|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.mcse > April 2004 > Areas of specilisation.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Areas of specilisation.
|
|
|
| Hi Everyone,
It's been about a year since I earned my MCSE, and I'm now an Engineer at a
medium-sized business with a hugely varied environment. Having the chance to
build and administer such an environment, has been hugely beneficial in
terms of experience, however this also means that I'm becoming a
jack-of-all-trades which is of a concern to me.
The question is, what do you view as an emerging technology (not necessairly
MS), that would be good to specialise in given an MCSE backgound?
| |
|
| Oh and excuse the spelling of specialization! It's been a looong day.
"WS" <WS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news Npgc.1833$cY5.127938@news02.tsnz.net...
> Hi Everyone,
>
> It's been about a year since I earned my MCSE, and I'm now an Engineer at
a
> medium-sized business with a hugely varied environment. Having the chance
to
> build and administer such an environment, has been hugely beneficial in
> terms of experience, however this also means that I'm becoming a
> jack-of-all-trades which is of a concern to me.
>
> The question is, what do you view as an emerging technology (not
necessairly
> MS), that would be good to specialise in given an MCSE backgound?
>
>
>
| |
| cybersoldier01 2004-04-18, 10:26 am |
| Here is one: Citrix Metaframe technology. With businesses focusing on
cutting cost like there is no tomorrow (as in, "If you don't cut cost you
won't HAVE a tomorrow"), the concept of server-client computing is back with
a vengence. In my case, I work for a medium-size manufacturing plant, and
out in the production line and the warehouse (where we expect to store up to
200 million pounds of raw material and finished goods) we have thin clients
deployed that allows the production supervisors access to a very narrow set
of tools like our ERP application, inventory control, email, and
file-sharing utilities. It's all controlled by the server farm we have in
the server room, and if one of these thin clients (essentially a dummy
terminal) completely dies, it's either warranty-based replacement or a few
hundred bucks for a new one. You cut down on the administration because
Mario the supervisor can't fool around with the CD drive or the floppy
drive, and he also can't install rogue apps on the machine because he is
essentially looking at the virtual desktop hosted by the server, which is
tightly configured and controlled. Zero administration means we have time
to do other things, and it would take minimal amount of time to set up
another thin client for another user.
Citrix Metaframe XP, the most current version, requires Windows Server 2003
configured in a terminal server setup in order to run. The server
requirements can be a bit steep, but think of it as investing in servers
rather than individual desktops. You put the money in buying memory and
perhaps a few additional servers and you can handle published applications
and even fancier graphics more efficiently.
My two cents,
CS
"WS" <WS@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsNpgc.1833$cY5.127938@news02.tsnz.net...
> Hi Everyone,
>
> It's been about a year since I earned my MCSE, and I'm now an Engineer at
a
> medium-sized business with a hugely varied environment. Having the chance
to
> build and administer such an environment, has been hugely beneficial in
> terms of experience, however this also means that I'm becoming a
> jack-of-all-trades which is of a concern to me.
>
> The question is, what do you view as an emerging technology (not
necessairly
> MS), that would be good to specialise in given an MCSE backgound?
>
>
>
| |
| No1uNo 2004-04-18, 2:26 pm |
| Speaking of cutting costs. VMware ESX and GSX server. I see more of ESX
(Linux-based) though so a basic understanding of Linux is essential. I also
agree with Metaframe as being an important application for cost-cutting.
"cybersoldier01" <cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5%ugc.13671$zj3.3863@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Here is one: Citrix Metaframe technology. With businesses focusing on
> cutting cost like there is no tomorrow (as in, "If you don't cut cost you
> won't HAVE a tomorrow"), the concept of server-client computing is back
with
> a vengence. In my case, I work for a medium-size manufacturing plant, and
> out in the production line and the warehouse (where we expect to store up
to
> 200 million pounds of raw material and finished goods) we have thin
clients
> deployed that allows the production supervisors access to a very narrow
set
> of tools like our ERP application, inventory control, email, and
> file-sharing utilities. It's all controlled by the server farm we have in
> the server room, and if one of these thin clients (essentially a dummy
> terminal) completely dies, it's either warranty-based replacement or a few
> hundred bucks for a new one. You cut down on the administration because
> Mario the supervisor can't fool around with the CD drive or the floppy
> drive, and he also can't install rogue apps on the machine because he is
> essentially looking at the virtual desktop hosted by the server, which is
> tightly configured and controlled. Zero administration means we have time
> to do other things, and it would take minimal amount of time to set up
> another thin client for another user.
