Valid point and fair enough. It has been about a year since I worked with it, but there were fundamental flaws with the program. The deal breaker for me was when the Hyper-V MMC would not create a virtual machine. I don't remember what the exact error was, but it was a problem with the MMC. The only way I could create a virtual machine was to use SCVMM. It worked fine through SCVMM, but that tool costs money and absolutely ruins the selling point of a "free with the OS" virtualization solution. I decided that if I was going to have to pay for a virtualization solution, I was going to pay for a tool that works.
I'm not bashing MS for the sake of bashing MS. I work in a Microsoft based SaaS shop that generated over $10 million in revenue last quarter between SharePoint and.Net apps running on IIS7.5 backed by SQL Server 2008 R2 clusters. If Hyper-V was the best tool for the job, I would not have any hesitation putting it into production. When core functionality does not even work and requires turning to yet another tool, it does not instill confidence in the product.
The other thing that turned me off to the product was the P2V utility built into SCVMM. It ran for hours upon hours on a couple of hosts, and failed to virtualize one out of the four hosts I ran it against. VMware's tool ran much faster, and worked 100% of the time.
Since when is speaking the truth FUD? Look over my posting history for the last few years. I have supported Microsoft on numerous occasions when the situation warranted it. When I first started posting here, people accused me of being a Microsoft astro-turfer. However when it comes to Hyper-V, the product sucks. Is it better than Virtual Server 2005? It sure is! There you go. How's this? Microsoft Hyper-V is the best Microsoft virtualization product to date. Happy now?
The Microsoft fanboys are out in force with mod points to burn today it seems.
When I started caring about my diet and wanting to improve my health, I found myself eating a lot of "Asian" and "Middle Eastern" types of food. I was a vegetarian for a while, but have since started eating meat again. The idea of trying to make vegetarian equivalents of traditional American foods often leads to some not so great results. On the other hand, there are other cultures that eat primarily vegetarian diets and have been doing so for generations. Not surprisingly, their food tastes great despite not having any meat in it.
I figured it out. I had it up and running on a Server 2008 R2 core installation. It took SCVMM to make functional.
Ooooo, you test apps with it. Super impressive. I'm trying to figure how to make enough room in my office to bow down to your technical prowess.
How many VMs are you running on Hyper-V currently? How many of those are in production? I'm at 15 production servers on ESXi and still growing. I leverage WDS for images, but the guests are running on ESXi 4.1.
What makes me inept? Because I tried a substandard product and decided that the industry leading solution is the best tool for the job? If that makes me inept, then I am going to keep on keeping on with the inept program.
Hyper-V is a steaming pile of crap. After banging my head against the Hyper-V headache for two days, I downloaded a free copy of ESXi and had it up and running in a few hours. Just the other day I got around to connecting it to a LUN on the SAN. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with. I cannot say the same for Hyper-V. Stay away from it. Far, far away.
I'm guessing they are doing it for the purposes of load testing. They selected two high population regions of the country on opposite coasts. If the system gets overwhelmed, they can spin up additional resources.
IANAL - How is this discovery valid? It seems to me that unless they do a seizure of the computer and then a forensic examination of the hard drive to prove that the movie is on there, they should not have a case.
I would think that the legal defense to this would be as simple as the defendant's lawyer saying, "Your honor, the plaintiff has failed to do proper discovery and furthermore has no proof that my client has the material in their possession."
You're talking about two completely different wireless technologies. A standard access point does not have a "miles long" range. A point to point bridge is not the same as an access point. You jumped into the conversation and said, "I setup all of these security systems using wireless cameras." That has nothing to do with whether or not replacing CAT5/6 or coax with wireless is a good way to go for security systems.
I know you say you did some work for DHS, but given the way the government gives the contracts to the lowest bidders, that's not exactly reassuring knowledge.
The original context of the article is the usefulness of wireless as a replacement for traditional wired setups in the enterprise. One of the applications mentioned was video surveillance. You brought up the random edge case of CCTV over wireless bridges. The discussion has been about traditional access points, and replacing the wired LAN with a wireless infrastructure.
Whoa...you are so off base here and you don't even know it. I started my career (8 years ago so this isn't new) in CCTV over IP deployments working on Dept. of Homeland Security projects for 6 different major ports (two of the most major ports in the world). EVERY ONE OF THEM had 90% of the camera resources either across miles-long wireless bridge links or performing a point-to-multipoint style IP video bridging
A wireless bridge is not the same as an access point. I setup a wireless bridge in the mid-1990s for a point to point connection because it was less expensive than leasing the equivalent bandwidth from the telco. A user cannot just fire up their 802.11 wireless card and hop onto a wireless bridge.
