<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Just A Word (or two) From Steve &#187; Technology Reviews</title>
	<atom:link href="http://steve.heyvan.com/category/technology-reviews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://steve.heyvan.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts, Technology, Reviews and Ideas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 23:07:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Expand LUNs with ESX and not vCenter</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2011/04/02/expand-luns-with-esx-and-not-vcenter/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2011/04/02/expand-luns-with-esx-and-not-vcenter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 00:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VMware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When we upgraded to vSphere 4.1, there was nothing different about the way we expanded LUNs.  We have three EqualLogic iSCSI SAN arrays for storage and two IBM BladeCenters.  If we needed more space, the process was quite simple go to the web interface of the SAN and expanded the LUN using vCenter, click on a host [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2011/04/02/expand-luns-with-esx-and-not-vcenter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maintenance Mode Can Leave Virtual Machines Unmanageable in VMware vCenter 4.1</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2010/11/13/maintenance-mode-can-leave-virtual-machines-unmanageable-in-vmware-vcenter-4-1/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2010/11/13/maintenance-mode-can-leave-virtual-machines-unmanageable-in-vmware-vcenter-4-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:45:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual machine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VMware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VMware vSphere]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=482</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We are running an environment with a single vCenter and 15 ESX hosts, of which 12 are in a DRS/HA cluster.  When we had to do some maintenance on some of the hosts in the cluster, I moved a server into maintenance mode.  Since we have DRS, the system attempted to automatically move all of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2010/11/13/maintenance-mode-can-leave-virtual-machines-unmanageable-in-vmware-vcenter-4-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exchange 2003 SP2 on 2008 R2 domain?  Not so fast</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2010/01/03/exchange-2003-sp2-on-2008-r2-domain-not-so-fast/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2010/01/03/exchange-2003-sp2-on-2008-r2-domain-not-so-fast/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windows]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has been a lot of discussion about running Exchange 2003 SP2 on a Windows 2003 server while upgrading the domain to Windows 2008 R2 native mode. There are two real authorities that I rely upon and unfortunately there is disagreement. First is Microsoft TechNet. According to their Exchange Server Supportability Matrix, last updated on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2010/01/03/exchange-2003-sp2-on-2008-r2-domain-not-so-fast/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad Behavior Workaround &#8211; Dealing with Windows Live</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/05/09/bad-behavior-workaround-dealing-with-windows-live/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/05/09/bad-behavior-workaround-dealing-with-windows-live/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 01:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Misc Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bad Behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blacklist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Live Messenger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wordpress]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been working with Windows 7 recently and since it does not ship with Windows Messenger, I had to install Windows Live Messenger on it.  In doing so, I noticed a lot of new features in that product, including integration with a number of Web 2.0 items.  One of those features is to add [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/05/09/bad-behavior-workaround-dealing-with-windows-live/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Easy E-mail disclaimers using Policy Patrol</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/05/04/easy-e-mail-disclaimers-using-policy-patrol/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/05/04/easy-e-mail-disclaimers-using-policy-patrol/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 06:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclaimer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SMTP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve all been there.  The CEO, corporate council and/or other executives are demanding that the company have a legal disclaimer at the end of all E-mail messages.  Their obvious solution is to demand that every user put the disclaimer at the end of their signature block.  That quickly becomes a nightmare as every internal message [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/05/04/easy-e-mail-disclaimers-using-policy-patrol/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IBM Systems Director 6.1 &#8212; still no joy</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/04/19/ibm-director-61-still-no-joy/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/04/19/ibm-director-61-still-no-joy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPMI]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I previously wrote about the problems and issues with version 5.20.x and that we were looking forward to seeing what 6.1 was going to provide.  Well, we downloaded version 6.0 and it is a significantly different product; even changing the name to IBM Systems Director.  For starters, it no longer uses a thick client for administration, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/04/19/ibm-director-61-still-no-joy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FreePDF XP &#8211; Great tool at a great price</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/03/15/freepdf-xp-great-tool-at-a-great-price/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/03/15/freepdf-xp-great-tool-at-a-great-price/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acrobat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pdf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Like a lot of companies, we have been looking for alternatives to giving our users a full copy of Adobe Acrobat.  Not because of the features or capabilities, which are plentiful, but because the price ($449) is way too high for what most users need.  I would say that most people are simply converting Microsoft Office documents [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/03/15/freepdf-xp-great-tool-at-a-great-price/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DRS Affinity Rules in ESX: exclusion needs improvement</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/01/16/drs-affinity-rules-in-esx-exclusion-needs-improvement/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/01/16/drs-affinity-rules-in-esx-exclusion-needs-improvement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:40:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ESX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VMware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In setting up a Dynamic Resource Scheduling (DRS) cluster, there are various reasons to want to separate or group client systems together.  For example, you may have a set of systems that communicate constantly in processing information and therefore you want them to be on the same ESX host.  On the other side, you may [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/01/16/drs-affinity-rules-in-esx-exclusion-needs-improvement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IBM Director 5.20.x &#8211; worth using or not?</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/01/11/ibm-director-520x-worth-using-or-not/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/01/11/ibm-director-520x-worth-using-or-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BMC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ESX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPMI]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over the past year, we have been struggling with the deployment of IBM Director and continue to discuss whtether or not it makes any sense to continue trying to get it working or abandon it completely.  Our company standardized on the IBM server platforms over four years ago, using the X-series systems and BladeCenters, all [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2009/01/11/ibm-director-520x-worth-using-or-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Symantec 8300 Virtual Appliance &#8211; Ultimate protection</title>
		<link>http://steve.heyvan.com/2008/11/08/symantec-8300-virtual-appliance-ultimate-protection/</link>
		<comments>http://steve.heyvan.com/2008/11/08/symantec-8300-virtual-appliance-ultimate-protection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:49:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-SPAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SMTP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Symantec]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.heyvan.com/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given our experience with GFI MailEssentials and MailSecurity, we have been looking for a replacement E-mail security gateway replacement product.  Like most administrators, we know about the major players and we decided to go back and see where they were at.  We stumbled upon the Symantec 8300 Mail Security Appliance during that investigation.  From the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://steve.heyvan.com/2008/11/08/symantec-8300-virtual-appliance-ultimate-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

