re: Amusing

SIS Ratio = 65 - 2400 mailboxes - Sean On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Ben Scott wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger wrote: > > “Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and drop > off > > very quickly over time.” > > I believe that is misleading at be

Re: Amusing

Wouldn't it have been nice that MS had done product research and created a traditional upgrade keeping SIS, and then released a "Datacenter Edition" for large scales of server farms/user bases which didn't have SIS? I wonder what percentage of revenue is the small to medium business market compare

Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Jim Mediger wrote: > “Disk space savings from single instance storage are transient and drop off > very quickly over time.” I believe that is misleading at best. It may even be deliberate propaganda to justify removing SIS. We've had several people post their

Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman wrote: > As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU > requirements for the product?  Doubtful. Someone already explained that Exchange 2010 moves from a single set of tables for all mailboxes, to a separate set of tables f

RE: Amusing

com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:25 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing If I'm wrong, I welcome an informed source to say so and reveal the complete and unfiltered decision process for why a working feature with positive benefits to many was removed. Not that that would ever

RE: Amusing

ember Google going offline the other day? http://www.pcworld.com/article/164946/google_outage_lesson_dont_get_stuck_in _a_cloud.html Carl -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Sub

Re: Amusing

Of course. -- ME2 On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, paul chinnery wrote: > So what is MS' reason for getting rid of SIS? Perhaps another attempt to > convince people to use Sharepoint? > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~

RE: Amusing

y, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it right. I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his Exchange mailbox. His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting that h

RE: Amusing

14.5 for 200 users. From: Rob Bonfiglio [mailto:robbonfig...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:02 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing 5.25 for roughly 350 users. On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:33 AM, David Mazzaccaro wrote: Mine is at

Re: Amusing

at others are reporting > > > -Original Message- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing > > I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you wo

Re: Amusing

ease. You won't find anyone to admit > that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod > from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced > staffing. > > Carl > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Schaefer [mailt

RE: Amusing

__ From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU requirements for the product? Doubtful. The thing they're eliminating is

Re: Amusing

he decision, with a nod > from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced > staffing. > > Carl > > -Original Message- > From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues >

RE: Amusing

ing. Carl -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc. Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more d

RE: Amusing

all files, when multiplied times 500 mailboxes, add up to a lot of storage space if a deduplication mechanism isn't used. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I agre

Re: Amusing

iginal Message- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:30 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing > > I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything > near a 10x reduction. > > &g

RE: Amusing

AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything near a 10x reduction. -sc -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I&

RE: Amusing

uting. But with a bit of subsequent tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before. Cheers Ken From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I hav

RE: Amusing

I bet if you look at your SIS ratio perf counter you won't see anything near a 10x reduction. -sc -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:13 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I’ll have to ponder that one a bit. Not sure I li

RE: Amusing

1:13 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing This says so much right here... It's a common trap IT people fall into. We tell people that the way they want to use the technology isn't the right way to use it. Huh? Why not? Technology exists to serve humans--not vice versa. I

RE: Amusing

stem Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > Deploy Sharepoint, and email links instead. :-) SharePoint may well be the most overrated product in the history of Microsoft. I can tell people to email links to files on the file server just as

RE: Amusing

on, more rack/floor space. Did MS miss the "green" bus here? There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green. Carl -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re:

RE: Amusing

John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing They want to use ema

Re: Amusing

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > Deploy Sharepoint, and email links instead. :-) SharePoint may well be the most overrated product in the history of Microsoft. I can tell people to email links to files on the file server just as easily. The problem is, people see it as i

Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond wrote: > OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I > need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some > other new stuff: I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table. It has a lot of re

Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Brian Desmond wrote: >>  I presume the database takes pains to store these several tables for >> each mailbox together on disk? > > [Brian Desmond] Yes. Online maintenance has been entirely rethought to ensure > this. Well, that's certainly a good thing. >>  I

RE: Amusing

Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing Hi, Deploy Sharepoint, and email links instead. :-) But as Brian has mentioned - it's working checking your actual SIS stats. I agree with what he ha

Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:21 PM, John Hornbuckle wrote: > Just make sure it's not RAID 5: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 His point seems to be that if you have a single disk failure, the system needs to read all the other disks to reconstruct the failed disk. But at the same time, you

