For as much as the DB, Mid Tier and Apps cost, there will always be enough digits... :P
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > It's very possible to do, if there are enough digits in the > proposal/invoice... > > > *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker> > *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* > * * > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Don Ely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, that really grinds my nuts... However, I've heard some places have >> forced Oracle to support their DB and Apps on VMware in order to get the >> business... >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> And then there’s Oracle who _*WILL*_ support their database in a VM. >>> >>> >>> >>> Provided it’s THEIR hypervisor, which AFAIK nobody on the planet uses. >>> >>> >>> >>> -sc >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 28, 2010 11:45 AM >>> >>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>> *Subject:* Re: Small server >>> >>> >>> >>> Yep. Because they are afraid of the implications. >>> >>> >>> >>> I've even had vendors tell me that when their internal tech folks are >>> running the app in VMs. >>> >>> >>> >>> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker> >>> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* >>> * * >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Jonathan Link < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> A lot of vendors say that about their apps. Some of our apps aren't >>> supported in VM's, either. I still call them when I have problems, and they >>> still fix the problems. In no case has virtualization been a problem. In >>> one case, I had a rep remote into my session to assist, he never knew it was >>> a VM. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:11 AM, John Aldrich < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Ok. Back to the drawing board. I emailed Kronos support and they say >>> that >>> TKC is NOT supported on virtual server. :-( I suppose I could lie to them >>> and create a virtual server and install it there anyway, but it may be >>> better to just either switch to a different time and attendance product >>> or >>> buy a physical server. :-( >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:56 AM >>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>> >>> Subject: Re: Small server >>> >>> And why the hate for Software RAID? Let me be more specific: What is your >>> definition of "Software RAID"? >>> >>> Window's built in RAID capabilities? (100% Software RAID) >>> ...or... >>> Inexpensive "Host RAID"? These are usually built into chipsets or cheap >>> RAID >>> cards. (Mostly software) >>> >>> If we're talking Window's built in software RAID, I would agree: Avoid at >>> all costs. I have not had much experience with it, but the little I did >>> have >>> was disappointing... Not to mention the general dislike by the tech >>> community of MS's RAIDs. >>> >>> The Host RAIDs are hit and miss, mostly miss. I have had good experience >>> with Intel's RAID chipsets, but usually not for anything more than a RAID >>> 1. >>> The recent "Matrix RAID" chipsets from intel have been excellent. Also, >>> the >>> overhead from running a Host Raid is not as bad as it used to be. Hard >>> drive >>> speeds have increased, but not at the scale of CPU power. So for a "small >>> server" like what John asked, I would definitely consider it. >>> >>> But if a real RAID solution was only $100 more, I'd skip Host RAID and go >>> for it. But we all know most real hardware RAIDs are not that cheap. It >>> all >>> depends on what you're willing to spend. >>> >>> Now, if we were talking Linux, I'd be recommending software RAID over >>> everything but the highest-end RAID controllers. >>> >>> >>> --Matt Ross >>> Ephrata School District >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Erik Goldoff >>> [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 >>> 07:19:00 -0700 >>> Subject: Re: Small server >>> >>> >>> > curious, why do you shun SATA ? >>> > >>> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:14 AM, James Kerr <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Kind of important software. I would make sure the server was hardware >>> > RAID1 >>> > > with 2 hot swap SAS drives NOT SATA at a minimum just for the >>> redundancy. >>> > No >>> > > software RAID. Whats wrong with SCSI? >>> > > >>> > > James >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Aldrich" < >>> > > [email protected]> >>> > > To: "NT System Admin Issues" <[email protected]> >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:08 AM >>> > > Subject: RE: Small server >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Sorry. I guess I should have specified this is for Kronos Time Keeper >>> > > Central. >>> > > >>> > > Server hardware requirements are very basic. It has to be capable of >>> > > running >>> > > Windows 2000. It's not a very resource-intensive software. It's got a >>> > small >>> > > DB and has to be capable of allowing multiple people to access it >>> over >>> the >>> > > network (via "client" software loaded on their machine) The machine >>> that's >>> > > currently running the time and attendance software is a P4 2.8Ghz >>> with 2 >>> > > Gig >>> > > of RAM running Windows 2000. My main problem is that it's running off >>> a >>> > > single HDD, and a SCSI drive at that. >>> > > Cut/paste from the system requirements document: >>> > > 750 Mhz+ 1 Gigabyte NT4 , 2000 Server 2003 Server 1 Gigabyte >>> > > Free disk space. >>> > > >>> > > As you can see it's very basic requirements. TKC has not been updated >>> in >>> a >>> > > LONG time and probably won't be updated ever again. I spoke with a >>> support >>> > > engineer, and he said that he's seen it running on Windows XP, but >>> that's >>> > > not supported, as XP is not a "server" O/S, which is required for >>> multiple >>> > > clients accessing the machine at one time. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks... Hope this answers your questions WRT system requirements. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >>> > > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:59 AM >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > To: NT System Admin Issues >>> >>> > > Subject: RE: Small server >>> >>> >>> > > >>> > > Once again you give us absolutely no app requirements. >>> > > >>> > > Therefore the answer is: maybe. >>> > > >>> > > -sc >>> > > >>> >>> > > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:55 AM >>> > > To: NT System Admin Issues >>> > > Subject: Small server >>> > > >>> > > I am looking at getting a small server running Windows Server 2003, >>> so I >>> > > can >>> > > have my time and attendance running on a supported O/S. Looking at >>> Dell's >>> > > Premier site, the least expensive option only offers a Software >>> RAID5, >>> > > unless I'm mis-reading the options. Would you guys rather have a >>> Hardware >>> > > RAID0 / RAID1 or a software RAID5? >>> > > >>> > > Any other options I should be looking at for a small server? We're >>> > > primarily >>> > > a Dell shop here, but I can look at others, including "white box" >>> servers, >>> > > so long as I can get some sort of warranty / hardware support on it. >>> >>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