>
> Citrix Metaframe XP, the most current version, requires Windows Server
2003
> configured in a terminal server setup in order to run. The server
> requirements can be a bit steep, but think of it as investing in servers
> rather than individual desktops. You put the money in buying memory and
> perhaps a few additional servers and you can handle published applications
> and even fancier graphics more efficiently.
>
> My two cents,
>
> CS
>
> "WS" <WS@nospam.com> wrote in message
> newsNpgc.1833$cY5.127938@news02.tsnz.net...
at[color=blue]
> a
chance[color=blue]
> to
> necessairly
>
| |
| cybersoldier01 2004-04-18, 4:26 pm |
| And speaking of Linux: I actually worked on prototype "thin client" based
on Red Hat 8.0 - essentially a very, very old desktop having only enough
memory to give me GUI. Everything else is run via the Citrix server farm.
It was very interesting. Unfortunately, my manager decided to go
hardware-based thin client instead of the obsolete desktop idea.
And yes, VMWare is very fascinating, but I haven't had the chance to get my
hands on one yet and so haven't had the privilege of checking it out.
CS
"No1uNo" <whome@verito.net> wrote in message
news:IOygc.6756$eK3.6534@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> Speaking of cutting costs. VMware ESX and GSX server. I see more of ESX
> (Linux-based) though so a basic understanding of Linux is essential. I
also
> agree with Metaframe as being an important application for cost-cutting.
>
>
> "cybersoldier01" <cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5%ugc.13671$zj3.3863@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
you[color=blue]
> with
and[color=blue]
up[color=blue]
> to
> clients
> set
in[color=blue]
few[color=blue]
is[color=blue]
time[color=blue]
> 2003
applications[color=blue]
> at
> chance
in[color=blue]
>
>
| |
| MCSE 2003 2004-04-19, 12:27 am |
| I'd agree with Citrix skills being a good addition.
I'd add to that, some heavy duty Security stuff.
--
Regards,
MCSE 2003
---------------------------------------------
http://www.winstructor.com
MCSE 2003 Videos
Exchange 2003
Citrix
---------------------------------------------
"cybersoldier01" <cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5%ugc.13671$zj3.3863@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Here is one: Citrix Metaframe technology. With businesses focusing on
> cutting cost like there is no tomorrow (as in, "If you don't cut cost you
> won't HAVE a tomorrow"), the concept of server-client computing is back
with
> a vengence. In my case, I work for a medium-size manufacturing plant, and
> out in the production line and the warehouse (where we expect to store up
to
> 200 million pounds of raw material and finished goods) we have thin
clients
> deployed that allows the production supervisors access to a very narrow
set
> of tools like our ERP application, inventory control, email, and
> file-sharing utilities. It's all controlled by the server farm we have in
> the server room, and if one of these thin clients (essentially a dummy
> terminal) completely dies, it's either warranty-based replacement or a few
> hundred bucks for a new one. You cut down on the administration because
> Mario the supervisor can't fool around with the CD drive or the floppy
> drive, and he also can't install rogue apps on the machine because he is
> essentially looking at the virtual desktop hosted by the server, which is
> tightly configured and controlled. Zero administration means we have time
> to do other things, and it would take minimal amount of time to set up
> another thin client for another user.
>
> Citrix Metaframe XP, the most current version, requires Windows Server
2003
> configured in a terminal server setup in order to run. The server
> requirements can be a bit steep, but think of it as investing in servers
> rather than individual desktops. You put the money in buying memory and
> perhaps a few additional servers and you can handle published applications
> and even fancier graphics more efficiently.
>
> My two cents,
>
> CS
>
> "WS" <WS@nospam.com> wrote in message
> newsNpgc.1833$cY5.127938@news02.tsnz.net...
at[color=blue]
> a
chance[color=blue]
> to
> necessairly
>
| |
|
| I'm running VMWare (Linux host w/ Windows guest) at my site, and have found
it DAMN useful. We've got a number of rouge apps that just don't play nice
with each other, so this is the perfect solution. Chews RAM though!
