Search Results

Search found 9542 results on 382 pages for 'operating systems'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 46/382 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • How can I "share" a network share over the internet to multiple operating systems?

    - by Minsc
    Hello all, We have a network share accessible through our intranet that is widely used. This share has it's own set of fine tuned permissions. I have been tasked with allowing A.D. authenticated access to this share over the internet without the use of VPN. The internet access has to mimic the NTSF permissions in place on the share. Another piece of the puzzle is that the access over the internet has to allow perusal of the share from Windows and Mac OS systems. I had envisioned a web front end that would facilitate downloading to and uploading from the share via a web browser. I'm trying to ask for some suggestions about what type of setup is necessary to achieve this. I've done loads of testing and searching for solutions but I can't seem to get anything to work as I hope. The web server that will be handing all of this is a Windows 2K8 box with IIS 7. How can I allow the users to authenticate against Active Directory when coming from the internet even when coming from a Mac system? I hope my question is not too broad, I'm sorry if I should have broken it up into multiple questions. It all is just tied together in my head. Thank you all for your time and aid.

    Read the article

  • Master Data Management Implementation Styles

    - by david.butler(at)oracle.com
    In any Master Data Management solution deployment, one of the key decisions to be made is the choice of the MDM architecture. Gartner and other analysts describe some different Hub deployment styles, which must be supported by a best of breed MDM solution in order to guarantee the success of the deployment project.   Registry Style: In a Registry Style MDM Hub, the various source systems publish their data and a subscribing Hub stores only the source system IDs, the Foreign Keys (record IDs on source systems) and the key data values needed for matching. The Hub runs the cleansing and matching algorithms and assigns unique global identifiers to the matched records, but does not send any data back to the source systems. The Registry Style MDM Hub uses data federation capabilities to build the "virtual" golden view of the master entity from the connected systems.   Consolidation Style: The Consolidation Style MDM Hub has a physically instantiated, "golden" record stored in the central Hub. The authoring of the data remains distributed across the spoke systems and the master data can be updated based on events, but is not guaranteed to be up to date. The master data in this case is usually not used for transactions, but rather supports reporting; however, it can also be used for reference operationally.   Coexistence Style: The Coexistence Style MDM Hub involves master data that's authored and stored in numerous spoke systems, but includes a physically instantiated golden record in the central Hub and harmonized master data across the application portfolio. The golden record is constructed in the same manner as in the consolidation style, and, in the operational world, Consolidation Style MDM Hubs often evolve into the Coexistence Style. The key difference is that in this architectural style the master data stored in the central MDM system is selectively published out to the subscribing spoke systems.   Transaction Style: In this architecture, the Hub stores, enhances and maintains all the relevant (master) data attributes. It becomes the authoritative source of truth and publishes this valuable information back to the respective source systems. The Hub publishes and writes back the various data elements to the source systems after the linking, cleansing, matching and enriching algorithms have done their work. Upstream, transactional applications can read master data from the MDM Hub, and, potentially, all spoke systems subscribe to updates published from the central system in a form of harmonization. The Hub needs to support merging of master records. Security and visibility policies at the data attribute level need to be supported by the Transaction Style hub, as well.   Adaptive Transaction Style: This is similar to the Transaction Style, but additionally provides the capability to respond to diverse information and process requests across the enterprise. This style emerged most recently to address the limitations of the above approaches. With the Adaptive Transaction Style, the Hub is built as a platform for consolidating data from disparate third party and internal sources and for serving unified master entity views to operational applications, analytical systems or both. This approach delivers a real-time Hub that has a reliable, persistent foundation of master reference and relationship data, along with all the history and lineage of data changes needed for audit and compliance tracking. On top of this persistent master data foundation, the Hub can dynamically aggregate transaction data on demand from different source systems to deliver the unified golden view to downstream systems. Data can also be accessed through batch interfaces, published to a message bus or served through a real-time services layer. New data sources can be readily added in this approach by extending the data model and by configuring the new source mappings and the survivorship rules, meaning that all legacy data hubs can be leveraged to contribute their records/rules into the new transaction hub. Finally, through rich user interfaces for data stewardship, it allows exception handling by business analysts to keep it current with business rules/practices while maintaining the reliability of best-of-breed master records.   Confederation Style: In this architectural style, several Hubs are maintained at departmental and/or agency and/or territorial level, and each of them are connected to the other Hubs either directly or via a central Super-Hub. Each Domain level Hub can be implemented using any of the previously described styles, but normally the Central Super-Hub is a Registry Style one. This is particularly important for Public Sector organizations, where most of the time it is practically or legally impossible to store in a single central hub all the relevant constituent information from all departments.   Oracle MDM Solutions can be deployed according to any of the above MDM architectural styles, and have been specifically designed to fully support the Transaction and Adaptive Transaction styles. Oracle MDM Solutions provide strong data federation and integration capabilities which are key to enabling the use of the Confederated Hub as a possible architectural style approach. Don't lock yourself into a solution that cannot evolve with your needs. With Oracle's support for any type of deployment architecture, its ability to leverage the outstanding capabilities of the Oracle technology stack, and its open interfaces for non-Oracle technology stacks, Oracle MDM Solutions provide a low TCO and a quick ROI by enabling a phased implementation strategy.

