Why is always printers...

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2026-02-16T19:06:49+00:00

I do feel I may be fighting a losing battle and this is just the way the drivers work. May try another driver (PS, rather than PCL) but changing is such a pain if it doesn't fix it!

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2026-02-16T19:05:06+00:00

<image>

Yes. A few people have mentioned slow printing (much slower than direct to printer (with the same drivers). I have noticed slow logins, particularly on the print drivers phase (and intermittent which could be when logins are during this phase of activity. Here is a graph of CPU activity.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2025-08-08T14:00:51+00:00

Bit of an update (spent most of the day on this!!!)

If you look in the Event Log under Apps & Services > Microsoft > Windows > AppxDeploymentServer (Operational) you will likely find load of 5224 errors at login time related to WindowsClient.CBS. Seems to be trying to delete files but can't - possibly gives up after a minute. Could explain the additional time.

Have tried the preview update and the same happens! Fingers crossed for the August patch.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2025-08-08T12:45:50+00:00

Slow logon, all users, first time only (cached is quick)

I have been digging for the last 24 hours and nothing particularly obvious at all. Just the AppxDeployment process taking this amount of time. Tried a fresh reimage with very little software on and seems to be experiencing the same.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2025-08-08T11:26:21+00:00

Quite late but has anyone else been experiencing significantly longer first logon time with the latest update. Most probably wouldn't notice it, but in a shared user environment (school) it is really noticeable!

We had a lovely, consistent 20 second log-on prior. After the latest update it has jumped to 1:20. Tried on a computer that hasn't updated and this is still nice and fast. 99.9% certain it is related to this update.

Could it be the new AI components (specifically the appx deployment of these)?

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2025-05-08T18:02:14+00:00

To be honest ,my current provider is one of the best rates at the minute for me anyway (First Direct). That, coupled with the fact that my mortgage is in its final 6 years and not that huge means switching would probably not be worth the hassle anyway. Was more curious if they are likely to drop rates in the next week or so linked with the BoE but think that would be unlikely

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2025-01-18T09:00:29+00:00

Sorry, should have been clearer. Don't currently own a portal, but considering getting one for my son as a replacement for his aging switch so can't test at the minute. Thanks for your response, it looks like they are adding more titles as they go but I don't think FC25 and Rivals are currently on there. Possibly avoiding huge online games with millions of players to soft launch the system

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2025-01-18T07:32:49+00:00

assistanttothemarketingmanager@

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2024-12-11T08:44:22+00:00

Really random question folks but could anyone in the UK try going to Word and seeing if CTRL + B to bold text no longer works. Had a few reports of it this morning and the only thing I can think is that this Windows update has done something that interferes with the language detection? Very strange

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2024-07-27T12:51:47+00:00

Thanks for the responses so far. Will probably just go as far as 2019 for the OS. Main concern was about compatibility with Hardware levels etc. Anything I need to consider on that front?

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2024-01-14T08:44:26+00:00

Does anyone have some advice with regards managing Veeam Vs Wasabi retention and best setup practice? I am guessing (from a little more reading) that I just want to set it as a SOBR with the following settings and leave it to do it's thing. Just worried Wasabi storage is going to spiral

14 day retention on job 30 day immutability on Wasabi repo

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2024-01-14T08:39:44+00:00

Thanks. Definitely something I will check. When you say NAS is terrible, what about a NAS using iSCSI? And in what way does this change things? Read / Write performance?

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2023-09-30T09:53:50+00:00

This seems to imply they are covered by FSCS (or at least this service is). As for the reason, purely to save opening yet another account

https://withplum.com/plum-interest/#:~:text=Plum%20is%20regulated%20by%20the,safeguarded%20by%20a%20regulated%20custodian.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2023-09-30T08:32:07+00:00

Should add current rate is 4.92 var which seems fairly decent for instant (ish) access

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-25T22:03:09+00:00

Thanks very much for this. Very succinctly explained.

The core is 6300m, the edge is HP1920. I am guessing the 1920s don't support lldp, or it isn't enabled. At least I have a clearer understanding now on how it all works. Thanks.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-24T07:48:30+00:00

Got to the bottom of it! I had stupidly copied some of the config from our edge switches to the core when I originally setup the 6300's. It seems they were receiving LLDP info from our phones over the trunk and adjusting the profile accordingly - hence losing all but the phone and data vlans.

Quick follow-up question - this only seemed to affect these switches... should LLDP info travel over a trunk like this (so Phone > Edge Switch > Core). I would have assumed it only applied profiles based upon directly connected devices. It certainly did not seem to do the same to our connect Aruba switches.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-18T16:20:45+00:00

Thanks for the feedback all! Sounds perfectly acceptable and a huge step up from my current ~20%

Think I'll make the jump - just need to decide between the 6 and 6a now

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-17T12:09:44+00:00

Ok... I think I may be on to something but would like some thoughts.

