u/BB9700

Even if I wrote in a previous post, I will not upgrade to 26.5.3.9691 before december, I did it yesterday out of curiousity.

But I was immediately punished for this after trying to upgrade a MacOSX Client running 10.12 and SC 26.03. Not only, that 26.5 this version will not run on this machine, it will install but result in an endless loop of on screene messages about the crash a normal user ist not able to fix. I had to get in the car and drive to the client. The old version is deleted. No way to go back.

"dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found: _objc_alloc_init, Expected in: /usr/lib/libobjc.A.dylib"

This is not a difficult problem, it is thrown at start of the executable and tells that the software trying to run is not built for this system. I anyone had tried this release on 10.12 he would have noticed immediately of the problem.

Why does Connectwise does care so less for the Mac Admins and Users? Do they hate us?

I do not love macs, but out of 1200 clients 100 are using a Mac and 50 of these use older MacOSX versions. I still need to support these.

I know connectwise "older macosx version are supported on a best effort basis" - or similar, but for me the way it is done is not best effort. It is dangerous. If a program is not built compatible for a version X it should simply refuse to run - instead here the old version is deleted and the newer crashes. Think about what would have been happend if I had the auto-updates switch to on!

We pay for this software and support. Why cant we expect to get a release tested better? connectwise might need some hardware: an older macmini and a newer version, then install all major MacOSX version on these two, a IMO small investment and a few hours one-time effort. Then test every release with all versions. That might take three hours for every release. I dont think this is asked too much.

And then, why not build two versions of the Mac Client? Or at least try to use a compiler directive like "---mmacosx-version-min=10.9" and if this does not work, then document this in the release notes and disable automatic updating if the OS Version is >X.Y.

Finally, the very minimum is to pre-check if the software is able to run before the old version is deleted as a safeguard against unknown bugs!

I got a requirement to do a one way sync of a hyperv-guest drive to sharepoint.

I have: a spare synology NAS which can run the synology cloud sync service and a replicate of the VM, both at a remote location.

My plan: Every hour I attach the vhdx of the replica in read-only mode to the Hyper-V host, and then run robocopy on it to update the NAS share on the synology drive, which then will send the changes to sharepoint, then dismount the vhdx.

What I already tried: mounting the vhdx readonly and then wait until replication tries to update the disk. The replication will go in to error status. I dismount the vhdx, and replication will continue.

could this work reliable? Or is there a better option to accomplish this task? If replication stops, I monitor it and automatially resume. The vhdx file is mounted read-only, so the integrity of the data should be fine. Running the robocopy job on the replica looks like a good idea, because there will be no load on the running VM serving 20 users with Windows Terminal.

A few weeks ago, I thougt I am able to master this scenario and posted a possible answer in this reddit for someone.

However, now I found something I was not able to fix:

The certificates for a replication were due to renewal, and I did the renewal late, but out of 6 machines 4 resumed the replication properly after the new certificate was installed. Two others refused to resume replication. Those with the largest Harddisk sizes (2TB and 1TB) and most active ones failed.

I gave up and redid the replication by creating a new replication, using the vhds of the old replication as a base.I use the same certificate and of course it works, So the problem is unlikely related to the certificates.

Is there maybe a timeframe related to the amount of missing replication data which I have to keep in mind with when I leave the replication in warning/citical state after a certificate is invalid?

Or maybe it ist just the amount of data missing to replicate and not the time the replication was in error? I did not find any docs regarding this.

Btw: the error logged in the hyperv-log was "file not found", but this does not really give a clue.

This is not a problem any more, but still I am interested if anyone experienced similar:

I have this machine running since a few year, using 2 WD SA500 2TB drives, windows Raid-1 in AHCI mode. Now, one of these drives died for an unknown reason.

I got a new WD SA500 2TB. But after plugin it in, it is not seen correctly, Instead it shows up as a 1MB S-ATA HDD. I updated bios, ilo, everything, but this did not made a difference.

Finally I got another WD SA500, but from an older series of these drives. It is called the same, but the older one has a white+red label, the new one has a label with color only red. The older version is recognized immediately.

Anyone here who knows about a reason for this problem? Otherwise this is a warning if you intend to replace your S-ATA SSDs in this Server with newer versions.

Since ages this problem makes working with a MacOSX based PC a PITA. I just had a session with a MacOSX 10.13 PC. And it made me FURIOUS - version 26.3.11.x

It once worked in the past with screenconnect X.y.z. Why should it be impossible to make it work now? Why is connectwise unable to just supply all installers of all versions of the SC client? Then I will find one which works, and never upgrade it until the end of the world.

And WHY does the moderation on the "community" forum of connectwise does not allow my post which I did 3 month ago stating it still does not work with 26.1.25 to appear?

I normally am not a guy who writes posts YELLING in capital letters. But this time my endurance was exhausted after the session with the client. Its such a waste of time.

My battery is down to 3000mAH capacity. However, the phone is working fine and I would like to keep it and replace the battery.

Unihertz has no stock for a battery replacement. I found a thread here where someone says a Moto Plus KD40 battery can be used as a replacement. But this has a initial capacity of only 4000mAH, Not a big improvment and not worth i thing if you still have a battery that is partially working.

There a many batteries on the market with 6000mAH, and most likely some of these will fit. But how about the connector? Has someone experience if it is possible to remove the connector from the old battery and connect it to a new one? I am no expert in soldering and similar work, but I think If I had documentation about the identity of the wires I should be able to do this.

If the battery only needs two wires to connect, then I should be able to find out what to do myself. But from the pictures I found in the internet it does look like there is more then just plus and minus.

Please post any information about the battery connector if you have.

Thank you.

consider the following setup:

A host on local Lan with 10GB networking, connected to a managed layer2 10GBE switch, which is connected using a 1GB link to a router. The Router is conneced to the internet using a 1G/1G symmetric fiber.

Now, I do a speed test or a test using iperf3 to measure the upload to a host in the internet. I get a result of about 50Mbit/s (upstream speed).

I set the link speed of the PCs network card to 1GB. Again do the speed test, I geht about 900Mbit/s upstream speed.

Any other host in the lan which is connected using a 1G connection will have speedtest results which match the advertised speed of the internet.

I recheck the problem using a different physical PC, using a network card of a different manufacturer. No change.

I do all the tweaks I know (disabling VMQ, large send file offload, RSC etc. etc.). No change

As a side note: I get full speed test results in the internal lan, regardless if I test 10GB to 10GB or 10GB to 1GB or 1GB to 10GB hosts. Also full speed in the internal lan If I run tests at the same time on multiple hosts.

Now, finally I change the internal lan link to the Router from 1GB to 10GB. Problem is gone. 900Mbit/s upload speed from any host.

Even If I kinda have solved this problem, I am thinking about reasons why this happens. Shouldnt the 10GB/1GB switch I use or finally the switch of the Router do their work using buffers and handshake to make this problem impossible to appear?

The speed of the internet is of course slower the the lan speed, but this is normal.

Who is to blame for this problem?

Me? because this is common knowledge? I searched and found a few topics but none of these seemed to have a real answer.

The switch? or the switch of the router? Or this is just a firmware problem of one of the involved devices?