@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:

With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.

Should be more than the numbers. Sure it will lose a ton of money. But the far bigger deal is how it won't even work. The AD will work, just slowly. But the file server realistically just won't function. No one does this, ever, for a reason.

If what he was proposing was cheap or functional, everyone would do it. But absolutely no one does. It's not like everyone hasn't thought about it and realized it doesn't work. He is thinking that he can reinvent the wheel, in a way that is so obvious yet he seems to think that everyone hasn't gone down this path already.

and that. Yeah, those 2 will be the dagger. I won't be spending my time with it...just a fraction on what service we can still use AWS for.

I do think that email server like Zimbra will be working great there though.

With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

Even in the US with fast fiber, accessing 6TB over the Internet with SMB is ridiculously slow. Having to do it over DSL from another country.... impossible.

His proposed solution is going to cost a fortune and it wont' even work.

Sort of. In anycase, you have been most helpful in opening my eyes. I can now concentrate on the Virtual Infrastructure I had proposed.

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:

He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.

How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?

Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.

Does that make AWS better or worse? If you had AWS and your ISP went down, your office would be offline but your road warriors would still be working. If you had on premises and the Internet went down, your office would keep working but the road warriors would be offline.

Told him that but he said that with multiple ISPs including wireless 4Gs, we can survive. If submarine cables are the culprit, then no business country-wide.

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:

He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.

How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?

Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

Now let's add a file server. Let's assume that you need 300GB of file server.

AWS will be $120/mo. That's $7200 in five years.

Now let's compare the on premises. We can probably get by with the $800 server that we already bought in the example above, but just to be insanely conservative let's spend another $800 to upgrade the hardware. We don't need another license as our last one has an unused VM allotment for us.

So in five years, this would cost a total of only the $800.

So between a tiny AD server and a really tiny file server, the on premises is $6800 cheaper over five years. And a sixth year would be SO dramatically cheaper.

And if you think AD on premises is faster than AWS, file servers don't work remotely well at all. You are easily looking at a file server that would be unusable on cloud and screaming fast on premises.

Thanks SAM, I would bring him the numbers then. 300GB is only 2 network folders. We are now reaching 6TB..hehehe.

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

If we had a bigger view of what you are trying to do, it would be far easier to throw numbers at you to work with. But I will show a simple example.

He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future. Another thing is that our (head)office will be for renovation and we will be transferring location and be back in a year or two.

What triggered his curiosity is that a vendor took him for a spin of an instance where it seemed cheaper...because of the instance and not through a monthly payment by users (like O365 and GApps). Though that instance is for application not DC / AD.

@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:

@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:

I'm also aware (not knowledgeable) of the Azure and Google Compute Platform but I wanted to focus this moment on AWS.

These are really the list of services you should be avoiding. AWS is "good", but expensive and offering you nothing. AWS will just be harder to use than services more aimed at hour needs, like Vultr.

Azure is terrible. Google I don't think handles your needs. AWS is not the "go to" solution for this, however. Your short list is not well suited to your needs.

@scottalanmiller Thanks! I know it might not be suited (and time consuming on my part...hehehe) but I have to come up with a study to present to our Director.

Hi guys,

This is just getting your opinions.

Our Director is asking me to check possibility of using AWS (perhaps Lightsail for easier billing) for our infrastructure. He said that it might help out in future-proofing our infra--just another option to an infra request I made which is focused on virtualization.

Several questions pops out of my mind:

• Will it be possible to spin-up Microsoft DC and have clients connect to it?

• Another thing will be security, how will we limit that only certain locations (IPs) or road-warrior units will be able to connect to it? Same question but this time on Windows file server instance.

• Will it be easy to make it redundant to another region. Not a requirement but may be an option for business continuity should a region be unreacheable.

• is it right that Windows server licenses including CALs are also included in the pricing.

• still torn if to migrate our AD (where it is still 2008..and still on the .local) or create a new one. How to go about these steps.

Note that I am new to this and have no idea on what service to subscribe to. I may have missed something but I know you guys will point me to the right direction. I may be able to do some testing personally but creditcard is what I do not have...at the moment.

I'm also aware (not knowledgeable) of the Azure and Google Compute Platform but I wanted to focus this moment on AWS.

Thanks and regards,

VhinzSanchez

Thanks SAM, we are accepting the fact that the encryption will not be done at this moment.

Regards,

VhinzSanchez

@scottalanmiller I think you nailed it. I was researching more. I think it is "InstantGo."

