@scottalanmiller I know. I always prefer postgres when available. but there is a chicken-egg problem: small companies buy software from small devel companies which - for whatever reason I don't know- develop only in .NET with MS SQL.
there is a claer trend here in Italy. Therefore you have to bump the specs for the oversized framework.
Same experience. 99% ERP for SMB are made with MS SQL. Usually they are pretty crap. Some stuff from walter kluwers is getting better, though.
I'm still confused about the terminology. Please, can you confirm and/or fix my interpretation?
critical: not a security fix, but something seriously broken is fixed here.
security: a security fix, something seriously broken is fixed here and a security hole is closed.
cumulative: just use this if you have missed a lot of stuff and you have a long queue updates otherwise. Download this bulk huge fatty thing and align with upstream.
all other types... really too many types here, do they really worth?
Now the second question.
Having an hyperv server 2016 should I need to install critical fixes? I mean: if I do not notice any misfunction should I patch? to me it is right to patch as you never know when a critical bug will hit your usage.
Also, as a general rule I patch manually and I always require recommended updates only. Then I choose what to install.
I do at least Critical, security, and definition updates to all servers, hypervisors included.
For Windows10 desktops, I do everything.
Yeah I've been hearing a lot on this GDPR stuff luckily I'm not involved and others in the dept are lol.
But what logs would they need you to collect and store? We don't do this at the moment but if required would like to start looking at solutions. So I'm prepared for the "can you do this and get it installed" lol
Bah. Here in italy they are stressing a lot the access control. And they want centralized lig inspection to check for logins (not necessarily a valid point from a tech perspective but they ask for)
Every file will be visible when you move to the next steps. Not just the files saved in the last backup. it will make it very obvious when the file was last saved.
it makes obvious AFTER your have opened the given backup not before. Here is where the iteration comes from. having a list of changes would reduce the number of iterations. but given the CBT mechanism in veeam I suppose I can't also have a CFT (changed file tracking).
Looks likely that the deprecation is politically, rather than technologically, motivated.
I would say commercial. They always try to avoid nih so they are stronger in knowledge and can sell support more easily
I would only agree here if they were not developing their own in house product. This is very much like the Xen / KVM situation a decade ago.
sorry bad wording of mine. I meant that they always try to not sell NIH stuff because having an internal product always gives them more knowledge an therefore competitive advantage at consultancy level. No one is more expert in a product then the author of the product.
My view of RH has always been the same: If they can escalade in a community and have employees inside a community with relevant contributions they can reach adequate knowledge, but if someone else is better positioned in the community, they tend to lag knowledge and very often switch on another product.
I've seen this as an explanation for Xen/KVM, now this seems the same with FS, and other times they did the same.
This is not bad or good it is just the market.That's understandable to me.
ESXi free is limited, 8 vcpu per VM and that limit can be easily reached limit.
It's easily reached if you starve a VM of IOPS or RAM and it's spinning cycles waiting on IO. In reality VERY few things need 8 vCPU. I've seen The ONLY exchange server for 5000 users not need that many resources.
Given modern Skylake hardware, and 4Ghz Intel Xeon Cores's if your hitting the 8vCPU limit I'm REALLY curious why your not willing to spend the one time ~$200 per host that is the Essentials bundle to get some more features is a rounding error in your budget (it's like less than a $1 a day per host).
Keep in mind it is not per hosts, but ~$600 per three hosts, so for much of the SMB that's either $300 or $600 per host and makes things like future upgrades potentially a problem. And $600 per host is enormous for the SMB market. Absolutely staggering. Given that 90% of the market can't even cost justify a server, let alone a server with that much additional licensing.
On a single host, how much value is that $600 getting an SMB versus getting free, unlimited use virtualization with $600 of faster hardware? When we are talking a $3,000 server, an extra $600 is anything but trivial.
The "only $200 per host" is really "holy crap, $200 per host with a minimum of three!!" That's not at all a small number, not in the SMB market. And especially not in an SMB market outside of the US.
If it was just printers I wouldn't think twice about just using some APs in bridged mode. For PCs I would make sure their (the users) expectations are set correctly and make sure you don't have a some database application that is real sensitive to latency running on the link. As cheap as it is to try, I would try it for one set up and then do the rest if it meets their expectations.
Depending on the units, you can get really good latency on wireless links. but you need good ones. Some people argue that it beats wired. it doesn't, but it's good enough that people start to imagine that it does.
HW wise, the main argument for synology over buffalo here in Italy is if you use a NAS as a primary file server: no Terastation 5000 has redundant powersupply, nor easy maintainance is allowed on site. If power suppl. blows: byebye data, you are KO for a couple of days.
synology is really well engineered. I'm thinking specifically at TS5400r vs rs815rp+
(also buffalo do not provides units populated with 8TB disks (not yet... hell 8TB in a single disk, brrr))
@TeleFox we have a quite old (few years) PBX which has been used in the years adding new and new phone lines with the company expansion. last batch of additions was 6 months ago: 5 new seats with new phones and headsets. PBX is Aastra with proprietary digital phones.
the company bought a new erp last december, against my advice they also buyed a generic "VoIP-ERP integration package". we are now implementing the ERP and the sysadmin at the ERP consulting firm pointed out to me that the package actually is a proprietary VoIP PBX based on asterisk.
the solution involves something around 10 or 15 people (depending on the layout of the customer care dept), company has somethin like 40 phones bwteen DECT and digital deskphones.
so we can:
throw away the new asterisk PBX (wasted 4k€), sorry 15 people
throw away current Aastra PBX , redoing a lot of cabling and rebuying the entire equipement for 40 between wirede and DECT phones
try to integrate the 2, especially considering than it is right to isolate the ERP asterisk thing as you would not to depend on an erp for your phone system (ok, redo VoIP wiring and equipement if you want but choose a different strategy!)
now both current PBX managing firm and the carrier have found a number potential solutions (basically a sip trunk between the 2 PBXes).