Use Veeam Agent for Windows. Entirely free.
Easy. Works time after time.
IMO - if the systems built to the specification needed for what will be ran, then virtualisation cannot be a performance issue. If its a system you already have, without specification for a specific workload, then its possibly going to be a performance issue - only because it wasn't built to spec.
Another reason to not virtualise is old unsupported systems. Or, ones where you require vendor support (by the software makers) who will not support their stuff running on VMs. (In which case you should move away from them - but sometimes that's not possible).
@scottalanmiller said in Feedback on Resume:
Normal business does this....
Director -> Managing Director -> AVP -> VP -> SVP -> EVP -> P -> CEO
But finance does this...
AVP -> VP -> SVP -> EVP -> Director -> Managing Director -> P -> CEO
What do you think on entirely removing job titles from resume? Only putting organisation, and achievement's?
@dashrender said in Feedback on Resume:
Where does a Director fall in comparison to an Executive?
Considering I clearly have never experienced the levels of management that Scott has, I have only ever seen directors report to executives, so a director could never fire one, they are lower than executives.
But according to Scott's comments, when he was a director, he was over the top of executives.. so I'm wondering what is the fortune 500 management chain look like from the lowest employee to the CEO/board.
I think it depends on the company. Its all bollocks anyway. Our sales people here have a job title of 'Business Executive'... pfft. Nope, they are 'Salesperson'. Why they cant be called that I don't know. Nothing wrong with it, its what they do. They sell. but the business card... yep... 'Executive'.
Is it reasonable to remove job title from a resume? Just company, tenure and what you achieved...
If I were ever 'IT Director' or something, i'd expect to have lots of remote 'IT Managers' reporting to me worldwide, each with a team of Techies under them... If I were ever called that, but only a sysadmin... yep, i'd lie and call myself sysadmin on resume... otherwise its a lie.
@scottalanmiller said in Feedback on Resume:
@wirestyle22 said in Feedback on Resume:
@scottalanmiller said in Feedback on Resume:
So let me ask you, as director, did you have hundreds or reports? Could you fire any non-executive in the company yourself, without needing approvals from anyone? If not, you'd better not use that term anywhere.
That means there were only 2 directors and everyone else was a manager, which i guess is accurate.
Were they really directors? Even outside of IT it is rare to have a director in the SMB. Most SMBs are smaller than a single department size.
Yep. Seen this often.
I've seen places with multiple directors, and all of them were not directors. No larger than only 20 people in size. One 'Sales Director', who had the actual sales people report straight to them... Not lots of regional sales managers reporting to them... but the actual sale staff. The cold callers... they are not director.
Its just like 'IT Director' - actually no, you just replace the toner and check the server has a green light.
See it so often.
@eddiejennings said in Domaing Joining Windows Servers:
@tim_g said in Domaing Joining Windows Servers:
Seems odd you'd have the least secure systems on the domain, the client computers... and not have the most secure systems on the domain, the servers. With your DC and hypervisor being on the domain, how many times have those been compromised? Do you not update your servers? Do they all have internet access
- To my knowledge they haven't been.
- No. All servers receive Windows updates.
- Yes.
And I agree, this is odd. This, and so many other things, are being fixed one bite at a time.
Set your firewall to drop outbound traffic from servers that don't need Internet access. Point those servers to a local WSUS server for updates. Allow the WSUS server to get out to Internet. You can set local policy and point servers to WSUS, if they aren't domain joined. That way, servers can be updated but lower attack vector as they cannot get online.
Are you able to give friends in the app access to your current heart rate?
Hi folks,
I purchased one on the weekend; this has been the first time in years that I've started to pay attention to my health.
Already seeing value with the spend and thought it would be good to add some 'friends' to compete on the app...
You are able to do things like challenges, and who does the number of steps. Little things, but makes the whole time using the device slightly more interesting.
I already know I have a lot of work to do, at 5ft 4", and 221 lbs, all fat... that much is obvious. What I didn't know was my resting pulse is in the 90s! Time to get healthy!