RE: Amusing

Never mind, Brian. (I gotta start reading the entire thread before replying to any particular post. And thanks for the explanation. From: pdw1...@hotmail.com To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Amusing Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:18:59 -0400 So what is MS' reaso

RE: Amusing

So what is MS' reason for getting rid of SIS? Perhaps another attempt to convince people to use Sharepoint? From: br...@briandesmond.com To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Amusing Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:50:57 + Almost. SIS is per databas

Re: Amusing

; > > > > > > > *From:* John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:53 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Amusing > > > > +1 brother. Ready for school to be out? > John W. Cook > Systems Administrato

RE: Amusing

John Hornbuckle [john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 8:15 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I don't think anyone thinks Ex 2010 sucks; it has a number of exciting new features. I just think that for some (many?) shops, the SIS issue could have a significan

RE: Amusing

s, Michael [mailto:michael.ow...@dys.ohio.gov] Sent: 28 May 2009 19:53 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I started a war. I just thought sending a 9 meg file to 3000 people was funny. :) From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 20

RE: Amusing

PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some other new stuff: --> Threaded conversation view (ala GMAIL) in Outlook Web Access --> Substantial filteri

RE: Amusing

disrupting the network. From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:53 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing +1 brother. Ready for school to be out? John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

Re: Amusing

+1 brother. Ready for school to be out? John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud From: John Hornbuckle To: NT System Admin Issues Sent: Thu May 28 21:22:30 2009 Subject: RE: Amusing And while th

RE: Amusing

MS your phone when events happen --> End user message tracking interface in OWA --> End user delivery confirmation/reporting interface in OWA Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12

RE: Amusing

Would that I could, brother... -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:25 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing That's easy - just hard code a setting to reject any email over 3mb in size. Heh. On Thu, May 28,

RE: Amusing

Easy from a technical standpoint--just not from a human standpoint! :-) -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:25 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing That's easy - just hard code a setting to reject any email

RE: Amusing

09 6:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing The reason for this is that the design of the databases in Exchange 2010 has been changed very much so from prior releases. In prior releases you had a single table for messages, a single table for attachments, and so forth. This leads t

Re: Amusing

o > account. > > > > > > > > John Hornbuckle > > MIS Department > > Taylor County School District > > www.taylor.k12.fl.us > > > > > > > > > > From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:3

RE: Amusing

an Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:36 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing Sounds like you're using Exchange as a file server Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 From: Richard Stovall [mailto:richard.stov...@researchdata.c

RE: Amusing

Just make sure it's not RAID 5: http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162 -Original Message- From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:03 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing No, LCR is gone. This implies multiple servers.

RE: Amusing

Inline Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:58 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing [aggregated reply to multiple posts from the same sender] On Thu

RE: Amusing

Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Michael B. Smith wrote: > As Brian notes - JBOD containing multiple copies is the recommended design > criteria. Does that assume multiple servers? Even if I can have a single server with the realtime copy on one physical disk a

Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Michael B. Smith wrote: > As Brian notes - JBOD containing multiple copies is the recommended design > criteria. Does that assume multiple servers? Even if I can have a single server with the realtime copy on one physical disk and the lagged copy on the other,

Re: Amusing

[aggregated reply to multiple posts from the same sender] On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Brian Desmond wrote: > In prior releases you had a single table for messages, a single table for > attachments, and so forth. This leads to A LOT of random > I/O which is very expensive, especially on slow

RE: Amusing

l use Enterprise SATA; but it's much less expensive than Enterprise SCSI. From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing They don't cost the same - they're more tha

RE: Amusing

Active server database is good again without having to reseed, fail over, restore from backup, etc Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:12 PM To: NT System Admin Issues

RE: Amusing

Sounds like you're using Exchange as a file server Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 From: Richard Stovall [mailto:richard.stov...@researchdata.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:24 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing Yikes! Ours is 18! (Pri

RE: Amusing

Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:13 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian Desmond wrote: > If 3,000 users all c

RE: Amusing

Yikes! Ours is 18! (Printing company - lots of huge files flying around...) From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing The OP's requirement is not the norm. The perf improvements that

Re: Amusing

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian Desmond wrote: > If 3,000 users all come after the same data in a short time window it’s going > to be > in the cache which means it’s served out of memory (not disk). RAM is way > faster than disk. Except that, from what you're saying, in Exchange 2010,

  1   2   >