*>>**However, that doesn't mean that I can't see the better way of doing things, and coach people on achieving it.*
You've been taking lessons from the Bobby Knight school of coaching, then. *ASB *(Find me online via About.Me <http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker/bio>) *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... * On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup. It's a screwed up world, isn't it? > > What's possible isn't always what's desired. When I first got to this > company, I blanched when I saw the cable installation in place. I was > told that there was no money to fix it. > > I've dealt with it for a long time, and have improved things where I > can, including decommissioning the 48-port 10BaseT hubs that were the > entirety of the internal network infrastructure when I arrived, first > with some 2nd hand Cisco gear, then finally some new HP gear. > > I've advocated for a long time on this, and while I have gotten > agreement in principle, when time comes to disburse money, there's > always a higher priority. > > However, I now have some limited budgetary authority, and can make > some things happen. > > I know that wasn't really the thrust of your "Wow" comment - I believe > it's that I'm preaching what I cannot yet achieve. And it's true, > there's a lot of irony there. > > However, that doesn't mean that I can't see the better way of doing > things, and coach people on achieving it. > > So, further, you might pose the question "why do I stay if I'm so > dissatisfied with the network?" > > Fair question. I stay for a multitude of reasons, including: > > o- I like the people at this company, in spite of some of the > decisions they make > > o- I am a huge fan of the quality of product they turn out, and the > role plays in saving peoples lives > > o- It's a steady job and I get good reviews and good pay, and I *like* > a steady place to work. If I can, I'd like to retire out of this > company. > > Kurt > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 21:42, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, let me see if I get this straight: After 9+ years, you aren't even > able > > to put your own self-stated mandate into place for your own employer, yet > > you are railing against others for their alleged shortsightedness when > they > > might simply be in the very same plight as yourself?!? > > Wow. > > > > Previously, Kurt murmured... > > > > 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. > > > > In other words, you're now telling us that you work for a "stunningly bad > > business", given that this issue hasn't been resolved in nearly a > decade... > > ::blinks:: > > > > ASB (Find me online via About.Me) > > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I wish that were the case. > >> > >> I've made the argument several times, but they haven't bought it as yet. > >> > >> New management is learning, however, so we've put it in the capital > >> budget, and we'll see if it's approved. > >> > >> Culture is slow to change around here. > >> > >> Kurt > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:45, Jonathan Link <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Seems as if you should have enough evidence to justify the expenditure > >> > of > >> > funds for additional wiring drops. > >> > X= Hours lost due to unproductive users, and misallocation of your > time. > >> > Y=Cost of expanding cabling plant. > >> > If X>Y you win, pretty cut and dried. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 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
