Re: Ubuntu 8.04

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Enkidu, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:12:14 +1200, thing wrote:
    >
    >> Carnations wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:44 +1200, thingy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> If I was based in Europe I might be inclined to swap in SUSE for Red
    >>>> Hat on the server, but not in NZ.
    >>> Why? (Curious)
    >>>
    >>> It's a solid system.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yep nothing wrong with SUSE in itself, Novell is a bit of a vampire /
    >> leech though...their proprietry stuff on top can price them as bad if
    >> not worse than MS in NZ IMHO....
    >>
    >> Also the good guys at SUSE seem to have all left and been replaced with
    >> Novell corporate hacks...clash of cultures does not bode well IMHO.
    >>
    >> SUSE has a bigger following in Europe than in NZ...so I guess a user
    >> base thing...no real specific reason.
    >>
    >> Also 3rd party support for SUSE was poorer than RH, but that has
    >> improved very substantially in the last 4 years.
    >>
    >> If I had to decide between say Red Hat / SUSE and MS it would be based
    >> on what the application was and the experience with that particular
    >> version of Linux..
    >>
    >> eg., we have been looking at some LDAP/identity products and Red Hat is
    >> weak in this area....Sun and SUSE/Novell very strong... but from bitter
    >> experience I know trying to run Sun's ID system on Red Hat is just a no
    >> show they are clueless when it comes to support "well it works on
    >> Solaris"...gee thanks...So I would have to seriously consider Novell's
    >> solution on top of SUSE....I'd be reluctant to go Novell's ID on top of
    >> RH, I know RH well but the Sun experience ikky...or continue go the MS
    >> solution route, but we have that now and its <shudder>...
    >>
    >> So in this scenario I'm pretty much "forced" to go the SUSE route with
    >> Novell's ID....Red Hat cant do it in house, Sun's is, well awful and
    >> MS's is worse...

    >
    > eDirectory is a good solution, in my (limited) experience.
    >

    When I experienced it it was a heap of brown stuff. But I experienced it
    as an end user. I also experienced Groupwise as an end user and that was
    a heap of fermenting brown stuff. Groupwise was fine if you didn't
    mind getting someone else's email, or seeing the same email *thousands*
    of times and being unable to delete it, or having GW send to your whole
    Address Book instead of the single person you intended. It never got to
    the person you intended! Oh yes, GW was *fun* for some bizarre
    definition of fun.
    >
    > But isn't there a simpler reliable solution that uses LDAP?
    >

    eDirectory (and for that matter, MS Active directory) are LDAP based.
    Neither AD not eDirectory to my knowledge exposes a useful LDAP
    interface - in other words the LDAP is essentially internal.
    >
    > On a totally unrelated note, I just found out today that MS Exchange
    > craps on itself and will start throwing errors if it is not given semi-
    > regular offline defrags of the database. Apparently this because, like
    > the MS Windows Registry, it only ever expands in size on disc and never
    > reduces, and because after a while the degree of fragmentation gets to
    > the point where MS Exchange cannot serve up the requisite data within
    > even a prolonged timeframe.
    >

    Whoever told you that is talking bollocks. I speak as a former MVP in
    the area.
    >
    > Apparently this has been fixed in Exchange 2007 by using a MS SQL Server
    > as the database for the MS Exchange mail store.
    >

    Again, this is bollocks. The Jet database engine as optimised for
    Exchange is one of the most efficient database engine in the field.
    >
    > Frankly, I think it is rather extreme overkill for a rather stupid and
    > very basic fault.
    >

    Exchange 5.5 has a fault, which in *extreme* cases required an offline
    defrag. Exchange 2000 had a limit to the size of the Exchange database
    which, if it was allowed to fill up required an offline defrag.

    Scarcely 'basic faults' and not requiring 'semi-regular offline defrags.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:18:15 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> Exchange 5.5 has a fault, which in *extreme* cases required an offline
    >> defrag. Exchange 2000 had a limit to the size of the Exchange database
    >> which, if it was allowed to fill up required an offline defrag.
    >>
    >> Scarcely 'basic faults' and not requiring 'semi-regular offline defrags.

    >
    > Those are fundamentally basic database faults, IMO. There is no good
    > reason why an email server should need to go offline merely to facilitate
    > the reduction in disc size of a mail store.
    >

    I've had to do it twice, once on an old 5.0 Exchange system that no one
    looked after, and once in preparation for going to 2000 from 5.5. It is
    NOT a common occurrence. I have once circumvented the need for an
    offline defrag by migrating to a new server. It is not something that
    should happen in a well maintained system.
    >
    > BTW, I'm not sure that calling yourself a "MVP" is something to crow
    > about, as most of those that I have come across (I am not referring to
    > yourself) have been truly clueless.
    >

    It is an honour that I *earned* by knowing a lot about AD and Exchange
    and advising others. I am proud of it.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Enkidu

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:18:15 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    > > Exchange 5.5 has a fault, which in *extreme* cases required an offline
    > > defrag. Exchange 2000 had a limit to the size of the Exchange database
    > > which, if it was allowed to fill up required an offline defrag.
    > >
    > > Scarcely 'basic faults' and not requiring 'semi-regular offline defrags.

    >
    > Those are fundamentally basic database faults, IMO. There is no good
    > reason why an email server should need to go offline merely to facilitate
    > the reduction in disc size of a mail store.


    It doesn't, nor does it need to.

    If circular logging is *not* enabled, then you need to perform an
    exchange aware backup (otherwise you don't!) - to flush the log files,
    you'll eventually fill yer hard disk otherwise.

    Short of filling the disk though, Exchange will run just fine. Dunno
    where you get your info from, it's wrong.

    --
    Duncan
     
    Dave Doe, Aug 22, 2008
    #3
  4. Enkidu

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:26:27 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:
    >
    > > Short of filling the disk though, Exchange will run just fine. Dunno
    > > where you get your info from, it's wrong.

    >
    > Then I'll challenge the MVP person who said that to me.


    Good on yer.

    --
    Duncan
     
    Dave Doe, Aug 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:18:15 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>> Exchange 5.5 has a fault, which in *extreme* cases required an offline
    >>> defrag. Exchange 2000 had a limit to the size of the Exchange database
    >>> which, if it was allowed to fill up required an offline defrag.
    >>>
    >>> Scarcely 'basic faults' and not requiring 'semi-regular offline defrags.

    >> Those are fundamentally basic database faults, IMO. There is no good
    >> reason why an email server should need to go offline merely to facilitate
    >> the reduction in disc size of a mail store.

    >
    > It doesn't, nor does it need to.
    >
    > If circular logging is *not* enabled, then you need to perform an
    > exchange aware backup (otherwise you don't!) - to flush the log files,
    > you'll eventually fill yer hard disk otherwise.
    >
    > Short of filling the disk though, Exchange will run just fine. Dunno
    > where you get your info from, it's wrong.
    >

    He's possibly talking about pre-Ex2000, such as 5.5 and 5.0. There was a
    storage limit in 5.0 and 5.5 of (I think) 2GB. Storage *did* tend not to
    be released and the cure for reaching the limit (which crashed the
    system) was to do exactly what he said - an offline defrag. Now I come
    to think of it, the problem probably went away with 5.5 and 5.0. The
    Enterprise Ex2000 went, I think, to 16GB but the Standard was still only
    2GB. From memory an offline defrag was possible with Ex2000.

    Thanks for reminding me of Exchange aware backups. A restart of the
    system with an orderly shutdown also flushed the log files, from memory.

    Please feel free to correct any errors above - I'm working purely from
    memory!

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:26:27 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:
    >
    >> Short of filling the disk though, Exchange will run just fine. Dunno
    >> where you get your info from, it's wrong.

    >
    > Then I'll challenge the MVP person who said that to me.
    >

    MVP or MSP?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:29:36 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> Carnations wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:26:27 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Short of filling the disk though, Exchange will run just fine.
    >>>> Dunno where you get your info from, it's wrong.
    >>> Then I'll challenge the MVP person who said that to me.
    >>>

    >> MVP or MSP?

    >
    > Actually, probably MSP - because to become a MVP you need to spend a
    > shitload of time promoting/defending/teaching Micro$oft products
    > within community forums, such as Usenet - like what Nathan and Bret
    > were doing here.
    >

    So he picked up from a book. Probably an exchange 5.5 book or some
    *really old* usenet postings.

    As opposed to actually using it over many years and helping people out
    on public forums?

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 24, 2008
    #7
  8. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:25:40 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> As opposed to actually using it over many years and helping people
    >> out on public forums?

    >
    > Actually, it is a part of his job to look after that particular
    > exchange server.
    >

    Get someone else.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 25, 2008
    #8
  9. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:18:03 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> Carnations wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:25:40 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> As opposed to actually using it over many years and helping people out
    >>>> on public forums?
    >>> Actually, it is a part of his job to look after that particular
    >>> exchange server.
    >>>

    >> Get someone else.

    >
    > Why? He's only looking after Micro$oft shite?
    >
    > Its not like it's real software on a real OS.
    >

    That "Micro$oft shite" contains a hell of a lot of the IP of the
    company. If he stuffs up he could cost the organisation *millions*,
    depending on how big the organisation is.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 26, 2008
    #9
  10. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:44:52 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> That "Micro$oft shite" contains a hell of a lot of the IP of the
    >> company.

    >
    > Really?
    >
    > I thought that it was Micro$oft's IP that was being used.
    >

    Intellectual Property.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 27, 2008
    #10
  11. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:55:18 +1200, Murray Symon wrote:
    >
    >> "contains" != "being used".
    >>
    >> As usual, you edited previous postings to suit your argument.

    >
    > "Contains" != "Hosts" or "stores".
    >
    > And I would have expected that no organisation in its right mind would
    > encourage its employees to store their important documents and
    > information in a Micro$oft Exchange server!
    >

    Why not? It's reliable, robust, and gets backed up every night. It's
    just as secure as file system storage (maybe more) and it is where
    people do most of their work these days, outside of corporate applications.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 28, 2008
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Colyn

    Ubuntu linux firefox users

    Colyn, Jun 25, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    738
    schrodinger's cat
    Jul 7, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    "What is it About Ubuntu?" at XYZ Computing

    Silverstrand, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    655
    Silverstrand
    Dec 12, 2005
  3. Marek Williams

    64-bit Ubuntu, Firefox 1.07, and RealPlayer

    Marek Williams, Jan 8, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    6,817
    Jedi Fans
    Jan 8, 2006
  4. bdeditch

    Ubuntu Linux Question for boot up

    bdeditch, Sep 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    352
  5. Clogwog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    620
    Clogwog
    Apr 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page