|
Yes, you can visualize AD, just have multiple physical hosts and set affinity rules to keep your redundant DCs on different hosts, have an external time server to point everything to, and disable DRS for those VMs.
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
SDN will hurt Cisco, but unless you work for Cisco that shouldn't necessarily concern you. Server virtualization didn't kill off the sysadmin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:When Cisco laid off a bunch of people a few years back, I mentioned that that was rather unfortunate but I was told it wasn't that bad. One of the owners at a partner told me how the work just can't go away, some people will have more to do but a lot of it will be outsourced. IT Infrastructure work isn't really outsourceable to India. Most of the things that can be outsourced, like development and help desk have already been moved by any companies that care to do that. The jobs that are still here are going to remain here because they need people who are reasonably local to do them. You can't fly your sales people or your SEs or your Professional Services all across the ocean every time there's work that needs to be done in the states. Partners make money and build relationships by spending time with customers, face to face, and that requires a certain proximity. And any company that still thinks internal IT is important isn't going to hire a bunch of guys 12 time zones over to watch big brother and remote in, or whatever. Keep in mind that we just finished having a 3 page derail about the benefits of a guy getting up and walking over to a user to explain that their issue was being worked on. That stuff still matters and always will, and you can't do that with remote IT. Skype isn't a substitute. Also, my experience working directly with Cisco folks and then with partners like WWT is that the partners were generally getting paid better than the Cisco employees. People jump back and forth between vendors and VARs constantly for better pay, better jobs, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Fiendish Dr. Wu posted:Anybody here rolled out any ~*~hyperconverged~*~ storage appliance / virtualized SAN / virtual computing platform stuff like Nutanix / Pernix / Simplivity? We're looking into this as it appears to merge the best of on-prem storage with the perks of cloud IaaS such as Azure. Management-wise it's slightly quicker to set up than dedicated servers and SAN (and only very slightly if you're talking about something like Nimble) and architecturally it's more complex due to IO running through a VM, at least on Nutanix. You still have to do independent storage and compute sizing, and you can still overrun one or the other bucket independently, so it's not like things get simpler operationally. What's the appeal? My company did some testing on Nutanix prior to my getting there and found the performance to be pretty horrible. It wasn't just one benchmark either, it was reads, writes, random, sequential, mixed, etc...it just wasn't impressive at all and they decided to pass on partnering with them based on that. I'd also worry about the longevity of companies that are competing directly with VSAN. What's the differentiator? Why buy their hardware instead of VSAN that runs in the hypervisor?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
You can be both a resource and a person. One does not preclude the other. "Please think of me as another resource at your disposal and call me with any questions you have." "I don't have the answer to that question but I've got resources who should be able to assist." "We need to have a meeting so we can work out a schedule and line up the appropriate resources." It's a really common pattern speech and it's just a way to refer to the way a particular set of skills aligns with a need. Your skills make you a particular type of resource for a company that is independent and distinct from your existence as a person. Resources provide value and are required to build something, which is a whole let better than being an employee, which is often treated as basically a position of charity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:I am a resource please utilize me beep boop I am a condescending robot who doesn't understand that human language is capable of nuance and that one word can express many concepts, beep boop
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
"Jim, you've been a valuable intellectual resource and I don't think we could have completed this project without your input" "DON'T CALL ME A RESOURCE I AM NOT A LUMP OF COAL THAT YOU CAN BURN AWAY FOR YOUR BENEFIT!" "Sorry Jim! I just meant to say that you're a real asset to he organization." "OH, SO NOW I'M JUST AN ASSET, LIKE SOME COMMODITY TO BE TRADED AND SOLD, I'M A PERSON WITH HOPES AND DREAMS AND FEELINGS!" "I feel like maybe we're talking past each other, I was just trying to get across that you've a very valuable part of this company." "VALUABLE?! SO YOU THINK YOU CAN JUST MONETIZE ME AND ASSIGN A DOLLAR VALUE TO MY PRODUCTION LIKE I'M SOME PIECE OF MACHINERY!" "Okay, okay, what I meant to say is that you, Jim, are an independent human person that is currently employed by this company." "That's better."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
This is like that episode of the office where Michael promises those kids full scholarships if they graduate. It's painful to watch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
