|
Haha, we've been running our stores off of a trial version of SQL Server 2012 - and the trial just ran out. 
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
chia posted:poo poo pissing me off currently: I need to find out if a certain AD user account is being used anywhere in the domain to run a service or anything, so I can change the password/disable the account without poo poo breaking. I actually kind of enjoy just disabling these then standing up to see who's head pops up over the cubicle wall in a panic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
So, on the subject of the Penny-Arcade style of recruiting... (click to embiggen)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
To sum up my day. "Hey Dan! Do some testing for us!" "Sure, i'll do it, just give me a few hours". A few hours later I handed it in, only to be told that they'd just finished the new build and that the testing I had done was for nothing and i'd have to start from scratch. I mean hey, I got to stay off the phones all day, but I like it when the work I do is actually needed. Fixing peoples problems makes me fairly happy. Wasting 3 hours does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:So, on the subject of the Penny-Arcade style of recruiting... I like how they think $50k for helpdesk, infrastructure, web dev, on-site EPoS support and data entry peon in Oregon is somehow the going rate that they intend to undercut. Edit: DBA as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
I still have a hard time believing people post, or answer, ads like that. My city is not all that expensive but that offer pays less than an experienced help desk tech. EDIT: The ad has been pulled, I presume in response to widespread mockery. guppy fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
guppy posted:I still have a hard time believing people post, or answer, ads like that. My city is not all that expensive but that offer pays less than an experienced help desk tech. Rogue is notoriously awful about stuff like that, I'm pretty sure that's a relatively old posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:Rogue is notoriously awful about stuff like that, I'm pretty sure that's a relatively old posting. No, it got pulled because a goon actually took that job  (It was a real posting)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
chia posted:poo poo pissing me off currently: I need to find out if a certain AD user account is being used anywhere in the domain to run a service or anything, so I can change the password/disable the account without poo poo breaking. Just do a scream test? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:No, it got pulled because a goon actually took that job I know it was a real posting, it's just from back in June.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:No, it got pulled because a goon actually took that job I would say that makes blackswordca's posts make a lot more sense, but he talks about a management heirarchy and that's anathemic to Rogue (as is an HR department, apparently!  ), so that can't be it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
I don't think the goon in question posts in SH/SC but he said it's pretty much everything you would imagine based on that post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Thing pissing me off today. The manufacturer whose software I support has a web based knowledge base that is searchable. They made changes such that the search form scrubs the input of special characters, which makes searching for log entries almost unusable. So if a log entry says (made up example) error code=123, you get back error code123 not found. Putting quotes does nothing. You have to hope for a hit on a partial match.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
What's the polite way to tell someone to fix their fax setup? We receive about 50 pages of faxes every hour, all of them come in fine except for this sender, which makes it a problem when we receive 23 pages of some text spread out between a lot of horizontal lines and distortions. I've checked the line for noise, had professionals check the line, swapped out the equipment, and still haven't seen this problem with any faxes besides ones sent from this facility. I've spoken with them and even sent copies of what we're receiving to demonstrate but they refuse to believe it could be them ("haven't heard complaints from anyone else, must be INTERMITTENT line noise on your end  "). I'm about to resort to requesting all documents to be mailed from this sender.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Tell them what you just posted and if they still refuse to change anything then request the hard copies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
poo poo that doesn't piss me off: I've just discovered how useful wildcard DNS entries and a reverse proxy can be. No more having to wait for random web services that I want to be available externally to propagate DNS, just add the host to the Apache config.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
I've seen error correction being enabled on a machine cause similar fax problems. Turning it off seem to make the issue go way. It was a Ricoh/Lanier machine for what it's worth. Of course the trick is going to be getting the folks at the sending office to take a look at that. It might also be worth contacting the sender's fax vendor yourself if you can get that info. You might get lucky and they might actually care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Hahaha, SQL Server has the key embedded in the install, we can't just update our old version. Also, while this is down, why not move our Apache install to the new server? Oh look, half of the company's computers are using hardcoded HOSTs files.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
 Definitely drinking something hard in your honor when I get home tonight, good god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Sudden Infant Def Syndrome posted:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
You might as well just make a GPO that overwrites the HOSTS file with a default one. Or are they using hardcoded ones because you have no and/or totally hosed DNS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Sudden Infant Def Syndrome posted:Oh look, half of the company's computers are using hardcoded HOSTs files. I had a department manager once who either didn't understand how DHCP reservations worked, didn't understand that static IP addresses aren't necessary if your DNS works properly (and you don't need to poke firewall holes), or just hated doing things in a quick efficient fashion. We wanted to change some stuff around to move to a different IP range and he decided he was going to declare himself the guy to write scripts to look up server hostnames and set the appropriate static IP on each one. Obviously it all went hilariously wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:So, on the subject of the Penny-Arcade style of recruiting... (click to embiggen) We want someone who will do everything for us but we're not going to pay them accordingly and they have to have a healthy disrespect for authority. Only the strong survive
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Obviously you should disrespect authority right up to the point where we tell you to do something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Caged posted:Obviously you should disrespect authority right up to the point where we tell you to do something. "If any of the offices or 11 pubs need help, you need to help NOW."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