The idea is that the wireless environment needs to match the wired one in cost and budgeting expenditure at the very least
How do you propose to make that happen? I can buy one 48-port GigE switch and connect about 46 people to. You stated that
Any wireless LAN that requires decent data throughput should never have more than 10 clients connected to a single AP.
Using current technology, it takes about four and a half wireless APs to achieve the same density as a single switch. It has been a while since I worked with any of Cisco's enterprise (Aironet) gear, but it was not cheap. If you really want to manage it, you have to weave in additional hardware to unify it all together. Otherwise, your are left with half assed options like setting all of the APs to the same SSID and letting the clients hop between them. Above and beyond the wireless components, you still have to back everything with ethernet, and usually PoE at that. I have never seen a single, real world, "enterprise / campus" level wireless network that was setup as a wireless mesh. All of the APs had direct connections into switches.
If 128-bit is so secure, why are all of the major SSL cert auths recommending 256? Just because you and I don't have the hardware, or more importantly, the algorithms to brute force them, does not mean that the NSA doesn't. Hell, CAs are only protecting regular commerce. That means that 128bit is not even good enough for business, much less serious secrets.
I am in the exact same boat as you. The GPS has made certain parts of the brain unnecessary, and think it is a change for the worse. With old fashioned directions along the lines of, Take the highway to this exit, turn right, go to this street and turn left, make your second right, etc. The brain was engaged with the surroundings, searching for clues, mentally cataloging landmarks and in general, developing a map for the territory. It takes a certain degree of sustained focus to get to a new place for the first time. The sense of time comes into play as well. "I hope I haven't missed my exit, I've been driving for a while now." or, "I sure got home a lot faster than I got there." (because on the way home, you know where you are going, as opposed to being on the way there and having to be alert, time seems to pass more slowly).
With the GPS, all of those above mentioned mental functions are disengaged. As we all know, whatever the mind does not use, eventually atrophies. In the case of the GPS, drivers are just told "Get on the highway, disengage your sense of direction until the GPS beeps and tells you to exit."
At point in the history of this country, the government was keeping secret the fact that they were arming the mujahideen and training them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. That same training, and those people who were trained, later conducted attacks against your fellow citizens and killed well over 3000 of them.
How does that reality mesh with your statement that the government does not hide secrets that endanger you?
The human mind can only hold so much information. It can only hold an individual chunk of a fairly limited size. How complex of a password do you think bin Laden could have kept in his head without having to write it down? For random bits of information, the general population can only hold between 5 and 9 unrelated characters in their memory. There are tricks like chunking and mnemonic devices that can increase that amount, but not by a statistically significant number. How large of a key space do you really think they have to compute?
I don't care what the media was told. The strategic reason for putting American boots on the ground in Iraq was always to counter-balance Iran. The hope was that a pro-American government could be propped up long enough to stand on their own. That has not happened and does not appear to be a likely outcome. The Iranians and their Shiite proxies have too much influence over the government.
The success of the Iraq mission is an open question...we will not know for a few decades.
It has already been acknowledged as a failure. The purpose of the Iraq mission was to establish a counter-balance to Iran. That has not happened. It is doubtful that it will ever happen.
Even with a new OS they are done. Companies are dumping Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES) left and right. I wrote a post about this a week or two ago. Now that both Apple and Android can sync directly with Exchange, nobody needs a BES server. IT departments cannot justify the thousands of dollars in support contracts and license fees to keep BES online when that same functionality is available for free in iPhone and Android.
The issue is that anyone should be able to setup an open access point and not be liable for the traffic that goes across it. I have the hardware to throttle traffic and would have no problems opening up my internet connection and letting the public use 10% of my bandwidth. I do not do it because I don't want to be liable for some monkey who uses it to swap warez, music or kiddie porn.
I have not sense Xbox Live so I cannot make a comparison, but I agree that PSN matching does blow. It does seem like every company has to come up with their own hooks into whatever APIs Sony has. There is no way to simply find a friend on the friend's list and join up with them in whatever game they happen to be playing.
