Cost debate ... I've heard that on big Exchange servers that by a factor of 4 or 5 to 1, the cost is mostly spent on big disk hardware (read as SAN). It is the IOPS that cost. With a 4x drop in IOPS required, the same hardware will be usable for more users/servers. Clearly the people who get the rub is the medium and small businesses ...
Well, even the medium business may have some savings, in that if they're on the small-ish side of medium business, they will have the new Centro bundles, that I think save on software costs. And if on the larger end, they're probably bursting at thier disk subsystems seams, they may not have to move to a SAN so soon, or their SAN may last them alot longer. With everything they pack on a small business server, they're probably overloaded already, and _esp_ tight in kernel memory address space, I'm surprised they don't hit NPP exhaustion all the time. It is likely this will be a blessing in disguise, with 64-bit address space, and 8 GBs of memory, those servers will be happier servers. Engh, clearly it is _not_ the most ideal, but I don't think it will be too bad. People have been pointing out, alot of people are unknowningly buying the right hardware today. I appologize to the small business crowd, when upgrading, please plan on buying a new server one to three years from now. Brian, do you mind sharing of the 400k you spent, what proportion was disk hardware that could be transistioned? Brian, if it's difficult to repurpose hardware, I suggest you inform the org, that you'll be working on "tuning the hardware config of those old Exch servers in your office, until they figure out where they want you to actually repurpose them". That should give you some nice desktop development box for at least a few years. ;) Unfortunately, there are other costs besides new hardware. :P For instance is any of the backup software, or the anti-virus software, or possibly your monitoring agents going to be native 64-bit? Some of them may even need to be to run on 64-bit servers. Not to mention the cost (in time) of getting an admin to perform migration, over a more silent, just upgrade the binaries type upgrade. Remember a month of an admins time is a company committing between 5k and 15k to that effort. All this gets weighed. On the other side of the sacle, however, is that in place upgrades, prevent the development team from making the most drastic changes, because the code must be made to either upgrade the database (often intractable) or have two code paths to handle both formats (often unsupportable long term). I don't think there are actually too many people who would trade the 4x IOPS savings, for in-place upgrade feature. Also in some ways moving to 64-bit wholesale, actually improves the story for all those other bits of ancillary software, because vendors won't let the 64-bit support linger. Engh, clearly it is _not_ the most ideal, but I don't think it will be a terrible burden. People have been pointing out, alot of people are unknowningly buying the right hardware today. I appologize to the small business crowd, when upgrading, please plan on buying a new server one to three years from now. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] ESE Developer This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Brian Desmond wrote: > I wish it as that easy. Dysfunctional silo'ed government organizations make > simple things like moving hardware to a new task a monumental task. > Especially when there are use restrictions on funds used to purchase things. > > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement > > Most organisations (including yours perhaps?) could plan to redeploy > current Exchange hardware elsewhere if it's not quite end-of-life by the > time they're ready to deploy E12. Not all systems will have the 64 bit > requirement in the time frame we are talking about, so you are likely to > have some flexibility if you have other servers that you need to > hardware refresh in the meantime. > > Just a thought. > > Tony > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond > Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2005 2:33 p.m. > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit > announcement > > I see this environment lasting pas the E12 timeline. It has a ton of > room to > grow in all aspects of the hardware. This seems like the sort of thing > that > they needed to have announced a while ago. > > Thanks, > Brian Desmond > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit > announcement > > How long before you expect to upgrade? And how does that compare with > the > hardware lifecycle? > > If you find a way to future proof anything in this business, please let > the > rest of us know. :) > > As for Joe's question: are there other packages available? Yep. But as > > with anything it depends on what you want to accomplish and your > tolerance > for changes. One option might be the open source version of > http://www.zimbra.com/products/index.html which implements what looks to > be > a popular new path - AJAX. > > There are other open source projects out there as well, but sometimes > you > really do get what you pay for. > > -ajm > > > >From: "Brian Desmond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit > announcement > >Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:00:26 -0500 > > > >Neither do I. We just put in a 400K dollar Exchange 2003 environment > like > >18 > >months ago. I don't think the client is going to be thrilled to hear > that > >was all a waste as it will only run one version of Exchange. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > >Brian Desmond > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit > announcement > > > > > > > >Wow. I don't recall Muglia making that statement at the summit, I think > he > >would have been beaten up pretty bad.... > > > > > > > > > > > >"Muglia made several product announcements during his keynote address. > > > > > > > >As part of its commitment to 64-bit computing, Microsoft has been > >delivering > >products that are optimized for 64-bit, including the newly released > SQL > >ServerT 2005, Visual StudioR 2005 and Virtual Server 2005 R2. To help > >customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit computing, > products > >including MicrosoftR Exchange Server "12," Windows Compute Cluster > Server > >2003, Windows ServerT "Longhorn" Small Business Server, and Microsoft's > >infrastructure solution for midsize businesses, code-named "Centro," > will > >be > >exclusively 64-bit and optimized for x64 hardware. In a future update > >release to Microsoft's upcoming Windows Server "Longhorn" operating > system, > >code-named Windows Server "Longhorn" R2, customers will see the > complete > >transition to 64-bit-only hardware, while still benefiting from 32-bit > and > >64-bit application compatibility. For the highest-scale application and > >database workloads, Windows Server on 64-bit Itanium-based systems will > >continue to be the premier choice for customers for years to come." > > > > > > > >The LH SBS package is pretty funny too... Imagine going into all of > those > >small companies and telling them they don't have a choice but to buy a > new > >server when they want to get the new security enhancements. > > > > > > > >I hope MS decides to support K3 and Exchange K3 for some time. Though I > am > >already seeing a huge reduced emphasis and making K3 work right now. > > > > > > > >Any good non-GNU message/collaboration apps out there? Something with > maybe > >a BSD license? > > > > > > > > joe > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond > >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit > announcement > > > >Where'd you find that? > > > > > > > >Thanks, > >Brian Desmond > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip > >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:33 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >[email protected] > >Subject: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement > > > > > > > >This just in: > > > >"As some of you are attending IT Forum in Barcelona, I want to make > sure > >those of you who are not get the latest updates. At IT Forum, Microsoft > > >will > >announce broad support for 64 bit across many of its product lines. As > part > >of that announcement we will be announcing that Exchange 12 will be 64 > bit > >only. This is a significant decision for us and it is one that we did > not > >make lightly. Many of you and your customers may have questions about > why > >Exchange 12 will be 64 bit only and the mail below provides some > background > >on the factors that lead to this decision and also the benefits from 64 > bit > >that we are seeing in our early dog food & TAP deployments." > > > > > > > >Martin Tuip > > > >MVP Exchange > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are > not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me > immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this > communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that > this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes > of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