psydude posted:Speaking of typing systems, can someone explain to me why vi's input and hotkeys make no loving sense? Is it some sort of leftover poo poo from the glory days of ARPANET that *nix neckbeards refuse to let go of so they seem legit? Or is there an actual good reason why it's remained completely goddamned different from every modern text editor that's come about over the past 20 years? It's really efficient once you get comfortable with it. And tons of grizzled old Unix dudes learned it 30 years ago and don't want it changing for no good reason. Vim is a little more user friendly, and is usually what the vi command is aliased to anyway. If you want a more intuitive editor there are other options.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
go3 posted:i dont care where the gently caress you're living if you are getting paid 25k/yr to do anything other than slap stamps on vegetables then you're getting hosed Yes, but that doesn't mean that you have better options.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:Oh, so he shouldn't move on then. Ok. He should. But people like to throw around "you're getting hosed" in here based on a few details about salary without any understanding of the persons local labor market or job situation. It's stated as if you'd be a moron to work for that little. But the U.S. in general is grossly unfriendly to labor and relatively poorer areas are even more so, so saying "you're getting hosed" as if it's something that the employee can easily fix by just demanding more money or finding a better job is insulting and blinkered. The minimum wage is still only 8 bucks, if that, in a lot of places, and help desk work often won't pay much more than that because it's treated as roughly the same as cable internet or phone support in terms of skills required. You can certainly hope to move on quickly from it once you've got a bit of a resume, but you've still got work somewhere for a bit to get that resume.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Just because a ton of other people are getting hosed worse doesn't mean he's not also getting hosed. More to the point, his question was basically, "Should I just keep doing this for an arbitrary period of time, or should I start looking for something better?" To which people replied, "you're getting hosed at that pay rate, there's nowhere to go but up, start looking for something better now." It was advice he solicited. So no, it's actually not insulting that people told him that he should look for something better. But I didn't respond to his post or offer him any advice at all. I responded to another post that didn't offer any advice beyond "you're being hosed because you only make X" which is both useless and not necessarily true. That may simply be the market rate in his area for entry level with no experience. He's getting hosed in the same sense that most all of who aren't one percenters are, but he's not necessarily getting hosed especially badly. For New York, yea. For rural Mississippi? Nah. Certainly he should try to move up and out as quickly as possible, but that's true of literally any job ever. "Find a better job that pays more as soon as you can," is the most obvious and trivial advice ever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
It's hard to give good interview advice because so much of it comes down to soft skills and personal style. Some people are simply good talkers, and they can get away with embellishing their resume because they've got the soft skills required to deflect whenever they get caught out on not knowing something they claimed to know. If you're one of those people then you can probably get away with providing a much more generous accounting of your skills than might rightly be deserved. It also depends a lot on the interviewer and their style. Some interviews are very informal and they just want to get a sense of how you think. Maybe that hiring manager is less interested in specific skills than in finding the right personality fit for the rest of the team, or who is adaptable enough to learn new things quickly. Another hiring manager might want someone who can sit down and rattle off the exact commands required to perform a specific task because he needs someone who can sit down and get to work immediately on a well defined set of tasks or projects, with minimal ramp up. There's not really a one-size fits all answer here. No matter how good you are at your job, sometimes you will just have a really bad interview. It happens, and it doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. Maybe that interviewer is just really bad at his job, or maybe you just weren't the right fit for that position. The only real rule I have is to never put anything on your resume if you aren't prepared to say SOMETHING about it if asked. It doesn't have to be brilliant, but have at least something moderately intelligent to say about everything on there. I f you've got kickstart on your resume and you get asked about it and you have to say something like "oh, it was a long time ago, I don't remember any of that anymore, sorry" that is bad. If you get asked about it and you can describe, broadly, how it functions, but not the exact commands required to set it up, then that will be fine for most interviewers. Most people in IT understand that knowledge doesn't stay fresh without fairly constant use, so expecting someone to know the complex details of something that they admit they haven't worked with very recently is dumb. But if they learned it once that's a good sign that they can learn it again, so being able to give an answer that indicates previous knowledge is generally good enough. Just don't claim to be an expert on anything unless you're prepared to talk like one. My resume has some stuff on it that I haven't worked with in a while, but