Tallwood_6

This seems to be standard practice for RM, we went through the same procedure just over a year ago and it took well over the 2 days allocated for us the engineer to get the box back up and operational again. God knows why they have to go about it this way, presumably if you asked they would do a migration to a clean server for extra £

I wouldnt have thought that the Fujitsu Siemens will be the only machines that encounter this problem, i know some Mac's have had problems properly powering devices over usb.

CC4 vista is near 700mb idle, wouldnt bother with the usb build disks unless you have some relatively new machines which you know will boot from USB, i warn you now that most of the RM F-Series machines dont so will need a cd drive.

Well you could try a couple of things you can roll back to a previous version, phone corel and stump up the cash for the network support, or just shove a standalown pc on the cutter with X4 installed and admin access. I have also used filemon to try and work out what directorys reg keys etc it needs access to to get the various componets working for students/staff but gave up.

1300 mailboxes and only 56gb in total including the OS here, students mailboxes restricted to 30mb and staff to 1gb.

The storage would seem a little ott for and exchange box.

Found losts of buggy issues with X4 with non privilaged users. Theres a few updates available which you could give a whirl.

That depends on the number of core components being updated, going by previous updates using the package updater i would set aside about 30- 40 minutes per batch of 20 or so and some additional time to rebuild those 5% of machines which dont update correctly.

CC3 these machines are at least usable for office and basic web-surfing, you cant do anything with them on CC4 they take about 20 minutes to startup and then page into infinity. So what was the point in developing low ram builds exactly? We have many new members of staff coming from vanilla windows environments and they cant believe how sluggish comparable machines are on CC4 and we replaced half the site with new machines during the summer as well.

The main complaint will be the performance hit on the stations, and if you have any with less than 256mb of RAM you may as well chuck them out now.

Please do tell us more, the only solution to get things working more effectively here with CC4 is to chuck more memory on the machines but even with the best inferstruture and lastest kit available logon times seem to be pathetically slow in comparison to a vanilla setup, and lets not forget about the many memory leaks with the major one being the network recyle bin which has still yet to be fixed.

I think it best for the SLG and yourselves to sit down and decide as a school what would be most fitting by the way of compensation, prehaps targeting curriculum areas which have been hit the hardest. There first port of call though will be to get all your current support calls closed to the best of there ability.

We had CC4 install in late July and its in a much better state now than what it was. I'd say go for it if you have a small network (100 or less) with relatively new machines 40gb p4 2.8 and 1gb of ram minimum. If you dont full into this bracket steer well clear for the moment. SR1 is due in late march which should bring some improvements but will still have some way to go. I think you have to look at what you will again over going CC4, vista pre sp1 is slow and buggy, the application deployment is problematic which machines not recieving assignments 100% of the time and . RM tutor 4 is useless for staff until the location control is released and the rm recyle bin currently doesnt work and is awaiting a fix.

We have a similar setup, EIS approached us a little while go about removing our pix and moving onto there range we told them we would consider it but have herd little since we have had a KCN Cisco 2811 behind the pix for quite sometime now. They should be able to give you more address space than that, personally i would just leave things well enough alown or if need be have the 2811 do NAT which should be easy enough to implement. Speak with Adam Page at EIS and he should be able to accomidate you somehow.

We have loads of these and suffered the same problem, phoned up HP and its a known issue they sent me a firmware update which helped although i still had issues with a them disconnecting or erroring on some of the hp switches, updated firmware across all of these and problem solved.

Looking at replacing our core switch with a HP 5412zl, currently have a 4108gl which is getting abit long winded. Use HP here for all our switches and have ever really had any major issues with them, value for money and warrenty is excellent. I did here a rumour from one of our suppliers that the 5400 is due to be replaced in the new year but i'm not sure how true that is.

Great we go CC4 in a week, RM have sheduled 2 days to upgrade 3 dcs an exchange box and and a damm if they cock it up i think that will be the final straw for RM at our site, they made a hash up with our Forest Root migration last year and as it stands at the moment i think i would rather have the vanilla LEA solution.

They are from what i understand, one of the secondarys down the road where using netware and are now moving to OES2 which is working very well for them.

RM dont support Virtual machines, although i'm sure someone could run vmware convertor over one of there CC3 DC's to give you an image

Dear Facility User Therefore from September 2008 we will be no longer support Microsoft 2000 Windows and SQL platform for Facility CMIS. Development and testing for Facility and ePortal will be carried out on Windows 2003 or later versions. Thats from one of the mailings, they seem to have upped the recommended hardware requirements now as well.

Have you experienced these performance issue from the outset or just with a recent release? Do you simply install the eportal updates over the top of the existing or do a fresh install?

With the recent announcement from serco that they are withdrawing support for sql 2000 on Facility CMIS in september i'm wondering what other sites are doing with regards to the upgrade? SQL 2008 is just around the corner and i've been told by PUGH they will be able to offer licences in a couple of weeks, serco has not yet fully validated CMIS for sql2008 on its current release but it should be fully supported by the november release. So heres the question should i jump straight to sql2008 over the summer or just stick to sql2005? For those of you who have done it is the upgrade from sql 2000 to 2005 straightforward?

You should really move your CMIS/eportal SQL off the DC and onto a seperate box.

I'd go Cat6a for a new install, expensive but future proof, will carry 10gbit over 100m.

I believe that sql 2000 is still widely used in industry. Yes mainstream support has ended but then so will XP's long before people stop using it.