Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@JaredBusch said:
I have never claimed to be perfect. But acting all innocent here is certainly an inaccurate portrayal.
Absolutely - and I did see some of the thread - Scott and Dustin where their normal selves (I would have been too if I had posted). The problem with forums is a lack of emotional balance from ton, facial expressions, etc.
Take that piled on with millennials wanting to be coddled all the time, and we have an overly sensitive situation.
It does take an overly large amount of effort to write a post that while not being PC is also not potentially viewed as condescending or any other adjective you want to use.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I have never claimed to be perfect. But acting all innocent here is certainly an inaccurate portrayal.
I've never acted innocent here. Simply stating for those watching the topic that might be wondering why I'm not responding to the topic.
-
I took a few asshatty comments when I first came here, and then realized...Hey, nothing personal. I'm sure anyone here would have a drink after acting like an asshat. It's what we do.
-
This poor guy inherited a setup with a failed RAID 5 array and no working backup system. The array rebuilt but the filesystem had corrupted during the extended array failure. Whoever was there before him really set that company up well.
-
Ouch, that one is going to be rough. He's very lucky that he did not lose the entire array.
-
Okay, really? I think this is what is called being an "askhole". Guys comes in with zero knowledge of what to do and asks the community what RAID level to select. Everyone, literally every single person, gives the same advice: RAID 6 or RAID 10. Every person.
When he finally responds he has clearly not read one thing on the thread and just says thanks... installing RAID 5 now.
I looked through the thread, what he decided to do was never mentioned once. Not as a joke, not by someone who didn't know better, not as a warning... in no way was it possible that he was confused. He simply asked a question, ignored that people responded and did the dumbest possible thing. He is exactly Hyacinth Bucket asking Richard how his day was.
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1423518-raid-questions
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Okay, really? I think this is what is called being an "askhole". Guys comes in with zero knowledge of what to do and asks the community what RAID level to select. Everyone, literally every single person, gives the same advice: RAID 6 or RAID 10. Every person.
When he finally responds he has clearly not read one thing on the thread and just says thanks... installing RAID 5 now.
I looked through the thread, what he decided to do was never mentioned once. Not as a joke, not by someone who didn't know better, not as a warning... in no way was it possible that he was confused. He simply asked a question, ignored that people responded and did the dumbest possible thing. He is exactly Hyacinth Bucket asking Richard how his day was.
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1423518-raid-questions
You should have recommended RAID 0 and told him to hot swap after his data was copied over.
-
-
@nadnerB said:
I've been known to ask people what they'd do, just to eliminate that option. Thankfully I don't have anyone handy for that sort of thing where I'm working now.
-
Saw one today... guy appears to have had a Dell salesman do the system design. Ended up spending $22,000 to get an IPOD that was super fragile and was a full 3-2-1, because it was a SAN not a DAS IPOD! And they sold VMware licensing on top of it. So the total cost of $22K provided a system that did less than they could have done for $3K. $19K of lost money on that one sale.
-
-
I don't feel bad in the least..
"We had a user infected with the locky virus and now its spread to the shares on the fileserver.
Anyone encountered this before on a server side and what did you do to fix? We have backups the only problem this a physical server which is our only DC, WSUS, Exchanged DB, Sharepoint etc."
Single server running physically that is hosting DC services, WSUS, Exchange, Sharepoint and more....
I do not feel bad in the least.
-
@DustinB3403 said
Single server running physically that is hosting DC services, WSUS, Exchange, Sharepoint and more....
Not unheard of in the SOHO/SMB space.
Sometimes best practice for a particular situation is different than the industry standard best practice.
As a reference, my decision, with a lot of ML input, to only run one DC in my smallish environment.
-
@BRRABill My issue isn't the single DC.
My issue is it's running physically, it cost nothing to virtualize.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I don't feel bad in the least..
"We had a user infected with the locky virus and now its spread to the shares on the fileserver.
Anyone encountered this before on a server side and what did you do to fix? We have backups the only problem this a physical server which is our only DC, WSUS, Exchanged DB, Sharepoint etc."
Single server running physically that is hosting DC services, WSUS, Exchange, Sharepoint and more....
I do not feel bad in the least.
Not even clicking through, but I would assume it is an old SBS server. The SMB was not doing virtualization in 2008 as a general rule. Yes some few businesses were, but not most SMB.
They should have just said SBS and not listed the components.
-
"only problem this a physical server which is our only DC, WSUS, Exchanged DB, Sharepoint etc."
Why is that a problem? Why can't they just restore the encyrpted folders, and leave everything else as is?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
My issue is it's running physically, it cost nothing to virtualize.
It costs them time to swing it over from physical to virtual. Time is always a cost.
-
@Breffni-Potter It cost substantially less time to virtualize "yesterday" then it does to restore physically today.
The cost in time is so trivial that it shouldn't even be a question.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Breffni-Potter It cost substantially less time to virtualize "yesterday" then it does to restore physically today.
The cost in time is so trivial that it shouldn't even be a question.
It depends on if they have IT staff, and how much data we are talking.
-
@BRRABill said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Breffni-Potter It cost substantially less time to virtualize "yesterday" then it does to restore physically today.
The cost in time is so trivial that it shouldn't even be a question.
It depends on if they have IT staff, and how much data we are talking.
No it doesn't. If you don't have IT available, then hire someone. The amount of data simply adds time to convert. But that time to convert is often times far less to revert / restore a VM than it is to restore physical systems.
