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

[Ho Yin <architect.hoyin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paul

Thanks for your indepth response it has definately got me thinking
and=20=20
questioning the proposals.

Our business I don't believe is as network intensive as a video=20=20
editing company, however we are a design based architectural company=20=20
so we do shift graphics file and Cad files that are significantly=20=20
larger than your typical word or excel documents.

We often have file over 100mb that we work on or have to print.

Our current storage on our server is 2tb of live current projects=20=20
which is at 97% capacity. We write about 50gb of data a week.

Everyone works off files that are hosted on the server and most of
our=20=20
software is run off network licenses.

Currently we have HP procurve switches and our network is slow. There=20=20
is a real bottle neck sending prints etc. But you are right I still=20=20
don't know if we should go to 1gigabit to desktops or not.

With regards to the gateway - the fortinet does have a subscrption=20=20
charge for it's AV etc. Functions. I don't think we need them and I=20=20
need to investigate further.

With regards to SBS I was told that you cannot run more than 1 server=20=20
in a network. Seeing as we need 3 - file server, backup, exchange
then=20=20
it would not work for us? Plus I understood the migration cost to
fill=20=20
server was high? Around 3k?

I need to do some further research. Can you suggest alternative=20=20
gateways / firewalls that will provide us with VPN and SSL access.

Thanks

Hy

On 23 Oct 2008, at 09:31, "Paul Gordon"
<paul@xxxxxxx>=20=20
wrote:

> Aaaah.... - well that's not actually a classic outsourcing=20=20
> arrangement then really, since you are apparently taking on all
the=20=20
> upfront capital expenditure for both hardware & software, and
you=20=20
> seem to be carrying all the risk... >You< will be buying and
owning=20=20
> the hardware yes? - not the VAR? - and thus you will absorb all
the=20=20
> capital depreciation...
>
> It sounds to me like there's nothing actually being outsourced
here=20=20
> other than the design & implementation of the solution. Will
the=20=20
> VAR's be providing support & maintenance too? - Will they working
to=20=20
> a formally agreed SLA? - will they be contracted to continue to=20=20
> provide these services for a set period? Will they contractually=20=20
> commit to fully support whichever solution they are proposing? -
In=20=20
> which case the issue of finding people who can support it should=20=20
> become a non-issue for you...
>
> As for the actual specs you've mentioned, I'm not familiar with=20=20
> *some* of the big-ticket hardware items, I'd just say that it's
very=20=20
> much easier to over-specify the solution when you're spending=20=20
> someone else's money...
>
> One of the biggest ticket items will likely be the software=20=20
> licensing costs, and the CAL's. In both respects, SBS will=20=20
> *probably* work out the best value. There is some merit in=20=20
> specifying "full" windows/Exchange versions right from the
off, but=20=20
> at the end of the day, you will end up with exactly the same=20=20
> features & functionality, but for a much increased initial cost.
The=20=20
> potential benefit would likely only become evident when (if) you=20=20
> reach the 75-user limit of SBS.. - If you don't reach this limit
(in=20=20
> the lifespan of the solution), then you've pretty much wasted
that=20=20
> extra money.
>
> The X450e-48p switch seems to my mind to be *massively* over-=20
> specified for your requirements.. - best price I could see for
this=20=20
> was in the order of =C2=A33,500 for a 48-port switch. Whilst
undoubtedly =
=20
> good, it's an enterprise-grade product that is far more than you
nee=20
> d. There are any number of 48 port 10/100/1000 switches that will
do=20
>  everything you need for a fraction of this price. E.G.
>
> - 3Com Baseline 2948 48 Port Gigabit SFP - Approx =C2=A3380 (ex)
> - Netgear ProSafe GS748T 48-Port Gigabit Smart Switch - Approx
=C2=A3390 =
=20
> (ex)
> - There are also numerous products in the HP procurve and Dell=20=20
> ranges which would meet your requirements in the =C2=A3700-=C2=A31K
brack=
et.
>
> Also consider whether you actually *need* gigabit to the desktop..
-=20=20
> there are numerous switch products available with 2 or 4 GBe
ports=20=20
> for backbones/servers, plus 22/44 100MB ports for desktops,
which=20=20
> are correspondingly cheaper. If all you're doing is standard
office=20=20
> productivity type stuff, 100MB to the desk may well be
sufficient..=20=20
> - You'll have to make that determination depending on what
you're=20=20
> pushing over the LAN. I know as well as you, that it's always
very=20=20
> tempting (and our natural inclination) to want the latest/greatest/=20
> biggest/smallest/fastest etc. of whatever we're buying, but this=20=20
> should be a cold business decision, based on nothing more than=20=20
> meeting your actual needs and nothing more... - Do you in fact=20=20
> require PoE? - would you use it? - will you be using low-power
thin=20=20
> clients that could run on the limited power available from such
a=20=20
> switch? If 99% of your client devices won't utilise PoE, there's
no=20=20
> point paying for it, and if you do, you're wasting money...
Also,=20=20
> I'd consider using 2 x 24-port switches rather than a single
48-port=20=20
> one.. - what happens if the switch dies? - with separate units,
at=20=20
> least half your network carries on running and the impact of
failure=20=20
> is reduced. Selecting 24-port models increases your range of
choice=20=20
> even further. At the kind of prices these run to, compared to the
=C2=A33=
=20
> ,500 unit proposed, you could actually purchase 4x24 port units,
and=20
>  keep 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=20=20
> popular on the planet... (according to their own marketing)
>
> The Fortinet Fortigate 110C is another undoubtedly capable unit,
but=20=20
> at approx =C2=A32000 is again fairly steep for your size of network.
Also=
=20
> , does this device require an ongoing subscription? - It looks
like=20=20
> it might require annual licensing for its AV & Anti-Spam
functionali=20
> ty. - Does your upfront cost include this licensing? - and for how
l=20
> ong? - just the first year? - what are the annual costs that you
wou=20
> ld be committing yourself to after the first year? - does the
device=20
>  carry on working if you don't re-subscribe? Again, there are
other=20=20
> less expensive edge devices available, but I can't comment very
much=20
>  on suitability without knowing a lot more about your overall
securi=20
> ty strategy. I would just suggest that you question the VAR who is
p=20
> roposing this device and ask them to justify their choice, and
expla=20
> in the reasoning underlying that design decision. It may be the
case=20
> , and I would suggest you investigate, that a much simpler (i.e.
che=20
> aper) device, in combination with other methods, possibly
including=20=20
> online services such as Messagelabs/Windows Live Onecare/Forefront
e=20
> t al may be more cost effective. - Note that SBS 2008 includes
120-d=20
> ay evals of both Forefront & onecare built in out of the box, and
co=20
> ntinued 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.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On=20=20
