Search Results

Search found 5166 results on 207 pages for 'cost benefit'.

Page 163/207 | < Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >

• Expresscard Not Detected in PCI-E Adapter

  - by maxpower47

  I'm trying to put an expresscard TV tuner (Avermedia HC82) into my HTPC using this expresscard to PCI-E adapter. I've verified that the tuner works fine in my laptop. The motherboard is a Biostar TF7050-M2. When I install it and turn it on, the light on the back of the adapter comes on fine (there are two indicator lights on the back to show if it is using PCI-E or USB communication, USB communication goes through a USB cable connected between the card and a header on the motherboard) showing that it is working in PCI-E mode. However, the device is never detected in Windows 7 Professional x64. The auto detect never happens, it doesn't show up in the device manager, and I can have it rescan for new hardware and nothing is found. I tested the whole setup (tuner + adapter) in another PC (also using Win 7 Pro x64) and it worked fine. I also tried: Plugging the adapter in to the PCI-E x16 slot on the motherboard (I verified first that the x16 slot worked by installing a video card in it) Booting into safe mode and rescanning Updating the chipset drivers Installing the tuner drivers first Using a different USB cable, plugged in to one of the known good ports on the back of the board Trying it without the USB cable plugged in Removing the other PCI cards that were installed on the board Looking through the BIOS for any setting that might be disabling it somehow to no avail. I'm at a loss for what else to try. I really don't want to RMA it (the shipping back to newegg will be almost as much as it cost to buy in the first place. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Can a website company that builds 4-5 websites a year afford dedicated hosting?

  - by Petras

  We manage about 30 websites that use shared ASP.NET SQL Server web hosting. These are typical small/medium business websites and they perform fine in this environment. Recently I was looking at VPS hosting in this thread http://serverfault.com/questions/128329/how-do-you-host-multiple-public-facing-websites-on-a-vps After contacting a provider in one of the replies I was told that VPS hosting is not recommended for 30 sites, even if they are small. The resource requirements might be too great even for VPS. So I should turn to dedicated hosting. The lowest cost dedicated hosting is $219 per month (see http://www.serverintellect.com/dedicated/pentiumdservers.aspx). But this is only for a single processor which seems too light for a machine running both IIS and SQL. In our office all the developers work on quad cores so I assume I’d really need the Quad Processor. However, this starts at $599 monthly. Now, I won’t be able to transfer all of our 30 sites to this machine. I’d only be able to transfer say 5 or 6. However, moving forward, I’d be able to host all future sites on this machine. This amounts to 4-5 per year. Let’s look at the economics. Shared hosting costs are typically $16.95 monthly (see http://www.crystaltech.com/dotnet.aspx). So here’s the dilemma First months costs: $599 First month revenue: 6x$16.95 = $101.7 Loss in first month: $497.3 First year costs: $599x12=$7188 First month revenue: 6x$16.95x12 + 5x$16.95x6(averaged) = $1728.9 Loss in first year: $5459.1 Clearly it is going to take years for this server to pay for itself. It just doesn’t seem economical! Am I missing something here, or is dedicated not the way to go with the amount of sites we build?

  Read the article

• how to set up dual wireless routers (G and N) with single broadband connection

  - by user15973

  A local cafe has an 802.11g wireless router attached to either an 8- or 12Mbs broadband connection. Although many customers still have -g devices, an increasing number are showing up with 802.11n devices (e.g. Mac laptops, iPads). The cafe owner is content with his router's area coverage, but he would like for his customers to be able to take advantage of the higher -n download speeds. He could simply replace the -g router with a -n router, but reportedly -n routers slow down considerably when servicing both -g and -n connections. Another option would be to buy the -n router, run an Ethernet cable between the two routers, and (of course) hook up the broadband connection to one of the two routers. Still another option would be to attach an ordinary, wired switch to the broadband connection and then attach both routers to the switch. Aside from the cost issue, what are the tradeoffs of those approaches? Which would you recommend, and why? Is there a better option than the ones I mentioned? Thank you in advance for your advice.

  Read the article

• Implementing emailing (bulk & event based) features for my website.

  - by Kabeer

  Hello. For my upcoming social networking website, I am looking for suggestions on the best way to implement emailing. Here are some of my requirements and constraints: Requirements: - Should be able to send emails based on events (new registrations, change password, etc.), promotions (advertisements based on user consent), bulk mails (newsletters), reminders (profile updates), etc. I hope I got the point through. - Should be able to process faults (incorrect email address, mail-box full, etc) - User initiated invites (inviting friends to connect) Constraints: - As of now I am looking at Godaddy for hosting. Subsequently I shall move to, may be Amazon Cloud. Godaddy seems to be excruciatingly conservative (not bad always) when it comes to the ability to send email. - My tests on Godaddy so far have been discouraging. There is limit to no. of emails I can send and sometimes if emails carries special characters it throws strange exceptions like there was a virus affected attachment (even though I hadn't attached a thing). The replies from Godaddy support have been equally funny. My intent is not to portray Godaddy as wrong but I am looking for a work-around that frees me from said constraints. I am looking for a mechanism / service that is either free of very cost effective. I wonder how other sites address this. Mine is a .Net / Windows based application.

  Read the article

• Will wear induced by turning computers off in the evening be offset by energy savings?

  - by sharptooth

  I'm asking this here because this is primarily a huge office scenario and administrators will more likely have the answer I'm looking for. Employees' desktop computers can be either left turned on for the whole night or switched off in the evening and turned back on in the morning. The latter will surely save energy. In the same time turning on and off is very harmful for the equipment - hardware often breaks specifically when turned on. Both energy and hardware replacements cost money. With energy it's quite obvious - you pay every month according to what your power meter shows. With hardware replacements it's worse - you need qualified stuff to quickly diagnose the problems and once something breaks the affected employee will have to wait for some time while his computer is fixed/replaced and the data is recovered. So the company has to choose between saving money on energy and saving money on computer maintaince and lost hours. Such decisions must be well though. Is there any detailed study of how turning computers off each evening affects their lifetime?

  Read the article

• Offloading backups to secondary network

  - by user1467163

  I'm trying to solve a problem- Currently, we are constantly backing up and have no budget for additional servers. Our production network is still a 10/100 and handles voip, SQL plus our backup traffic, and I'd like to offload the backup traffic onto a secondary network- all of our servers have secondary NIC's that are not in use, and all support gigabit (Our switching hardware does not- a topic for another day). I'd like to move my backups off the production network, but I am having a hard time getting the computers to communicate. I am using a Netgear GS724T switch for the backup network- Chosen for cost and because I have used them extensively on networks saturated with ghosting traffic, so I know it's up to the task. I have defined a VLAN, with ports that are not members of any other VLAN. All traffic is untagged on the VLAN. I have set the servers with 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.11 addresses, 255.255.255.0 netmask and I have tried a blank GW, using the local IP of the server 192.168.1.whatever address, and I have tried using the switch's production-side IP as the GW. The machines cannot find each other. DNS addresses are blank because I am going purely by IP for now... Any ideas how to get these machines to talk? they are Windows machines, running Server 2008R2 and 2003R2. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Device CAL, User Cal or Processor license needed for SQL 2008 (architecture explained inside)?

  - by nycgags

  So we have a number of servers in the Amazon cloud running SQL Server Standard edition to aggregate data. For that purpose we are fine, the licensing is handled by our contract with Amazon, no problem there. For the beefier work, we want to install Enterprise Edition (EE) on our servers processing raw data so that we can take advantage of table partitioning. We currently have 3 servers aggregating data from about 40 node servers, all 43 of these servers are running standard edition which is fine. We also have 4 servers running standard processing the raw data, but I think we can get away with 2 (for redundancy) running Enterprise Edition. We have 2-3 dba's that access these DW servers for maintenance (using the same windows login via remote desktop). So visually: 40 -- 3 -- [2] -- 2 -- 1 nodes -- aggregators -- raw (which we want to run EE) -- calculators -- datawarehouse Nodes PUSH to aggregators, Raws PULL from aggregators, Calculators PULL from Raw, Calculators PUSH to datwarehouse I am specifying the push vs. pull in case that changes how the # of licenses is calculated. Q1) how many device (or user) CAL's do we need? Q2) do I need to speak with someone from MSFT to find out if it is ok to install in the Amazon Cloud (Amazon said we need to verify it is ok in our license terms)? Q3) what happens if another device tries to access a server with the limited number of device CAL's? Q4) Are the device CAL's simultaneous number of devices or total? Q5) Do Device and User CAL's cost the same or is there a difference? Q6) Would we need to buy a processor license (we are hoping not to)?