    Read the article

  • About Solaris 11 and UltraSPARC II/III/IV/IV+

    - by nospam(at)example.com (Joerg Moellenkamp)
    I know that I will get the usual amount of comments like "Oh, Jörg ? you can't be negative about Oracle" for this article. However as usual I want to explain the logic behind my reasoning. Yes ? I know that there is a lot of UltraSPARC III, IV and IV+ gear out there. But there are some very basic questions: Does your application you are currently running on this gear stops running just because you can't run Solaris 11 on it? What is the need to upgrade a system already in production to Solaris 11? I have the impression, that some people think that the systems get useless in the moment Oracle releases Solaris 11. I know that Sun sold UltraSPARC IV+ systems until 2009. The Sun SF490 introduced 2004 for example, that was a Sun SF480 with UltraSPARC IV and later with UltraSPARC IV+. And yes, Sun made some speedbumps. At that time the systems of the UltraSPARC III to IV+ generations were supported on Solaris 8, on Solaris 9 and on Solaris 10. However from my perspective we sold them to customers, which weren't able to migrate to Solaris 10 because they used applications not supported on Solaris 9 or who just didn't wanted to migrate to Solaris 10. Believe it or not ? I personally know two customers that migrated core systems to Solaris 10 in ? well 2008/9. This was especially true when the M3000 was announced in 2008 when it closed the darned single socket gap. It may be different at you site, however that's what I remember about that time when talking with customers. At first: Just because there is no Solaris 11 for UltraSPARC III, IV and IV+, it doesn't mean that Solaris 10 will go away anytime soon. I just want to point you to "Expect Lifetime Support - Hardware and Operating Systems". It states about Premier Support:Maintenance and software upgrades are included for Oracle operating systems and Oracle VM for a minimum of eight years from the general availability date.GA for Solaris 10 was in 2005. Plus 8 years ? 2013 ? at minimum. Then you can still opt for 3 years of "Extended Support" ? 2016 ? at minimum. 2016 your systems purchased in 2009 are 7 years old. Even on systems purchased at the very end of the lifetime of that system generation. That are the rules as written in the linked document. I said minimum The actual dates are even further in the future: Premier Support for Solaris 10 ends in 2015, Extended support ends 2018. Sustaining support ? indefinite. You will find this in the document "Oracle Lifetime Support Policy: Oracle Hardware and Operating Systems".So I don't understand when some people write, that Oracle is less protective about hardware investments than Sun. And for hardware it's the same as with Sun: Service 5 years after EOL as part of Premier Support. I would like to write about a different perspective as well: I have to be a little cautious here, because this is going in the roadmap area, so I will mention the public sources here: John Fowler told last year that we have to expect at at least 3x the single thread performance of T3 for T4. We have 8 cores in T4, as stated by Rick Hetherington. Let's assume for a moment that a T4 core will have the performance of a UltraSPARC core (just to simplify math and not to disclosing anything about the performance, all existing SPARC cores are considered equal). So given this pieces of information, you could consolidate 8 V215, 4 or 8 V245, 2 full blown V445,2 full blown 490, 2 full blown M3000 on a single T4 SPARC processor. The Fowler roadmap prezo talked about 4-socket systems with T4. So 32 V215, 16 to 8 V245, 8 fullblown V445, 8 full blown V490, 8 full blown M3000 in a system image. I think you get the idea. That said, most of the systems we are talking about have already amortized and perhaps it's just time to invest in new systems to yield other advantages like reduced space consumptions, like reduced power consumption, like some of the neat features sun4v gives you, and yes ? reduced number of processor licenses for Oracle and less money for Oracle HW/SW support. As much as I dislike it myself that my own UltraSPARC III and UltraSPARC II based systems won't run on Solaris 11 (and I have quite a few of them in my personal lab), I really think that the impact on production environments will be much less than most people think now. By the way: The reason for this move is a quite significant new feature. I will tell you that it was this feature, when it's out. I assume, telling just a word more could lead to much more time to blog.

