<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for IPM</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipm.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipm.com</link>
	<description>Think Virtual. Think Professional. Think IPM.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:44:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Separate Virtual Disks for each volume in Virtual Machines. by Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/technical-insight/separate-virtual-disks-for-each-volume-in-virtual-machines/#comment-183</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/articles/separate-virtual-disks-for-each-volume-in-virtual-machines/#comment-183</guid>
		<description>I agree &quot;It’s a pretty solid best practice to create a separate virtual disk or VMDK/VHD for each volume in a virtual machine&quot; from a management/administrative perspective, but I&#039;m finding evidence that this should also be a best practice from a performance perspective. The problem is I can&#039;t find any documentation to back this up. Do you know of any?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8220;It’s a pretty solid best practice to create a separate virtual disk or VMDK/VHD for each volume in a virtual machine&#8221; from a management/administrative perspective, but I&#8217;m finding evidence that this should also be a best practice from a performance perspective. The problem is I can&#8217;t find any documentation to back this up. Do you know of any?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Split an AGEE Pair by Sam Jacobs</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/technical-insight/techdev-corner/how-to-split-an-agee-pair/#comment-136</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Jacobs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=6295#comment-136</guid>
		<description>You would also need to re-add the secondary node back to the primary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You would also need to re-add the secondary node back to the primary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Split an AGEE Pair by Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/technical-insight/techdev-corner/how-to-split-an-agee-pair/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=6295#comment-133</guid>
		<description>thanks...  So for the purposes of upgrading ns code I would just reverse the steps 1-3 to re-enable HA?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks&#8230;  So for the purposes of upgrading ns code I would just reverse the steps 1-3 to re-enable HA?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Split an AGEE Pair by Sam Jacobs</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/technical-insight/techdev-corner/how-to-split-an-agee-pair/#comment-132</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Jacobs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=6295#comment-132</guid>
		<description>Since the appliance was part of an HA pair, with the exception of the NSIP, it shares all of the same IP addresses for all LB and AG virtual servers. When you reboot the appliance, it will think that it is primary, and will begin handling traffic for all of the same IP addresses that the primary appliance is handling, and that will mess up your ARP tables.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the appliance was part of an HA pair, with the exception of the NSIP, it shares all of the same IP addresses for all LB and AG virtual servers. When you reboot the appliance, it will think that it is primary, and will begin handling traffic for all of the same IP addresses that the primary appliance is handling, and that will mess up your ARP tables.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How to Split an AGEE Pair by Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/technical-insight/techdev-corner/how-to-split-an-agee-pair/#comment-131</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=6295#comment-131</guid>
		<description>why would you want to clear the config if you&#039;re just upgrading firmware?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why would you want to clear the config if you&#8217;re just upgrading firmware?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on US SMBs turn to smartphones, tablets, study says by Adam Bari</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/industry-news/tech-dev/us-smbs-turn-to-smartphones-tablets-study-says/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Bari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=6524#comment-101</guid>
		<description>I think we would all agree that &quot;All Eggs – one basket” is probably not the best approach. In my opinion, the cloud in its current stage can be compared to server virtualization 5 years ago. Did it makes sense for all workloads ? Not then. You will be hard pressed to find any organization that has not virtualized most if not all server workloads. The future is bright for the cloud, the question will be......does it make sense for your company now or in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we would all agree that &#8220;All Eggs – one basket” is probably not the best approach. In my opinion, the cloud in its current stage can be compared to server virtualization 5 years ago. Did it makes sense for all workloads ? Not then. You will be hard pressed to find any organization that has not virtualized most if not all server workloads. The future is bright for the cloud, the question will be&#8230;&#8230;does it make sense for your company now or in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on US SMBs turn to smartphones, tablets, study says by James Cabe</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/industry-news/tech-dev/us-smbs-turn-to-smartphones-tablets-study-says/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>James Cabe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:39:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=6524#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Great article! But what about interfacing with partners EDI (especially big ones)? This model works for Lawyers, Doctors, and many other professional services, but I find that logistics companies, wealth management, and retail all suffer when integrator(s) try to fit them with this model. PCI-compiant retail terminals are a disaster if you use this format. Worse, with the coming monopolies &#039;pipe&#039; is becoming more and more expensive ( more here - http://goo.gl/AzeWo ), what is the strategy to move out of the cloud and retain your resources? I am still putting the &quot;Cloud&quot; in with ASPs from the early 2000s. It is nice to mix with a dedicated resource that will allow you to pull back those services if need be. I do not like the &quot;All Eggs - one basket&quot; approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article! But what about interfacing with partners EDI (especially big ones)? This model works for Lawyers, Doctors, and many other professional services, but I find that logistics companies, wealth management, and retail all suffer when integrator(s) try to fit them with this model. PCI-compiant retail terminals are a disaster if you use this format. Worse, with the coming monopolies &#8216;pipe&#8217; is becoming more and more expensive ( more here &#8211; <a href="http://goo.gl/AzeWo" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/AzeWo</a> ), what is the strategy to move out of the cloud and retain your resources? I am still putting the &#8220;Cloud&#8221; in with ASPs from the early 2000s. It is nice to mix with a dedicated resource that will allow you to pull back those services if need be. I do not like the &#8220;All Eggs &#8211; one basket&#8221; approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ChannelPro Magazine Features Adam Bari, IPM Managing Director by Nolberto Manzanero</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/industry-news/channelpro-magazine-features-adam-bari-ipm-managing-director/#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>Nolberto Manzanero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 14:08:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=5668#comment-78</guid>
		<description>Congratulations Adam. your assessment is spot on. initial investments on infrastructure to support desktop virtualization is usually the hurdle for smbs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congratulations Adam. your assessment is spot on. initial investments on infrastructure to support desktop virtualization is usually the hurdle for smbs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ChannelPro Magazine Features Adam Bari, IPM Managing Director by Claudia Ferguson</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/industry-news/channelpro-magazine-features-adam-bari-ipm-managing-director/#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>Claudia Ferguson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2011 15:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=5668#comment-76</guid>
		<description>Well done Adam.  I think it&#039;s time!
Congratulations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well done Adam.  I think it&#8217;s time!<br />
Congratulations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Citrix wants to be everywhere by Myron Bari</title>
		<link>http://www.ipm.com/product-news/citrix-wants-to-be-everywhere/#comment-41</link>
		<dc:creator>Myron Bari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipm.com/?p=4197#comment-41</guid>
		<description>I think that Tom Flink is right on!!!
Citrix&#039;s technology will allow executives to us WHAT DEVICE THEY WANT and still  access the data they need to run their businesses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that Tom Flink is right on!!!<br />
Citrix&#8217;s technology will allow executives to us WHAT DEVICE THEY WANT and still  access the data they need to run their businesses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