  Read the article

• EC2 Auto-Scaling with Spot and On-Demand Instances?

  - by platforms

  I'm looking to optimize the cost of our auto-scaling EC2 groups by having them launch spot instances instead of on-demand instances. What I really want is to be able to keep some servers in the group as on-demand instances, regardless of what happens to the spot instance pricing market. Then I want any additional servers in the group, above my configured minimum, to be spot instances. I'm generally OK with the delay in adding servers via spot requests. I can't seem to find any way to do this and I've tried to scour the AWS documentation. It appears that an ASG can either be on-demand or spot, but not a hybrid. I could possibly manually add an on-demand instance to the Elastic Load Balancer assigned to the auto-scaling group, but then the load of that server would not be factored into the auto-scaling measurements and triggers. I suppose I could enter a ridiculously high bid price in order to ensure that I always get the servers I need, but then I look at the pricing history and see occasional large spikes. The AWS documentation is at odds with itself, since in one place it says that if you enter a server minimum, that number is "ensured" to be there. But then when you read about spot instances, there are no assurances. The price differential for spot is compelling, so I'd like to leverage that as much as I can while still maintaining an always-on baseline. Is this possible?

  Read the article

• Routing public IPs (each a /32) through a VPN to another server

  - by Lee S

  Hopefully the title makes sense; I have a server currently in a colo facility, with many IP addresses routed to it. They are individual IPs and not in a contiguous block. Due to vastly improved connectivity (fibre) at home I am slowly bringing my infrastructure in-house for managability and eventually, cost savings. What I would like to do though is use the IP addresses allocated to my existing server, at home. I have an IP block allocated to me on my new ISP connection, but for a couple of reasons I'd like to make use of the colo ones for now: Ease of transition - lots of domains, dns, hard-coded IPs in programs, etc. Connectivity fallback. If my primary line goes down and switches to fallback 1 (dsl) or fallback 2 (4G), I lose access to the ISP-allocated IP block of IPs that are only presented on the primary WAN interface. What I'd like to achieve is my home virtualisation server (Proxmox/Debian-based) "dials in" to the colo server in the colo facility (also Proxmox/Debian) via VPN or similar, and gets to make use of the IP addresses that currently terminate on the colo box. If the primary connection to my ISP goes down and one of the fallback routes kicks in, the VPN tunnel will just time out and then be re-established on the backup connection instead. I'm sure this is doable, but I have no idea how. I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, I just don't really know where to start?

  Read the article

• Standing and sitting while using a computer at work

  - by Adam Batkin

  I would like to be able to comfortably switch between sitting and standing while at work (I'm a software developer, so I spend most of my day in front of a computer). For the past couple of months I have been using a large elevated stand that sits on my desk (designed expressly for this purpose) containing my keyboard and mouse, and my monitors have been raised as high as possible and aimed upwards. So I can stand all day and I'm pretty comfortable (my right wrist may be at too much of an angle when it's on my mouse, but that's a separate issue). The only problem is that sometimes I want to be able to sit. I can easily place my keyboard and mouse back down under the elevated stand, but I have to look up pretty steeply and that is uncomfortable and makes it difficult to see the screens since they are tilted upwards. My monitor mounts are difficult to adjust quickly/easily, so I can't just re-aim them. I would of course love one of those hydraulic standing/sitting desks (cost isn't the problem). But I'm in a row of "trader-style" desks where it's basically a very long surface with people sitting at 6-foot intervals. What type of equipment do you recommend? I suppose the best thing would be some sort of monitor stand (it must be able to hold 2-3 LCDs) that can easily be lowered and raised. But any other suggestions are also welcome.

  Read the article

• How can I duplicate HBCD's XP boot loader with my MBR?

  - by Warpstone

  I'm stumped. I'm migrating a Win XP Lenovo T500 to an SSD: I copied the XP partition using EaseUS to the SSD. Aligned the boot sector using Gparted The MBR needs to be rebuilt (fair enough) However, all attempts to use the Windows Recovery console hang (both via a boot CD and even when the console was installed as a boot option). I've tried using a bunch of tools to rebuild/replace the MBR, but no dice. They all say the MBR has been fixed, but I cannot load Windows from the SSD. The HBCD's boot from windows option works just fine however. I'm confused as to what HBCD can do that my drive can't. How can I get that functionality on my SSD? Is it a MBR fix I can mirror? The SSD is extremely fast when I do use HBCD to boot up... but it would be nice to not need a token-based access to the machine! :) Note: I know, windows 7 may be worth a fresh install, but I'm trying to avoid the cost and hassle if possible.

