A weird one...

I've got one of those weird ones today. We've installed a new network infrastructure - all shiny new HP Procurve stuff. Yesterday morning, one of our servers didn't back up, with BackupExec reporting that it couldn't see it. RDP'd to the server fine, and I could ping the backup server, and ping the errant server from the backup server. I could also, from either server, open an UNC share on ANOTHER server but not on each other. They're both on the same subnet, plugged directly into the new core switch, the ports on which are effectively, at the moment, wide open.

This morning, another server had the same problem, despite backing up yesterday. The error logs on the servers which can't connect have the odd DCOM error which, on closer investigation, could mean one of about forty different things, none of which look like an easy fix. It's all too easy to go off on some wild goose chase here. The core switch is new, so there's a cloud hanging over that, but I had something similar before it was replaced, which I didn't investigate too deeply as it was only a day before the new switch went in. One things for sure - something out there is screwing up my NetBIOS traffic, and I want to know what it is.

Fun with Outlook Address books; Cisco looking for a fight.

I'm having fun with Outlook Address Books this morning. A couple of weeks ago I built and introduced an Exchange 2007 server, looking towards migrating our accounts over from Exchange 2003. I created connectors between the two servers, and they're seeing each other fine. I pulled over a test mailbox, which seemed to go smoothly although I haven't been able to fully check that out yet because I need to update the ACL's on our PIX firewalls to include the new server.

So far, so good, until it was pointed out to me that somehow, mysteriously, the behaviour of my users address books in Outlook has changed. One set of users defaulted to one address list, another to another - both stored below the Global Address list. Now, those lists aren't visible from outlook, even though they both still work as email distribution lists. Confused yet? I am.

So I've populated two address lists above the GAL and they work fine, only problem being I haven't yet sussed if I can push our users to these via Group Policy, which would be ideal. So for now, the helpdesk are going to have to sort it - if someone complains, which as yet, they haven't. I know they will though, and probably before I fix it.

On another note, it looks as though Cisco are wading into the Blade-Server market. Coming hot on the heels of news that they're planning on wading into the virtualization market too, and in the face of HP's switch/routing challenge in the shape of Procurve, it's beginning to look more than a little like the day when KFC peddled their first burger and Ronald McDonald deep-fried his first chicken bollock. Hopefully, like that happy day, this ends up as good news for the customer, but with no sickly aftertaste, clogged arteries, or lingering sense of guilt attached.

Expanding a Point

I thought I'd expand on one of yesterday's postings; that which alluded to Citrix's killer app status slipping as the competition have caught up.

I've always been a fan of the possibilities of thin-client computing. The picture that Citrix paint - and deliver, to be fair, in many places - of an IT infrastructure with a smaller TCO, a smaller carbon footprint and centralized administration: who isn't waiting to be converted?

So when I came here and found a legacy Citrix environment - Metaframe XP FR3, two years out of support but still happily chugging along, supporting a couple of hundred users quite happily - one of the first things I looked at was updating this and asking the questions: What else can I do with this? Can we expand our thin-client useage, save money on our clients and our power bill, reduce our carbon footprint and be responsible global citizens? And unfortunately, to all of those questions, the answers were not enough and no.

Citrix do quite a good job of pointing out the cost / benefits of a thin-client network. But who, I ask, can afford to chuck their existing fat clients in the bin, and start again? Who can afford to run two networks side-by-side - because that's what we found we would almost need to do. Yes, we could look to savings three years down the track, when our current desktop refresh cycle reached it's end. But for a public sector organisation, especially one in up to its neck in the financial mire - three years is forever.

The real killers though, are Microsoft and Procurve. Microsoft because their new Windows Server 2008 does everything XP FR3 did (albeit without the crap that no-one used, like application billing). Procurve have finally been unleashed by HP and allowed to compete with Cisco, who have started making grumbling noises sounding like Cisco are going to kcick off their own range of Blade Servers, but that's bye-the-bye. Net result: when our network infrastructure reached the end of its lease, we were able to deliver gigabit to the desktop at two-thirds the cost of the Cisco offering - which offered less.

So the extra bandwidth that Terminal Services - or whatever Microsoft are calling it now - is going to consume doesn't matter any more. Citrix is looking pretty dead.

The final nail in the coffin is the ability of the machines now reaching the end of their lives, ones which we traditionally stuck a Citrix client on and punted to the backroom staff, so they could still have a reasonable user experience on old hardware. With 2ghz P4's now coming into retirement - where's the need?