Because consumer removable media has a known poor stored shelf-life and no
fault tolerance?
--
Espi
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Ken Schaefer k...@kj.net.au wrote:
I’m curious to understand why that would change anything.
** **
Cheers
Ken
** **
--
Hi all
Is anyone using Veeam or Altaro for performing backups and restores of VMs?
Would appreciate any feedback, good and bad regarding these products.
Thanks
Pierre
Hi Pierre,
Sorry for hijacking this thread.
Does anybody using Windows server backup for backups/restores of VMs like to
share their experience.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/958662
Dhiraj
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of
And if your acceptable rate of loss is 1%, and 1% of these devices die in 2
years, what's the point of replacing them all in 5 years?
Answer: pretty pointless.
The point: 5 years is an arbitrary line in the sand that it seems IT people are
drawing regardless of business need
Futhermore: your
Its certainly an interesting exercise to dissect whatever else you want to
throw in the mix to make some arbitrary point - but please recall that this
discussion started with Zip disks. Making points for enterprise policy and
storage requirements is great, but I dont understand why its being used
So, this is what Kurt said (emphasis added)
Perhaps the lesson to take from it is that any media older than 5
years should be destroyed...
Well, maybe that, and copy any data off to new media.
And this is what you said (emphasis added):
My assumption would be that this was
I use Veeam and I love it. Very reliable and my favorite part is the virtual
labs where I can test my vm's in an isolated environment.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from Exchange 2013
On Aug 6, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Pierre-Marie Camilleri
pmcamill...@laferla.com.mtmailto:pmcamill...@laferla.com.mt
That is what I am finding.
Will not be default wsus'ing again at other LAN's.
Will be rebuilding this one just to be certain nothing is hanging
around.
Thanks again.
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Monday, August
Seeing as how you are obviously referring to me, allow me to ask:
Given that I responded to your _SPECIFIC_ point about this being a MTIM
attack (quoted below for you convenience), why your subsequent
dismissive response?
-sc
(quotation follows)
The resulting exposed data in a
Hey Lora,
I have a side bet going that you can help me with if you please. Are you
really -sc?
- WJR
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Lora Cates lora.ca...@rocketmail.comwrote:
I find it interesting that there are several folks, myself included, that
fail to see your point, yet when
My point was to what data was remotely accessible.
--
Espi
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Steven M. Caesare scaes...@caesare.comwrote:
Seeing as how you are obviously referring to me, allow me to ask:
** **
Given that I responded to your _*SPECIFIC*_ point about this being a MTIM
And as pointed out, that's not the only risk for which like data is
remotely accessible. Thus responses (from multiple people_ regarding
odds are as applicable to your scenario as others.
It's a germane point. Yet you simply dismiss it rather than discussing
on its merits.
Thus my
Apparently my attempt at humor was poorly timed. (again) My apologies.
Carry on with your regular duties.
- WJR
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, William Robbins dangerw...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Lora,
I have a side bet going that you can help me with if you please. Are you
really -sc?
Looking at a VNX5300 from EMC with a bunch of stuff going with it.
For a 70GB Exchange 2010 server.
1 300GB SQL 2012 server.
And 16 IIS 7.0 application servers.
Think that VNX5300 should be good enough.
Sales people from two companies basically selling same product are
coming up with the same
I figured poor timing was your regular duty.
-lc
From: William Robbins dangerw...@gmail.com
To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] man-in-the-middle attack
Apparently my attempt at humor was
What is your total I/O requirement and will it be properly configured to
provide that, plus growth room?
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of David McSpadden
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 3:22 PM
To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
Subject:
I am still getting 6 additional servers iops but we are supposed to have
30% growth.
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 3:34 PM
To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [NTSysADM] RE:
Under 2008 it worked had it running at night full backups not typical but for
the setup I was doing this on it was the best option. VM's were up and running
on the host backed up the entire host.
Jon
From: dhiraj.harit...@ap.sony.com
To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: [NTSysADM] RE:
Just think of all you'll have to discuss in your private discussion group.
Enjoy!
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Steven M. Caesare scaes...@caesare.comwrote:
My irony meter just assploded.
--
Espi
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Jon Harris jk.har...@live.com wrote:
Under 2008 it worked had it running at night full backups not typical but
for the setup I was doing this on it was the best option. VM's were up and
running on the host backed up the entire host.
FYI, Microsoft's official
I agree not scalable but it functioned/worked. The only server I never
restored was the virtual DC all the others in this instance restored and
functioned. Client refused to purchase a better system. Client had dedicated
hardware for the primary DC. It was backed up separately.
Jon
21 matches
Mail list logo
