|
evil_bunnY posted:Our current stuff is a mess, but the plan is thin-provision+dedup? We do thin already, it doesn't really tackle the issue of the maximum volume size you use though. SAN is a HP P4000, so essentially block iSCSI. Files, anything and everything, literally a mix from lots of 1kb files up to the tens of gigs. I know I could just use 4tb volumes for example, but that doesn't sound pleasant if you have a logical drive issue.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Nebulis01 posted:What the hell does that have to do with NTFS? NTFS supports volume size of 256TB using a GPT disk. As long as your server is windows 2003 SP1 and above this hasn't been an issue in years. No offense, but have you ever run significant storage in production?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:NTFS lacks end-to-end integrity checking and other availability features that are implemented in higher-end filesystems like ZFS, GPFS2, OneFS and (ugh) btrfs that are built to scale. As a result, it's very poor at detecting corruption while the filesystem is online. That means that when the poo poo hits the fan, NTFS has to take the disk offline to run chkdsk. Have you ever tried to run chkdsk on a disk that's more than a few terabytes in size? It typically takes weeks where most proper filesystems take literally zero time because it's something they just constantly do in the background. TMYK. I've not run anything over 15TB in production. I've run CHKDSK on 3-5TB volumes and it does take a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:We avoid this problem by not running NTFS file servers. There's too many good storage platforms out there to waste time trying to roll our own and have them subject to these sorts of problems. So you run a NAS with a better FS underneath? Our Windows admin is leary of running files off anything but a Windows server, but he's also an old greybeard and formed a lot of his views back in the NT days, so I don't really know what to believe anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
If someone could suggest a NAS I'd be open to options. The biggest caveat is that once you factor in site level redundancy there's not much that comes close (at the price) to our P4000, so realistically I'd be looking for a NAS "head", physical or virtual that could be clustered across two locations. That said, I've never had issues with NTFS that have made me doubt NTFS as a file system - but some of that no doubt comes down to not doing stuff like creating 10tb volumes full of data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So you run a NAS with a better FS underneath? As long as the underlying host supports SMB I don't see why it would be an issue. I'm going to do some testing in our lab and see if it's worth the migration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So you run a NAS with a better FS underneath? A NAS generally has it's own predefined filesystem that it shares out via some protocol or another. If you are thinking "NAS but with NTFS filesystems" what you are likely thinking is SAN actually which presents blocks of storage to a device which then generally gets that devices file system slapped on it. I'm oversimplifying by a fair bit, but that's it in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:A NAS generally has it's own predefined filesystem that it shares out via some protocol or another. If you are thinking "NAS but with NTFS filesystems" what you are likely thinking is SAN actually which presents blocks of storage to a device which then generally gets that devices file system slapped on it. I'm oversimplifying by a fair bit, but that's it in a nutshell. Yeah, I'm aware of all that. We're currently in the midst of trying to consolidate storage into some kind of SAN and we were planning on just sharing iSCSI to all the machines because we have an irrational hatred of NAS stuff. v  v Welp, my job is weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Yeah, I'm aware of all that. We're currently in the midst of trying to consolidate storage into some kind of SAN and we were planning on just sharing iSCSI to all the machines because we have an irrational hatred of NAS stuff. You mean as in one lun shared to all the machines? Because this is a terrible idea if that's what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Yeah, I'm aware of all that. We're currently in the midst of trying to consolidate storage into some kind of SAN and we were planning on just sharing iSCSI to all the machines because we have an irrational hatred of NAS stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
Whoops, that's not what I mean. I mean all our storage would be provisioned to servers that would then share that space out to clients, either via NFS or SMB, rather than using the device as a NAS. I actually know a fair amount about this stuff, I just seem to be coming off like an idiot in this thread for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I actually know a fair amount about this stuff, I just seem to be coming off like an idiot in this thread for some reason. who woulda thunk it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 11:11
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Whoops, that's not what I mean. I mean all our storage would be provisioned to servers that would then share that space out to clients, either via NFS or SMB, rather than using the device as a NAS. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
One advantage of front-ending your storage with a Windows box (via iSCSI or whatnot) is that you can get some really great reports from Windows tools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
madsushi posted:One advantage of front-ending your storage with a Windows box (via iSCSI or whatnot) is that you can get some really great reports from Windows tools. What kind of reports/tools?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
three posted:What kind of reports/tools? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731206(WS.10).aspx Duplicate Files Lists files that appear to be duplicates (files with the same size and last-modified time). Use this report to identify and reclaim disk space that is wasted because of duplicate files. File Screening Audit Lists file screening events that have occurred on the server for a specified number of days. Use this report to identify users or applications that violate screening policies. Files by File Group Lists files that belong to specified file groups. Use this report to identify file group usage patterns and to identify file groups that occupy large amounts of disk space. This can help you determine which file screens to configure on the server. Files by Owner Lists files, grouped by users who own them. Use this report to analyze usage patterns on the server and to identify users who use large amounts of disk space. Large Files Lists files that are of a specified size or larger. Use this report to identify files that are consuming the most disk space on the server. This can help you quickly reclaim large quantities of disk space. Least Recently Accessed Files Lists files that have not been accessed for a specified number of days. This can help you identify seldom used data that might be archived and removed from the server. Most Recently Accessed Files Lists files that have been accessed within a specified number of days. Use this report to identify frequently used data that needs to be highly available. Quota Usage
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
The reporting function is a life saver and really gives you heads up on whos backing up their iTunes to their network drive. (Which is not allowed in our organization to begin with)
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
incoherent posted:The reporting function is a life saver and really gives you heads up on whos backing up their iTunes to their network drive. (Which is not allowed in our organization to begin with) Isn't that what File Screens are for in the first place? Prevent users from saving .wav .mp3 .flac .mp4 files, voila!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Isn't that what File Screens are for in the first place? Prevent users from saving .wav .mp3 .flac .mp4 files, voila! Sadly some people have legit uses for those files :\
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Isn't that what File Screens are for in the first place? Prevent users from saving .wav .mp3 .flac .mp4 files, voila! I thought file screens would be an absolute god send until I rolled them out and realized that they aren't (IIRC) user based ACLs at all, but are instead folder\share based. Meaning the CEO has the exact same limit to \importantcrap\ as the janitor who uploads all of his Itunes mp3s. I wound up never using it to do anything but report because it became a headache.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:Isn't that what File Screens are for in the first place? Prevent users from saving .wav .mp3 .flac .mp4 files, voila!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Couldn't you just move that to some cheap dell storage or something? I hope that kind of poo poo isn't wasting space on a netapp or emc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
This thread is pretty much the Enterprise anything megathread now, correct? I have a question about you people who have deployed Active Sync. We still run Exchange 2003 SP2. I've enabled Active Sync and it works loving brilliantly. However, we want to deploy it for our users but I don't see a way of tracking devices that are syncing with our server. If John Doe all of a sudden wants to sync is phone and tablet, I want to be able to see this. How does everyone track this? We use BES for our BlackBerry users at the moment so similar control would be great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
IT Guy posted:This thread is pretty much the Enterprise anything megathread now, correct? Pretty sure the short answer is that you can't. Exchange 2010 gives you a shitload of visibility there, as well as a very cool quarantine feature for ActiveSync devices plus control over what can/can't create a partnership.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
You can, but it's a bit poo poo: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=22243
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
If it's poo poo, I probably won't even get into it then. I'll wait until we decide to upgrade to Exchange 2010 then it seems. In the meantime, I guess I'll just track users in an Excel document FFS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Quarantining devices is very handy. I get the odd user that tries to add their phone without getting company approval and they always get all sheepish when they have to come ask to have it activated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