  Read the article

• Provider claiming "all web servers in the cloud are automatically kept in sync" - should I be skeptical?

  - by RobMasters

  I'm no expert in cloud computing - I've spent a fair bit of time researching it and various providers but am yet to get any hands-on experience with it. From what I've read about AWS and auto-scaling EC2 instances though, it seems as though each instance should be completely decoupled from all other instances. i.e. If content is uploaded to the web server's local filesystem from a custom CMS backend then that content won't be available if subsequently requested from a different web server in the auto-scaling group. Is that right? I met with a representative of our existing hosting provider recently and he was claiming that it isn't a problem that our legacy CMS system is highly dependent on having a local filesystem. He said that all web servers, regardless of how many, would be kept as exact duplicates so I shouldn't notice any difference compared to our existing setup of a single dedicated server. This smells a little too much like bull fecal-matter to me...should I be skeptical about this? I'm a little worried because my (non-technical) boss who ultimately makes the decisions is all for signing up to this cloud solution because it won't require any extra work. I'm sure that they must at least be able to provide this, otherwise they wouldn't be attempting to sell it to us. But at what cost? It sounds as though each web server will always need to be checking the other web server(s) for new static content, which to me sounds like unwanted overhead that'll slow things down. I'd really appreciate it if somebody could clear this up to me. I'm all for switching to AWS and using S3+CloudFront for all static content, but that isn't looking very likely to happen at the moment.

  Read the article

• Replacing the LCD panel in a netbook (Asus Eee PC 1005)

  - by neilfein

  Yesterday, I was cleaning up and dropped my Asus Eee 1005PE. The screen is cracked inside (i.e., cracks are visible only when on), and no longer works properly. I booted up with another monitor attached, and the computer itself is fine, but needs a new screen. Best Buy wants at least $250 to repair it (that includes their $150 fee to breathe in the same room as the unit), and Asus was of no help at all. (They're incredibly cagey and won't provide any money numbers at all, not even the cost of the part.) If replacing the LCD is no more trouble than replacing memory or a hard drive, I can do that. It's within my means to buy the part (18G241010402, a TFT LCD), but I'd like to know more about the procedure involved. My question: How does one replace the screen in this unit? Do I simply open the case and swap out the unit, or do I need to disassemble anything else to get to the screen? I don't want to order the part and then end up in a situation like this. Is the case screwed shut, or is it like an iPod where they glue things closed? I know enough about my abilities with a soldering gun to not attempt to solder tiny wires, would any of that be involved?

  Read the article

• Need Help Scoping a Server to use for study (MCITP Ent Admin + SharePoint 2010)

  - by AVFamily76

  i need to study for mcitp, but i also need to study for sharepoint 2010 i have a poweredge 1850 with two single-core CPUs + two 73G drives - it kills me on electricity, so don't want to use it, and it won't do VT, but it could be one of three boxes for a lab that's cheap, but will cost a lot on electricity i was thinking . . . OPTION #1 Opteron 4170 HE (50 watt chip), 6-core, only two-bills ($200), but the board's are $250, so that's an $800 box, then get another box to dual-boot Win7/Hyper-V on the cheap...? OPTION #2 Used Quad - but how many VM's that are really banging away could it run at same time? (Server 2008r2, SQL 2008r2, Search Server) OPTION #3 Study from books and just get one box that can run two VM's at same time, even if slowly. the last time i had and used a home lab was five years ago when i had a DC, SQL, Exchange and business app box, that's where i got my server skills was just banging on it for four years, but didn't read any books, so now i have to get certified and know the material, and just am not sure how much attention i should pay to the box i use versus the studying time and reading. sorry it's a subjective question, and am obviously open to all sorts of abuse here, but hope you can tell me also how many VM's i can run at the same time given what they'll be doing (SQL and SharePoint FAST search server are resource hungry) thanks!

