Professional Geekism

I’m actually unbelievably shocked. Uncontrollable, crazy laughter gripped the inner space of my mind when I was faced with the news that Microsoft are planning to support Firefox 3.x and Safari 3 from the Exchange 2010 ‘Outlook Web Access’ web page.

Further still, they’re touting the fact that the OWA now has all of the features the regular Outlook desktop does!

Does this not strike anyone else as a move that would make Windows (and Office, particularly since itself and OpenOffice will by then both have full ODF compatibility) completely obsolete? Why would you pay for a Windows 7 site license, when you can upgrade your Exchange server to 2010, replace all of the Windows machines with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, Firefox 3.1 and OpenOffice, and save your company thousands of pounds?

On top of this, they’ve supposedly tuned 2010 to be ‘less bursty’ in the way that it accesses the disk, as well as adding JBOD concatenation support. Does anyone else see that as ‘Please virtualise your Exchange servers’? Yep, so did I.

I suppose you could be running HyperV, but with Microsoft supporting iterations of Windows Server under RedHat Xen virtulisation, I really don’t see how they’re going to convince people to pay for their the majority of their bread-and-butter products, once Exchange 2010 débuts.

What’s next? Windows 7 released under the Microsoft Public License? Perhaps they’ll just call it ‘Windows Azure Client’ when they give it away for free…

I’ve just had to setup Windows on a physical machine (shudder) to control and monitor the IOMeter disk benchmarks that are needed for my final year project. I didn’t try to run it in Wine, but I suppose I should’ve. Needless to say, I do require it to be perfect in order to maintain the fairness of my testing, so Windows was unfortunately my first choice.

Due to the age of the hardware I had lying around; an old Athlon XP-M system with an Abit NF7-S 2.0 and 512MB of ‘borrowed’ memory (thanks Ian), it was safe to say that it wouldn’t be any good installing Vista on it. Therefore I downloaded and burnt an XP ISO from my MSDN account and set about installing XP to the 200GB SATA drive I had (thanks Neillans, actually!)

The Abit NF7-S range of boards (particularly the V2.0) were highly-regarded during their hay-day: a testament to Abit’s awesome legacy. Not least for their inclusion of SATA ports way back in 2002, when Serial ATA was a relatively new feature on desktop boards. It even included basic RAID functions across the twin ports, courtesy of the Sil3112r chipset, which is still sold today if you look hard enough. When this was my main motherboard I actually ran a pair of 36GB WD Raptors in RAID-0 (scarily the same pair I use as my root drive now! I’m poor, OK?) and everything worked extremely well.. I never had a single problem with it.

But fast-forward to installing XP onto a SATA single disk, and I was stumped for a little while. Aside from the faff in convincing my floppy drive to work with the board (I’d previously disabled it via three, separate options in the BIOS — nightmare) I then had XP’s installation looping continuously, instead of booting from the HDD to continue with the second phase of the installation. It was almost as if XP was failing to write NTLDR into the MBR, somehow.

Now by convention on modern motherboards, SATA ports can typically be set to three modes: RAID, AHCI, and IDE. The latter of which is used purely for compatibility with older operating systems. However, the ‘RAID’ mode typically prevents that particular disk from being presented as a possible boot disk by marking it for use within RAID arrays only. It’s all fairly self-explanatory, however.

However, within the NF7-S’s BIOS, there are no such options. You can either enable/disable the SATA chipset, and optionally enable/disable the ‘SATA RAID ROM’, which you would believe would be only required if creating RAID arrays. I didn’t wish to use the RAID features and therefore I didn’t intend on ear-marking the disk as a RAID disk, as I wanted to boot from it. Sounds sensible, right?

Sadly, unless this ROM option is actually enabled, regardless of whether or not I wished to use any of the RAID features; the disks will not be presented as boot disks. Quite why there is even an option in the first place is beyond me! Because of this, the XP installation CD was failing to find a suitable boot disk and was therefore intent on looping endlessly through the first phase of the installation process. Fun times…

It has since occurred to me just how far SATA adoption and usability has actually come in the last 5-6 years. With most chipsets now natively including anything from two to eight AHCI SATA ports, as well as incorporating much better integration into the BIOS menus. Similarly, with natively AHCI-aware operating systems such as Linux, Solaris (and friends), many BSDs, Vista (and Windows 7!) now becoming largely common-place, there are few reasons for any of the IDE-compatibility options any longer.

That is, unless you’ve only got a single-core processor, 512MB of memory and an old, awkward (but great) motherboard. I just wish the IOMeter devs would consider creating a GTK+/QT4 front-end for dynamo!

Update: I’ve since realised (after doing this on another machine) that if you enable the RRAS (Routing and Remote Access) service under Server 2003, it actually does behave in the correct manner.

Why can Linux just do this out of the box, eh?

Running multiple NICs, on different networks, is not something I’ve had to do before with Windows. I’ve always been using Cisco routers or *nix-based devices for my routing needs. However, I came across something really quite annoying when I was fiddling with the above.

Imagine this: A Windows 2003 Server VM, with two virtual NICs. One has a public IP configured, bridged to the Public Address LAN, and the other has a private IP configured (which was obviously bridged to our internal Gigabit LAN.)

Now, possibly for reasons of clarity, 2K3 issues a notification when you configure more than one default gateway, if they’re from differing networks. Something to do with it not working well in load-balancing situations. Fair enough. But I immediately think that if it’s going to complain about something like that, then it obviously doesn’t need a second default gateway, and indeed it shouldn’t (as the networks are in completely separate IP ranges – it should work out where best to send it.)

Unfortunately, someone forgot to mention to Mr. Microsoft, that the term ‘default gateway’ is otherwise known as a ‘gateway of last resort’ and not the ‘gateway of only resort’!

So for the last few hours or so I’d been racking my brains over why connections to the internal LAN weren’t being routed back. The last thing I thought to check, was the damned Windows Server. Why on Earth would it ever decide to route packets for a 10.16.0.0 address over it’s default gateway on another network, when it’s already connected to 10.16.0.0 directly?!

Setting a default gateway (ignoring any notifications) for the internal LAN fixed it immediately. Grr.