before I go into an interview where that might be germane I do a little interview study just to make sure I'm at least passably knowledgeable about it. I will explain, when asked, that it's been a few years since I've had hands on time, and then dive into the best answer I can give. If I simply don't have anything useful to say then I will admit that, ask a few questions about the technology, and then try to find something that I do know about to relate it to. Also, put me in the camp with people who have never taken a job they were fully qualified for. The only way you'll develop is by challenging yourself. Don't outright lie to get a job, but do your research before the interview, and explain that you're not an expert on thing but know a lot about similar thing or other related thing and that you would really like the chance to grow professionally by becoming an expert on thing. A lot of companies (good ones, anyway) are looking for potential and drive, not rote knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:This sounds a lot more like a training issue with the C-levels and their inability to maintain data security more than an issue with Box, it would exist with any file sharing service. Security conscious companies generally have a problem with any cloud based file sharing service, not just Box. They want to keep company data on company owned equipment and limiting the ability to automatically push that data out to a cloud sharing service is one easy restriction that helps meet that goal. Internally hosted Box/Dropbox alternatives are gaining popularity for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I just don't think that's reasonable. First, what would an internally hosted platform even look like? loving Sharepoint? No thank you. Can you reach feature parity with something like Box without spending a shitload on internal development? (No.) And what about the ongoing management and administration costs? You're going to need people to run this. These features are generally integrated into an existing mobile management platform like Good (Good Share) or Airwatch (Secure Content Locker) and can leverage many different repository types like file shares, sharepoint, public folders, etc. You don't roll your own and the same team that manages your mobile devices and security manages it. Whether you think it's reasonable or not it happens. Cloud services were blocked at the last DOD site where I worked. Anywhere with strict legal requirements to maintain data confidentiality will probably do it just to cut off one avenue for accidental leakage. That means military, financial, and health care. And there will always be places that follow the lead that those sectors set on security.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
meanieface posted:Hopefully when they turn off access to cloud services they also disable external storage so someone doesn't download a client list full of PII onto a flash drive then lose it in a public place. (Also happened.) This is a common practice, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:The DOD is a whole different level. A very, very small sliver of business need or use that level of crazy paranoid data security. Keep in mind that despite being DOD this was definitely not a secure facility by any stretch. It was simply an easy way to meet STIG requirements. But that aside, pretty much everyone considers their data and it's security and confidentiality to be very important, so saying "well sure, if you REALLY need secure data like the DOD then I guess it makes sense" doesn't address the point that *your* evaluation of the importance of someone's data isn't the same as *their* evaluation of the importance of their data. Which is why high security sectors often drive this sort of thing for executives. They hear that DOD blocks it, or that places that deal in health data block it, and they assume that if it's good enough for them it's good enough for him, and he decides to block it on his corporate network. Whether that's a fully researched and rational decision isn't important, it's simply a CYA. You an make arguments that it's secure (though the question is generally not whether the service and architecture itself is secure, it's whether it creates an easy avenue for employees to inadvertently spill confidential data) but those arguments are going to run up against the question of "why do we need to do this at all?" and "why can't you do this with the tools we already provide?" Corporate security is a big deal and a lot of organizations are very risk averse. There's no right or wrong answer to whether these services are good or bad for corporate IT, it depends on a lot of factors and you can't just say "Um, they're good and secure, don't be a dummy" as if that seals it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Hiring a new employee is expensive and carries some risk so employers generally want to make sure they get the right people. It can also be tough to get the whole team together for long enough for an in depth technical interview so they generally want to make sure that anyone that makes it that far is a legitimate candidate, which means a few screenings. Consider that however much of your time you feel is being wasted they are wasting even more man hours to determine if you are a good fit for them. And you should be glad that they are thorough as neither side wants buyers/sellers remorse after being hired. Google studied their own internal hiring practices pretty extensively and found that the sweet spot was around 4 interviews, but that may not hold true for every position or company. But at least one recruiter