    Read the article

  • Oracle apresenta resultados do ano

    - by pfolgado
    A Oracle acabou de apresentar os resultados do 4º trimestre e do ano fiscal FY11. Os resultados mais relevantes são: Receitas de Vendas cresceram 33%, atingindo um total de 35,6 mil milhões de dólares Vendas de Novas licenças cresceram 23% Receitas de Hardware de 4,4 mil milhões de dólares Resultados operacionais cresceram 39% Resultados por acção de cresceram 38% para 1,67 dólares “In Q4, we achieved a 19% new software license growth rate with almost no help from acquisitions,” said Oracle President and CFO, Safra Catz. “This strong organic growth combined with continuously improving operational efficiencies enabled us to deliver a 48% operating margin in the quarter. As our results reflect, we clearly exceeded even our own high expectations for Sun’s business.” “In addition to record setting software sales, our Exadata and Exalogic systems also made a strong contribution to our growth in Q4,” said Oracle President, Mark Hurd. “Today there are more than 1,000 Exadata machines installed worldwide. Our goal is to triple that number in FY12.” “In FY11 Oracle’s database business experienced its fastest growth in a decade,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “Over the past few years we added features to the Oracle database for both cloud computing and in-memory databases that led to increased database sales this past year. Lately we’ve been focused on the big business opportunity presented by Big Data.” Oracle Reports Q4 GAAP EPS Up 34% To 62 Cents; Q4 NON-GAAP EPS Up 25% To 75 Cents Q4 Software New License Sales Up 19%, Q4 Total Revenue Up 13% Oracle today announced fiscal 2011 Q4 GAAP total revenues were up 13% to $10.8 billion, while non-GAAP total revenues were up 12% to $10.8 billion. Both GAAP and non-GAAP new software license revenues were up 19% to $3.7 billion. Both GAAP and non-GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 15% to $4.0 billion. Both GAAP and non-GAAP hardware systems products revenues were down 6% to $1.2 billion. GAAP operating income was up 32% to $4.4 billion, and GAAP operating margin was 40%. Non-GAAP operating income was up 19% to $5.2 billion, and non-GAAP operating margin was 48%. GAAP net income was up 36% to $3.2 billion, while non-GAAP net income was up 27% to $3.9 billion. GAAP earnings per share were $0.62, up 34% compared to last year while non-GAAP earnings per share were up 25% to $0.75. GAAP operating cash flow on a trailing twelve-month basis was $11.2 billion. For fiscal year 2011, GAAP total revenues were up 33% to $35.6 billion, while non-GAAP total revenues were up 33% to $35.9 billion. Both GAAP and non-GAAP new software license revenues were up 23% to $9.2 billion. GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 13% to $14.8 billion, while non-GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 13% to $14.9 billion. Both GAAP and non-GAAP hardware systems products revenues were $4.4 billion. GAAP operating income was up 33% to $12.0 billion, and GAAP operating margin was 34%. Non-GAAP operating income was up 27% to $15.9 billion, and non-GAAP operating margin was 44%. GAAP net income was up 39% to $8.5 billion, while non-GAAP net income was up 34% to $11.4 billion. GAAP earnings per share were $1.67, up 38% compared to last year while non-GAAP earnings per share were up 33% to $2.22. “In Q4, we achieved a 19% new software license growth rate with almost no help from acquisitions,” said Oracle President and CFO, Safra Catz. “This strong organic growth combined with continuously improving operational efficiencies enabled us to deliver a 48% operating margin in the quarter. As our results reflect, we clearly exceeded even our own high expectations for Sun’s business.” “In addition to record setting software sales, our Exadata and Exalogic systems also made a strong contribution to our growth in Q4,” said Oracle President, Mark Hurd. “Today there are more than 1,000 Exadata machines installed worldwide. Our goal is to triple that number in FY12.” “In FY11 Oracle’s database business experienced its fastest growth in a decade,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “Over the past few years we added features to the Oracle database for both cloud computing and in-memory databases that led to increased database sales this past year. Lately we’ve been focused on the big business opportunity presented by Big Data.” In addition, Oracle also announced that its Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.06 per share of outstanding common stock. This dividend will be paid to stockholders of record as of the close of business on July 13, 2011, with a payment date of August 3, 2011.

