That's worth a try - once. After that...
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 09:22, Micheal Espinola Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
