Hardware

Re: Servers

apncon — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:16:37 GMT

hardware was seemingly an order of magnitude better than the previous generation. There were marked improvements from one to the next. Replacing server hardware typically got you a big performance boost during those years.

Spam link removed by moderator

Re: Servers

alourenco — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:21:18 GMT

I agree 100% with this- research your managed server company to death before you make a decision! Good places for this are sites like http://www.webhostingtalk.com where people come to share experiences and reviews. Don't google "best dedicated servers" or stuff like that, many of the hits there are just shill websites for companies; look for real people who have had real experience with the company, and talk to their service reps and make sure their techs know what they're talking about.

I must admit that I am deficient in my hosting knowledge; one of my clients has just recently signed up for a managed dedicated server with ThePlanet, so after a few months I will be able to speak about them from experience.

Re: Servers

shipley.c — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:11:24 GMT

When you rent a server, you are guaranteed to get top-of-the-line equipment that will greatly improve your productivity

Take this with a grain of salt, or even with an entire salt shaker. Just because someone is putting servers for rent online does not in fact guarantee any kind of statement like this at all. I've had great experiences and horrible ones. I've had good experiences turn into poor ones, but never stuck around long enough for a poor one to turn into a good one.

Re: Servers

elleryjuly — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:24:25 GMT

What I have found is that newer servers should have a longer life cycle. If you have a server that can run MS SQL 2003 with ease, keep it until it falls apart. File/Print servers are more dependent on your infrastructure (hard drive speed, # of people hitting the server, etc).

I typically would tell people 3 years, if you purchase bottom equipment and as much as 8-10 if you purchase top of the line stuff.

Re: Servers

elleryjuly — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:17:10 GMT

Underwear should be changed at least every three days. Two days would be better and 5 days is regrettable for the people around you.

Underwear change survery

Re: Servers

ajeab — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:11:27 GMT

geekette: I do see your pain. It's depend who is denied the request. CEO or CIO?? for me, CIO is on my side and we use every problem and blame on to old server to justify the replacement. because down server = user not able to do the work = lost time and money.

Re: Servers

geekette — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:27:56 GMT

We are a relatively large non-profit and have been on a 3 year replacement cycle. until recently. now I've been told that the 5 yr old has to go 3 more years (it's currently the oldest and I was denied its upgrade last year and this year).

Keep in mind that we lose power FREQUENTLY and until very recently, not even UPS on the servers. The hardware has taken many many hits. Next power outage, maybe some servers don't come back. Has already happened to me, once this year, once last.

Being that I'm the dba and software developer and support all users of the apps myself, I do not subscribe to "if it ain't broke don't fix it" because BROKE = EMERGENCY. That's for-sure outage, possible data corruption and days and days of disaster recovery. The impact is huge.

Planning and executing a replatform is much easier on everyone.

I guess each org makes it's own decision - be proactive or reactive. I would prefer to be proactive but am forced into reactive.

Re: Servers

ajeab — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:04:03 GMT

for me, minimum is 5 yrs. since I buy server with 5 yrs warranty anyway. after that, I will keep using it until it break. then replace it.

Virtualization is great idea but make sure your server has enough power/memory/storage to handle it. you don't want to host 10 VM with 1 NIC card. You can start with Xenserver or vmware ESXi (both free)

Re: Servers

shipley.c — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:15:10 GMT

haha, Don. virtualization is vital!

Re: Servers

donc — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:34:05 GMT

donc:
We vitalize as much as we can

LOL - gotta love this spell-checker... should have read: We virtualise as much as we can..."

Re: Servers

donc — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:51:42 GMT

We vitalize as much as we can and as a 'rule of thumb', change-out servers every 3-4 years. Determining factors are commonly:

- Onsite warranty period (usually 3 years - important to us because of rural locations)

- Long term planning projections for any increase in system capacity requirements

- Environmental considerations (newer technologies that run leaner, cooler, take up less space etc.)

- Availability of support and parts

Re: Servers

matthewart — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:18:16 GMT

If you're talking about a simple file server in your office, that is one application--but if you are talking about a DB server for a high traffic Website that is entirely different thing. What are you using the server for exactly?

Re: Servers

glamontagne — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:57:08 GMT

Very good points Chris. We will be trying to virtualize a few of our older application servers in an effort to reduce power consumption, and to avoid having to repair an old server if something should fail.

Re: Servers

shipley.c — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:35:37 GMT

Do I hear an arguement for virtual servers? :) This is one reason why my company is virtualizing everything it can. The virtual servers run on just about any replacement hardware.

Anyhow, I think you are right to question this. I use old computer for simple server tasks all the time. Most people have a misconception that servers need to be the most powerful, expensive computer in the agency. In actuality, they merely should be the most reliable. This doesn't always translate into the most expensive, especially if you aren't replacing them every 3 years. If you spend more on a server up front its likely to last you many years down the road.

Re: Servers

dwelp — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:36:17 GMT

Another consideration is availability of repair parts if you need a power supply or disk drive, are they still available? If you are concerned about availability, then current hardware with a maintenance agreement will give you quicker restore time than scrounging for parts for a 7+ year old server. (our bread and butter server is seven years old and my concerns are 1. Restore time from hardware failure in finding parts or another platform to run on, 2. Performance issues where our processing needs are larger that the server was designed for so some things take longer to process that what would be preferred. (a large report may take 5 to 10 minutes to run rather than 30 seconds) 3. aged OS on server that is not supported and I will not add new apps to the existing platform (if it isn't broke don't fix it) )

Changing servers is often more than just hardware replacement, are you upgrading your software at the same time, do your apps support the new OS software among other concerns that weigh in on determining your replacement time frame.

Dave