@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.:
@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.:
@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.
@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.
@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 So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
If I understand you correctly, the customer was told by support that they wouldn't support it and that the server would lose data or completely crash.
@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 I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
The simple fact that it's horrible software with horrible support is WHY we deal with it. It's a great opportunity for us to provide better support than the company itself can.
We have suggested our clients move to a better platform (Vetastic.com) for example. But at the end of the day, if clients call in and want I.T. support, we aren't going to just tell them no. That makes 0 sense whatsoever.
@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.:
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So the tech said something inaccurate, so what? That happens just about everyday in every company on earth.
What makes it inaccurate? This is their official support channel's word on the matter. Accuracy is determined by what the tech says and nothing else (until overridden by a higher tech.) So as it stands, this is the truth of the matter.
And this is far more than just a simple mistake by a tech. It's more than a faux paus.
He is explicitly saying the company doesn't support virtual servers and referencing their hardware requirements (which are set by the company.) Of course he is wrong, but is it up to the consumer to train their techs?
@Pete-S said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So the tech said something inaccurate, so what? That happens just about everyday in every company on earth.
BTW, the title on the thread is misleading. AVImark didn't state anything.
Fair enough, I'll edit. But this is what the company MUST expect given the level of techs they employ.
@jmoore said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
So why do vendors like these not want their applications virtualized?
In this case it can be. But the complete incompetence of their software support just reinforces how out of touch they are with the 35+ year old technology they offer.
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
Also worth noting, the tech wasn't told that the system was virtual, he was told it was accessed remotely and he applied "remote" as "virtual". So the tech wasn't responding to anything being virtual, at all.
I'm not sure what the tech was told. Client may have mentioned it. It may have been given to them as a reason why she had to remote into it vs. being on the server.
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@CCWTech Sounds like what Quickbooks likes to pull on people and yet RightNetworks is their default Cloud Enterprise Quickbooks Hosting company and guess what, it is all virtualized!
Yep, except QB is doing it to generate revenue. In this case it's complete and total incompetence.
What's also interesting to note is that I set up the server mentioned in this post. I am a hired consultant for Covetrus, the company who owns AVImark. They have hired me on several occasions where they couldn't fix issues with a clients hardware/network and needed my help.
AVImark has been discussed here before, but some may not know - AVImark is a Veterinary Software that was developed back in the 80's and hasn't changed much. It is a flat file database and is the #1 used software by veterinary clinics in the world.
From a client this morning. I'm not sure if I should laugh
"Hey Allen,
So far everything with the updated AVImark seems to be working fine, but
we did run into a little issue with one of the features of the updated
version. We used to be able to go into an existing reminder and change
the amount of months before it reminds again, and now you can't. Not
being allowed to to do this has forced us to make a new code for
distemper vaccines and in addition, a new reminder. AVImark logged in
and set up the new reminder, but then said they needed to do a global
apply which takes several hours and required access to the server.
When he found out that we have a virtual server he told me virtual
servers are NOT recommended with AVImark and that he could run the
global apply but there was a 40-50% change that we could lose the entire
server if something goes wrong. Because I am new to the virtual server I
confirmed that he knew we had a physical server in the hospital and that
we just access it by remote access. He said he understood and that yes
that was they type of virtual server he was referring to in regards to
not being recommended by AVImark.
I mentioned this was news to me and that we just did an entire new
install of AVImark and it was never mentioned that having a virtual
server would be an issue with AVImark. Of course his replay was he
doesn't know why they wouldn't have mentioned that, but it says right in
their hardware requirements that virtual servers are not recommended.
So, long story short I am bugging you again to get your thoughts on this
whole thing. It sounds a little silly to me, but my knowledge of virtual
servers is minimal at best. When he mentioned we could lose the whole
server I thought it best to get you involved."
So we all know that the tech is full of crap, but it's sad the tech didn't even take the time to read their hardware requirements.
I have tried several call recording apps on my Android. So far the volume on the remote end is very low making the recording almost unusable.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a decent call recorder for Android?
(Yes, it's legal to record calls in my state)
@brianwinkelmann said in Troubleshooting Hard Drives - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer:
Very interesting, I remember I've heard that sometimes to fix a hard drive that is damaged you can put it inside of a freezer with bags of course and it can be fixed, is that true or is a myth or a lie? Sorry about foolish question. xD
Not a foolish question Brian. We have some customers who have done it. The drives (other than the brand new high capacity helium drives) are not air tight. They have a filter. So moisture can get it and start to corrode the platters.
If it has been in the freezer, we have to charge extra as it has to be cleaned with a special cleaning solvent that is about $400-500 per gallon.
Also it can cause a drive that may have been a logical or a physical non invasive recovery instantly into a clean room job (the most expensive option). So it's best to do nothing to fix it. Bring it to a quality data recovery company (like mine!) and they will have the best chance of recovering the data.
@gjacobse said in New user in Raspberry Pi - Raspberry Pi OS has no programs:
@scottalanmiller said in New user in Raspberry Pi - Raspberry Pi OS has no programs:
@gjacobse said in New user in Raspberry Pi - Raspberry Pi OS has no programs:
Just for reference (mine) what are you using the rPi for? I have two rPi 3b+ and 1 rPi Zero running currently;
- rPi 3b+ running Diet-Pi hosting APCups, CUPS, and Unifi Controller
- rPi 3b+ running Raspbian for HamRadio activies (using Build-A-Pi found on YouTube)
- rPi Zero - DMR radio hotspot (transceiver to internet gateway)
Still could use one or two more
Desktops
I would go with the rPi 4 as a desktop... bit more power and more memory..
Model we are using: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07W3MD2RR/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
@gjacobse said in New user in Raspberry Pi - Raspberry Pi OS has no programs:
Just for reference (mine) what are you using the rPi for? I have two rPi 3b+ and 1 rPi Zero running currently;
- rPi 3b+ running Diet-Pi hosting APCups, CUPS, and Unifi Controller
- rPi 3b+ running Raspbian for HamRadio activies (using Build-A-Pi found on YouTube)
- rPi Zero - DMR radio hotspot (transceiver to internet gateway)
Still could use one or two more
Client is using a cloud based RMS so no need to spend a ton of money on a Windows PC (or even a Linux PC)
I deleted and re-created the user. All programs are visible and everything is working. However nothing remarkable here:
@CCWTech said in New user in Raspberry Pi - Raspberry Pi OS has no programs:
@scottalanmiller said in New user in Raspberry Pi - Raspberry Pi OS has no programs:
grep newuser /etc/group
Let me delete the user and see if it creates normally. Then see what the differences are.
