Whoosh... On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 21:25, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>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) > 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
~ 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
