When I view a Windows Server's GAC (through Internet Explorer) I can see all the dll's that have been registered for the cache. However, when i navigate to the same location from another server, some of the dll's are not visible. Why is that? I have the same rights on the each server (administrator). Machines are both WK28.
With my IT outfit, we have templates to deploy servers with a dinky C drive/partition (10GB) and a larger D drive/partition. Why do this? Windows (at least until recently and at that minimally) has no real use of dynamic mount points in general server deployments.
Edit
So with many of the comments below a synopsis:
- It's faster to recover a smaller partition. This includes a corruption of NTFS,which would be kept to a paticular partition instead of messing up the enitre system.
- You get some protection from runnaway processes. This includes the ability to set quotas.
- Provides some cost savings for Raid configuration
- A religious hold over from the days before virtualization, raids, and high bandwidth networks.
Aside from #3 ( which, I think, is an argument against partitions), I still see no reason to have separate partitions. If you want to protect your data, wouldn't you just put it on another set of real or virtual disks or otherwise map to a shared resource somwhere else (NAS, SAN, whatever)?
I am moving a site from one url to another within the same site collection.
- Stsadm -o backup..... works great and says the operation completed successfully
- since the guid's of everything stay the same during a backup... i deleted the orginal site. Operation competed successfully
- Mind you this is production
- stsadm -o restore Now I restore to another url location... whoops i get a "Write error on file "wssxxxxxxxxx_1.tmp". Lovely
- Now i can't put it back. Looking at having to get the collection from the database backup. Is there a way to get it back any other way?
To my surprise and delight I read that an adminsitrator can import (nearly directly) an Access 2007 database into a sharepoint site. Automagically, the database in transformed into lists and views with some table lookup thrown in for good measure. With Access 2007 installed on the client machine, even the forms and what not can still be reused.
To me... this sounds to good to be true.
Has anyone actually dones this? With all this good news, where is the bad stuff and pitfalls to this. Depending on the size of the database, wouldn't this some how "gum up the works" in the SharPoint database?
Sources: http://madhurahuja.blogspot.com/2007/01/adding-data-to-sharepoint-l-ists-in.html http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sharepointadmin/thread/17745835-a861-4984-9f44-7291fdae7d07
What are the best solutions for disaster recovery of a Moss farm? Outside of Microsoft's Data Protection manager, what is there?
Which version of Sql Server 2008 do you use with your Enterprise Moss installation and why?
More specifically, do you actually need all that the Enterprise Sql Server version provides or is the standard version more than capable to provide service for a company of 1000+ users. What about 5000 users?
As an added note, we will be running the entire installation in an esx farm with a SAN data source.