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

["Paul Bendall" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sound advice and well explained.

Paul (IT Tech Specialist)

--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Steve Morgan" <smorgo@...> wrote:
>
> Nicely written post, Paul, and I entirely agree.
>=20
> Steve Morgan (Consultant)
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On=20
Behalf Of
> Paul Gordon
> Sent: 23 October 2008 09:32
> To: UKHA Group
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs windows standard=20
server 2008
>=20
> Aaaah.... - well that's not actually a classic outsourcing=20
arrangement then
> really, since you are apparently taking on all the upfront capital
> expenditure for both hardware & software, and you seem to be=20
carrying all
> the risk... >You< will be buying and owning the hardware yes?
-=20
not the VAR?
> - and thus you will absorb all the capital depreciation...
>=20
> It sounds to me like there's nothing actually being outsourced=20
here other
> than the design & implementation of the solution. Will the VAR's
be
> providing support & maintenance too? - Will they working to a=20
formally
> agreed SLA? - will they be contracted to continue to provide these=20
services
> for a set period? Will they contractually commit to fully support=20
whichever
> solution they are proposing? - In which case the issue of finding=20
people who
> can support it should become a non-issue for you...
>=20
> As for the actual specs you've mentioned, I'm not familiar with=20
*some* of
> the big-ticket hardware items, I'd just say that it's very much=20
easier to
> over-specify the solution when you're spending someone else's=20
money...
>=20
> One of the biggest ticket items will likely be the software=20
licensing costs,
> and the CAL's. In both respects, SBS will *probably* work out the=20
best
> value. There is some merit in specifying "full"
windows/Exchange=20
versions
> right from the off, but at the end of the day, you will end up=20
with exactly
> the same features & functionality, but for a much increased=20
initial cost.
> The potential benefit would likely only become evident when (if)=20
you reach
> the 75-user limit of SBS.. - If you don't reach this limit (in the=20
lifespan
> of the solution), then you've pretty much wasted that extra money.
>=20
> 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=20
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=20
any
> number of 48 port 10/100/1000 switches that will do everything you=20
need for
> a fraction of this price. E.G.
>=20
> - 3Com Baseline 2948 48 Port Gigabit SFP - Approx =A3380 (ex)
> - Netgear ProSafe GS748T 48-Port Gigabit Smart Switch - Approx=20
=A3390 (ex)
> - There are also numerous products in the HP procurve and Dell=20
ranges which
> would meet your requirements in the =A3700-=A31K bracket.
>=20
> Also consider whether you actually *need* gigabit to the=20
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=20
productivity
> type stuff, 100MB to the desk may well be sufficient.. - You'll=20
have to make
> that determination depending on what you're pushing over the LAN.=20
I know as
> well as you, that it's always very tempting (and our natural=20
inclination) to
> want the latest/greatest/biggest/smallest/fastest etc. of whatever=20
we're
> buying, but this should be a cold business decision, based on=20
nothing more
> than meeting your actual needs and nothing more... - Do you in=20
fact require
> PoE? - would you use it? - will you be using low-power thin=20
clients that
> could run on the limited power available from such a switch? If=20
99% of your
> client devices won't utilise PoE, there's no point paying for it,=20
and if you
> do, you're wasting money... Also, I'd consider using 2 x 24-port=20
switches
> rather than a single 48-port one.. - what happens if the switch=20
dies? - with
> separate units, at least half your network carries on running and=20
the impact
> of failure is reduced. Selecting 24-port models increases your=20
range of
> choice even further. At the kind of prices these run to, compared=20
to the
> =A33,500 unit proposed, you could actually purchase 4x24 port
units,=20
and keep
> 2 under your desk as hot spares, & thus have 100% redundancy!
>=20
> It's not for nothing that the HP DL server range is *the* most=20
popular on
> the planet... (according to their own marketing)
>=20
> The Fortinet Fortigate 110C is another undoubtedly capable unit,=20
but at
> approx =A32000 is again fairly steep for your size of network.
Also,=20
does this
> device require an ongoing subscription? - It looks like it might=20
require
> annual licensing for its AV & Anti-Spam functionality. - Does
your=20
upfront
> cost include this licensing? - and for how long? - just the first=20
year? -
> what are the annual costs that you would be committing yourself to=20
after the
> first year? - does the device carry on working if you don't re-
subscribe?
> Again, there are other less expensive edge devices available, but=20
I can't
> comment very much on suitability without knowing a lot more about=20
your
> overall security strategy. I would just suggest that you question=20
the VAR
> who is proposing this device and ask them to justify their choice,=20
and
> explain the reasoning underlying that design decision. It may be=20
the case,
> and I would suggest you investigate, that a much simpler (i.e.=20
cheaper)
> device, in combination with other methods, possibly including=20
online
> services such as Messagelabs/Windows Live Onecare/Forefront et al=20
may be
> more cost effective. - Note that SBS 2008 includes 120-day evals=20
of both
> Forefront & onecare built in out of the box, and continued use=20
requires no
> more effort than subscribing online.
>=20
> Gosh, I think I've rather gone on a bit... I'd better shut up=20
now...
>=20
> HTH
>=20
> Paul G.
>



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