    Read the article

  • What are some good hosted issue tracking systems for non-developers?

    - by Knox
    This question is similar to Good Open Source issue tracking systems for non-developers but in our case, we would prefer a hosted solution. The users are end-users, on the low end of computer literate, non developers. We have around 5 support people and 50 or so end users. We are interested in simple issue tracking, like a printer being down, as opposed to project or bug tracking. Email integration is desired.

    Read the article

  • There are lots of "Core i" CPUs, but Dell only offers a few -- who builds systems with the others?

    - by Jesse
    Passmark shows many varieties of Core i3, i5, and i7 cpus. Some of them, even at similar prices, are much faster than others. But Dell only offers a few options, and they're not the fast ones. For example, Dell offers the Core i5 650 (benchmark), which costs $220, and doesn't come close to the performance of the Core i3-2100 (benchmark), which costs $120. Does anyone sell systems with the faster, cheaper chips?

    Read the article

  • There are lots of "Core i" CPUs, but Dell only offers a few -- who builds systems with the others? [closed]

    - by Jesse
    Passmark shows many varieties of Core i3, i5, and i7 cpus. Some of them, even at similar prices, are much faster than others. But Dell only offers a few options, and they're not the fast ones. For example, Dell offers the Core i5 650 (benchmark), which costs $220, and doesn't come close to the performance of the Core i3-2100 (benchmark), which costs $120. Does anyone sell systems with the faster, cheaper chips?

    Read the article

  • How exactly are Distributed File Systems used in cloud environment?

    - by vaab
    How exactly are Distributed File Systems used in cloud environment ? More precisely: Are live VMs images (or their filesystem) usually located in the DFS ? Are VMs usually used to run the backbone (actual code) of DFS structure ? Precise example citing DFS (ceph, Gluster, GFS, GPFS, Lustre) or cloud environment (Openstack , CloudStack, ...) would be appreciated, even if I'm more interessted by ceph on OpenStack for now.

    Read the article

  • Can I copy a cross compiler tool chain between systems (I did before)?

    - by Jamie
    I tested fairly extensively with Ubuntu 10.04 Beta 2 Server in a VM, and was able to simply copy (read tar x) a cross compiled tool chain from an Ubuntu 8.10 VM. I created the tar myself, which is essentially a lot of stuff in \usr\local. Now that I've got a bare metal installation of Ubuntu 10.04 proper, the copy isn't working. In particularly, I'm getting the error: $ arm-linux-gcc -bash: /usr/local/bin/arm-linux-gcc: No such file or directory I've got the systems side by side in SSH windows ... any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Quantify value for management

    - by nivlam
    We have two different legacy systems (window services in this case) that do exactly the same thing. Both of these systems have small differences for the different applications they serve. Both of these system's core functionality lies within a shared library. Most of the time, the updates occur in the shared library and we simply deploy the updated library to both of these systems. The systems themselves rarely change. Since both of these systems do essentially the same thing, our development team would like to consolidate these two systems into a single service. What can I do to convince management to allocate time for such a task? Some of the points I've noted are: Easier maintenance Decrease testing/QA time Unfortunately, this isn't enough. They would like us to provide them with hard numbers on the amount of hours this will save in the future and how this will speed up future development. Since most of the work is done in the shared library and the systems themselves never change, it's hard for us to quantify how many hours this will save. What kind of arguments can I make to justify the extra work to consolidate these systems?

    Read the article

  • What parts of this book are outdated? "Design of the UNIX Operating System" by Maurice Bach, 1986

    - by blee
    I learned programming on the job via high-level languages. I'm trying to gain a better understanding of the lower-level workings of computing and picked up "Design of the UNIX Operating System" by Maurice Bach. What do I need to know in terms of which topics in this book may not be relevant to understanding Linux nuts and bolts? Is there a newer book or Linux-specific book that I should read instead? I really like the clarity of this particular book, though.

    Read the article

  • Is there any legal problems for design an operating system?

