morganw

You could set the profile location of a user to be a local folder on a workstation, you'd just have to make sure that the folder existed on all your workstations. Or you could make a generic mandatory profile and get it picked up from the netlogon share or from a user's profile location field in AD. I've found that a bare-bones W7 profile means a long logon time though but, as you say, the Windows Enabler route doesn't look the most stable route to go. For a terminal server session you can use loopback processing to change the profile location via GPO but unfortunately their isn't an equivalent for a regular profile.

Can you use Windows ACLs on it?

I've decided to take both drives to work tomorrow and I'll try to use th wdidle3 tool to increase the time before parking. I forgot that I had a third one in there as well, it's older but it's only parked about 200 times. Thanks for the heads-up on this.

The second drive gives 12983 as a Load Cycle Count and 1652 Power On Hours. Dividing the first by the second gives 7.86 so it seems that both drives are doing the same thing. There definitely isn't any clicking either.

Windows XP over the top of Windows 7 should be okay. In terms of the recovery partition I think it will depend how it is implemented. I've always just imaged over the top of Dell and Lenovo recovery partitions out of the box. I've also overwritten RM Restore partitions with no problems, both out of the box and from a working environment.

This site seems pretty clued up about it: wdantiparkd - WD anti-intellipark daemon According to his formula (Take Load_Cycle_Count and divide it by Power_On_Hours and if the value is > 50, your drive is affected), mine doesn't seem to be. Mine is 12920 divided by 1650, which gives me a value of 7.83. Maybe they fixed it?

I've got two 2TB Caviar Green drives in a software RAID 1 array in an HP Microserver. I haven't noticed any delays or noises that makes me think that it's doing anything bizarre. Is there a good way to monitor the amount of head parks?

We have a (almost) universal image which is 3.4 GB, applications are installed after this as snap-ins. Most computers can download this in about a minute. I'm moving to WDS / MDT2010 for OS deployment, it is slower but I'm struggling to manage drivers with the traditional flat sysprep approach. I gave up on multicast deployment a long time ago and haven't required or missed it.

Broken gearbox mount?

It's MY session data. They are storing information about MY session. As an innocent visotor to their site I'm outraged that they have done so without my permission and demand that the internet be changed.

This is what you get if you don't accept cookies on their site: So basically the site gets broken and they've already stored a cookie because their site cannot operate without cookies. Quite the example they are setting there...

It is on their sales documentation /quotes if you read the small print. The biggest problem seems to be that they aren't making people aware of this until you try to leave or have left.

Yes, as far as I know everything else is fine - it's just that RM will sell you Microsoft licensing on their own Agreement which is only valid when using their platform.

I had it confirmed to me that any Select licenses purchased from them (so all of our Office 2003 / 2007 licenses) were invalid after moving away from CC3. It's sold under their own Select agreement and as such you aren't permitted to install it anymore. After pushing a bit further they said that it's only valid on pre-installed RM hardware or when installed from a CC3 server. I them decided that I was installing it from an old CC3 server that I had joined to the new domain - according to my account manager this is good enough. When we didn't renew contracts they didn't mention any license issues, this all happened about 3 months afterwards and we couldn't afford to re-buy it all again.

The ICO website uses cookies to detect whether I've opted into using cookies or not. How did this get past the common sense department?

Why not let the browser handle it though? They might not understand the term cookie but if a dialogue box on the browser doesn't use this term and instead talks about storing data and privacy then what's the problem?

This law is bizarre and obviously put into place with a bare minimum of technical consultation. You can already block/accept cookies for sites with your existing web browser settings, you already have privacy modes so that you know no cookies are stored with existing web browsers. How about just defaulting browser settings to something that doesn't store cookies and then letting the user opt into accepting them. Unless I'm mistaken this would result in the same thing but without having to re-code half of the Internet.

It worked but had horrible (and intermittent) performance issues. Tried tweaking TCP stack parameters, checked forward and reverse DNS, no problems with the infrastructure, went to numerous companies to try and find a solution but no one could offer any assistance. In the end the problem with iPhoto not working meant that I can no longer use this as a viable solution anyway. I'm still trying to get Netatalk working with Kerberos as a long-term replacement but I really hope that Apple will allow people to virtualise OS X installations on any hardware now that they've pulled out of the server market.

In my experience accessing shares on a Windows 2008 R2 server from Snow Leopard is totally broken, I went to a few companies to get this resolved but no one could help. I ended up switching back to using an OS X server while trying to find a long term solution. Apple is replacing the Samba client with their own custom client for the next OS X release, hopefully this one will actually work. Unfortunately some programs refuse to work using SMB shares as home folders (iPhoto cannot create a new photo library) so you're screwed either way. Apple don't make servers and you cannot virtualise OS X on non-Apple hardware. Welcome to the future.

I could never get multicast transfers to work with our switches, in the end I just reduced the maximum queue size on the storage node to 2 and let everything queue with unicast transfers. The maximum unicast transfer time we have is about 2 minutes and by staggering each deployment you've just created a poor man's load balancer for any post-imaging task that you may have.

I believe RM Engineers used to use the older version of this to do their server migrations. If it doesn't invalidate any support you have, it would probably be cheaper to buy the software rather than pay for engineer time.

You could have a look at FreeNX.

An iSCSI target will appear as an attached disk so the setup is exactly the same. Authentication parameters on a SAN are just for authenticating the iSCSI initiator to make sure that only nobody else can mount it.

To have it automatically work as a home folder you need to be able to resolve the username against something that maps to the equivalent uid / gid numbers (e.g. winbind, LDAP lookup etc) and also have appropriate permissions set on the folder. You would also have to have kerberos authentication working so that a users credentials are actually passed to the server, without this they will get prompted to authenticate to the share (and this might break parts of Windows logon, as opposed to an OS X logon which pretty much logs you in without a home folder but then mounts it imediately) The creation of the folders varies of the software you are using. Samba can allow creation of folders on the fly (using the skeleton directory options), something like Likewise Open would probably have something similar. With Centrify DirectControl, the way I provision the users means that it's easier for me to use a central share and then have individual home folders under that, but this is slightly differernt as unix user settings are actually stored in an AD container so there is a lot less going on in terms of server configuration.

To clarify, i'm not looking for anything to do with OS X server. I want an ident server for OS X to authenticate through a squid proxy. Thank you for your suggestions, I will have a look at macports.