|
scuz posted:I've asked our Dell rep about this and she hasn't gotten back to me, but Windows 10 on these machines is completely worthless to us. I loving hate wrestling with this kind of poo poo. Intel have created a utility to inject the usb3 drivers into the Win 7 installer, if you don't MDT/ADK set up to do that already
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:Can anyone recommend a good core switch and router combo that's not some insane chassis deal that's going to cost 8 billion dollars? I've been getting by for about a year and a half with Ubiquiti gear. Their "Pro" router has served me well in terms of being able to easily configure some more complex networking setups. Today our "core" switch (which is really just their biggest managed POE switch) crapped the bed and decided it didn't recognize 24 of its 48 ports. I managed to get the son of a bitch back up and working again, but I'm starting to sweat here considering how bad their support is and the general crapiness of their build quality. Dell doesn't use uniform chipsets in their hardware (even same model), they use whatever was cheaper at x time - which can be a support nightmare. Avoid. Without a budget though it's hard to recommend anything. edit: I'm having trouble finding a reference for this somewhere online, it was something I was told during a tech conference so just take it with a grain of salt. Sepist fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
.
Chickenwalker fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:I'm willing to keep spares around for Ubiquiti, I just hate that sometimes when I do a reboot on their hardware I'm crossing my fingers praying it comes back up. It literally looks like either half the config didn't reload when it came back up from reboot or each bank of 24 ports is like a separate line card in the box and one of them crapped the bed, but when you did show commands or looked at the web GUI it really thought it only had 24 copper ports. After the third or fourth reboot it suddenly came back to life and the config was still there. And this is why we stopped using Ubiquiti. Granted we never got into the switches too much, only the wireless, but a couple of different installs both in high and relatively low density environments gave us such headaches and inconsistent results depending on the vagaries of whatever the equipment decided it wanted to do on a particular day (work, not work, enter some half dead state where it claimed it was working but no one could connect to anything, randomly drop clients even when there were only a couple clients on that AP and they were in the same small room as the AP) that we just decided that from a business sense it wasn't worth the risk. It's one thing to be economical and another to have unreliable gear, and while I would absolutely love for Ubiquiti to fulfill what they promise of enterprise level gear at consumer prices, the reliability just wasn't there and that's the majority of what you pay for in enterprise level gear. (Well, to me that's one of the big reasons, whether reliability actually means the reliability of the equipment or whether it means lovely equipment but a four hour support response time 24/7/365). We stopped using their gear just about a year and a half ago now, so it's certainly possible they've improved their products, but having been burned and quite badly, to the point of it contributing heavily to losing a big customer last year, I'm not that interested in giving them another chance and my boss is now dead set against them. That said, my home wireless is Ubiquiti, because I barely use wireless at home and when we decommed all that wireless gear I grabbed a few APs. So for home use, sure. For business, I think it falls under penny wise pound foolish, because you spend so much time and frustration tearing your hair out over random failures that you didn't really save anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Methanar posted:
Uh... copper raider at the workplace?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Potato Alley posted:that we just decided that from a business sense it wasn't worth the risk. It's one thing to be economical and another to have unreliable gear, and while I would absolutely love for Ubiquiti to fulfill what they promise of enterprise level gear at consumer prices, the reliability just wasn't there and that's the majority of what you pay for in enterprise level gear. What did you move to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
.
Chickenwalker fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:the UAC-AP-PRO models are still basically crippled. How so? What feature(s) are you missing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I thought it was the first-gen AC models, the square ones, that never really worked entirely like they're supposed to. The second-gen AC models have been great across the board in my experience. Now that they have the smartphone-based basic setup I recommend UAP-AC-Lite as my default for single AP environments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Everything is mixed signals. "I need this done ASAP. But don't do it right now. Day is over? I want you to finish this before you come in tomorrow, but don't stay late, or come in early, or work on it at home." Is this a new manager or something? I hate it when people do that. RE: communication protocols At my current client the default behaviour is to tentatively accept all meetings and don't show up to 80% of them. I've seen this behaviour from about 100-150 different end users and everyone is telling me to phone people to make them accept/deny.  Also, nobody replies to mail, they all phone you (or walk over) to discuss said email. Plausibile deniability I guess, but I always follow up with an email describing what was discussed in person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:What did you move to? Meraki, mostly. The pricing is bend-over-here's-a-spiky-cactus-for-your-anus and large parts of the management are clunky (or at least don't feel that intuitive - I'm always kind of searching through the menu for the option I want), but the cloud management is real fuckin handy for multiple customers with multiple sites, and the reliability is there for the vast majority of our customers' needs. We did put in a straight enterprise Cisco solution in a downtown SF high-rise (with about 200 SSIDs showing up when you did a query - nastiest RF environment I've seen, oh and the people on the floor above them had APs set to high with AirGuard or whatever the equivalent is that tries to shut down other APs). But for the most part Meraki seems to be the best game in town management wise and the hardware is good enough to work. I really wanted to like Ubiquiti - the management is cool, the features / design is nice, etc. But at the end of the day especially with wireless, if it drops out or falls over with load, it's not appropriate for a business, at least one that takes its infrastructure seriously. At this point I'd use them for guest wireless in a building, or maybe for a small business (fewer than 20 people) that didn't use wireless heavily. Anything else, nope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Meraki can't route IPv6 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
What about Aerohive?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Cisco TAC is the best. "That version of code you're running is garbage, I suggest downgrading to 3.06" (I'm running the latest) "Sure but I installed this one as it's the only oen that supports our 3702i UX platform" *10 minutes later* "Yea don't downgrade, forget everything I said" Also told me my wireless design is wrong because my gateway is not the controller but instead the core router trunking to the wireless controller. Shine on you crazy diamonds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Running Ubiquiti and Mikrotik kit requires you to take some of the many thousands that you saved over purchasing something else and have at least one spare sitting around ready to go, and requires a time investment to fully test new software releases to ensure that they haven't horribly broken a feature that you rely on without mentioning it in the release notes. You will likely still come out ahead, and I'd argue that running less well supported gear with a team of people who know it intimately, vs. running 'best practises' Cisco equipment with a team of people who cost you less because they only know how open TAC cases is a better position to get yourself into. I've had a ton of weird poo poo happen to me when I was using Mikrotik, but you're right. I'd rather have a couple people who know the gear, and the network than trying to get Cisco support. You get WAYYY more bang for your buck with either Mikrotik or Ubiquiti. Cisco isn't innocent of breaking things that aren't mentioned in the release notes either. LochNessMonster posted:Is this a new manager or something? I hate it when people do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Potato Alley posted:Meraki, mostly. The pricing is bend-over-here's-a-spiky-cactus-for-your-anus and large parts of the management are clunky (or at least don't feel that intuitive - I'm always kind of searching through the menu for the option I want) Potato Alley posted:the reliability is there for the vast majority of our customers' needs. Potato Alley posted:I really wanted to like Ubiquiti - the management is cool, the features / design is nice, etc. But at the end of the day especially with wireless, if it drops out or falls over with load, it's not appropriate for a business, at least one that takes its infrastructure seriously. At this point I'd use them for guest wireless in a building, or maybe for a small business (fewer than 20 people) that didn't use wireless heavily. Anything else, nope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Challenging Wi-Fi deployments need different antenna options, and it's only really Cisco that seem in any way bothered about treating the external antenna versions of their APs as first-class citizens in the range and not lumping a ridiculous price premium on them. The 1850 series APs are really well priced. It's good to be able to take an AP you're already familiar with and just get the external antenna version with appropriate aerials if someone decides they want to wall mount rather than ceiling mount.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Sepist posted:Cisco TAC is the best. The real question is, do you want to go through the hassle of escalating or just call and get it re-queued.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Challenging Wi-Fi deployments need different antenna options, and it's only really Cisco that seem in any way bothered about treating the external antenna versions of their APs as first-class citizens in the range and not lumping a ridiculous price premium on them. The 1850 series APs are really well priced. It's good to be able to take an AP you're already familiar with and just get the external antenna version with appropriate aerials if someone decides they want to wall mount rather than ceiling mount. What are you talking about specifically? Ubiquiti has WAPs with external antennas for cheap. Same with Mikrotik  Also the UAP-Pro's work REALLY well wall mounted in my experience, no antenna necessary. Also you can just get a bunch of them and they all mesh properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Nope, CIO. Been here the longest. Has he always been like that or did it start recently? Behaviour like that drives me nuts. I often wondered if people who do that realize what they're doing or if they're just batshit insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Dude are you spying on me? Just stumbled on this line of discussion because I was looking that the networking side of it but, from a professional side, you must be working for my old boss...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:What are you talking about specifically? Ubiquiti has WAPs with external antennas for cheap. Same with Mikrotik Ubiquiti's (currently supported) APs with external antennas are their External APs and are limited to single-band 802.11n.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:The real question is, do you want to go through the hassle of escalating or just call and get it re-queued. I always requeue, although I have had a few instances where the ticket router put my ticket in an unused queue. Then I have to call back the next day to find out why no ones answered my ticket
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Ubiquiti's (currently supported) APs with external antennas are their External APs and are limited to single-band 802.11n. Yeah, Cisco and Zebra (previously Motorola) APs are my go to for external.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
.
Chickenwalker fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Mar 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:Something I haven't really gotten a straight answer on from Fortinet: for those of you who already have an edge router that you're not looking to replace, when you put the Fortigate (or Palo Alto, whatever) in place, are you using it in NAT mode or "Transparent" mode? I deployed mine in Transparent mode to preserve the 802.1q trunk I had going from router to switch but it seems much more limited than NAT mode and seems to be a pretty uncommon way of utilizing the system. But then how do you utilize NAT mode so that you're not doubling up on NATing or doing extra unnecessary routing? I just want this security appliance to do its job and not interfere with what the router is doing. Unless you have some strange big datacenter edge case you generally want them in routed mode. There are a lot of things that don't work when it's an L2 device. For NAT, it kind of depends on your architecture and what you are doing but generally I do NATs on the firewall and just let the router route. If you have a visio or something to show a bit of the topology and what the devices are doing I'm sure people in here could give suggestions on specifics. Lately I haven't even been buying routers for ROBOs as an HA pair of firewalls can generally do everything I need. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
So about a month ago, I got fired and was all distraught and posted here. But yay, new job. It's a decent pay cut (55k before, 23/hr for the first six months at the new place) but it's specifically focusing on networking in the NOC for a big healthcare company nearby, which is what I'd like to specialize in, instead of a jack-of-all-trades sorta role. Hopefully it will be worth it for the career growth to take that hit now. Yaaay. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:What about Aerohive? I'm looking at Aerohive later this week vs. a Meraki deployment for ~50 remote users who all work from home right now. Will report back as to which company takes me out for the better lunch. Thanks Ants posted:Challenging Wi-Fi deployments need different antenna options, and it's only really Cisco that seem in any way bothered about treating the external antenna versions of their APs as first-class citizens in the range and not lumping a ridiculous price premium on them. The 1850 series APs are really well priced. It's good to be able to take an AP you're already familiar with and just get the external antenna version with appropriate aerials if someone decides they want to wall mount rather than ceiling mount. We've been super happy with the Extreme networks wireless so far. APs are cheap(~$300 for what we're using the most), the system is fairly intuitive and for our more challenging manufacturing environment they have other AP options with different antennas that's made a big difference. Chickenwalker posted:Something I haven't really gotten a straight answer on from Fortinet: for those of you who already have an edge router that you're not looking to replace, when you put the Fortigate (or Palo Alto, whatever) in place, are you using it in NAT mode or "Transparent" mode? I deployed mine in Transparent mode to preserve the 802.1q trunk I had going from router to switch but it seems much more limited than NAT mode and seems to be a pretty uncommon way of utilizing the system. But then how do you utilize NAT mode so that you're not doubling up on NATing or doing extra unnecessary routing? I just want this security appliance to do its job and not interfere with what the router is doing. Why do you still need the edge router? Your Fortinet/PA box handles both NAT and routing just fine. DigitalMocking fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Does anyone else face workplace envy? I work in Fortune 200 territory by day and when I come home I realize that it's really not financially viable to purchase a data domain for my single node ESXi environment in my basement next to my leaky water heater. Although I did learn that there is a free 500gb (front end) data domain virtual edition for ESXi 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
high six posted:So about a month ago, I got fired and was all distraught and posted here. But yay, new job. It's a decent pay cut (55k before, 23/hr for the first six months at the new place) but it's specifically focusing on networking in the NOC for a big healthcare company nearby, which is what I'd like to specialize in, instead of a jack-of-all-trades sorta role. Hopefully it will be worth it for the career growth to take that hit now. Welcome to NOC work, hope you got a nice quiet one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Does anyone else face workplace envy? I work in Fortune 200 territory by day and when I come home I realize that it's really not financially viable to purchase a data domain for my single node ESXi environment in my basement next to my leaky water heater. I burnt out on messing with poo poo at home. My house is like 80% apple products at this point. I know what you mean though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
I just have the ISP router. I don't even have a basic RAID setup for my home computer :/ As long as plex works I ain't changing poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Oh hey, I can do an Order hall mission that'll get me a Champion-equippable Stopwatch which increases the chance of success if a mission takes less than 4 hours to complete. That'd be great, if I'd ever even seen a mission that took less than 4 hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Oh hey, I can do an Order hall mission that'll get me a Champion-equippable Stopwatch which increases the chance of success if a mission takes less than 4 hours to complete. Same but the Cisco version
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Same but the Cisco version Juniper Champion-equippable Stopwatches are less buggy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Sepist posted:I just have the ISP router. I don't even have a basic RAID setup for my home computer :/ As long as plex works I ain't changing poo poo I'm that douchebag with the ERL, multiple VLANs on a managed switch, a VMWare box, a SPAN session to a Snort instance, and multiple access points on different channels for increased coverage. e: I almost dropped money on a NFR FirePOWER 5508 with AMP, but decided I wanted to pay for my master's course instead. psydude fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
All i have is an old sun that i am using as a kvm host, a dumb switch, edgerouter, and an ap. Putting off getting more until i can find a cheap half rack deep enough to hold the server.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Same but the Cisco version Well gently caress, this ain't the WoW bitching thread  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
I have a four node ESX cluster running on NUCs using VSAN with 1TB of SSD cache and 8TB of capacity drives. Another ESX node for management and backup using VEEAM. Meraki POE switch, AP and gateway. The meraki stuff was free and the rest was paid for by the employer for home lab purposes, though it also runs plex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 04:07
|
|