Who here has a Fitbit and what is your handle? Feel free to PM me so its not public etc 
Best,
Jim
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
This is decent logic and in a vacuum makes total sense. In a programming one, though, it does not. This is actually the reason that you'd fire them immediately because it suggests that they are super slow programmers that are not going to be able to execute quickly. For exactly the reason of fearing delays is why you would not follow this path.
I will never know the reasons. Any discussions can only be guesses here.
All I know for sure here is that i'm happy with HA that has been accomplished within my remit, all without the cost of VMWare.
I agree, it sounds like given your incredible constraints that this is a good solution for you. It might be worth looking at other free hypervisors and maybe going for platform HA there, as well, but not likely.
If it means learning something new, its always a good thing in my book.
Good for you, not always a good business decision
Yep agree. Ha.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
This is decent logic and in a vacuum makes total sense. In a programming one, though, it does not. This is actually the reason that you'd fire them immediately because it suggests that they are super slow programmers that are not going to be able to execute quickly. For exactly the reason of fearing delays is why you would not follow this path.
I will never know the reasons. Any discussions can only be guesses here.
All I know for sure here is that i'm happy with HA that has been accomplished within my remit, all without the cost of VMWare.
I agree, it sounds like given your incredible constraints that this is a good solution for you. It might be worth looking at other free hypervisors and maybe going for platform HA there, as well, but not likely.
If it means learning something new, its always a good thing in my book.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
This is decent logic and in a vacuum makes total sense. In a programming one, though, it does not. This is actually the reason that you'd fire them immediately because it suggests that they are super slow programmers that are not going to be able to execute quickly. For exactly the reason of fearing delays is why you would not follow this path.
I will never know the reasons. Any discussions can only be guesses here.
All I know for sure here is that i'm happy with HA that has been accomplished within my remit, all without the cost of VMWare.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
Personal preferences are a different thing to business. #reasons aren't things that can be considered by a public business or by someone paid to represent the interests of a business.
The preference of the devs was SQL server. The preference of the company is to keep the devs happy, and for whatever that price was, they get hard working happy devs. Yes, they could have equally got rid of them for other devs who want to use cheaper devs, but perhaps they don't just want to fire a team of people over a small cost increase when they are well above hitting their yearly financial targets. Not everywhere is cutthroat.
It's not about being cutthroat, that's what the devs were being. Any competent dev wouldn't care at all, as long as it was the right tech for the business. That they devs were not working towards the interests of the business seems like a really weird reason to placate them, right?
It's not about the HUGE cost that came with it, it's about the even bigger problems that it hides. Like support issues, cost of development, and so forth. Sure, this one cost might be close to $100,000 lost alone and maybe the owners really hate profits. But it's also slower development, harder to attract good talent in the future, devs that make a culture of not acting as part of the "team" and so forth.
Perhaps back when they started the developers they had were most competent with SQL Server. Its what they had experience with. Use what you know right? What if the time to hit the market was then, and any delay would stop you being first and capturing the market... you get them SQL Server. Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It is THEIR decision to make. But if this was a public company in the US and they actually did things as you describe, investors would have legal recourse because it's not just a bad decision, it's one made in such a described way as to have violated the trust of the investors.
I understand that we don't know who made the decision, when or why, so I can't say that this IS what happened here. But your description of them being happy losing money and that profits are not their goals and that they feel that good decisions don't mean doing what is best for the business are all violations of trust under US law. So not just bad, but unethical in that context.
They are getting the profit they want at the cost they want... its hitting their target and SQL Server was I guess still able to put them in their target. They are happy and its what they wanted.
Right... you honestly believe that they want to CAP their profits? I'm serious, you actually believe that if you asked them, just casually over drinks, if they really don't want more profits and are intentionally limiting it that they would agree that their goal is limited profits, not to earn as much as possible?
Yeah, I can see this. I'm not saying if the company are right or wrong, I'm just saying I don't know, and it may be more than reasonable the reason. Its an unknown.
The fact is, were doing what the company wants, and are highly available without VMWare... what I was trying to say originally 
lol
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
Personal preferences are a different thing to business. #reasons aren't things that can be considered by a public business or by someone paid to represent the interests of a business.
The preference of the devs was SQL server. The preference of the company is to keep the devs happy, and for whatever that price was, they get hard working happy devs. Yes, they could have equally got rid of them for other devs who want to use cheaper devs, but perhaps they don't just want to fire a team of people over a small cost increase when they are well above hitting their yearly financial targets. Not everywhere is cutthroat.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It is THEIR decision to make. But if this was a public company in the US and they actually did things as you describe, investors would have legal recourse because it's not just a bad decision, it's one made in such a described way as to have violated the trust of the investors.
I understand that we don't know who made the decision, when or why, so I can't say that this IS what happened here. But your description of them being happy losing money and that profits are not their goals and that they feel that good decisions don't mean doing what is best for the business are all violations of trust under US law. So not just bad, but unethical in that context.
They are getting the profit they want at the cost they want... its hitting their target and SQL Server was I guess still able to put them in their target. They are happy and its what they wanted.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I agree with you, ^ cost = not working well - but if the company is happy with the price then it is working well.
No, that just reflects bad management - WHY would they be happy with losing money? Management has a job to make money, right? Logically losing it without benefit should make them unhappy. If they are happy doing a bad job....
I guess, but.. it is a decision. Could spend less. Could spend more. Perhaps board are willing to pay that more for various reasons. Doesn't make it a bad decision. Just makes it their decision, and if they are happy with the cost then its not bad. Its just more cost, which they accept.
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Using the tools I have to use. I cant change that, I can only make it as good as it can be.
I totally understand this part. You are forced to support IT decisions made by others. I'm not disputing that in any way, nor blaming you for it. Just pointing out that from a larger perspective, this isn't a good IT situation. It's one mistake justifying another mistake in a tower. Example...
Someone chooses that employees are more important to be seen than to be working -> Costly management is needed to deal with architecture decisions -> Expensive failover systems are needed to address management inefficiencies and bad prioritization
Other than what a few have said on here, my experience is that SMBs in the UK do want bums on seats. Yep, imo a bad decision, but out of my control. Sadly, I cannot change that. But, I can do what I can to make it easier for IT than harder. We already have the systems and licenses, so its no more expensive than doing it another way at this point. We also need HA, not just for this, but because its a business decision from the board on the level of service they want to provide. So...
The board get what they want with HA and don't have to spend more than they have thus far been happy to spend. IT, with that same HA, are able to do what they want during the day without causing any unavailability to customers... and the board are happy as its what they wanted, yes, although at a slightly higher cost.
Everybody happy.
The systems in use are not insanely costly compared to free.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Remember, in IT and business (which are the same thing)... "not being as cost effective as possible" and "broken" are identical. Anyone can make a system work, but the purpose of having IT is to make it work well. If it isn't working as well as it should, that's broken from that perspective.
It is working well. Very well. Using the tools I have to use. I cant change that, I can only make it as good as it can be.
We have VERy different ideas of "working well." I'm not sure what criteria you are using. In IT and business "working well" means delivering high value (ROI) and it is not doing that compared to simple alternatives. As a business person, I immediately see this as "not working well".
If it is working well, by IT standards, we could describe that as the ROI vs. the alternatives. What ROI is this delivering over MariaDB, for example?
Customers get great service using our products. Yes, it costs more than doing it another way, a way which equally would have given great service... but that potential bad decision then, which may not have been as we don't know the particulars, has not left customers with bad service... just the company with a higher, but acceptable, bill. In that sense, customers = happy = paying = working well.
I agree with you, ^ cost = not working well - but if the company is happy with the price then it is working well. Just like if you had purchased VMWare for the features available in free hypervisors... yes, more costly... but no, still great service and working well.
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Remember, in IT and business (which are the same thing)... "not being as cost effective as possible" and "broken" are identical. Anyone can make a system work, but the purpose of having IT is to make it work well. If it isn't working as well as it should, that's broken from that perspective.
It is working well. Very well. Using the tools I have to use. I cant change that, I can only make it as good as it can be.