|
Misogynist posted:It's not a loving airport! 
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
I recently had to implement a naming convention for servers and found and used this resource: http://virtualizationreview.com/blogs/virtual-insider/2011/10/how-to-design-an-effective-naming-convention.aspx In the end we went with <Company Name><2 letter location identifier><one letter desgination of type of machine (P for physical, V for virtualized)>-<function><number> So they are all ZZZHQP-DC01 for the first physical domain controller at our headquarters for affiliate ZZZ, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:It's not a loving airport! Since I work for an MSP, it's pretty goddamn important that server names tell you the company, function, and location (and number, if there are multiple), so we're pretty retentive about it, because it saves time and frustration. That said, I think stuff like "S329694NJ2SL88" gets too impenetrable, so we try to make them human readable, i.e. Microsoft's DC at Redmond would be ms-dc01-rm. (I'm also a big fan of hyphens, even though it wastes characters, because it makes the names easier to read). It doesn't get down to rack level, but our clients are pretty small and don't have entire datacenters of racks, so generally that isn't a problem, and everything's virtual anyway. Also, it would be great if the goddamn 15 character NetBIOS limitation would go away. That's poo poo that pisses me off daily. Agreed on DFS, except if you have Macs, because Apple STILL hasn't done the support properly even in Mavericks (crashes on waking up from sleep if you have documents open). Apparently real edit: the giant corporation that purchased one of our clients uses "funny" server names. Their Exchange servers are Geppetto and Pinocchio, their DCs (still on Server 2003  ) are Tom and Jerry, and their fileserver is duck. DUCK. (As in the bird). WTF. Hilarious guys. And this is a goddamn insurance company, entirely corporate (in the bad sense of the word, ITIL out the rear end etc) in every other way. Edit2: also, speaking of DFS, they'd never heard of it. Our client was already multiple sites when they bought it, so the process of borging them also meant they had to set up DFS for the first time to recreate our client's setup on their domain. And they (the purchasing company) have something like 20 sites. All of which access the main fileserver (aforementioned "duck") in the Midwest. The mind boggles. SyNack Sassimov fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Dec 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:It's not a loving airport! Only issue with DFS is you get special snowflake software that won't work with the data files referenced by DFS namespaces. Sure it is easy enough to make sure those drives are mapped using a server name instead of the DFS namespace. But it is 2013 and DFS is not exactly bleeding edge anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
You could say the same thing about versions of Java from this century, or browsers less than a decade old. Some software is just poo poo, and avoiding it is probably one of the most useful things you can do if you're in a position to influence those sorts of decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Who would use anything but NYC for NYC? It's NakOLik river airport. It was actually MSY before NOL came about. According to the internet: quote:MSY stands for Moisant Stock Yards. Before the airport was built, an early aviation pioneer crashed a small plane on the property--John Moisant. John was born in 1868 in Kankakee, IL. His death in a crash on what was then a Harahan Plantation occurred while he was preparing to try for a new world's record for sustained flight. After the crash, the property was turned into stock yards for cattle and named after him--Moisant Stock Yards. Then the airport was built on the same site. Since most residents knew where Moisant Stock Yards were located, the name was used as the first identifier for the airport. The original name of the airport was Moisant Field. The name was changed to New Orleans International Airport, but the identifier stayed the same since it is extremely difficult to change the airports identifier in all of the publications. :themoreyouknow:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
We have multiple server rooms, separate (physical) networks for production and office IT, and we still just name the servers by function. After the initial installation it doesn't matter where the server's physically located, and if you really do need to stuff a USB in it's port you can read the documentation for the server. The only thing we're actually strict about is to prefix experimental servers with our initials (and stick them in the test environment, but that's given). Yeah, we have Exchange, Exchange2, Exchange35, DC1, DC-1, BackupDC, and so on. I hated it when I started, but I've learned that it doesn't matter at all as long as your documentation is up to par, and the environment is frequently cleaned and kept tidy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Sudden Infant Def Syndrome posted:
 I .. I have no words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Only tangentially IT, but I hate when my team drags me out for lunch and then talks about nothing but work. Can't we come up with some other discussion topic? This is supposed to be our break. (Also - I have to share this somewhere - apparently all the webdev team has been passing around the same cold/flu/thing since October. I called it an "excellent example of 'cold reuse'" and got a french fry thrown at me.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
One place I worked for had a group of BSDi servers named after people in the Book of Mormon. No one knew how to spell or pronounce any of 'em and several of them were derivatives of each other ("wait, was I supposed to reboot Gidgiddonah or Gidgiddoni?"). That place was fun, because they bought so many companies and consolidated so many data centers that we had sets of servers with dozens of different naming conventions all at once and most of them didn't actually reflect the physical location of the server anymore, nor did anyone really know what many of the names that actually meant something really meant anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted: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. Nothing happened (so far), I'm a bit disappointed, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Misogynist posted: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. There's a ton of value in it. Your thought process may go: "Dealing with exchange is hairy, Wookies are Harry, Wookies live on Kashyyyk, therefore exchange lives on Kashyyyk." but the guy that comes behind you is going to go mad if he has more than ten servers to deal with. Knowing what a server is by wrote due to a good naming convention is far better than having to consult documentation every time I want to get to a specific server. EDIT: I try to set things up so documentation is a fallback for when I have a complete brain fart, not something I need just to function in the day to day. Rhymenoserous fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
In the process of putting a new naming scheme here. Nothing has ever been standardized before. I think everyone hates me. Dept-Service-Site (Replace dept with company if services everyone) Rant edit: I got a request from some moron to push out a registry change to "fix" Office 2007 for macros. After reading over why, I see the "resolution" is to apply Office 2007 SP2. Person claims it is install. I check the workstations, sure as hell running Office 2007 RTM. Look at Windows updates, disabled. I am going to strangle someone. I rolled a WSUS server a while back to address this but everyone keeps saying no when I say I am going to actually start using it. They have faith in an ungodly expensive systems management solution purchased two years ago that was never implemented. They say it will be soon. I have been here for a year, no progress has been made and no one even knows how to deploy it, let alone use it properly. Do I really care at this point, or just deploy it and launch thousands of patches over the weekend? Moey fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
A computer that won't boot came in, from a user who works at a remote site. One look at the computer and I can see exactly why it won't boot: the thing has been abused, has obviously been dropped, is loving filthy, and isn't even 6 months old. This is the the 3rd or 4th hard drive I've had to replace for this user over the past ~2 years. With her old computer, while it always came in filthy it had no obvious damage and only moderate wear and tear, so it was always a bit of a mystery why she continued to have problems. The last time the hard drive died she whined all the way to the CEO about her 'defective' equipment and we bought her a new one, back in May. When she called to say she was having the same problem again I probed her a bit about her usage habits and she swore up and down about how she's never dropped it, always turns it off before putting it in her bag, etc etc. Now that I actually have it I can see every corner shows signs of being dropped, the expansion bay is actually dented, and there's not a clean surface on the case, screen, or keyboard. loving ugh. Going to chat with my boss on Monday before I call her up and give her a talking to. She's going to be rewarded for her carelessness with an SSD I ordered before I got a chance to see this thing. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:She's going to be rewarded for her carelessness with an SSD I ordered before I got a chance to see this thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:In our experience, at least, SSDs are far far less tolerant of being dropped/knocked than normal hard drives, so there's that small joy to look forward to at least.  Something seems wrong here...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Someone dropped an iPad 2 on my desk. No note or anything. It has a label on it, so I know it's one of the ones that we're going to eventually be deploying to the Operating Rooms, but that's pretty much it. I'm assuming that I'm the one that's supposed to figure out how to get rid of the existing lock-down software that a previous director installed without any documentation of any kind. What pisses me off are a couple of things: I just had a conversation with our director earlier this week about this department being entirely too dependent on me. Pretty much anything that requires any thought gets dumped on my lap. We also had a team meeting where it was brought up by the main 4 techs of the team (the 4 of us that have been here the longest, New Guy and the Director have only been here ~1 year) that communication between the team has been poo poo (The main 4 of us all seem to communicate fine, New Guy and the Director are awful at communicating anything. Myself, I've tried my damnedest to communicate things with these guys, but they don't think they need to listen, so I've pretty much given up). I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall with these two idiots. ^^ Definitely take pictures of the laptop for documentation purposes. If the director or higher ups ask why she's having so many issues with 'defective' hardware, show them the pictures. TWBalls fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:In our experience, at least, SSDs are far far less tolerant of being dropped/knocked than normal hard drives, so there's that small joy to look forward to at least. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Potato Alley posted:Apparently real edit: the giant corporation that purchased one of our clients uses "funny" server names. Their Exchange servers are Geppetto and Pinocchio, their DCs (still on Server 2003 Oh no, Tom has gone down on Jerry! We named a new domain after something completely unrelated to the company because we think the company is due a name change as our existing domain is 3 company names behind the current...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:In our experience, at least, SSDs are far far less tolerant of being dropped/knocked than normal hard drives, so there's that small joy to look forward to at least. Are you using OCZ drives or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:Someone dropped an iPad 2 on my desk. Place on shelf and ask your director about it? Nobody asked you to do anything yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
mewse posted:Place on shelf and ask your director about it? Nobody asked you to do anything yet  says it was my director that dropped it off. They were all sitting in his office when we had the meeting. For now, all I've done is upgrade it to iOS 7 and charge it. Haven't had time to do anything else as I've enough tickets to do as it is. So, yeah, I'm definitely going with this option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
If Hercules's first task was "Build grandma a computer she'll be happy with" no one would know who the gently caress he was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:
"Hey, Secret Santa gave me an iPad 2!" Except for that stupid label, of course. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:Are you using OCZ drives or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
 Guess what this is and what the ticket for it is?  Yes that is a pen inside a Power Supply fan. I got it out by beating the the PSU against a desk in anger, I honestly didn't expect it to work, but it came right out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
pixaal posted:
You work for a school?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
The best way to handle names that i've seen, which almost nobody does: 1) give each host a nice descriptive unique name so you can identify it. 2) use cnames and subdomains to descriptions of what they are and what they do. for example, you have two hosts, zorin.contoso.com and blofeldt.contoso.com cname mail01.prd.contoso.com to zorin.contoso.com cname mail01.stg.contoso.com to blofeldt.contoso.com This makes it pretty drat easy to know that zorin is the production mail server, while blofedt is the staging one. you need to promote blofeldt to production? Change the cname. In other news, I phone interviewed Emo Philips son today in Belgium. I swear, this kid sounded EXACTLY like emo philips. An example quote from the exchange: "OH YEAH! SMTP IS THE EMAIL ONE! GOSH, I FORGOT THAT, I'M SUCH A DUMMY!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
We're in the process of transitioning all our corporate e-mail over to google apps.... gently caress Google's conflicting account bullshit. 90% of the time the only solution is attributing the 'old' account to a new g-mail address, which is useless. Why cant google just let us merge old accounts into our google apps accounts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
RadicalR posted:You work for a school? City and school system. Over 20 sites in the city with only 5 people basically all on the same pay grade. It's nice since I get to mess with servers on my first job, and pay is good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Windows Azure is currently pissing me off. Their documentation is a huge collection of disjointed out of date crap from two rebrands ago that doesn't match up to what their configuration pages look like now. Something simple such as the tool to see if your AD is ready to sync with an Azure directory is a link to a blog post about Office 365 with a link to a file that needs some hotfixes and then when it finally runs it doesn't actually check the things that the first link you followed claimed it did. When you manage to trick the system into letting you download the sync application you end up with something that will let you get halfway through the install before complaining it doesn't have admin rights. As if requesting elevated status at the beginning just wasn't possible. A complete shower of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
My company's archaic remote access policy, which is "We dont allow telecomuting, RAWR!" The owners actually get angry whenever anyone brings it up. Even though we've had to build a rather robust RDS environment to facilitate people doing there jobs because, well, it isn't 1992. Unfortunately this meant that, earlier this week when we had ice and snow dumped on us and no one could get anywhere and I was working from home, I was still forced to take PTO. And since its our busy season, they wanted asses in the chairs this weekend, just in case. Like we're not always on call by default anyway. And, since its our busy season, we're not allowed to make any changes right now. So here I am, in the office on a Saturday with next to nothing to do, not even getting comp time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
afflictionwisp posted:My company's archaic remote access policy, which is "We dont allow telecomuting, RAWR!" The owners actually get angry whenever anyone brings it up. Even though we've had to build a rather robust RDS environment to facilitate people doing there jobs because, well, it isn't 1992. Unfortunately this meant that, earlier this week when we had ice and snow dumped on us and no one could get anywhere and I was working from home, I was still forced to take PTO. No partial days. No PTO for working from home. If you get called and you have to work for 15 minutes in the middle of the night, they can't (legally) make you work or threaten your pay if you don't go in. Not that I'd recommend pushing it, but I'd let them know what the law says so you don't end up in this situation again; the whole point of the classification is that they need to measure your performance and deal with expectations differently or fire you if you're not meeting theirs, not treat you like a secretary, because your job is different (off hours, at home, etc). Don't take this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure working with no compensation is illegal as well
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
afflictionwisp posted:My company's archaic remote access policy, which is "We dont allow telecomuting, RAWR!" The owners actually get angry whenever anyone brings it up. Even though we've had to build a rather robust RDS environment to facilitate people doing there jobs because, well, it isn't 1992. Unfortunately this meant that, earlier this week when we had ice and snow dumped on us and no one could get anywhere and I was working from home, I was still forced to take PTO. Yeah, working for free is ruining it for everyone.. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Not that I'd recommend pushing it Basically this. They know full well that they're skirting legality in quite a few ways, but their compensation policy is written in such a way that my equivalent hourly rate is lower than my actual salary and something something "so we're technically paying you." I wouldn't have the resources to fight it and I'm lucky enough that my boss doesn't give a poo poo when I'm here as long as work gets done. If he leaves, I'll be getting my resume together, but for the moment I'm just crabby. afflictionwisp fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Dec 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
evol262 posted:If you're a salaried exempt employee, it's a violation of federal labor laws to deduct pay, including making you take pto, if you worked at all that day, because the nature and structure of your job is such that it doesn't want fit into normal hours. Unfortunately, Federal labor laws do not require employers to give employees any paid time off and therefore don't restrict the application of PTO policies in any way. There are a couple of states that regulate PTO in some way or another, but for the most part, companies can legally do anything they want with PTO. Charging an employee a PTO day isn't docking their pay, so it's perfectly legal; if a company chooses to charge an exempt employee a PTO day because they took a lunch break, or because they didn't come in on a Saturday, or because they worked from home, or because they wore a red tie on a Friday, they can. As long as the policies in question are enforced equally and the reason isn't "because you are a member of an EEOC protected class" then it's perfectly legal. Also, if you are exempt, your employer can demand that you work whenever and however long they want you to and they aren't required to provide any sort of extra compensation or comp time. They can't dock your current pay unless you are absent for at least a full day, but they can do pretty much whatever else they want, including reducing your salary going forward or firing you outright, if you refuse to work a weekend or don't answer a midnight phone call.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
afflictionwisp posted:My company's archaic remote access policy, which is "We dont allow telecomuting, RAWR!" The owners actually get angry whenever anyone brings it up. Even though we've had to build a rather robust RDS environment to facilitate people doing there jobs because, well, it isn't 1992. Unfortunately this meant that, earlier this week when we had ice and snow dumped on us and no one could get anywhere and I was working from home, I was still forced to take PTO. Several years ago, when i was still in support, the Work from home policy was similar. (No. Never.) It got bad enough that after an ice storm, a policy was put in place to require people to come in early and check into a hotel across the street so they could walk into the office. The accountants took one look at how stupidly expensive that was, and told them that the correct option was to allow work from home in those cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
dennyk posted:Unfortunately, Federal labor laws do not require employers to give employees any paid time off and therefore don't restrict the application of PTO policies in any way. There are a couple of states that regulate PTO in some way or another, but for the most part, companies can legally do anything they want with PTO. Charging an employee a PTO day isn't docking their pay, so it's perfectly legal; if a company chooses to charge an exempt employee a PTO day because they took a lunch break, or because they didn't come in on a Saturday, or because they worked from home, or because they wore a red tie on a Friday, they can. As long as the policies in question are enforced equally and the reason isn't "because you are a member of an EEOC protected class" then it's perfectly legal. The "PTO deduction" policy issue could handily be resolved by a lawyer. dennyk posted:Also, if you are exempt, your employer can demand that you work whenever and however long they want you to and they aren't required to provide any sort of extra compensation or comp time. They can't dock your current pay unless you are absent for at least a full day, but they can do pretty much whatever else they want, including reducing your salary going forward or firing you outright, if you refuse to work a weekend or don't answer a midnight phone call. afflictionwisp posted:Basically this. They know full well that they're skirting legality in quite a few ways, but their compensation policy is written in such a way that my equivalent hourly rate is lower than my actual salary and something something "so we're technically paying you."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
evol262 posted:{site_by_aiport} And one day you make a typo in Cisco Unity, suddenly people in Copenhagen are panicking because they have a bunch of South Africans on the phone who are sure they were ringing your Capetown office. I had this happen to me once and it was a bitch to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2013 14:10
|
|