On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Frank Thommen wrote:
> Clearly OTRS (http://www.otrs.com/en/). After having gone through the manual
> RT installation hell twice, installing OTRS (on CentOS) was just nothing.
> It's quite different from RT, but I'm absolutely happy with it (caveat: I'm
> only u
On 11.03.13 19:51, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) wrote:
[...]
My question is: What ticketing systems would you recommend as
alternatives to RT?
Clearly OTRS (http://www.otrs.com/en/). After having gone through the
manual RT installation hell twice, installing OTRS (on CentOS) was just
nothing
Depending how far you want to take this I know some WAN optimizers watch AD
traffic and drop packets if they are not needed.
i.e. if nothing changed from the last sync, don't bother sending that traffic
again.
I don't know if the WAN optimizers report on how much traffic they saved. If
they d
All of this brings you back to the *root* of the original question. In what
situations does it make sense to increase the replication frequency?
And I think we have an answer here:
First we acknowledge, that a low frequency does not reduce the number of
changes that need to be replicated, un
> From: tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lists.lopsa.org]
> On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey (lopser)
>
> Whenever there is an urgent change (password change, account disable, etc)
> those get pushed all around immediately, inter and intra-site.
>
> But non-urgent changes (changes
> From: Jefferson Cowart [mailto:j...@cowart.net]
>
> That's actually not how intra-site replication works. Within a site
> replication runs constantly (mostly). When a chance is made the
> information is pushed almost immediately to other DCs within the site.
Whenever there is an urgent change (