screen, one personal screen with the hiring manager, one technical screen with a technical person, and a face to face with the whole group is pretty reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Sickening posted:4 interviews is a tad much and is a big of time investment to be asked of an applicant to make. The job would have to be incredible for me to agree to such a thing. Phone screens don't generally take that much time and can usually be scheduled flexibly enough to work around work schedules. And I really don't find it that onerous. You're talking about a major life decision and a decision that will probably be with you for a couple of years, at least. That seems worthy of due consideration on both sides, which requires time. Interviews are notoriously unreliable anyway, but you really can't get a feel from someone from a quick screen and short in person interview. And when you consider that your hiring directly affects a number of people (HR, your direct manager, the department director, the team you will be working with, any people who may be working under you) that's a lot of people who have to at least get a chance to feel you out and make sure you're a good fit for them, and it's not feasible feasible to do that in one big interview. When I interviewed for NetApp I did a personal screen with the internal recruiter, a technical screen with an SE, and a skype interview with the manager of the position. But they also knew me as a customer for years and I'd worked closely with the account team, so the process was truncated. With Riverbed I went through four different screens, three of them technical, and also flew to KC for a face to face with the director (and did not get the job). For my current position at a VAR it was two pre-screen interviews, a mock customer engagement with the team, and then face to face meetings with each managing partner. I was interested in the jobs, so I found time to do the interviews, and they were interested in me so they found the time for their people to talk to me, and in some cases the money to fly me out or fly people in to meet face to face. That's a sign of respect, to me, not a sign of being jerked around. YOLOsubmarine fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That's a interesting work environment, in other news I noticed that my employer is now watching my HTTP/HTTPS traffic. If it's just using SPAN to monitor network traffic then they can't decrypt the HTTPS session data, but they can still see what sites you're visiting and any unencrypted traffic. If they're using a proxy then they could see session data as well by basically acting as a man in the middle.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Group interviews aren't bad. Usually only one or two people will be asking questions or actively engaging you, and the rest are just there to evaluate your personality and offer opinions after you leave, so it's not like you're defending a thesis or arguing in front of the Supreme Court, with questions coming rapid fire from all sides. I prefer them to one on one interviews because the mix of personalities and skill sets usually leads to better discussions that allow more opportunities to show your personality and expound on your technical skills and working style.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
There are a lot of jobs where the IT department is treated really well, but they are generally going to be places where technology is integral to how the business functions and not just a convenience. Find a place where outages mean lost revenue and not merely inconvenience and you'll often find IT staff that are treated better, or at least paid better and not expected to fix the CEOs daughters laptop on their lunch break. Or go work for a technology company and become a profit center.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
meanieface posted:Where people use your metrics to justify your salary--it's good and bad all at once. No matter where you work someone is always trying to justify your salary based on some formula or another.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
No pre-sales today, no post sales today, so I'm sitting at home playing Far Cry 4 and getting an early start on my long weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:On another note, two of my co-workers shelled out 3.5k for an official VCP physical 1-week classroom halfway across the country and felt that it was good but in no way prepared them for exam or real-world scenarios. YMMV. None of the courses that will qualify you for the exam will prepare you for the exam. They all follow the same blueprint.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:I worked because I wanted to get poo poo done. A department director wondered why I wasn't taking off after a 13 day work week, told him poo poo needed to be done. he just said we need to talk about when I should call "enough work is enough for one week" LOL, who loving cares, you aren't a doctor, none of it matters.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:Not really, I am speaking from what SA SH/SC has taught me. Money/power > social poo poo As a sysadmin you will never have any real power at your job and the amount of money you will make will be small, relative to the amount needed to have power. Find a new career if you want to be a rich warlord of something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Wait a second. It's not Friday night! Long weekend for the holiday. Getting an early start.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
"This is the smallest amount of power I have ever seen go to someone's head"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
"Hahaha, gently caress all of you grandpas who are too old to enjoy life!" <works through his holidays and thinks about nothing but a completely meaningless midlevel corporate IT job>
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:I have lots of money; who cares? You have a modest amount of money, but to answer your question, nobody, literally nobody on earth cares, but you keep posting about it anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Don't know why you people are still engaging him. He comes in here once a month and posts something stupid and provocative out of absolutely nowhere and gets 30 bites on it, then backseat moderates and says it's getting off topic, then fucks off for another month. It should be obvious by now. It's not like there's anything more interesting or important going on in the thread right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:I don't know if this is a bullshit chatbox thread or actually useful for advice, but I'll try anyway. I already have a bachelor's degree in a technical field and am currently working for a computer infrastructure company after having to switch fields. It turns out I really enjoy what I'm doing and am considering going back to school for a second Bachelor's (or more?) in IT, specifically systems or network engineering. I am also considering programming though I have zero background in that beyond some HTML 15 years ago. It's generally pretty useful when DAF isn't doing his party trick. If you survey the thread you'll probably find a lot of people with no educational background in technology. It's not really required, and for stuff like networking and systems the fields change so fast that colleges can struggle to keep courses relevant beyond the basics. Even with an IT focused degree you'll be starting at the bottom, either as helpdesk or, if you're lucky, a junior admin. Will your current company allow you to move into a position like that? If so, then I would forgo seeking an additional degree, because it won't get you anything other than a better shot at landing that first job. If you still want to pursue a second bachelors, most colleges have a program or two focused on information systems that will include courses on things like networking, operating systems design, relational databases, Unix, etc. A good sampling of those courses will give you an idea of what you like and what you want to focus on, as well as making you a better admin, since you generally need to understand how all of the pieces interconnect to build systems or troubleshoot. If you decide programming is your thing then ignore all of the above, go back to school for a CS degree, and learn how to program properly. Good classes on algorithms and programming principles will be very valuable and it's much harder to get into programming without a degree.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:Thanks, what certs should I look into first? CCNA for Cisco stuff. Some kind of OS cert would probably be beneficial, like RHEL or and MCSA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
I had to take the Wonderlic once for a Unix admin position for a small company. They made everyone take it, but it seemed to have almost no bearing on who they actually hired because there were a fair number of people there who couldn't have done better than a 2. I didn't really mind though, it's only 10 minutes and it's kind of fun to know your score so you can compare it to football players who also, amusingly, have to take it as part of the pre draft combine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That's cool but the more I hear about automation while there be a point where we no longer need to manually install servers, features, roles? This is exactly what the Powershell DSC toolkit does. You create a configuration (features, roles, services to install or uninstall, files to check for, etc) and apply it to a group of servers that you want to all look the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:A++ would drink again. What was it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
That is very good whisky, sounds like your boss likes you pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Pudgygiant posted:Is "I really hate Portland and need to move somewhere else" a good enough reason to leave a job after a couple months? Sure, why not? I left a Job in Lousiana after about 8 months to move TO Portland. Leaving a job because you're moving away is a perfectly valid reason. Though I've got no idea why you'd really hate Portland, it's a good place with a decent IT job market.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
psydude posted:Anyone here worked pre-sales? I've been trying to get into consulting (and out of direct labor), and in addition the diverse kind of work (I get bored easily), it also seems like it pays hilariously well. The only thing I'd be worried about is being siloed into one type of technology. I'm in pre-sales and got into it for mostly the same reasons. It's going to depend on the position, but if you go to a VAR with a good sized line card being soloed shouldn't be a concern. My current portfolio includes UCS, Commvault, Veeam, Zerto, Nimble, Pure, Netapp, Tintri, pretty much everything VMware, and we're constantly evaluating new partners. I'll never be an expert in all of those things, but I can pick a few to focus on and still maintain a working knowledge of the rest. It's been very rewarding so far, though there is a lot of politics involved in working with vendors that can be a little tiresome.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 00:37
|
|