LOL -ASB
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Link <[email protected]>wrote: > 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/> ~