> Behalf Of
> > Ho Yin Ng
> > Sent: 17 October 2008 15:30
> > To: UKHA Group
> > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs windows
standard=20=20
> server 2008
> >
> > But if I cancel I still have all the equipment sitting in my
office
> > which someone else will need to maintain and service?
> >
> > So therefore if I go for Xserves I may be limited to the people
that
> > could service them?
> >
> > Ho-Yin
> >
> > 2008/10/17 Ben McCormack <yahoogroup@xxxxxxx>:
> > > Ho-Yin
> > >
> > > Paul is right on this. If you are buying a Service from
the=20=20
> support
> > > consultancy the underlying technology should not matter. If
you=20=20
> are
> > > able to write down simple requirements that meet the
business=20=20
> needs
> > > then technology does not come into it.
> > >
> > > Very Simple Example (No basis on fact, used to illustrate
the=20=20
> example)
> > >
> > > MAPI based email supporting Outlook Clients
> > > 50 Users
> > > Uptime of 99.99 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday
> > > Maintenance completed out of hours with 3 days notice given
> > > New users added within 48 hours
> > > Users deleted within 48 hours of request being received.
> > > =C2=A3500 per month
> > > If SLA is not met for 2 months running you have the right
to=20=20
> cancel.
> > >
> > > In this instance does it matter what the technology is? If
a=20=20
> teas-maid
> > > could deliver the above then you would be happy.
> > >
> > > Worth thinking about what the business needs. Start
your=20=20
> thoughts there.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Ben
> > >
> > > On 17 Oct 2008, at 15:13, Ho Yin Ng wrote:
> > >
> > >> I still care!!!
> > >>
> > >> It is my money!
> > >>
> > >> We still have to buy the products. I just want to be
aware of the
> > >> limitations if any or perhaps advantageous of one system
over=20=20
> another.
> > >>
> > >> I've been duped in the past and forked out for a system
that=20=20
> severely
> > >> let me down.
> > >>
> > >> I think both provide the service we require, but surely
one=20=20
> must be
> > >> better or offer us something that the other cannot.
> > >>
> > >> Ho-Yin
> > >>
> > >> 2008/10/17 Paul Gordon <paul@xxxxxxx>:
> > >> > Hmm... in that case, aren't you going be paying for
SERVICES
> > >> rather than
> > >> > PRODUCTS? - If it's all outsourced, do you actually
care what=20=20
> it
> > >> runs on,
> > >> > provided you stipulate your requirements to the
solution=20=20
> provider,
> > >> and they
> > >> > meet them?....
> > >> >
> > >> > E.G: if you state your requirements to be:
> > >> >
> > >> > Identity management for your 45 users
> > >> > Access control & authentication
> > >> > Private storage allocation for each user (home
directories)
> > >> > Shared storage between all users
> > >> > MAPI based email supporting Outlook clients
> > >> > Collaboration between users (calendar sharing,
free/busy info=20=20
> etc)
> > >> > Shared printing facilities
> > >> > Policy-based management of the workstations
> > >> > .
> > >> > .
> > >> > .
> > >> > etc...
> > >> >
> > >> > And the man from DelMonte, he say "yes",
- and it fits your SLA
> > >> > requirements, and budget, then do you (or should
you) care (or
> > >> even know)
> > >> > what the underlying platforms are?
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul G.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> >
> > >> > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx on behalf of Ho Yin Ng
> > >> > Sent: Fri 17/10/2008 14:41
> > >> > To: UKHA Group
> > >> > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs
windows standard
> > >> server 2008
> > >> >
> > >> > Currently we would be outsourcing all our IT to a
support
> > >> consultancy.
> > >> >
> > >> > I have no in-house IT manager etc.
> > >> >
> > >> > 2008/10/17 Ben McCormack
<yahoogroup@xxxxxxx>:
> > >> >> Ho-Yin
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Simple question - Do you have anyone within the
company who=20=20
> can
> > >> >> support the XServe and OSX?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Ben
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 17 Oct 2008, at 13:39, Ho Yin Ng wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I have had several consultants look at my
office and they are
> > >> >>> suggesting two different approaches.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> One is saying we should use an Apple Xserve
rather than a=20=20
> windows
> > >> >>> machine.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> They state that the SBS requires to be the
controller of
> > >> everything
> > >> >>> and does not play well with others. Whereas
the Xserve=20=20
> provides a
> > >> >>> lower total cost of ownership when compared
to MS server and
> > >> provides
> > >> >>> similar services and will integrate
seamlessly with the=20=20
> exchange
> > >> >>> server.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Can anyone shed any light on this?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> We are a 45 strong office looking to
expand. Currently we=20=20
> only run
> > >> >>> Windows PCs, but we many have a couple of
Macs later.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The Xserve seems cheaper than a similar HP
DL360 5450=20=20
> others are
> > >> >>> proposing.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Be interesting to get your opinion on this.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Ho-Yin
>
>=20
> Messages in this topic (16) Reply (via web post)  Start a new topic
> Messages  Files  Photos
> **** Sponsored By http://www.Berble.com ****
> ****       Computers You Carry          ****
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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