RE: [OT] Office X-serve vs windows standard server 2008

["Steve Morgan" <smorgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nicely written post, Paul, and I entirely agree.

Steve Morgan (Consultant)


-----Original Message-----
From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Paul Gordon
Sent: 23 October 2008 09:32
To: UKHA Group
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs windows standard server 2008

Aaaah.... - well that's not actually a classic outsourcing arrangement then
really, since you are apparently taking on all the upfront capital
expenditure for both hardware & software, and you seem to be carrying
all
the risk... >You< will be buying and owning the hardware yes? - not
the VAR=
?
- and thus you will absorb all the capital depreciation...

It sounds to me like there's nothing actually being outsourced here other
than the design & implementation of the solution. Will the VAR's be
providing support & maintenance too? - Will they working to a formally
agreed SLA? - will they be contracted to continue to provide these services
for a set period? Will they contractually commit to fully support whichever
solution they are proposing? - In which case the issue of finding people
wh=
o
can support it should become a non-issue for you...

As for the actual specs you've mentioned, I'm not familiar with *some* of
the big-ticket hardware items, I'd just say that it's very much easier to
over-specify the solution when you're spending someone else's money...

One of the biggest ticket items will likely be the software licensing
costs=
,
and the CAL's. In both respects, SBS will *probably* work out the best
value. There is some merit in specifying "full" windows/Exchange
versions
right from the off, but at the end of the day, you will end up with exactly
the same features & functionality, but for a much increased initial
cost.
The potential benefit would likely only become evident when (if) you reach
the 75-user limit of SBS.. - If you don't reach this limit (in the lifespan
of the solution), then you've pretty much wasted that extra money.

The X450e-48p switch seems to my mind to be *massively* over-specified for
your requirements.. - best price I could see for this was in the order of
=A33,500 for a 48-port switch. Whilst undoubtedly good, it's an
enterprise-grade product that is far more than you need. There are any
number of 48 port 10/100/1000 switches that will do everything you need for
a fraction of this price. E.G.

- 3Com Baseline 2948 48 Port Gigabit SFP - Approx =A3380 (ex)
- Netgear ProSafe GS748T 48-Port Gigabit Smart Switch - Approx =A3390 (ex)
- There are also numerous products in the HP procurve and Dell ranges which
would meet your requirements in the =A3700-=A31K bracket.

Also consider whether you actually *need* gigabit to the desktop.. - there
are numerous switch products available with 2 or 4 GBe ports for
backbones/servers, plus 22/44 100MB ports for desktops, which are
correspondingly cheaper. If all you're doing is standard office
productivit=
y
type stuff, 100MB to the desk may well be sufficient.. - You'll have to
mak=
e
that determination depending on what you're pushing over the LAN. I know as
well as you, that it's always very tempting (and our natural inclination)
t=
o
want the latest/greatest/biggest/smallest/fastest etc. of whatever we're
buying, but this should be a cold business decision, based on nothing more
than meeting your actual needs and nothing more... - Do you in fact require
PoE? - would you use it? - will you be using low-power thin clients that
could run on the limited power available from such a switch? If 99% of your
client devices won't utilise PoE, there's no point paying for it, and if
yo=
u
do, you're wasting money... Also, I'd consider using 2 x 24-port switches
rather than a single 48-port one.. - what happens if the switch dies? -
wit=
h
separate units, at least half your network carries on running and the
impac=
t
of failure is reduced. Selecting 24-port models increases your range of
choice even further. At the kind of prices these run to, compared to the
=A33,500 unit proposed, you could actually purchase 4x24 port units, and
ke=
ep
2 under your desk as hot spares, & thus have 100% redundancy!

It's not for nothing that the HP DL server range is *the* most popular on
the planet... (according to their own marketing)

The Fortinet Fortigate 110C is another undoubtedly capable unit, but at
approx =A32000 is again fairly steep for your size of network. Also, does
t=
his
device require an ongoing subscription? - It looks like it might require
annual licensing for its AV & Anti-Spam functionality. - Does your
upfront
cost include this licensing? - and for how long? - just the first year? -
what are the annual costs that you would be committing yourself to after
th=
e
first year? - does the device carry on working if you don't re-subscribe?
Again, there are other less expensive edge devices available, but I can't
comment very much on suitability without knowing a lot more about your
overall security strategy. I would just suggest that you question the VAR
who is proposing this device and ask them to justify their choice, and
explain the reasoning underlying that design decision. It may be the case,
and I would suggest you investigate, that a much simpler (i.e. cheaper)
device, in combination with other methods, possibly including online
services such as Messagelabs/Windows Live Onecare/Forefront et al may be
more cost effective. - Note that SBS 2008 includes 120-day evals of both
Forefront & onecare built in out of the box, and continued use requires
no
more effort than subscribing online.

Gosh, I think I've rather gone on a bit... I'd better shut up now...

HTH

Paul G.



------------------------------------