  Read the article

• Hosting multiple websites from home

  - by dean nolan

  I have just been accepted for Microsofts Wevsite Spark program which I mainly got for the tools, Visual Studio, Blend. I also have a few of my own websites, personal and a couple of business ones. I also work freelance and sometimes I would like a place to just put a demo up of a clients project. The websites I currently have are all on differnet hosting provders and domain registrars. The WebsiteSpark comes with Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008. It would be really advantagous of me to have all these in one place but also so I have complete control over the database and the environment. So I am thinking over the next 4-6 months of migrating all this to my own server that I will host from home, or maybe even setup at home and then store in a proper datacentre. I was wondering what steps I should take and what to be aware of, specifically: 1) having all these different websites on one computer and having the url got to the proper place. 2) Cost effectiveness? Having the server in home as apposed to datacentre. Most solutions I see charge over £1000 a month to have a machine in datacentre. This is mostly for my own ease of management and shared hosting which I currently have is very limited configuration wise. Would getting a server in house be beneficial for then upgrading to the cloud? What measures should I take with my ISP? I know this is a lot I've asked but just even links to good articles would be good. Thanks

  Read the article

• my cpu won't start. all fan were spinning for a second then nothing happen

  - by Tommy

  I need help about this.. I'm from Malaysia.. Back then my cpu is all okay..and it's 4 year old.. I think this question is answered before but i'm still don't understand.. when i plugged my cpu..turn it on and all of the fan (graphic card, mobo fan and PSU fan) were spinning just for a second than nothing happen.. I don't know if it is because of the PSU or my mobo.. I sent my cpu to the shop and they said it must be the mobo.. They tell me to change my mobo and PSU also..and it cost over 100 buck (rm300 in Malaysia). and i'm real 'dry' right now. My whole data is inside the HDD. School projects, photos, games, and many..I really-really need my cpu back alive.. My mobo is MSI MS-7529 with dual core chips. My PSU is ATX-480W. the PC store guy said i need to change to new ASUS mobo if I want. I dont know what type it is but Then he tell me to change my PSU also because he don't think my old PSU (ATX-480W) ain't compatible to the new mobo.. I was very need a help from you techie guys.. sorry for my terrible English..

  Read the article

• 150 TB and growing, but how to grow?

  - by seandavi

  My group currently has two largish storage servers, both NAS running debian linux. The first is an all-in-one 24-disk (SATA) server that is several years old. We have two hardware RAIDS set up on it with LVM over those. The second server is 64 disks divided over 4 enclosures, each a hardware RAID 6, connected via external SAS. We use XFS with LVM over that to create 100TB useable storage. All of this works pretty well, but we are outgrowing these systems. Having build two such servers and still growing, we want to build something that allows us more flexibility in terms of future growth, backup options, that behaves better under disk failure (checking the larger filesystem can take a day or more), and can stand up in a heavily concurrent environment (think small computer cluster). We do not have system administration support, so we administer all of this ourselves (we are a genomics lab). So, what we seek is a relatively low-cost, acceptable performance storage solution that will allow future growth and flexible configuration (think ZFS with different pools having different operating characteristics). We are probably outside the realm of a single NAS. We have been thinking about a combination of ZFS (on openindiana, for example) or btrfs per server with glusterfs running on top of that if we do it ourselves. What we are weighing that against is simply biting the bullet and investing in Isilon or 3Par storage solutions. Any suggestions or experiences are appreciated.

  Read the article

• Server Hosting + AWS

  - by ledy

  Since my dedicated servers are hosted at a "normal" hosting service, I wonder if there is a really cheap way to extend the server farm with AWS instances. E.g. it seems to be a effient and flexible solution with data storage and ressources for ocassional data processing, too. However, it might be very in-efficient to mix two data centres and transfering data from current webhoster to amazon and vice-versa. In my case, the traffic for this continuous data exchange seems to be expensive and the delay for moving the data back to the hoster leads into a lack or delay. How are best practises for mixing non-aws and aws systems? E.g.: How to move the hosters data to aws as log file storage to run urchin analysis and/or port the log file data into a bigtable for exhausting analysis there. After working with the data: how to bring it back to the hoster and use the data with the webservers there? I am not going to move all the server farm to amazon, only "separate" parts or tasks if the transfer/exchange does not lead to increased cost.

