1 Per every 100 machines is a good rule of thumb for generic OS and infrastructure administration.
Roy MacDonald On Feb 12, 2008 12:53 PM, Rankin, James R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2 I would say > > > > EDS used to tell us one man could maintain 500 servers, but that's > probably why their support was so garbage > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* 12 February 2008 16:59 > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* 175 servers > > > > Here's an open-ended question, but with 175 Windows servers, how many > admins would you think it would take to maintain OS images, patches, > availability, installed program updates, as well as other maintenance like > inventory of both hardware and software, as well as troubleshooting various > performance issues? I'm talking admins who's job would be just to handle the > underlying Windows infrastructure, not the apps running on it (except for > the initial install). FWIW 95% of the servers are local. We have SMS and > WSUS to leverage some of this, but SMS is currently very underutilized… > > > > I ask because we have about 250 employees – so a fairly small company, but > we have 175+ Windows servers, plus 4 SAN's because our main product is > currently web delivered, I'm wondering if we're overstaffed or understaffed > or someone in the "normal" range. > > > > I would expect that in a more typical file/print/Exchange/SharePoint > (intranet) environment that 175 servers would mean a few thousand end users > and thus perhaps a dozen IS staff. > > > > *Dave Lum* - Systems Engineer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 > *"**When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands**"** * > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
