Yes, so then calculate it out and get your additonal cabling.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm salaried, and OT doesn't count, until it's too much OT. But, > there's also the opportunity costs involved, and not just for me. Down > time is not productive time, and it's far more than just my time at > stake. > > Kurt > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 14:56, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you get paid hourly or are you salaried? If salary, they're paying > you anyway. Even if hourly, and you get OT, it's not really a burdened rate. > They don't pay more for your insurance if you work 40 or 80 hours. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:49 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches > > > > I have backed up my words with real world examples. > > > > As I stated before, I have lots of experience with folks creating layer 2 > loops with small unmanaged switches over the past 9+ years at my position. > If it costs even one hour of my time tracking these down for each incident > (and it's usually more than that), the money spent is well worth it to both > me and the business. > > > > It happens about twice a year, and sometimes more frequently. At a fully > burdened hourly rate of approximately $75.00/hour just for my time, not to > mention the time of all of the people affected who can't do their jobs for > at least an hour at a time, it is stunningly bad business *NOT* to have > pulled sufficient cable and bought sufficient ports to support the > requirements of the environment. > > > > Kurt > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 07:57, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>Notice that I did say "Required? Sometimes." > >> And then proceeded to articulate yourself right into a corner. > >> > >>>>You and Andrew, however, sometimes over-interpret my words. > >> Use less words, and use them in the same manner as the rest of the > >> planet, and you'll find them harder to "over-interpret"[1]. > >> And back up your words with real-world examples, and others will find > >> more opportunity for agreement. > >> > >> ASB (Find me online via About.Me) > >> Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > >> > >> [1] I won't even ask... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Life *is* usually as cut and dried as I make it out to be. You and > >>> Andrew, however, sometimes over-interpret my words. > >>> > >>> Notice that I did say "Required? Sometimes." > >>> > >>> In particular, my time as a sysadmin is almost always worth more than > >>> the difference between a cheap 5/8 port switch and a couple of ports > >>> on, and some cabling to reach, a managed switch. > >>> > >>> Kurt > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 07:15, Jeff Steward <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > Life is rarely so cut and dried as you make it out to be. As with > >>> > any decision, there are multiple inputs and risk assessments to be > >>> > made and sometimes, using an inexpensive unmanaged switch is the > right choice. > >>> > -Jeff Steward > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Required? Sometimes. > >>> >> > >>> >> More expensive up front? Yes. > >>> >> > >>> >> Valid or reasonable? I disagree. > >>> >> > >>> >> IMHO, being forced to use these tiny unmanaged switches shows a > >>> >> decided lack of foresight on someone's part, and a lack of > >>> >> understanding of their larger costs. > >>> >> > >>> >> Unless, perhaps, you're temporizing until a complete wireless > >>> >> solution is being readied. :) > >>> >> > >>> >> Kurt > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 02:59, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > "Install extra cabling" is a solution that has greater expense, > >>> >> > and requires far more permission that "install unmanaged switch" > >>> >> > in most circumstances. > >>> >> > There are plenty of valid scenarios where you will not have the > >>> >> > opportunity to add more network drops to a location, and for > >>> >> > which the temporary or permanent deployment of unmanaged > >>> >> > switches will be entirely reasonable. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > ASB (Find me online via About.Me) Exploiting Technology for > >>> >> > Business Advantage... > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:49 PM, James Hill > >>> >> > <[email protected]> > >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I'm with Kurt. Unmanaged switches are just trouble. Do it > >>> >> >> properly and install extra cabling. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Unmanaged switches have a habit of multiplying. I've been > >>> >> >> caught out one too many times by a hidden one under a desk > >>> >> >> somewhere, usually when imaging an entire floor with multicast > >>> >> >> or something when I don't have the time for trouble. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I've even seen one of these switches go nuts and flood a core > >>> >> >> switch so much it brought the network to its knees. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> >> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 February 2011 5:19 AM > >>> >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues > >>> >> >> Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> It's not just one mistake. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I don't know what it is about my user population, but at least > >>> >> >> a couple of times a year, and sometimes more often, I have to > >>> >> >> go chasing down some idiot (usually a software developer or > >>> >> >> hardware engineer) who has connected a little switch to itself, > >>> >> >> or to another little switch. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I'm really tired of it. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Kurt > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 05:47, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> >> > So because someone made a mistake you're condemning using them? > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -----Original Message----- > >>> >> >> > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> >> >> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:45 PM > >>> >> >> > To: NT System Admin Issues > >>> >> >> > Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Don't. Just don't. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Pull another run of cable if you have to. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Desktop switches are just wrong. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > I speak from much experience here. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Just last month, we shuffled a bunch of folks around, and the > >>> >> >> > facilities guy was moving PCs and printers, and noticed that > >>> >> >> > there was a loose cable attached to a 5-port switch. So, not > >>> >> >> > knowing what else to do with it, he plugged it into the 5 > >>> >> >> > port switch. Which meant that both ends of the cable were in > >>> >> >> > the same dumb, unmanaged, switch. > >>> >> >> > That's your basic layer2 loop, right there. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > It killed performance for lots of people, until I tracked it > down. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > I've had this happen so many times with stupid 5 and 8 port > >>> >> >> > switches that if I could rip them all out I would do so in > >>> >> >> > less time than it takes to write about it. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > But, we now have so many of them, because our wiring is so > >>> >> >> > sparse, that I can't. Yet. It's a major line item in the IT > >>> >> >> > CAPEX budget for next year. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Kurt > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:00, John Aldrich > >>> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> One of my users just claimed an unused laser printer for his > >>> >> >> >> office (Acct. > >>> >> >> >> Manager) that has a network port on it as well as the usual > USB. > >>> >> >> >> He'd > >>> >> >> >> like to be able to network it so he can print to it from the > >>> >> >> >> AS/400. > >>> >> >> >> What do you guys recommend for a small (4-5 port) network > switch? > >>> >> >> >> To anyone who wants to know, this is for real, looking for > >>> >> >> >> recommendations for a RIGHT NOW purchase, not "next time." > >>> >> >> >> :-) > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Thanks! > >> > >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > >> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > >> > >> --- > >> To manage subscriptions click here: > >> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > >> or send an email to [email protected] > >> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < > http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > --- > > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > > or send an email to [email protected] > > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > --- > > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > > or send an email to [email protected] > > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
