AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
So many companies hide behind this, where you have to call in, hold for 20-30 minutes get a crappy tech and then rinse and repeat.
This proves that companies KNOW they are giving out bad information but don't care. Or, don't care to a degree that they even care to know if that is happening.
In that case, the company has to 'own' what the techs are telling clients. There is no plausible deniability that it was just one tech that messed up.
This is seemingly the root of it. AviMark - are customers calling and getting to management and complaining that techs are telling them (the customer) information that contradicts their own published statements, AND management is not doing anything about it?
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@jmoore said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
If Scott asked me to go look at a situation here in my local area on behalf of NTG, for that time I consider myself a representative and part of NTG during that time. So anything I say or recommend would be the same as if someone drove down here from NTG and assessed the situation. That's how I would look at it.
And, of course, if you said something wrong like "Oh no, you use Windows, NTG doesn't support that", and we just left that as it was (having learned about it), that's establishing that that is official. But if we correct it "Oh sorry, he was mistaken, we don't ONLY support Windows is what he meant, of course we support Windows", then that's fine. People make mistakes, there's a way to correct mistakes. But once you hire someone to be your official representative, and you have nothing else to countermand that, it's as official as it can be.
Holy cow - now there's some spin for ya... of course it's all completely accurate, but it keeps it looking like he simply made a word choice mistake, instead of the actual rather huge mistake that he did make. More of a saving face move...
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
This is a tough one, because there are two parts. One is that the tech said something wrong about the support. And the second they flat out lied out risks.
Escalating can be done by the customer, but the customer doesn't have the knowledge or resources to do so easily. Especially when faced with totally falsified facts coming from the only person who , in theory, is supposed to actually know. Any escalation means more than asking for verification, but calling out someone as a liar.
Right - so if the customer doesn't know - how is management ever supposed to find out to fix the problem?
This whole thread wouldn't exist if not for the OP's involvement in the project, and he KNOWS the tech is wrong - and hopefully, on behalf of his client - he will call management at the vendor and inform them of the mistakes of their tech. Now - the question is who pays for that time? His client? himself/his company? In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
-
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@CCWTech said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
So many companies hide behind this, where you have to call in, hold for 20-30 minutes get a crappy tech and then rinse and repeat.
This proves that companies KNOW they are giving out bad information but don't care. Or, don't care to a degree that they even care to know if that is happening.
In that case, the company has to 'own' what the techs are telling clients. There is no plausible deniability that it was just one tech that messed up.
This is seemingly the root of it. AviMark - are customers calling and getting to management and complaining that techs are telling them (the customer) information that contradicts their own published statements, AND management is not doing anything about it?
No way to get to actual management. Tech support is the face of the company. You can talk to a low level supervisor but that's it.
-
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
This is a tough one, because there are two parts. One is that the tech said something wrong about the support. And the second they flat out lied out risks.
Escalating can be done by the customer, but the customer doesn't have the knowledge or resources to do so easily. Especially when faced with totally falsified facts coming from the only person who , in theory, is supposed to actually know. Any escalation means more than asking for verification, but calling out someone as a liar.
Right - so if the customer doesn't know - how is management ever supposed to find out to fix the problem?
This whole thread wouldn't exist if not for the OP's involvement in the project, and he KNOWS the tech is wrong - and hopefully, on behalf of his client - he will call management at the vendor and inform them of the mistakes of their tech. Now - the question is who pays for that time? His client? himself/his company? In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
When a client chooses to use this software, they are essentially choosing the poor support and higher costs. There are no illusions of this being a modern well written software.
-
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
There is a problem here, though. That's that if the offending company doesn't care, then anyone paying or putting in time to deal with this, is just losing money. Donating their time and money to a company that throws it away. It's not the customer's job to try to cajole a vendor into caring. Sure, it's a great theory, but we deal with the same vendor(s) day in, day out that get told that they have these problems and don't care no matter how high it goes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
There is a problem here, though. That's that if the offending company doesn't care, then anyone paying or putting in time to deal with this, is just losing money. Donating their time and money to a company that throws it away. It's not the customer's job to try to cajole a vendor into caring. Sure, it's a great theory, but we deal with the same vendor(s) day in, day out that get told that they have these problems and don't care no matter how high it goes.
I suppose you argue that the company doesn't care because they have crappy old software. But how is a vet supposed to know that? I suppose your answer is - well, if they are running a business - they hire IT to find the correct solution. But this assume they found good IT.
-
@Dashrender actually it would mean someone made business technical decisions.
-
@DustinB3403 said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Dashrender actually it would mean someone made business technical decisions.
Exactly. We would never recommend using AVImark. Hence the earlier suggestion of more modern software like Vetastic.
-
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
There is a problem here, though. That's that if the offending company doesn't care, then anyone paying or putting in time to deal with this, is just losing money. Donating their time and money to a company that throws it away. It's not the customer's job to try to cajole a vendor into caring. Sure, it's a great theory, but we deal with the same vendor(s) day in, day out that get told that they have these problems and don't care no matter how high it goes.
I suppose you argue that the company doesn't care because they have crappy old software. But how is a vet supposed to know that? I suppose your answer is - well, if they are running a business - they hire IT to find the correct solution. But this assume they found good IT.
Correct. You don't know what your dog needs to make it well till you talk to a vet. You don't know good IT till you have an IT pro help you. It's really not hard and doesn't ever require special knowledge, it's all common sense and high school level business basics.
Imagine if we were talking about needing a doctor, lawyer, or accountant. Why would IT be treated differently?
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@Dashrender said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
In order to make the world a better place, it needs to be done, so the offending company has at least a chance to become better because they become aware of a problem, but I also see it as who takes it on the chin time/money wise to inform them?
There is a problem here, though. That's that if the offending company doesn't care, then anyone paying or putting in time to deal with this, is just losing money. Donating their time and money to a company that throws it away. It's not the customer's job to try to cajole a vendor into caring. Sure, it's a great theory, but we deal with the same vendor(s) day in, day out that get told that they have these problems and don't care no matter how high it goes.
I suppose you argue that the company doesn't care because they have crappy old software. But how is a vet supposed to know that? I suppose your answer is - well, if they are running a business - they hire IT to find the correct solution. But this assume they found good IT.
Correct. You don't know what your dog needs to make it well till you talk to a vet. You don't know good IT till you have an IT pro help you. It's really not hard and doesn't ever require special knowledge, it's all common sense and high school level business basics.
Imagine if we were talking about needing a doctor, lawyer, or accountant. Why would IT be treated differently?
Great question - to which I have no answer. Several of those pros feel they can just take care of their own IT buying, and never consult a professional.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
and we just left that as it was (having learned about it), that's establishing that that is official.
Bolded bit is the thing you are glossing over.
This entire thing is a rant by @CCWTech
No where in here is there proof that anyone, above the support tech at the vendor, has been made aware of anything.
At this point there is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim by @CCWTech the vendor knows what the support tech said. Yes, absolutely, if it is known and not corrected, this would be shit, but no one, in this thread, knows this.
Is this a shit ass vendor with a bad product? Maybe, hell probably even. But I won't take the word of anyone the just comes on here and rants without any proof.