Slashdot Mirror
Valid point and fair enough. It has been about a year since I worked with it, but there were fundamental flaws with the program. The deal breaker for me was when the Hyper-V MMC would not create a virtual machine. I don't remember what the exact error was, but it was a problem with the MMC. The only way I could create a virtual machine was to use SCVMM. It worked fine through SCVMM, but that tool costs money and absolutely ruins the selling point of a "free with the OS" virtualization solution. I decided that if I was going to have to pay for a virtualization solution, I was going to pay for a tool that works.
I'm not bashing MS for the sake of bashing MS. I work in a Microsoft based SaaS shop that generated over $10 million in revenue last quarter between SharePoint and .Net apps running on IIS7.5 backed by SQL Server 2008 R2 clusters. If Hyper-V was the best tool for the job, I would not have any hesitation putting it into production. When core functionality does not even work and requires turning to yet another tool, it does not instill confidence in the product.
The other thing that turned me off to the product was the P2V utility built into SCVMM. It ran for hours upon hours on a couple of hosts, and failed to virtualize one out of the four hosts I ran it against. VMware's tool ran much faster, and worked 100% of the time.
Since when is speaking the truth FUD? Look over my posting history for the last few years. I have supported Microsoft on numerous occasions when the situation warranted it. When I first started posting here, people accused me of being a Microsoft astro-turfer. However when it comes to Hyper-V, the product sucks. Is it better than Virtual Server 2005? It sure is! There you go. How's this? Microsoft Hyper-V is the best Microsoft virtualization product to date. Happy now?
The Microsoft fanboys are out in force with mod points to burn today it seems.
When I started caring about my diet and wanting to improve my health, I found myself eating a lot of "Asian" and "Middle Eastern" types of food. I was a vegetarian for a while, but have since started eating meat again. The idea of trying to make vegetarian equivalents of traditional American foods often leads to some not so great results. On the other hand, there are other cultures that eat primarily vegetarian diets and have been doing so for generations. Not surprisingly, their food tastes great despite not having any meat in it.
I figured it out. I had it up and running on a Server 2008 R2 core installation. It took SCVMM to make functional.
Ooooo, you test apps with it. Super impressive. I'm trying to figure how to make enough room in my office to bow down to your technical prowess.
How many VMs are you running on Hyper-V currently? How many of those are in production? I'm at 15 production servers on ESXi and still growing. I leverage WDS for images, but the guests are running on ESXi 4.1.
What makes me inept? Because I tried a substandard product and decided that the industry leading solution is the best tool for the job? If that makes me inept, then I am going to keep on keeping on with the inept program.
I'm just calling a spade a spade.
Don't. See my post further down in the discussion. Hyper-V is a steaming pile of crap compared to VMware.
Hyper-V is a steaming pile of crap. After banging my head against the Hyper-V headache for two days, I downloaded a free copy of ESXi and had it up and running in a few hours. Just the other day I got around to connecting it to a LUN on the SAN. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with. I cannot say the same for Hyper-V. Stay away from it. Far, far away.
I'm guessing they are doing it for the purposes of load testing. They selected two high population regions of the country on opposite coasts. If the system gets overwhelmed, they can spin up additional resources.
IANAL - How is this discovery valid? It seems to me that unless they do a seizure of the computer and then a forensic examination of the hard drive to prove that the movie is on there, they should not have a case.
I would think that the legal defense to this would be as simple as the defendant's lawyer saying, "Your honor, the plaintiff has failed to do proper discovery and furthermore has no proof that my client has the material in their possession."
You're talking about two completely different wireless technologies. A standard access point does not have a "miles long" range. A point to point bridge is not the same as an access point. You jumped into the conversation and said, "I setup all of these security systems using wireless cameras." That has nothing to do with whether or not replacing CAT5/6 or coax with wireless is a good way to go for security systems.
I know you say you did some work for DHS, but given the way the government gives the contracts to the lowest bidders, that's not exactly reassuring knowledge.
The original context of the article is the usefulness of wireless as a replacement for traditional wired setups in the enterprise. One of the applications mentioned was video surveillance. You brought up the random edge case of CCTV over wireless bridges. The discussion has been about traditional access points, and replacing the wired LAN with a wireless infrastructure.
Whoa...you are so off base here and you don't even know it. I started my career (8 years ago so this isn't new) in CCTV over IP deployments working on Dept. of Homeland Security projects for 6 different major ports (two of the most major ports in the world). EVERY ONE OF THEM had 90% of the camera resources either across miles-long wireless bridge links or performing a point-to-multipoint style IP video bridging
A wireless bridge is not the same as an access point. I setup a wireless bridge in the mid-1990s for a point to point connection because it was less expensive than leasing the equivalent bandwidth from the telco. A user cannot just fire up their 802.11 wireless card and hop onto a wireless bridge.