The company I work for uses hard coded host files. The best part is that you aren't actually told this until you try and access something internal via host name and it doesn't work, it is not documented anywhere, and as #1 would indicate, new computers are not setup with the correct host entries when you start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Caged posted:Obviously you should disrespect authority right up to the point where we tell you to do something. Just like PA wanted somebody not motivated by money, as long as the money in question wasn't company revenue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
I do not understand the logic behind not letting DNS do what it was designed to do. I don't think I'll ever understand it. It's worse than giving servers completely horribly stupid names because "then nobody will guess it's the Exchange server".Inspector_666 posted:Just like PA wanted somebody not motivated by money, as long as the money in question wasn't company revenue. "I didn't bother trying to get that quote down, after all we aren't motivated by money, so I just offered them list."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
mewse posted:We want someone who will do everything for us but we're not going to pay them accordingly and they have to have a healthy disrespect for authority. Only the strong survive Well, I just got out of prison after doing 5 years for murder (guess the parole board liked me). This seems like a pretty good job for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Caged posted:Obviously you should disrespect authority right up to the point where we tell you to do something. "I disrespected your authourity. I also encrypted all the servers, because this is a revolution, and I just took power in a coup d'etat. KNEEL BEFORE IT!" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:No, it got pulled because a goon actually took that job Wait what? Really? Who is this poor soul so that I may buy them a large bottle of alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Caged posted:I do not understand the logic behind not letting DNS do what it was designed to do. I don't think I'll ever understand it. It's worse than giving servers completely horribly stupid names because "then nobody will guess it's the Exchange server". http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-1178.txt quote:Don't choose a name after a project unique to that machine. Yaos fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's relevant any more in the age of the VM when systems get torn down when they've finished their task. I'd rather deal with a bunch of mail servers named mail01, mail02, mail03 etc than after things in Star Wars. In either case, implying that things are named a certain way because that makes it more secure is just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:I've seen error correction being enabled on a machine cause similar fax problems. Turning it off seem to make the issue go way. It was a Ricoh/Lanier machine for what it's worth. Of course the trick is going to be getting the folks at the sending office to take a look at that. We have phone service through Time Warner Cable, I have to turn off error correction to be able to fax at all. As it is I get 9600 instead of the glorious 33.6 it could do with a real phone line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Yaos posted:Check out RFC 1178, it's all about how to name your computer. RFC posted:Extremely well-known hostnames such as "sri-nic" and "uunet" Yaos posted:The problem that comes up is when you have multiple machines performing the same function, you could end up with a mess of servers all called "FileServer#". While it sounds good a person will have trouble remembering where each one is without looking it up. I suppose the bigger problem is when you have one server that performs multiple functions. You could have a single AD server at a remote site that handles everything; file server, print server, AD authentication, local email, etc. You could name it after the site, but the site could change names or move to another building, we've had sites change their names, we had a department change their name. {function}{site_by_aiport}{state}{number} websfoca01 Or some other sane naming scheme. {function}{rack}{building}{number} virt{function}{host}{number} It's 2013. There's no reason not to virtualize things or be using racktables.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
None of my sites have multiple server rooms, and the site with the most racks is Corporate (And there aren't enough racks to bother going so in depth). But other than that, the above is how I do it. Site ID - Company Name - Function - Identifier number (For the case of tasks that require multiple machines like DC, DNS ETC) So 01-MyCompanyWebsite01 01-MyCompanyDC01 01-MyCompanyDC02 01-MyCompanyFP01 The rear end in a top hat before me did CompanynameIdentifier number, and to this day I'm always having to wrack my brain on what each server he stood up does. As I phase the servers out they are being replaced with the new naming convention. CompanyName01 is a domain controler CompanyName02 is a mailserver CompanyName03 is a SQL server So on and so forth. I loath non descriptive server names. I hate having to refer to documentation just to know what the gently caress is going on when that information can easily be conveyed in the name. And I don't want to sit in a corner muttering to myself "No no, which one was the Exchange server? SpiderMan? SpiderPig? No wait SpiderPig is obviously Sharepoint".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
evol262 posted:{site_by_aiport}
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:So you're the rear end in a top hat that keeps getting people to name their NYC servers for NJ airports and well-known cities like New Orleans after apocryphal designations like "MSY" Who would use anything but NYC for NYC? I don't know how Alaska got NOL either, but you should have learned from Katrina not to put servers in New Orleans anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
evol262 posted:Who would use anything but NYC for NYC?  Yaos posted:The problem that comes up is when you have multiple machines performing the same function, you could end up with a mess of servers all called "FileServer#". While it sounds good a person will have trouble remembering where each one is without looking it up. I suppose the bigger problem is when you have one server that performs multiple functions. You could have a single AD server at a remote site that handles everything; file server, print server, AD authentication, local email, etc. You could name it after the site, but the site could change names or move to another building, we've had sites change their names, we had a department change their name. There's no value in being completely anal-retentive about server naming, as though you're going to literally write a script that makes assumptions about servers by parsing the names of every server in your environment. There is no dichotomy between "S329694NJ2SL88" and "KASHYYYK" and there's plenty of room in between to do things that make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:57
|
|