I love this list! On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hey, I just said the same thi….. WAAAAAIT…. > > > > Yeah! > > > > -sc > > > > *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:41 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: How would you go about this? > > > > Independent corroboration is never superfluous! > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks for making my commentary superfluous, SC. :) > > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker <http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote: > > We have seem extended server life as well, for a variety of reasons, one > particular of which having been a significant number of applications > being deprecated, and the development effort is happening on new > platforms, so there's no incentive to upgrade the old systems , as they > will be EOL'ed once the user base is migrated. > > For boxes that may have been failing, we simply VM'ed many of them > (often bumping up the resources available to them in the process). > > With the advent of virtualization, I see us adding/upgrading VM servers > on a semi-regular basis, increasing the resources given to VM's and/or > migrating the heaviest ones to the new boxes, and slowly retiring the > old. > > The life cycle I suspect look similar to what it did for the physical > boxes (3-5 yrs with some maint. Costs), but the VM's they host will > likely be much more fluid... > > -sc > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charlie Kaiser [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:01 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: How would you go about this? > > > > > +1. > > While 5 or 6 years ago 3 year server replacements were the norm, > that's no > > longer the case. By the time you put together server cost, OS license, > and > > migration consulting costs, a small business is unwilling to pay $10 > or so to > > upgrade their SBS box or exchange server just because it's old. > > We're running into many more aged hardware issues than we used to, and > > some of them are ugly. > > > > *********************** > > Charlie Kaiser > > [email protected] > > Kingman, AZ > > *********************** > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:29 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: How would you go about this? > > > > > > "You get five years out of a server? I think you need the help." > > > > > > > > > > > > > *or* YOU are luckily spoiled ! > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, a 3 year lifecycle refresh is ideal, but not realistic > > > budget-wise for MANY out there in the real world. Especially in the > > > SMB market, I frequently run into aging servers with some of my > > > consulting clients. You'd be hard pressed to convince them to > replace > > > a server that is currently working as expected with new hardware > > > and/or new OS without proving any significant benefit in features > over > > > the existing systems. The biggest issue on aging servers that I see > > > is drive failures, and insufficient drive space/size due to data > > > growth. Data volumes can be replaced/upgraded without an entirely > new > > > server in many if not most cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, we all know that Windows 2000 ( all flavors including > > > servers ) are dropping from Microsoft support July 12th this year. > So > > > the lack of support, service packs, and vulnerability fixes *will* > be > > > a driving factor for OS upgrades which work out well with hardware > > > upgrades > > > > > > Erik Goldoff > > > > > > IT Consultant > > > > > > Systems, Networks, & Security > > > > > > ' Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! ' > > > > > > > From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:15 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: RE: How would you go about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > You get five years out of a server? I think you need the help. I was > > > just looking for some help in picking up a file server. I replace > all > > > my workstations and servers every three years. But I only have 130 > > > workstations and servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your growth estimate is OK as it increases here at the Museum. That > is > > > why I am splitting the data onto several HDs. > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:18 PM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: Re: How would you go about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not going to answer your question, instead I'm going to pick > apart > > > your request. > > > > > > We really don't have any idea of what your rate of data growth is. > > > There are two estimates we can make from the data supplied, linear > > > growth or geometric growth. With linear, you're adding about 125 GB > > > of data per year. With geometric you're doubling your data every > ~19 > > > months. So, if you expect the same growth rate, in 5 years (assumed > > > life of a > > > server) you're at either +625 GB of data or over 8 TB of data. > > > > > > Just taking a step back and looking at it from 30,000 feet, a server > > > is the least of your storage concerns if you're doubling your data > > > every 19 months or so. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Holstrom, Don <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > I have a file server that has gone above 1 TB. When I first came > here > > > to the museum a few years ago (8), they had 33 gigs of data on one > > > server. I brought in file tape backups until last year when the > backup > > > went out of that range. > > > > > > I always used SCSI RAIDs but even now that is a bit high. > > > > > > So > > > > > > I have ordered a new file server with six HD openings. I am figuring > a > > > pair of 10,000-rpm 150 or 300 gig HDs for the OS, I can go Server 03 > > > or 08, figuring on 08. I would back up one with the other. Then for > > > data, two 2TBS backed up for the main data and two 1.5 or less for > > > other data, also backed up. > > > Then I could/would backup to external 2TB drives for longevity. > > > > > > What thinkist thee? Is there another way I should go? Data here will > > > continue to increase at the same rate... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
