Ranter's CornerBackup Exec

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)    4 Feb 2012 21:33 
 To:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)      19 of 29 
39291.19 In reply to 39291.18 
They do but I rarely use them.

You would think there would be an easy way to do it. I would have thought a GPO would do it, and it still might, but that's still a cludgy way to take care of it.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)   4 Feb 2012 21:43 
 To:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)       20 of 29 
39291.20 In reply to 39291.19 

Problem is, it kind of makes no sense. Try and "define" what you mean - do you mean that the computer shouldn't provide any services - what about websites, etc? Do you mean non-admins shouldn't log on at the console? Remotely? Do you mean file shares should be inadmissible?

 

I don't see how it'd be feasible for MS to provide a switch to do what you need as it's so dependent on individual use cases.


Dan Herman
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch   4 Feb 2012 21:54 
 To:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)       21 of 29 
39291.21 In reply to 39291.19 

Access list on the Cisco switch it's attached to. Easy.

 

What do you mean it's not a Cisco switch?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)   4 Feb 2012 21:57 
 To:  patch      22 of 29 
39291.22 In reply to 39291.21 

I'd strangle anyone making substantial network changes for such a temporary thing. I realise he doesn't have to commit them, but still.

 

Besides, he's probably going to be accessing it from the same IP range as his users if he's VPNing in.


Dan Herman
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch   4 Feb 2012 21:58 
 To:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)      23 of 29 
39291.23 In reply to 39291.22 
That's what named access lists are for. And besides, it's his network. He'd only have himself to shout at.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)   4 Feb 2012 22:00 
 To:  patch      24 of 29 
39291.24 In reply to 39291.23 
Fair point, I just see network technology as something to fit and forget, save changing VLANs on ports etc.

Dan Herman
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch   4 Feb 2012 22:01 
 To:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)      25 of 29 
39291.25 In reply to 39291.24 
I don't, but then I rely on it to pay my rent, so changes tend to be fine by me. Up to a point. That point being where I can't figure out how to fix what I broke.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)    4 Feb 2012 22:03 
 To:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)      26 of 29 
39291.26 In reply to 39291.20 
I mean when I am installing updates or increasing drive sizes or things of that nature I'd not like people on the server. It's a terminal server. The others don't get logged on other than by me.

I'd like to block everything but printing really until I'm done working on it, but I suppose shares would be ok. The problem with that is if someone has a doc or spreadsheet open and I reboot the server they will panic and close it and lose their work.

There should be a maintenance mode like there is in Esxi.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)    4 Feb 2012 22:03 
 To:  patch      27 of 29 
39291.27 In reply to 39291.21 
Nope not a Cisco switch, just a Cisco router.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)   5 Feb 2012 11:38 
 To:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)       28 of 29 
39291.28 In reply to 39291.26 

Terminal Server, why didn't you say? What OS is it?

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rds/archive/2007/06/15/introducing-terminal-services-server-drain-mode.aspx

 

Does that point you in the right direction?


Dan Herman
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Ken (SHIELDSIT)    5 Feb 2012 16:24 
 To:  Monsoir (PILOTDAN)      29 of 29 
39291.29 In reply to 39291.28 
No idea why I didn't mention that. And that looks perfect!
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All    
 

1–20  21–29

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats