Yeah, too expensive considering they are 0-4 on the cases we have had to open in the past few years. At least they issue a refund when they are unable to resolve the issue.
I had a case at previous job, that they worked on for 3+ weeks, but did finally resolve. They probably lost money on that case. Robert On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Maglinger, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > At least they didn’t make it an even $500 – that would just be too darn > expensive! > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Susan Bradley > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 12:44 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > > > > http://support2.microsoft.com/gp/offerprophone > Microsoft Professional Support > > Professional Support provides you with access to Microsoft experts, to > help you address problems encountered with the development, deployment and > management of Microsoft software in business environments. > > Professional Support is available as a single “pay-per-incident” (PPI) or > an annual contract with five incidents. Professional Support incidents > focus on troubleshooting a specific problem, error message, or > functionality that is not working as intended for Microsoft products. An > incident is defined as a single support issue and the reasonable effort to > resolve it. Incidents may be submitted online or over the phone. Response > time will be between 2 and 8 hours, depending on severity of incident. > > *Price* > > > *Professional Support Single Incident * > > $499 USD for > one incident > > > > *Professional Support 5-Pack Annual Support Contract* > > $1,999 USD for > five incidents > > > > On 12/2/2014 2:16 PM, Susan Bradley wrote: > > Nope. That's the new price for IT pro support cases since 12/1. > > Susan Bradley > http://blogs.msmvps.com/bradley > http://www.runasradio.com/default.aspx?showNum=390 > > On 12/2/2014 2:12 PM, J- P wrote: > > wow, 499 now? is that at least premier where the case doesnt have to go > through multiple engineers > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 19:38:10 +0000 > > It sure looks and acts like a junction point and is certainly weird. I am > going to try a copy to another server share. Then I will PSS it, just in > time for the new 499 price!! > > *From:*[email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Michael B. Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 2:34 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > > I’m sorry L > > I’m out of ideas then. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Kennedy, Jim > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 2:21 PM > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > > No, file not found with that syntax. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Michael B. Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 2:14 PM > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > > If you go into the source directory and do a “dir /a:ls” – do any of the > files show up as JUNCTIONS? > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Kennedy, Jim > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 1:06 PM > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > > Just the three. > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Michael B. Smith > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 12:39 PM > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] RE: DPM weirdness. > > So? What happens when you restore the FRP to an alternate location? Do you > get all the files? Or only 3 of them? > > *From:*[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Kennedy, Jim > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:27 AM > *To:* '[email protected]' > *Subject:* [NTSysADM] DPM weirdness. > > DPM 2012 SP 1 on 2008 R2 backing up a folder on 2008 R2. Agents and > servers are fully patched. > This has me baffled, never seen anything like this with DPM. I can always > look at a folder recovery point and see the contents in total, not just the > changes since the last recovery point. I realize the backups don’t work > like a full…but the recovery points do. Except this one new job I set up > recently on a new server. It displays like an incremental but not really. > Bear with me, this will be hard to explain. > Backed up server is a Filemaker Pro server. Think SQL for cave men, or > maybe Access for Romans. It backs itself up to a folder each night, I grab > that with DPM. Folder structure looks like this: > > > Inside each of the above folders, a couple of levels in, is this: > > > Note the bottom four files have not changed since original install, one > changed a month ago and the top three are changed daily. When I look at > the recovery point I should see all of the files right? Especially if you > consider the folder they are in is brand new…new folder each night created > by the filemaker internal backup. But I find it interesting that when > filemaker makes the backup the file date on the server is from October even > though it is a new folder and new files. They are not shortcuts. > 12/1 recovery point: > > > > > > >
