For logistics, I would also place scheduled tasks that I created in their own task folder. Just like Microsoft and others have.
That way I know the tasks in there is not generated by something else.
One could also fix the description to say the source of the task. I get the appeal of placing them in their own folder nested somewhere in that mess, but it's so much easier to deal with them in the top level directory.
I guess you could fix the name. But it's mostly misbehaving apps that put tasks in the top level directory. I mean Microsoft added the folder structure for task organization. It wasn't there in the old days.
As for the OP's error? No clue - but the person who asked if he actually had AD setup or not - that's a great starting place.
Has the OP looked at all of the prerequisites and ensured they are all in place before trying to install Exchange?
We're beyond that now. I answered his issue with why it happened, what happened, and how to fix it here.
Yeah but if he doesn't have AD set up, then he's gonna have a hard time despite running the setup.exe properly
I was addressing his error in his very first post. How far back do you go regarding prerequisites that has nothing to do with the error posted? I mean, should we verify he has an active network connection as well? The direct cause of the error is obvious, let's get past that first, and see what happens next. I mean, the whole point of the command is to extend the AD schema... if he doesn't have AD, then no guide will help him at this point, as it's also insanely clear in the guide he's following.
Ah yes, I see waht you're saying. I should have first asked him if his home has electricity. Then move on to Powershell. Yes.
For blades in general? It's hyperconverged infrastructure, hosting environments, container clusters etc. Basically everywhere you want to cram in as much as possible in the least amount of rack space.
I suppose - but damn - that seems like a HUGE amount of compute power next to low amount of storage. If that's the setup you need - again HUGE amount of compute and tiny storage, then it's probably just fine.
I know what you mean but it's not really that low. Consider that the server I linked to have 3.5" bays. So you can have 2 x 18TB (standard enterprise size in stock) per node or 288 TB of raw storage per 3U rack. A rack full of those will give you over 3 PB of disk or 1.5PB of SSDs (8TB ea).
There are other models too, some have 4 bays per node. So you have some options.
that storage ends up being soooo incredibly slow, the power of the CPUs seems like they would be wasted.
Now if all of the storage is hanging off a single or split between two/three nodes, then we start looking more like a Scale box, only way smaller.
I'd be worried about only having two power supplies in there too. that might be a folly on my part, but with that many drives/CPUs and only two PS's?
Today you don't need a lot of spindles in an array to get speed. Storage would be blazing fast with for example two NVMe drives per node.
8TB is readily available but you could get 16TB NVMe drives too.
yeah, NVMe would be fast... I made an assumption before looking more closely at your picture that it was limited to HDDs.
which today would just be stupid.. so my bad.
@travisdh1 You are exactly right. I didn't even think of that. I meant to turn that off but instead of turning off I had selected Show Icon Only, so it removed the text I was used to seeing but left the icon.