SO.... Tell them it's like insurance. How much will they pay to mitigate potential downtime to the business? Then ask how much cost it will incur should the business suffer a 72 hour outage.
Then ask them if that would be cheap to make sure it was on the latest supported offering from your %HARDWARE VENDOR%. Steven On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Rene de Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 also what does the extended warranty imply. Server up and running in 4 > hours? > Besided hardware RAID, also as others mentioned look into virtualization. > Makes recovering much easier/faster if there is a problem. > > Rene > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don't necessarily agree that this is a bad idea. If you extend the >> warranty, ensuring that the response time is what you need, and >> potentially replace the spinning bits (drives, fans, etc.), I think >> you should be fine. >> >> However, this assumes that the server is redundant in the usual ways: >> appropriate RAID config, fully redundant power supplies, failover >> NICs, etc. >> >> Kurt >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 09:36, Jeremy Anderson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I am not even sure what the subject of this should be. I have a server, >> > it’s about 3 years old, the warranty expires in 15 days. It runs a >> > %mission >> > critical App%. This App is going to be replaced with %new mission >> > critical >> > app%. This server meets the hardware requirements for %new app% just >> > fine. >> > (it does require a BIOS update) Its been a stable and reliable server >> > for >> > the last 3 years. >> > >> > I can purchase an extended warranty for around $500, or I can purchase a >> > new >> > server for around $4500.00. >> > >> > The bean counters say, buy the warranty, run %new app% on it, life is >> > good >> > and we save 4 grand. My instinct is that this is a horrible idea, and >> > we >> > should just buy a new server. >> > >> > If we run %new app% on %old server% we will be completely wiping and >> > reloading the OS. >> > >> > My question for everyone here is: How do I convince the bean counters >> > that >> > this is a bad idea. Or, is it not a bad idea, and is a 3 year old >> > server >> > not really that old? How do I justify spending 4k on a server when >> > technically we have a perfectly good server sitting there to be reused? >> > Am >> > I just getting distracted by bright shiny things? >> > >> > %NewApp% is mission critical. If %NewApp% is down, the company is dead >> > in >> > the water. To put this in prospective however, %NewApp% will not be >> > redundant, or even highly available and we are not even considering >> > those >> > options. >> > >> > Think of %newApp% like an Exchange server, for a company that relies on >> > Email for all their communication. >> > >> > And yes, I know %newapp% should be clustered or highly available, but >> > its >> > not going to happen. >> > >> > Does this email make sense? Any help, or insight on the matter would be >> > appreciated. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Jeremy >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