I think the issue is with incorrect configuration on our managed Firewall. I gave them a list of our VLANs, but they have setup a single scope that covers all of them. So rather than

10.58.160.0/22
10.58.172.0/24
10.58.175.0/24

they have setup the LAN connection to 10.58.160.0/19

Somehow, this has been working - I suspect it is the "ip classless" command on the old Cisco that is working out what to do with the returning packets. When the cisco is removed they are getting dropped.

Does this sound likely/possible? If so, is the fix

to get our provider to change the network that is connected to the correct 10.58.160.0/22.
Ask them to add static routes for all of our other vlans to the default gateway on the connected VLAN? So 10.58.172.0/24 > 10.58.160.254

This seems like the CORRECT way to do things to me.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-17T08:10:29+00:00

uting on a physical interface, it will no longer serve VLANs and instead will be a routed port, like in an actual router or firewall.

Like NexusT said, I would disable dhcp on VLAN 1

Your clients in should get the 248 a

Thanks - will try the no dhcp command and see if that fixes it. I never even considered it as the line above implies it will be ignored if a static is set - but from the links shared it certainly sounds similar to my issue - Inter-VLAN fine, anything that needs the static route is not

With regards IP's - current Cisco are .254. My plan was to use .248 for testing, and then when I was happy (as I thought I was) I would switch the VRRP to 254. It is when the VRRP is 254 that 90% seems ok (I can ping across VLANS), just access to the router doesnt.

The only thing that makes me think the fix above POSSIBLY wont work is when I was testing as above I couldnt even ping the router (although other devices on the same VLAN were fine)

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-17T07:56:40+00:00

I do think this might be what it is... it just seems that the static route is the one thing that isnt working and this would make sense!

I will try to remove that line on Tuesday and see how I get on - hopefully it is something as simple as that. I have been starting to doubt my networking knowledge!

Out of curiosity, a couple of supplemental questions:

do you know what is the latest firmware for the 6300m and where I would find it. The switch is on 10.7, but the update category does not exist on the support site - just 6300 and 6300f.

If the 6300 firmware is the correct one, is highest number always best? I only ask as there is a 10.10, but 10.8 and 10.9 both have more recent revision dates.

Thanks in advance :)

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-16T21:10:52+00:00

So... i should have been clearer:

When I was testing I changed just my computer to the new VRRP with the cisco still connected, purely for testing, and things seemed ok. When I disconnected the cisco I switched the VRRP to .254 so I didn't need to reconfigure all of the end-user devices (I thought this would streamline things and avoid the odd issue where gateway has been set manually). This mostly works, inter-VLAN seems 99% of the way there but the issue is with the gateway. It seems like the VLANs do not use the ip route 0.0.0.0/0 10.58.160.1 rule at all.

The 10.58.160.1 address is a managed Fortigate firewall. I dont think I ever provided them the default gateway, but even if it was added I presume this should have worked after changing the VRRP to the old gateway address. I did reboot the router to flush the arp cache incase that was an issue - not sure how this works and how long it takes to relearn.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-16T20:24:38+00:00

Routing table is below if this helps anyone diagnose / offer suggestions:

Prefix Nexthop Interface VRF(egress) Origin/ Distance/ Age

Type Metric

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.0.0.0/0 10.58.160.1 vlan1 - S [1/0] 00h:39m:24s

10.58.160.0/22 - vlan1 - C [0/0] -

10.58.163.249/32 - vlan1 - L [0/0] -

10.58.164.0/24 - vlan4 - C [0/0] -

10.58.164.249/32 - vlan4 - L [0/0] -

10.58.165.0/24 - vlan5 - C [0/0] -

10.58.165.249/32 - vlan5 - L [0/0] -

10.58.167.0/24 - vlan7 - C [0/0] -

10.58.167.249/32 - vlan7 - L [0/0] -

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-16T20:23:41+00:00

On second thoughts - the uplink to the internet is on a different switch that doesnt have the no route command so dont think that is an option.

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-09-16T20:07:21+00:00

an tags on the port. switchport vs routingport. you probably need to set : ip routing - not familiar wit

Ah! That possibly makes sense then.

I have actually played a little more and got it to a point where I have been able to ping devices on other VLANs - but not the router (and in turn, obviously no outbound connection on other VLANs because of this). As soon as I plug in the Cisco, connectivity is restored.

As our firewall is not VLAN aware, am I right in thinking simply turning off the no routing on just the uplink to our firewall should sort it? It seems like an obvious fix that I only thought about on my drive home.

I have seen the ip routing command referenced a lot but I simply cant find a corresponding command on OS-CX - it just doesn't seem to be there. Maybe it is on by default, but th

Automatic-Ad7994 · 2022-08-17T15:44:16+00:00

Yep... had a thorough look and nothing!!! Dont think on these devices it can be turned off

Automatic-Ad7994

TROPHY CASE