  Read the article

• Suggestions for Backup solution

  - by jiewmeng

  i am considering between windows home server simple nas extra HDD's in desktop btw, i will be the main user i am looking to fulfil the following needs: reliability (i am think RAID 1 or 5) not so prone to virus/malware infections (will using a separate NAS or home server help? say windows home server is still a windows pc except separated by network?) power efficiency (eg. spin down when not in use) download (eg. i may want to dl big files/torrents overnight and i may not want to use a full powered PC for it? does a full pc vs NAS provide significant power usage to justify cost of new system esp. since i am only user?) performance (i guess i like to write/access my files fast, on 2nd thought, maybe for backup i can forgo this? maybe for a WD Green HDD? but how much slower will it be? plus since i am the only user, i think the whole HDD will be mine?)

  Read the article

• Could replacing an old hard drive's circuit board make it work again?

  - by oscilatingcretin

  I have a 12-year-old, 10gb Maxtor drive that died on me around 7 years ago, but I have not had the heart to throw it away. When the computer powers on, it whirrs silently as it tries to spin up and then it stops. So, a few years ago, I sent it off for professional data recovery. They were able to retrieve quite a bit from it, but I know there's a bunch more there. It only cost $700, so I just chalked up the lackluster recovery effort to "you get what you pay for" considering that most companies will charge you several thousands of dollars for this kind of data recovery. When they sent the drive back, I couldn't help but plug it back in just to see if maybe they unjammed something in the process of disassembling/reassembling the drive. To my surprise, the drive had a much healthier spin-up sound and actually stayed spinning for several minutes before winding down to a halt. Windows is even able to detect and interact with the drive, but I get I/O errors after so many minutes of waiting for it to mount. Before I start doing stupid stuff with it like dropping it on the ground, freezing it, crapping on it, etc, I decided to buy the exact same model off Ebay so that I could swap the circuit boards as a last-ditch effort. While it's en route, I thought I'd come here to ask if this is even a worthwhile effort and, if even remotely so, what should I know before ripping off the old board and slapping on the new?

  Read the article

• Ram configuration 4x4 or 2x8?

  - by Carl B

  I am looking to upgrade my Ram to 16gigs and I am wondering if there is any distinct advantage of the way I do it. That being a 4x4 or 2x8 set up. In all my searching there have been a number of pros for each profile. I can find no benchmarck results for either setup as a compaison. So, if there are 2 profiles of the same speed, same voltage, same timing and same cas what would perform better or have a better over all benafit? A few examples from my search - a 4x4 set would lend a benafit in that if one stick failed, you only lose 25% of your Ram vs 50% in a 2x8 set up. a 2x8 set up would have less strain on the memory controler and motherboard. a 2x8 would generate less heat. a 2x8 set up is easier to over clock (not part of my need, but alot of the comparisons circled around the overclocability ease of the 2 stick set up). There is one outstanding benafit that I have found in at least the target company I have looked at and that is price. The 2x8 is nearly half the cost. My motherboard supports a max of 16 gigs and I have a 64 bit OS. Has anyone seen any performance comparisons or is 16 gb just 16 gb no matter how you slice it? And is there any merit to the above pros? Edit: as per the mobo specs - Main Memory • Supports four unbuffered DIMM of 1.5 Volt DDR3 800/1066/1333/1600*/1800*/2133* (OC) DRAM, 16GB Max

  Read the article

• Recommendation for a simple no-frills Windows PDF printer driver?

  - by Scott Bussinger

  I'm looking for an extremely simple Windows PDF printer driver that I can recommend to clients. Ideally it would have these characteristics: When you print something, it should just create it as a temporary file and then display it in their default PDF viewer with no prompting. If they want to save it, they can save it manually from inside the viewer. This workflow should be with no special post-install configuration. Installation should be very simple. A double click the installation program and click "Finish" sort of thing. No complicated multi-step installation, no asking questions your grandmother wouldn't know the answer to (preferably no questions at all), no extra crap being installed. An option for a completely silent installation would be nice, but not necessary. Ideally it would be free to simplify their installing on a small network, but low cost is an option. I've tried a quite a few but none really fit the bill. Some can achieve the first goal but only after careful configuration, some try to install extra toolbars, some have other installation complexities that would make it hard for extremely novice users to succeed. Any suggestions? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Block SMTP connections from mail domains which don't themselves accept SMTP connection.

  - by bignose

  I'm administrating a mail service for a small business. Their mail host's internet connection is an ADSL service with a permanent IP address. Unfortunately, many misconfigured mail systems will happily deliver to this host, but, when the host attempts to send mail back (e.g. a bounce notice, or a normal response from someone), the original sender refuses to receive connections from this host. That misconfiguration makes their system a one-way mail sender, which is a problem. How can I configure Postfix on this customer's mail host to refuse SMTP sessions that declare a sender domain which itself refuses SMTP from this host? That is, if the SMTP client declares a domain that we can't make SMTP connections back to, then there's not much point accepting the incoming connection in the first place. I'm imagining a late check (after the low-cost checks to winnow most of the rubbish connections) that keeps the client on the other end while it attempts an SMTP client connection back to the declared domain of the sender. If that connection is rejected, the incoming one is also rejected. I'm also open to other suggestions for how this problem might be addressed (short of not using this mail host at all, which isn't an option).

  Read the article

• Application that will identify percentage of your system disk bandwidth used on a user-application by user-application basis?

  - by Warren P

  I always (subjectively) feel my computer is far too slow (however fast it is), and so I'm always looking for ways to measure and understand what my computer is actually doing, that is making it seem "slow" to me. It has been my observation that my software-developer workload is most often disk-bound (I am waiting for Disk I/O) more than CPU bound. What has made it worse, is that I am using a corporate PC that has in-memory active-scanning anti-virus software that I do not have control over, and also some IT department mandated services that seem to suck up a lot of available hard-disk bandwidth. The best tool I have seen (in Windows 7) is the Resource Monitor which I usually acess from the button in the task Manager. The disk IO page, however, seems to label Disk Activity at a very low level (for example, showing the Volume Shadow Storage, which is flushing information obviously written by something ELSE other than VSS itself, and then writes to Pagefile.sys, which are obviously due to Virtual Memory faults in some application). What I would like to know is if a utility exists that can add up all direct disk input and output by user-level process, or find the process or service that caused VM or VSS activity. In that way, I hope, you could establish a real idea of how much of your computer's precious disk subsystem bandwidth is attributable to a particular application. here's a scenario: MyApp.exe writes 100k/s and reads 100k/s directly. VSS ends up writing another 100k/s. pagefaults caused inside MyApp.exe cause another 100k/s of writes. So the total "cost" of MyApp.exe running, during a period of time (let's say 1 second) is 400k/s, whereas you can only directly observe half of that, in Resource Monitor. Is there a smarter disk-IO watching piece of software I can use?

  Read the article

• What are the typical methods used to scale up/out email storage servers?

  - by nareshov

  Hi, What I've tried: I have two email storage architectures. Old and new. Old: courier-imapds on several (18+) 1TB-storage servers. If one of them show signs of running out of disk space, we migrate a few email accounts to another server. the servers don't have replicas. no backups either. New: dovecot2 on a single huge server with 16TB (SATA) storage and a few SSDs we store fresh mails on the SSDs and run a doveadm purge to move mails older than a day to the SATA disks there is an identical server which has a max-15min-old rsync backup from the primary server higher-ups/management wanted to pack in as much storage as possible per server in order to minimise the cost of SSDs per server the rsync'ing is done because GlusterFS wasn't replicating well under that high small/random-IO. scaling out was expected to be done with provisioning another pair of such huge servers on facing disk-crunch issues like in the old architecture, manual moving of email accounts would be done. Concerns/doubts: I'm not convinced with the synchronously-replicated filesystem idea works well for heavy random/small-IO. GlusterFS isn't working for us yet, I'm not sure if there's another filesystem out there for this use case. The idea was to keep identical pairs and use DNS round-robin for email delivery and IMAP/POP3 access. And if one the servers went down for whatever reasons (planned/unplanned), we'd move the IP to the other server in the pair. In filesystems like Lustre, I get the advantage of a single namespace whereby I do not have to worry about manually migrating accounts around and updating MAILHOME paths and other metadata/data. Questions: What are the typical methods used to scale up/out with the traditional software (courier-imapd / dovecot)? Do traditional software that store on a locally mounted filesystem pose a roadblock to scale out with minimal "problems"? Does one have to re-write (parts of) these to work with an object-storage of some sort - such as OpenStack object storage?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >