From: "Robert Comer" 

> "WOL" means "wake on LAN"?

Yep.  Not all PC's have WOL adapters, and the bios of the PC has to
understand it and have the option set to on.

> And the tech probably said it was in sleep mode to cover up for
> whichever friend of his was responsible for plugging everything back in
> after the maintenance was completed.
>
> 

Could be, but it is possible that he was telling the truth.

> It's getting so I should send the users a message when the {at}#$% reports
> are going to be on time, instead of when they're going to be late...
> this is like the 5th week in a row something's happened.
>
> 

I feel your pain!

- Bob Comer


"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:51j6h1h6st3gnhsoihnru6kami8ekbhgek{at}4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:27:14 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote in message
> :
>
>>> 1.  One of the first things I always do with a new box is disable
>>> anything resembling "power management"; I distinctly
remember doing that
>>> on the reporting box.
>>
>>It's possible some fix, (or operator) changes those settings, though sleep
>>isn't a normal server default!
>
> It's not a server, just a desktop, but it lives in the server room in
> order to be connected to the giant UPS.
>>
>>> 2.  Windows TaskScheduler was supposed to start the reporting
>>> application at 5:15 (instead of the normal 1:00 because they took down
>>> the whole network last night to do the upgrades for our new system), but
>>> it never started.  If the box was sleeping, wouldn't TaskScheduler wake
>>> it up?
>>
>>Only if the task is set to wake the computer, and that's not the default.
>>
> Well, this is good to know for the future, thanks.   :)
>
>>> 3.  Wouldn't receiving a ping attempt also wake up the box?  And/or does
>>> the box need to be awake for a ping attempt to succeed?
>>
>>Only if WOL is active will it wake up and it wouldn't wake up fast enough
>>to
>>respond to a ping. (just guessing, I don't use WOL for anything.)
>
> "WOL" means "wake on LAN"?
>
> Well, but also I tried pinging it again about 15 minutes later, so if
> the first attempt had woken it it would have been there for the second
> one.
>
>>
>>> My suspicion is that they turned it off or unplugged it or disconnected
>>> it from the network last night in the course of the systems maintenance.
>>
>>Given the timing, that's highly likely.
>>
> And the tech probably said it was in sleep mode to cover up for
> whichever friend of his was responsible for plugging everything back in
> after the maintenance was completed.
>
> 
>
> It's getting so I should send the users a message when the {at}#$% reports
> are going to be on time, instead of when they're going to be late...
> this is like the 5th week in a row something's happened.
>
> 
>
>>- Bob Comer
>>
>>
>>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>>news:ahc6h1956l3q04htf9q8l32o61rint33uo{at}4ax.com...
>>> This morning I could not access the machine that runs our weekly reports
>>> by pcAnywhere.  I could access my desktop and from the desktop could not
>>> ping the reporting box by either IP address or name.  Pinging by name
>>> did return the expected IP address.
>>>
>>> When the tech finally got there and checked it out, he told me the box
>>> had been in sleep mode.
>>>
>>> This doesn't pass the smell test for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> 1.  One of the first things I always do with a new box is disable
>>> anything resembling "power management"; I distinctly
remember doing that
>>> on the reporting box.
>>>
>>> 2.  Windows TaskScheduler was supposed to start the reporting
>>> application at 5:15 (instead of the normal 1:00 because they took down
>>> the whole network last night to do the upgrades for our new system), but
>>> it never started.  If the box was sleeping, wouldn't TaskScheduler wake
>>> it up?
>>>
>>> 3.  Wouldn't receiving a ping attempt also wake up the box?  And/or does
>>> the box need to be awake for a ping attempt to succeed?
>>>
>>> My suspicion is that they turned it off or unplugged it or disconnected
>>> it from the network last night in the course of the systems maintenance.
>>>
>>> What do you guys think?
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5