Primus

The restore issue we had wasn't related to how we'd got them into Google Drive. It was related to how large the file was and the download timing out after so many hours. We found there was definitely an upload bandwidth restriction - though obviously space is actually unlimted.

I've been doing this with CloudBerry but I have had issues downloading our bigger VMs back down from Google Drive - eg. the file server. Therefore I'd recommend thorough testing

Nope nope nope - AD domains should not end in .internal or .local - MS have advised using a real domain that you own for many years now. LGFL shouldn't be giving this advice at all. It's a simple DNS issue - make sure your external DNS is configured correctly with whoever hosts it.

Sadly I couldn't find a free program to do this. However I can confirm M3 Bitlocker Loader for Mac does work but obviously costs.

We run the controller as a VM. Certain functionality requires the USG if you want to run that functionality through the Unifi software - we don't have a USG.

Server 2016 can take ages to update!

It varies from school to school - ideally it should go to the DSL or someone who has received the DSL training. It's not true that searches are impossible to identify provided you do HTTPS interception - if you don't well then yes you have no way of knowing what was searched for but then you'd have to ask yourself why you wouldn't use HTTPS interception since so many sites use HTTPS now that if you don't use it your filter is blind. The reports we receive daily from our Smoothwall are intelligible and relevant. We also received immediate reports if the category is related to self harm, suicide etc - it has certainly helped us safeguard our students and reduce/prevent self harm - helping early interventions and keep our pastoral staff informed.

So two people disagreed with you - one got called sarcastic, the other pedantic - nice!

Draconian - excessively harsh and severe.

@witch you called it draconian in one post and now it's all fine in another. The other point is what is acceptable for 1 year group may not be for a younger year group - again with user based filtering you can tailor it so that it is age appropriate which is once again a requirement. Saying Ofsted are fine with it means nothing - half the time Ofsted don't even look at IT provision. It's akin to the kids at school telling me they're allowed to wear trainers because they walked past the head wearing them and he didn't say anything! As with all things, it's all fine until something bad happens and then everyone will blame IT. It sounds like you're covered as you've had stuff back from the MAT in writing but IMHO the people at the MAT are not living up to their obligations to provide monitoring.

Witch as said before draconian filtering isn't good either - filtering should be age appropriate and not over the top at all. KCSiE - "Whilst it is essential that governing bodies and proprietors ensure that appropriate filters and monitoring systems are in place, they should be careful that “over blocking” does not lead to unreasonable restrictions as to what children can be taught with regard to online teaching and safeguarding." If RM are charging a fortune for user level filtering then switch provider - in this day and age user level filtering and regular reporting are the bare minimum. No one should be manually running reports - they should be automated and emailed to the appropriate people. Once again, it's incredibly worrying how blasé primaries are with filtering and monitoring.

2012 r2 supports DHCP failover - 2012 or later supports it.

Hence my concern at many primaries being incredibly blasé about it all.

You can use a routing policy to prevent them emailing the mailing lists.

Witch has said they don't log against users. A teacher watching a class is going to miss things - students who are going to go where they shouldn't won't do it whilst the teacher is watching. Filtering and monitoring go hand in hand - the information that our filter has flagged through monitoring has prevented self harm and perhaps even worse - why wouldn't you?

Witch it doesn’t just say appropriate filtering. It says appropriate filtering AND monitoring.

You don't need to uplink each AP at 10Gb. However your PoE switch should uplink to your core over 10Gb ideally. That said most WiFi traffic is Internet bound for us - our Internet connection is 1Gb so that's the bottleneck rather than the switch uplink.

Sorry I don't understand your question.

Both use 802.3af PoE and the Pro draws 9w max, the NanoHD 10.5w max. In practice they don't get close to these ceilings. 10gb uplink is unnecessary on 802.11ac. Yes it's wise to check the PoE standard of your switches and the wattage available but I'd be shocked if his switches didn't do 802.3af and if he's replacing WiFi it's unlikely that these would use greater wattage than the current system.

No they use standard PoE and will work with any switch. You'll need to setup a VM or use a Raspberry Pi or similar to host the controller software for Unifi but it's free to download and use.

If you're not using something like Shared iPad or a captive portal that times out after a short period then iPads that aren't 1:1 are a real issue for logging against users.

Either AC-Pro or nanoHD.

AlanD always says this and he's right - get a demo AP off all the big brands and buy 1 Unifi one as you're unlikely to find a supplier who does demo Unifi APs as they're so cheap. Do some testing. Honestly for a network of 6 APs there's no point spending more on alternatives to Unifi but obviously yes you'd need to get multiple quotes etc.

Why not just go with the Ubiquity offering - what does Aruba get you that Unifi doesn't?

@witch Steve Hill already has. "Online safety 84. As schools and colleges increasingly work online, it is essential that children are safeguarded from potentially harmful and inappropriate online material. As such, governing bodies and proprietors should ensure appropriate filters and appropriate monitoring systems are in place. Additional information to support governing bodies and proprietors keep their children safe online is provided in Annex C. " This is from Keeping Children Safe in Education which is the statutory guidance. Basically as Steve has already said when you read the KCSiE guidance and the UKSIC guidance alongside the Prevent documentation if you're not logging against individual users and receiving reports then you're going to need some very convincing risk assessments to cover why you're going against the guidance on these matters. If you never see any information on who went where online whilst at school and you don't use user based filtering then you're failing on many levels - if you're not using user based filtering you cannot say who did what, you cannot provide age appropriate filtering and you cannot be sure what they are doing when a member of staff cannot see their screen. If the students log onto the device using individual credentials then there's no reason not to keep track of their behaviour and monitor/report on it. If they don't then they need to be given individual accounts and if they're too young for this then they can use systems like Clever badges to log in. I do find it quite worrying how blasé some primaries seem to be about monitoring the usage of their students. None of this is any kind of a criticism of you though @witch !