How are people managing with Windows 7 laptops and synchronising offline files? We've made a lot of changes recently, most significantly being: - Moved from crappy RAID attached to Windows server as file storage to a NetApp - Redirecting all the folders (rather than just My Documents) leaving much smaller roaming profiles - Upgraded everyone to Windows 7. The problem now is that synchronising is a nightmare. It seems to be a combination of Microsoft deciding no-one could possibly ever want to synchronise when logging out (what were they thinking?) and bad software (Thunderbird/Firefox) seemingly not being able to get to grips with AppData being redirected. We've had a lot of people whose Thunderbird contacts or Firefox bookmarks will just randomly disappear after we redirected AppData out of their roaming profile. One of the main problems though is the lack of options to synchronise when logging out. I've looked around online a bit and the best I've found is a VBScript that forces a synchronise here. I've tried putting it as a logout script, and it "works", but it takes ages and doesn't tell the user what it's doing. It also throws up dialogue boxes for files it can't sync, which isn't very user friendly. Any input as to how others are doing this is appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 15:09
|
|
|
ryo posted:How are people managing with Windows 7 laptops and synchronising offline files? We've made a lot of changes recently, most significantly being: Group Policy to disable that loving lovely rear end feature. It has no place in an Enterprise environment, jesus christ. Non-SQL Database programs like Quickbooks/Quicken where people work off of the same file are absolute nightmares with that function in place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
Yeah, don't redirect AppData.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Yeah, don't redirect AppData. And if you have, just removing the policy won't actually remove it, you have to change it to "Redirect to the local userprofile location."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
We did have appdata in roaming profiles, but people would end up with gigantic roamin profiles because of thunderbird. This would all be solved if we had an exchange server I guess but for now we can't have one so we're doing the best we can. I suppose we could put appdata back into the roaming profile but then we'd be back to hour-long log out times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
We disabled the global search thing when it was introduced to keep Thunderbird from bloating roaming profiles:code:Exchange is coming for us and it won't be soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Thank God for Google Apps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
So what is going to be the best way for me to remove 3 network printers from about 30-40 user accounts? We are in the process of commissioning a new print server, and are rolling out the new printers via Desktop Authority. We want to make it so that any old printers hosted on our old print server are removed from the users computers, but I haven't found any way to do this in Desktop Authority (yet). Suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 23:24
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:So what is going to be the best way for me to remove 3 network printers from about 30-40 user accounts? I did this about 3 years ago via logon script and vbs at my old job as a student worker. Pretty much just had wrote the script to loop through printers and remove specific ones we were looking for. Sadly I don't have a copy of that script. If I get some time tonight I will see if I can get something together, I absolutely loath doing things manually, so will try and automate everything I can. Also, desktop authority is pretty loving solid. We had it here for the first hear or so and it made things so easy. You will notice that it makes them too easy, so good luck when you move to a new environment and it doesn't do all the voodoo for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Wicaeed posted:So what is going to be the best way for me to remove 3 network printers from about 30-40 user accounts? Depends on how it was added; Via share; @Rundll32.exe printui.dll,PrintUIEntry /dn /q /n"\\server\printersharename" Via printer name; @Cscript.exe //nologo //b "%windir%\system32\Prnmngr.vbs" -d -p "\\server\printer name"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Thank God for Google Apps. drat straight. I still have people who insist on using Outlook with it, though 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
^ I'm in the same position, I've migrated people to Google Apps and find the web interfaces more than adequate (the search kicks the poo poo out of Outlook, unsurprisingly). However there are a couple of people who expect Google Apps to be Exchange, except made by Google, and can't grasp the concept that not every feature in Outlook works the same as it used to, or is available. There's also the ones plain scared of web apps. Is there a desktop client for Google Apps that works better than Outlook, or am I better off just pushing out the standlone Apps package (basically just shortcuts to Chrome that load the Gmail, Calendar etc pages without any other browser UI elements) and hoping people get the hint?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
I guess this question best fits here. I have a server with 4 IP addresses because it is hosting 4 HTTPS web sites. The DNS is managed at a higher level so I requested they create 4 A records pointing to each IP address. It will work for a couple hours after they set the records but over time or after a reboot one of the records will be pointing to 4 IP addresses instead of just 1. Any ideas what could be causing the DNS to update and point to 4 IP's instead of just the 1?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 01:35
|
|