    - by x86
    Hi everybody.. My wondering is a Programming/Business question, so here what I am thinking about, One of my big goals is to design a Computer Operating System, however if it will be just for fun, knowledge or even to be the next Windows or Linux, so if I had Programmed one, with GUI (windows,lists,buttons,etc..) and for example I will make it for Commercial use, Will Microsoft or Apple comes and drop me in legal problems just like what happened in GUI war between the two of them(Apple and Microsoft)? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Does the Win XP/7 dual boot "missing restore points" problem apply to systems with separate hard disks for each O/S?

    - by Robert Oschler
    I'm in the process of installing Windows 7/64 on a system with Windows XP/32 on it. During my research, I read about a problem that occurs in the dual boot scenario where Windows XP deletes Windows 7's restore points when it accesses the Windows 7 volume: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926185 I found a workaround but it seems pretty painful since it appears to involve using the registry to make the Windows 7 volume appear invisible or "offline" to Windows XP, making sharing disk data between the two O/S annoying since you have to use something like an external storage device to get it done: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/127417-system-restore-points-stop-xp-dual-boot-delete.html I was wondering if this problem only occurs with systems that have both O/S installed on the same physical hard drive (in different partitions)? In my case, I will have each O/S on a completely separate physical hard drive. Any other tips would be appreciated. -- roschler

    Read the article

  • What's the largest message size modern email systems generally support?

    - by Phil Hollenback
    I know that Yahoo and Google mail support 25MB email attachments. I have an idea from somewhere that 10MB email messages are generally supported by modern email systems. So if I'm sending an email between two arbitrary users on the internet, what's the safe upper bound on message size? 1MB? 10MB? 25MB? I know that one answer is 'don't send big emails, use some sort of drop box'. I'm looking for a guideline if you are limited to only using regular smtp email.

    Read the article

  • UEC - Can the Cluster Controller and Storage Controller be seperate systems?

    - by Jeremy Hajek
    My department is implementing an Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud. I have done the testing and am quite comfortable with the 4 pieces, CC/SC, CLC, WS, NC. Looking at various documents below it appears the the Storage Controller and Cluster Controller (eucalyptus-sc and eucalyptus-cc) are always installed on the same system. My question is this: can I install the storage controller and the cluster controller on separate systems? http://open.eucalyptus.com/wiki/EucalyptusAdvanced_v2.0 the picture indicates that cc and sc are two different machines http://www.canonical.com/sites/default/files/active/Whitepaper-UbuntuEnterpriseCloudArchitecture-v1.pdf P.10 1st paragraph uses the word "machine(s)" http://software.intel.com/file/31966 P. 8 indicates the same separate architecture BUT... https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEC/PackageInstallSeparate indicates below that the SC and CC are to be on the same system.

    Read the article

  • rhel/centos vs. ubuntu (possibly other debian-based systems) linux in handling duplicate ips in the same subnet

    - by johnshen64
    This has bothered me for quite a while but I never found out why or how to change the behavior. ip duplicates could be caused by typos or dhcp errors etc., but they do occur from time to time. in rpm-based systems such as centos, the old server with the duplicate ip wins, and the new server will get an error in bringing up the nic (ip address already used). this is somewhat harmless because we can just fix the system that is coming up. ubuntu only the other hand happily grabs the used ip for itself and leave the old server/device without a valid ip. this is the more dangerous behavior because it causes outages. what i want is to change the ubuntu behavior to that of the centos/rhel so would appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • What's the strengths and weaknesses of existing configuration management systems?

    - by Daniel C. Sobral
    I was looking up here for some comparisons between CFEngine, Puppet, Chef, bcfg2, AutomateIt and whatever other configuration management systems might be out there, and was very surprised I could find very little here on Server Fault. For instance, I only knew of the first three links above -- the other two I found on a related google search. So, I'm not interested in what people think is the best one, or which they like. I'd like to know the following: Configuration Management System's name. Why it was created (as opposed to using an existing solution). Relative strengths. Relative weaknesses. License. Link to project and examples.

    Read the article

  • What's the strengths and weaknesses of existing configuration management systems?

    - by Daniel C. Sobral
    I was looking up here for some comparisons between CFEngine, Puppet, Chef, bcfg2, AutomateIt and whatever other configuration management systems might be out there, and was very surprised I could find very little here on Server Fault. For instance, I only knew of the first three links above -- the other two I found on a related google search. So, I'm not interested in what people think is the best one, or which they like. I'd like to know the following: Configuration Management System's name. Why it was created (as opposed to using an existing solution). Relative strengths. Relative weaknesses. License. Link to project and examples.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >