XO was designed by @olivier on Debian. If you want to build your own installer for it on CentOS you'll have to check their site for the "from the sources" and follow the instructions there.

You're on your own from this point on though.

@scottalanmiller

Why would you want to reduce cost, and implement Hyper-V and UEB?

Why not XenServer and Xen Orchestra for the Hypervisor?

I've seen far more smaller partitions (2TB and under) shared out than I've seen massive (+2TB) shares configured and setup. .

The burden to provide examples isn't on me, but on you @scottalanmiller.

@scottalanmiller I'm just trying to think of a scenario where you need to have a larger than 2TB partition for file services. (I haven't seen any in my experience - don't take that as me saying they don't exist).

Which if you need a larger partition, the current solution is external storage to the Hypervisor (yes it sucks for all of the reasons mentioned and going through your head).

The only cases that I could imagine this as being used would be if you wanted to attach an device to a VM for backup purposes, which then get pushed off. Massive "localish" storage for the VM to quickly replicate from the proper shares to the iSCSI device.

@Jason We already have GPO's configured for permissions.

IT making a custom GPO that over rides the existing GP's for just this 1 user is insane. That is bad IT.

This is what I have for Exchange Service health report.

And don't get me wrong, there are obviously cases that can be made where you don't follow best practice, but if these IT professionals are designing systems, and spending this kind of money, you'd hope that they would have some clue as to how to configure the hardware once it is in their possession.

I even understand asking to confirm what they've already "designed" but in these two post alone this wasn't a request for confirmation, but a request for someone to design the system for them.

To tell them how to do their job.

Is it just me or what the heck?

@NETS What did each IPOD have for components?

Their website is likely the best place to start.

@axigen said:

@DustinB3403 said:

@axigen Any response to @Breffni-Potter?

@Breffni-Potter said:

I saw this because Service Providers was tagged.

https://www.axigen.com/mail-server/isp/hosted/

How much for this per mailbox?

I would more than gladly provide details about this offer but I would kindly ask, whoever is interested to write to us at i dot sales at axigen dot com and give us some details on the number of accounts. This program is dedicated to large

[moderated for just plain being rude]

But you're literally providing a door for which hackers can easily attempt to enter, with minimal effort.

@Danp said:

Would be good if the install script is updated to auto-install this package.

But you may not want to use NFS on your XO server. . . .

Maybe you use it just to manage the VM's but no do backups.... so um, no.

So @JaredBusch are you looking for alternatives, and what products if any?

@WingCreative said:

I've seen what happens in SMB when you need consistent, pricey license renewals to keep things updated - oftentimes, things will just stop getting updated after a while.

I also think people choose the "premium name-brand option" when they don't know much about the options available, but know they will need to depend on whatever they use.

Some people are also just much more susceptible to advertising, which VMWare has more of a budget for.

Lastly there's good ol' cognitive dissonance... Same reason why people think it's reasonable to recommend Meraki gear over Ubiquiti for SMB. If you've been using a hammer that has a $500/year price tag for 5+ years, your brain isn't going to like the idea that you could have been using a regular hammer the entire time and will start justifying why regular hammers can't be trusted to put nails into walls. See: Monster cables.

^ This.

Portable VM's

There is no defense of VMWare that is practical, none. As a solution, when the hypervisor is free from every other competitor, the only rational response is that the pricing model is there because their foot is in the door at some many businesses that they can charge it.

So the same people who are stuck with VMWare promote it as this wonderful product that isn't bad. Which it may very well be a good Hypervisor.

But paying for the hypervisor is insanity, when you can get every other hypervisor for free.

Sure you have the option to pay for support with the others, but only with VMWare does support include system patches and upgrade rights.

Where as with the others, completely free of charge. It's a different pricing model.

Even with VMWare you still often need a separate tool for backup functionality like Veeam or Unitrends.

Marked down for the wittism.

Are we honestly looking at a system with a 200GB RAID for this?