Forget pet projects. Every time my girl friend turns on the microwave, I lose connectivity.
The idea is that the wireless environment needs to match the wired one in cost and budgeting expenditure at the very least
How do you propose to make that happen? I can buy one 48-port GigE switch and connect about 46 people to. You stated that
Any wireless LAN that requires decent data throughput should never have more than 10 clients connected to a single AP.
Using current technology, it takes about four and a half wireless APs to achieve the same density as a single switch. It has been a while since I worked with any of Cisco's enterprise (Aironet) gear, but it was not cheap. If you really want to manage it, you have to weave in additional hardware to unify it all together. Otherwise, your are left with half assed options like setting all of the APs to the same SSID and letting the clients hop between them. Above and beyond the wireless components, you still have to back everything with ethernet, and usually PoE at that. I have never seen a single, real world, "enterprise / campus" level wireless network that was setup as a wireless mesh. All of the APs had direct connections into switches.
If 128-bit is so secure, why are all of the major SSL cert auths recommending 256? Just because you and I don't have the hardware, or more importantly, the algorithms to brute force them, does not mean that the NSA doesn't. Hell, CAs are only protecting regular commerce. That means that 128bit is not even good enough for business, much less serious secrets.
I am in the exact same boat as you. The GPS has made certain parts of the brain unnecessary, and think it is a change for the worse. With old fashioned directions along the lines of, Take the highway to this exit, turn right, go to this street and turn left, make your second right, etc. The brain was engaged with the surroundings, searching for clues, mentally cataloging landmarks and in general, developing a map for the territory. It takes a certain degree of sustained focus to get to a new place for the first time. The sense of time comes into play as well. "I hope I haven't missed my exit, I've been driving for a while now." or, "I sure got home a lot faster than I got there." (because on the way home, you know where you are going, as opposed to being on the way there and having to be alert, time seems to pass more slowly).
With the GPS, all of those above mentioned mental functions are disengaged. As we all know, whatever the mind does not use, eventually atrophies. In the case of the GPS, drivers are just told "Get on the highway, disengage your sense of direction until the GPS beeps and tells you to exit."
At point in the history of this country, the government was keeping secret the fact that they were arming the mujahideen and training them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. That same training, and those people who were trained, later conducted attacks against your fellow citizens and killed well over 3000 of them.
How does that reality mesh with your statement that the government does not hide secrets that endanger you?
You must have missed the whole Iran Contra scandal.
The human mind can only hold so much information. It can only hold an individual chunk of a fairly limited size. How complex of a password do you think bin Laden could have kept in his head without having to write it down? For random bits of information, the general population can only hold between 5 and 9 unrelated characters in their memory. There are tricks like chunking and mnemonic devices that can increase that amount, but not by a statistically significant number. How large of a key space do you really think they have to compute?
I don't care what the media was told. The strategic reason for putting American boots on the ground in Iraq was always to counter-balance Iran. The hope was that a pro-American government could be propped up long enough to stand on their own. That has not happened and does not appear to be a likely outcome. The Iranians and their Shiite proxies have too much influence over the government.
The success of the Iraq mission is an open question...we will not know for a few decades.
It has already been acknowledged as a failure. The purpose of the Iraq mission was to establish a counter-balance to Iran. That has not happened. It is doubtful that it will ever happen.
He always was politically astute.
Even with a new OS they are done. Companies are dumping Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES) left and right. I wrote a post about this a week or two ago. Now that both Apple and Android can sync directly with Exchange, nobody needs a BES server. IT departments cannot justify the thousands of dollars in support contracts and license fees to keep BES online when that same functionality is available for free in iPhone and Android.
The issue is that anyone should be able to setup an open access point and not be liable for the traffic that goes across it. I have the hardware to throttle traffic and would have no problems opening up my internet connection and letting the public use 10% of my bandwidth. I do not do it because I don't want to be liable for some monkey who uses it to swap warez, music or kiddie porn.
I have not sense Xbox Live so I cannot make a comparison, but I agree that PSN matching does blow. It does seem like every company has to come up with their own hooks into whatever APIs Sony has. There is no way to simply find a friend on the friend's list and join up with them in whatever game they happen to be playing.