In cmd prompt, typing "powercfg /a" does not include "Standby (Connected)" value but rather "Standby (S0 Low Power Idle) Network Connected"

The device was perhaps encrypted before so it should have been supported.

Do you have any idea on how to re-enable it?

Thanks in advance!

@scottalanmiller said in Re-Enable BitLocker on Windows 10 Home:

It was my understanding that Bitlocker was one of the upgrade features of Windows 10 Pro. So in the Home edition, it would be impossible to enable BitLocker, as BitLocker is not present.

Thanks for the response. But this unit has been purchased and have Windows 10 Home installed, so it might be from factory settings. I have not been able to grab a screenshot but it is similar to

@scottalanmiller said in Re-Enable BitLocker on Windows 10 Home:

The most likely thing is that something else was used and it was misidentified as being BitLocker.

I doubt it as I turned it off in System > About and near the bottom of the section. The problem is, I can not undo it.

Hi,

I would like to seek assistance in re-enabling BitLocker on a Lenovo Yoga with Windows 10 Home. I have already posted this to other forums but still pending approval and the other from MS still has no answer.

A bit of history. The laptop was purchased with Windows 10 Home. I would need to re-partition the drive (SSD) to the owner's request of 200GB for System and the the rest for data drive. Using disk management, I can only shrink the system drive to over 400GB (I would need it to be 200GB) due to unmovable files. Both drives C and D drives has been identified by disk manager as BitLocker Encrypted.

Using the Disk Manager, I was able to shrink the partition to over 400GB but I would need more so I reverted it back, no problem there. I have tried to disable the hibernation, paging files and system protection, reboot then defrag. Still can not make it to work. Re-enabled the the services reverting it to default values.

Now, I have used AOMEI Partition Assistant Standard to do the partitioning for me. However, upon running it, the Resize feature is disabled even after a restart. I remembered that the drive is BitLocker protected and disabled it.

Now that the system is running happily, I would want to revert back and re-enable the drive encryption. However, I can not find the settings to do it. Additionally, I have read in multiple sources online that BitLocker is not available in Home edition. How come that from factory settings, it was enabled by default so I'm pretty sure that I can re-enable it, thus I am seeking your assistance on this.

Thank you in advance!

Regards,

VhinzSanchez

Hi all,

For an IT, I never really get the grasp of containers, much more its usefulness whereas there's virtual machines.

I know its just me and it is useful for others, just saying that I don't know anything about containers/Docker.

Just chimed in, perhaps someone can give me a light on this (I know its great, useful for others but any usefulness is beyond me).

@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:

designer bandaid with puppy designs on it, then you can wear it anytime.

:smiling_face_with_open_mouth_smiling_eyes:

Thanks everyone! I know now on what I should do to my file server.

Great day ahead!

@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:

I'd word that differently. more like...
Possibly good to have, but not normally. Generally isn't terrible, but rarely worth it.

Thanks, will keep that in mind.

@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:

She didn't learn much from IBM. We definitely didn't turn to sales people when we needed to determine how to do things. That's totally the opposite of what IBM was like when I was there. We knew the tech, and only used what was needed.
Maybe that's why she's not there any longer.

She's more on Financial dept rather than Operational from what I heard.

I think the original questions has been answered. Thanks a lot guys, but if you still have any ideas or would like to chime in, pls. do so.

Will still continue to use:

• Roaming Profiles
• Folder Redirection

More research if suitable:

• Offline Files - mostly suitable as we have been doing it -- proceed with caution?
• Access-Based Enumeration - good feature, have not heard of anything negative...yet
• Data Deduplication - Good to have, no problems here but others have horror stories -- test and proceed with caution.

good to have but on a single file server, doesn't make any sense

• DFS-Namespace
• DFS-Replication

Do not do it! Not enterprise ready or is inferior to VMWare VSAN:

• Storage Spaces
• Storage Spaces Direct

@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:

If he really wants security, maybe moving away from SMB shares would be ideal Not that SMB can't be secured, but it is harder to lock down than more modern approaches.

Its the way things are...I approached my direct boss and opened up DMS but she said she knows DMS and it is just an unnecessary cost/process (something as not just worth it) as we already have a working solution. If she sees that it may save atleast 35% of the process it will be worth investing into, but on her experience (she worked with IBM for quite some time and, as I can tell, she has been up that corporate ladder but am unsure how far--gaining experience, before leaving to take on our company). That's how we got in touch with VMWare, she directly contacted one of the regional heads and to schedule a meeting/presentation.