Yeah small as in the user has multiple personalities... :o)
-- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice Depends on the data..... These days with identity theft rampant... anything with a PII element would be on a desktop over my dead body. Software suppliers also tell me to run as admin and these days we need to push strongly back on that as well. Access works for a 'small' multi user app.. and I do mean small. Dave Wade wrote: > Joe, > > Well all agree on that, however we are pretty much stuck with the > apps in question "as-is" as the software is supplied "from above" > (e.g. the stuff from www.ncer.org <http://www.ncer.org>). These days I > copy the database onto a users PC and they run the reports and > analysis locally, as that's what the software supplier tells them to > do, and the users are happy with that. > > Dave. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *joe > *Sent:* 23 May 2006 04:38 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > Access is crap to use for a multiuser app. Don't discount the fact > that the perf could be simply related to that. > > -- > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Wade > *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:08 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > Its the one thing that seems to give us performance issues. Last time > I investigated things running slow, client was quiet (low CPU short > disk queue, minimal paging) , network was quiet yet response was slow. > Conclusion was that server was some how bottle neck. I must admit I > didn't do much work on investigation. I think they should use > appropriate tool such as msde (only a few users) but program is > provided by central government, so we are stuck with it. I wonder if > it was just running same time as backups perhaps... > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Desmond > *Sent:* Thu 18/05/2006 23:34 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* > *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > Access database will likely get cached on the client in memory, in > any case it’d be all read ops. Access doesn’t cache report output. > > > > *Thanks,** > *Brian Desmond** > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > *c - 312.731.3132* > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Dave Wade > *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:22 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] RAID 5 Best Practice > > > > > For file sharing, I would consider 0Ư but 5 would be more likely > since you > probably want/need the space more than the speed. File sharing doesn't > really beat the disks up relative to a busy DC even in large > multi-thousand > user file servers I have seen. > > > > What about when some idiot user sets up an Access database on one > and runs "inappropriate" reports against it.. > > > > > > > > It is why most normal server admins really > have no clue what to look for in terms of IO load on servers but any > Exchange Admin worth anything is looking at that right away in a > problem > situation and able to quote IOPS stats off the top of their head > and know > what they can get from the underlying disk subsystem. Exchange > disk configs > are critical. > > > ********************************************************************** > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > they > > are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to > disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of > Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by > one of the exemptions in the Act. > > If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport > e-Services via [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and then permanently remove > it from your system. > > Thank you. > > http://www.stockport.gov.uk > > > ********************************************************************** > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
