Domino

out of interest have you set resource constraints in SQl itself? If it's left to grab all it can it might limit the SIMS application layers access to resource, causing an end user slowdown. I'm not saying it is the issue, just something to consider.

Lightworks is in a similar position - and quite similar to Premiere regarding layout if transitioning is a concern https://www.lwks.com/ Not sure how nicely it plays with multiuser stuff - but might be worth a look.

Can the switch not tell you which mac address are plugged into each port? Phones will probably have a common prefix, move those with that MAC to ports in the VOIP vlan and you're done?

Yeah, I was shocked they'd bought Cisco too...

^ this. They could just put "CPUs" - but they added cores to deal with licensing/software constraints of things running within the VM

Just set the number of Virtual Processors and leave cores per socket at 1.

The right-sizing link examples should give an indication. There's no hard and fast rules as to exactly how much a vm should have, Size for the workload. You also need to have an understanding that this is an ecosystem of machines working on the same hardware. More vCPUs != more power. I'd always advise starting low and working up. Consider the physical CPUs on a host. This is how many vCPUs can do work *at the same time* any others needing CPU time are then scheduled and have to wait till they can get a turn on the physcial hardware. This is value is reflected in the performance stats as "CPU Ready" time. If your physical hardware only has enough room for one or two of these large VMs, then that is how many concurrent machines can be using CPUs simultaneously. Many 2vCPU machines are easier to schedule than 4 16vCPU. In real terms having a massive overallocation of resource will slow everything down. This becomes more apparent under load, as machines have to wait longer for other systems to finish. My Standard at this business is 2vCPU by standard, 4 if needed after performance tuning. Anything above that is a special case and needs investigation. Additionally, your graph will show low usage when overallocated, it literally can't run enough VMs concurrently to make usage of the CPU power.

Errr what? 4CPUs and 4Cores per socket? One of those uses one whole physical server's worth of allocation. The level of contention there must be epic, what's the current CPU Ready time for a server? You're also crossing NUMA nodes with the larger ones - Which is a performance hit. You should really be thinking what a server *needs* to do the work it's given, starting low and working up in allocation, there's more on this here: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/enterprise-software/185012-want-compare-my-esxi-ram-allocation-others.html

Have you got vmware upgrade manager setup and pointing at the manufacturers repo? it could be there's a firmware/driver upgrade that's required?

Does that space include the drive where the exchange binaries are located?

No, it's not. You can't force or expect someone to check their email etc outside their core hours in France. There's no law about removing notifications/access.

*gasp* A PONY!

Or use the built in shrink that's been there for a number of editions of Windows server

The answer is "maybe" When you commit more virtual cores than you have physical, then the VMs must be scheduled to have time on the processor. VMware has a metric in the vm stats for this they call "CPU Ready" and it's a measure in ms of the time waiting to schedule the VM onto hardware. They recommend going through a rightsizing exercise once in a while to set the vm allocations to what you can the VMs actually using. More here on that: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/enterprise-software/185012-want-compare-my-esxi-ram-allocation-others.html This can cause slowdown and contention, and cause major issues if real time processing is needed on the VM (bigger issue for voice or video distribution applications) Of course, the flip side is if you don't require fast access to the CPUs then it may not be an issue for you. But keep in mind that adding say, another 4vCPU VM exacerbates the slowdown across the entire estate - not just itself. As the cluster now has to fit more vCPUs into the same amount of physical CPUs. Make sense?

Not a term I've seen used before, but IBM say this. my understanding is that basically means the PVID is the native VLAN for those ports (eg untagged) - I would surmise that your additional VLANs are therefore tagged, and to get VLAN 2 on there you'd need to add it as tagged to the trunk and then configure the virtual network card to send traffic with that tag (I'm not that savvy with hyper-v's implementation of this)

I once had a machine that was doing that. Turned out to be the USB mouse at that desk was knackered and causing a POST fail. Never seen it before or since.

Mine works okay, and I used the same guide if you run "get-omeconfiguration -Identity "OME Configuration" does it return your expected settings?

Basically you want to make sure you have enough physical CPU cores to issue to your VMs to avoid a high ready state. If you're far beyond that already it would explain your low utilization. the servers are having to swap too often to make good use of the resource. You want at least 1 core per vCPU (+ room for expansion if needed) + 1 host. That way you can run normally in the event of a failure. With that in mind more hosts can be beneficial.

You can buy an i7-8086k...not an i7-8086k limited edition. Which has....a different box

Veeam have some guidance: https://www.veeam.com/blog/backing-up-domain-controller-best-practices-for-ad-protection.html We use Networker, it has an AD system state option when choosing a DC.

I'd say never backup a DC. backup the AD state using whatever method your backup tool has. That way you're never in a position to restore it. The tombstone period has been 180 days since 2003ish IIRC. However DCs will be marked as "do not sync" in their system properties before that.

As per here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/exchange/2005/01/10/fun-with-changing-e-mail-addresses/ On a change of primary mail address the mail AD attribute is changed by exchange. Changes are Exchange> AD only

What you want to do is adjust the mail address policy: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb232171(v=exchg.150).aspx Add the new address style to list, and whichever you want to be the primary choose to "set as reply" as below

What's your use case for Plex?

I'm only here to suggest the noise it should make: https://inception.davepedu.com/