As for Citrix, yes that technology looks great. Our I.T. Manager has put
forward a proposal to deploy it across one of our networks, but when you
combine the hefty licensing tag with the tight-wad CEO, you get total
inaction.
Is there a trail (or education) edition available, similar to the 120 day MS
trails?
"cybersoldier01" <cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RpAgc.13860$zj3.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> And speaking of Linux: I actually worked on prototype "thin client" based
> on Red Hat 8.0 - essentially a very, very old desktop having only enough
> memory to give me GUI. Everything else is run via the Citrix server farm.
> It was very interesting. Unfortunately, my manager decided to go
> hardware-based thin client instead of the obsolete desktop idea.
>
> And yes, VMWare is very fascinating, but I haven't had the chance to get
my
> hands on one yet and so haven't had the privilege of checking it out.
>
> CS
>
> "No1uNo" <whome@verito.net> wrote in message
> news:IOygc.6756$eK3.6534@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> also
on[color=blue]
> you
back[color=blue]
> and
> up
narrow[color=blue]
have[color=blue]
> in
> few
because[color=blue]
is[color=blue]
> is
> time
servers[color=blue]
and[color=blue]
> applications
Engineer[color=blue]
> in
>
| |
| cybersoldier01 2004-04-24, 1:26 pm |
| I've actually wanted to go visit a company where VMWare is deployed, just to
see how it works. Unfortunately, they don't let me out during regular
business hours...
I haven't found a trial-based version of Metaframe XP (the same way that I
haven't found a trial-based version of NetWare, only beta). Because it is
license-based, and they know that that's where they will make the money,
they are very strict about it and will not hesitate to conduct random,
unannounced on-site audits just to see if you are compliant.
CS
"WS" <WS@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Twgic.3439$cY5.261796@news02.tsnz.net...
> I'm running VMWare (Linux host w/ Windows guest) at my site, and have
found
> it DAMN useful. We've got a number of rouge apps that just don't play nice
> with each other, so this is the perfect solution. Chews RAM though!
>
> As for Citrix, yes that technology looks great. Our I.T. Manager has put
> forward a proposal to deploy it across one of our networks, but when you
> combine the hefty licensing tag with the tight-wad CEO, you get total
> inaction.
>
> Is there a trail (or education) edition available, similar to the 120 day
MS
> trails?
>
> "cybersoldier01" <cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:RpAgc.13860$zj3.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
based[color=blue]
farm.[color=blue]
> my
ESX[color=blue]
cost-cutting.[color=blue]
> on
cost[color=blue]
> back
plant,[color=blue]
store[color=blue]
> narrow
> have
dummy[color=blue]
a[color=blue]
> because
floppy[color=blue]
he[color=blue]
> is
which[color=blue]
have[color=blue]
up[color=blue]
Server[color=blue]
> servers
> and
> Engineer
beneficial[color=blue]
>
>
| |
| Rex Tincher 2004-04-25, 11:26 am |
| On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:18:00 GMT, "cybersoldier01"
<cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've actually wanted to go visit a company where VMWare is deployed, just to
>see how it works. Unfortunately, they don't let me out during regular
>business hours...
<snip>
I worked one place where the test department used VMware.
It really is like having multiple PC inside the same box. Boot a PC,
the BIOS messages would come up, and then the operating system would
start. Start a VMware virtual PC window on that PC and the BIOS
messages would come up in that window, and then the operating system
would start in that window. The testers would repeat that 2 or 3
times and then start different software running in each window.
It's pretty weird to watch a server and several clients running on
different operating systems in different windows of the same physical
PC. Ran guest operating systems of everything from Windows 95 up to
Windows 2000, with either Windows XP or Windows 2000 as the host
operating system. It confused the heck out of people who saw it for
the first time.
It worked good, although they had to switch VMware to "raw" CD mode to
read CD that were written on some versions of Roxio CD Creator. And
VMware won't work at all with some weird hardware.
You can set VMware to not save changes, so you can configure a virtual
PC, screw it up while testing, then reboot the virtual PC and it's
back to its original configuration.
