You or your manager could speak to him directly. Help him understand that he is causing time/effort to be wasted by pushing technical causes/issues that he does not fully understand and is that is not his position to advocate.
We all have a job to do. He should stick to his, and let you do yours. If he has any questions or suggestions; he should be coming to you, and not going over your heads in meetings or otherwise. Chain of command, etc, yadda yadda yadda. Let him know he has been out of line - but be polite about it. Make an ally. -- ME2 On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Sean Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > I wasn't really looking forward to any kind of public humiliation, although > I must admit, I would take full advantage of the opportunity to prove him > wrong in front of the same audience. I guess what ends up bothering me is > that the issue will just be dropped, with nothing else said. He may go on > believing what he said was correct and he won't be confronted about his > "kipper" attitude. > > Its situations like these that make me cringe at the thought of ever going > into management. > > - Sean > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Spankings are great. People need them, and I agree with that. >> >> Publicly humiliating spankings are not. Even the people not effected will >> see what you are capable of if you do not agree with something that someone >> is saying (right or wrong, doesn't matter, esp. in tech issues). >> >> This is completely the opposite of playing politics, and this is what can >> kill your working relationships with people. This is why we have doors on >> offices and meeting rooms. Reprimands can be made while still allowing >> people to maintain their personal dignity. >> >> -- >> ME2 >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In this case, I disagree. >>> >>> This seems to be a pattern of behavior for this particular individual, >>> and he needs taken down. >>> >>> In general, I believe you are correct, but there are sometimes >>> exceptions, and this is one of them - getting spanked in public is all >>> some people learn from. >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:35, Micheal Espinola Jr >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Aside from the personal gratification part of getting your "revenge"; >>> public >>> > humiliation is never a good thing. You will create enemies and general >>> > animosity where it didnt previously exist. >>> > >>> > I think you are lucky that didnt happen here. >>> > -- >>> > ME2 >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Roger Scudder < >>> [email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Oh yes... public humiliation (or a good flogging) would be >>> satisfying. >>> >> At least you can go home for the weekend with this thing pretty much >>> >> settled. Good job! >>> >> Roger >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Sean Martin <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, my assumptions were correct. My VP took the evidence >>> that >>> >>> disproved the comments and showed it to our CIO. He was convinced we >>> knew >>> >>> what we were doing and said the other manager should have never >>> opened his >>> >>> mouth. The unfortunate part is that is pretty much it. I may still >>> push him >>> >>> for the article he got his information from, but I'm not going to get >>> the >>> >>> satisfaction of him being called out publicly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh well, still a win for IT! >>> >>> >>> >>> - Sean >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Sean Martin <[email protected] >>> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Gotcha. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> We've been an EMC shop for several years. I've worked with CX200, >>> CX300 >>> >>>> and we've currently got two CX700s and one CX4-960 I just >>> implemented. From >>> >>>> a performance perspective, I've been really happy with the >>> Clariions. When >>> >>>> we introduced the CX4-960, it just made sense because we already had >>> an EMC >>> >>>> environment and established fiber channel fabric. I don't have any >>> >>>> experience with the Recoverpoint software. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> With that said, we're currently working on a Virtualization proof of >>> >>>> concept, starting with Dell server hardware and Equalogic storage. >>> The more >>> >>>> I get to play with the EQL unit and realize it's capabilities, the >>> more I >>> >>>> think this is the future of our storage needs. The scalability of >>> the EQL is >>> >>>> probably the most appealing, but I also like the fact that they >>> bundle other >>> >>>> capabilities such as replication, automatic storage tiering, etc. >>> without >>> >>>> nickle and diming you like other storage vendors do for those same >>> >>>> capabilities. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I highly recommend you give it a close look if you're looking at a >>> new >>> >>>> product. I keep hearing that iSCSI is the storage protocol of the >>> future and >>> >>>> the fiber channel, though it will be around for many many years, is >>> slowly >>> >>>> dying. If you don't already have an established fiber channel >>> environment, >>> >>>> and you're used to iSCSI, you may find it to be a lot more appealing >>> and >>> >>>> easier on the wallet. >>> >>>> - Sean >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:37 AM, sms adm <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I/we hate them. >>> >>>>> Or I should say the horrible Replication Manager backup software. >>> >>>>> Moving to a new architecture soon. Clrion, fibrechannel with flash >>> >>>>> drives (which won't help us when we move from 2003 probably in a >>> year or >>> >>>>> two, but that is another story) >>> >>>>> Using EMC's Recoverpoint >>> >>>>> (http://www.emc.com/products/detail/software/recoverpoint.htm) >>> >>>>> Anyone aware of it? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Sean Martin < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I have to admit, I shuddered a little bit when I read you're using >>> the >>> >>>>>> Celerra. We have a couple of NS502G as iSCSI gateways to our >>> Clariions. I've >>> >>>>>> never really liked them, but I guess my complaints have more to do >>> with the >>> >>>>>> cludgy interface than anything else. We only use them to serve up >>> iSCSI luns >>> >>>>>> to a few Microsoft Virtual Server hosts for test/dev and to >>> provide >>> >>>>>> non-critical CIFS. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Good to hear you're seeing positive results. Thanks for sharing. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> - Sean >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:08 AM, sms adm <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> We have 9000+ mailboxes on 2 backend servers, fronted by 2 FE >>> >>>>>>> servers. >>> >>>>>>> Storage is EMC Celerra, iSCSI (soon to be fiberchannel). >>> >>>>>>> No performance problems whatsoever! >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Sean Martin < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> If/when I need additional hardware to boost performance, I'll >>> have >>> >>>>>>>> no problem getting it. This statement came from a manager of a >>> non-technical >>> >>>>>>>> department who believes he can do a better job than all of our >>> existing >>> >>>>>>>> Analysts. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure it sounds like I'm taking it a bit personally, and I >>> may >>> >>>>>>>> be, but this is just a case where I know our current environment >>> is >>> >>>>>>>> over-sized, and I've got the performance metrics to prove it. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> This is an Exchange 2003 Enterprise SP2 environment, 2003 AD. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Each server is a PowerEdge M710, 6GB RAM (limited via boot.ini >>> due >>> >>>>>>>> to 32-bit), 4 local 15k sas drives (RAID 1 OS, RAID 1 page >>> file/temp >>> >>>>>>>> directories). QLogic 2572 HBAs connected to Brocade 5300 Fiber >>> switches >>> >>>>>>>> (4gbps) to an EMC CX700. Logs are stored on a 4 disk (15k FC) >>> RAID 10, >>> >>>>>>>> Stores are on a 14 disk (15k FC) RAID 10, SMTP, message >>> tracking, mta >>> >>>>>>>> directories are on a RAID 1 (15k FC). >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> A third front-end server provides ActiveSync. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Disk I/O has always been our biggest battle and based on our >>> user >>> >>>>>>>> I/O, the above configuration has yielded very good results. >>> Although we do >>> >>>>>>>> have about 2000 mailboxes, only 1200-1300 of those are ever >>> accessed >>> >>>>>>>> concurrently, so with that we're barey above this "500 mailbox" >>> limitation >>> >>>>>>>> he came up with. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> I guess a lot of this stems from this particular manager having >>> a >>> >>>>>>>> reputation of trying make others look bad in these high-profile >>> meetings. My >>> >>>>>>>> boss(es) are taking this more personally than I am. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, thanks for the information thus far. I'm confident that >>> if >>> >>>>>>>> it comes down to it, I can prove our environment does not >>> warrant any wasted >>> >>>>>>>> hardware expenses. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> - Sean >>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM, < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Hmm.. sounds like he is going to give you some money to boost >>> up >>> >>>>>>>>> the number of servers you need….Say thank you for your >>> contribution and if >>> >>>>>>>>> and when we run into performance issues we will use this money >>> to purchase >>> >>>>>>>>> additional servers.. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Greg >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> From: Sean Martin [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:42 PM >>> >>>>>>>>> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> My boss just gave me some disturbing news. Another manager >>> >>>>>>>>> mentioned in a meeting, full of all of our Executives, that >>> Microsoft >>> >>>>>>>>> recommends only 500 users per Exchange server. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Now, my boss and VP know this is BS, but now I'm tasked with >>> >>>>>>>>> providing literature that disproves that. The problem is, I >>> don't know of >>> >>>>>>>>> any literature that will fit the bill because I've never seen >>> any >>> >>>>>>>>> "recommendations" on the number of user/mailboxes to host per >>> server. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> I'm well aware it depends on hardware, storage, mailbox limits, >>> >>>>>>>>> user IO, etc. I've got all of the performance metrics in the >>> world to prove >>> >>>>>>>>> there are no problems at the Exchange server level, and we're >>> hosting >>> >>>>>>>>> approximately 2000 mailboxes split across two mailbox servers. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Do any of you know of any official documentation that helps >>> explain >>> >>>>>>>>> this scenario? I'm waiting on this manager to provide me a copy >>> of the >>> >>>>>>>>> documentation he supposedly read that dictates this 500 user >>> limit. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> - Sean >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> smsadm >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> smsadm >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >
