Forum Replies Created
Thanks Wullieb. I subscribed to 365, and it looks great, and I have been granted 1 TB of space in OneDrive, which is amazing! , for just 9 euro per month.
Well, in previous versions you paid 200 euros and you had it for three years, maybe it was cheaper.Ossian;n506604 wrote:I think the point is that you believe “almost all” companies will transfer to the cloud , do you have any basis for that (apart from marketing by MS, AWS etc)? .
None whatsoever Ossian.
I did not say “I believe”. Here is what I wrote:
“… There is something I don’t understand:
In the future, 90% of the companies will have their IT infrastructure in either AWS, Azure, Google , or a very other few providers ?, just as you join a phone provider over the other ? …”
I see, thanks.
That might be the well-known shadow copies ?
But, for instance (I asked this two days ago) , if something gets wrong with AD or Exchange and I want to rely on my yesterday’s backup , can I do that ?
I think it is now “SkyDrive”, but I get your point about “whatever they are calling it this WEEK”, hehe
I guess OneDrive, SkyDrive, is now the File Server.
All is changing! :/
As I see it:
Long ago, many companies had their own electricity system, and maybe two electric technicians onboard, on a daily basis, because the system was not reliable at all, at these days, so failures would occur every other day.
Then, three or four huge companies offered a very reliable electricity system, and companies pay them monthly, not needing an electrician on premises anymore. The Big company would bring an electrician when a (rare) failure would occur.
I think there is a parallelism with the “Whales IT cloud providers”
1. I said 90% meaning = almost all
2. So, they only gave me the servers? a bunch of redundant servers? , if AD gets corrupted, they won’t come to help ?. So, all the companies will still need a System Administrator: Exchange, AD, Backups ? , because again, as little as I know, onedrive will be the new file server on the cloud, redundant servers, so you don’t have to worry about clustering, failover… Correct me if I am wrong, I am really new to the Cloud ( but eager to learn)Ossian;n506420 wrote:3. You lose internet access….
Now that I come to think about this, a pc or any other device is nothing without the internet. I think.
Nowadays, ISP Providers guarantee 99.99% uptime, and they are more and more reliable.
I haven’t had any internet related issued for years, and when I have them, it takes minutes.
Probably that will be the trend: ISP will guarantee 99.999% uptime, or 99,99%, that is some minutes in a whole year. :)
If you lose internet connectivity, there is not such thing as “work off-line” ? … Outlook has always had that feature. :)
Who else can access your data? …Yes, I have a friend who always insists on that too.
I thought the data was encrypted in the cloud, …too naive?
I like the Cloud, maybe the “offline” work should be improved , a cache in the machine with all your office 365 documents, and only the changes are synchronized ?
I personally like the Cloud, to have my documents in the cloud rather than in my physical disk.
There is something that I like about that:
1- No need to back up
2- You go to Tokyo tomorrow, and you have those documents for you and not tied to a machine
Yes, if you add a dns suffix to the RDS Gateway (which is not domain-joined) , the certificate request goes just fine.
I have another question:
If I had some internal RDS Servers (LAN, behind the internal firewall) , then the Certificate should be a SAN ?
I am pointing the RDS Gateway machine’s DNS to the internal DNS server (DC1) , through a rule in the isa firewall, and it works fine.
Yet, following that article, the certificate’s common name is a FQDN, whereas the RDS Gateway server does not have a FQDN, just a netbios machine.
But, would not I need netbios (137, 138, 139) traffic going and coming through the firewall?. The machine I want to shutdown is in the DMZ, and mine is in the LAN.
“shutdown computer_name…..” (not FQDN computer name), that is, the netbios name I believe.RicklesP;n506183 wrote:If you want to bounce the machine instead of shutting it down, use ‘restart_computer < name> -force’.
Since there is a firewall in between, should I not point to the IP rather than to the computer name ?RicklesP;n506183 wrote:If you have remote management enabled on the machine in the DMZ, and your firewall allows RPC traffic thru, you shouldn’t have a problem.
Yes, this is what I did, but a nuance: I allowed 3389 through the firewall, not RPC.
I don’t know what a PS cmd is, I will look into it, thank you so much!
*Edition: “PS” = “PowerShell” , Opppss !!July 7, 2016 at 3:05 am in reply to: Happy with my Exchange 2013 SP1 under VirtualBox until… #380006
Wow, 8 GB. That is impossible for my humble budget. :(
Yes, I tried unsuccessfully to start the services manually.July 7, 2016 at 1:56 am in reply to: Happy with my Exchange 2013 SP1 under VirtualBox until… #380005
Ossian, the specs: 50 GB of Hard disk. 2 GB RAM.
Exchange related services did not start. I rebooted the machine three times. I was guessing it was a low RAM, but then I read that and, unlike joeqwerty, I thought that “not supported” actually meant “it won’t work.”
The firewalls in both the DC and the Exchange machine were ON.
So now I am installing it on a 50 GB fixed Virtual Hard Drive.July 2, 2016 at 4:43 am in reply to: Two consecutive public IP addresses for Direct Access #380003
Thanks both ! .
Sorry for my delay in thanking you !! :(
Ohh, I am so sorry,
I forgot to post the solution, it was something very obvious, but it was some days ago…. I really apologize !
Maybe is what Wullied pointed: “modifyvm” , and I wrote “modify”
Again: My apologies. It won’t happen again.