The earlier comment about VMware being a RAM hog was absolutely
correct. You want 256MB for the host operating system, plus at least
256MB for each VMware session. I wound up installing 2GB in some of
those test PC. Also upgraded to two 80GB drives per PC so they could
store lots of different VMware configurations.
--
"I may have invented control-alt-delete, but Bill Gates
made it really famous." - IBM PC co-designer David Bradley
"Ctrl-Alt-Del inventor makes final reboot", The Register, 29 Jan 2004
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/35226.html
| |
| Rex Tincher 2004-04-25, 11:26 am |
| On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:33:31 +1000, "MCSE 2003" <mcse2003@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I'd agree with Citrix skills being a good addition.
>
>I'd add to that, some heavy duty Security stuff.
Ditto on the security. There isn't that much call for Citrix around
here, but computer security is a relatively bright spot in the
otherwise bleak local job picture.
--
"A recent analysis found that Kerry, in his fourth term in the
Senate, had received more contributions from lobbyists than any
other senator." Source: "Nader to run for president as independent",
CNN, 22 February 2004
| |
| cybersoldier01 2004-04-26, 8:28 am |
| That is really interesting. Thank you, Rex, for sharing your experiences.
VMWare reminds me of what Connectix tried with VirtualPC, their DOS/Windows
emulation software for Macintoshes, some years ago. Only that VMWare does
it several degrees better and more sophisticated, because the VirtualPC
software's contextual switching wasn't all that great and was underwhelming.
Memory requirements are not a surprise for VMWare. What are the processors
used in your host machine?
CS
"Rex Tincher" <tinc@dnaco.netREMOVETHIS> wrote in message
news okn80hl864ibju2ns1udmd8n
abp7smgq8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:18:00 GMT, "cybersoldier01"
> <cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
to[color=blue]
> <snip>
>
> I worked one place where the test department used VMware.
>
> It really is like having multiple PC inside the same box. Boot a PC,
> the BIOS messages would come up, and then the operating system would
> start. Start a VMware virtual PC window on that PC and the BIOS
> messages would come up in that window, and then the operating system
> would start in that window. The testers would repeat that 2 or 3
> times and then start different software running in each window.
>
> It's pretty weird to watch a server and several clients running on
> different operating systems in different windows of the same physical
> PC. Ran guest operating systems of everything from Windows 95 up to
> Windows 2000, with either Windows XP or Windows 2000 as the host
> operating system. It confused the heck out of people who saw it for
> the first time.
>
> It worked good, although they had to switch VMware to "raw" CD mode to
> read CD that were written on some versions of Roxio CD Creator. And
> VMware won't work at all with some weird hardware.
>
> You can set VMware to not save changes, so you can configure a virtual
> PC, screw it up while testing, then reboot the virtual PC and it's
> back to its original configuration.
>
> The earlier comment about VMware being a RAM hog was absolutely
> correct. You want 256MB for the host operating system, plus at least
> 256MB for each VMware session. I wound up installing 2GB in some of
> those test PC. Also upgraded to two 80GB drives per PC so they could
> store lots of different VMware configurations.
>
> --
> "I may have invented control-alt-delete, but Bill Gates
> made it really famous." - IBM PC co-designer David Bradley
> "Ctrl-Alt-Del inventor makes final reboot", The Register, 29 Jan 2004
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/35226.html
| |
| Rex Tincher 2004-04-26, 11:40 am |
| On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:39:02 GMT, "cybersoldier01"
<cybersoldier01@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Memory requirements are not a surprise for VMWare. What are the processors
>used in your host machine?
1400MHz AMD Athlon processors on the test computers. That was
adequate to run 2 or 3 VMware sessions simultaneously while testing
the company's custom software.
A single VMware session typically runs 1/2 as fast as the same program
would on the host operating system without VMware. Some programs run
at 1/4 normal speed, but I'm not sure why. If you have multiple
VMware windows open then it slows down even more. So if you are
simultaneously running 4 applications, and each one requires a 200MHz
processor, then a 1600MHz processor is good and twice that would be
better.
--
"A recent analysis found that Kerry, in his fourth term in the
Senate, had received more contributions from lobbyists than any
other senator." Source: "Nader to run for president as independent",
CNN, 22 February 2004
|
|
|
|
|