PDA

View Full Version : WTD: Workstation and Server Builder Recommendation


BlackTalon
10-02-2012, 06:16 PM
Looking for recommendations for a local company who can build 11 Windows desktops plus a server and a firewall.

The company we used last time around lost their big Gov't contract a couple years ago and basically shut down. :(

Trak Ratt
10-02-2012, 08:06 PM
If you were happy with them you might try and see if anyone from there is freelancing.

BlackTalon
10-02-2012, 08:14 PM
Couldn't track down the ones I knew. Thanks for playing, but I am looking for some concrete recommendations for businesses people have had positive experiences with.

smdubovsky
10-03-2012, 08:49 AM
Dell

We're slowly proving our theory that there are no competent IT companies.

joep
10-03-2012, 09:28 AM
Depending on your requirements and the budget you should be able to find lots of independents to do this. Seriously try Craigslist and Temp agencies if your looking for a onetime build out. If you want long term support I think you can still find it.

cmartin
10-03-2012, 11:03 AM
and a firewall

Curious what you are thinking here. PM me if you want.

Charlie Stylianos
10-03-2012, 11:11 AM
Are you looking for support as well, or just hardware/software builds?

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 11:45 AM
Are you looking for support as well, or just hardware/software builds?Hardware/ software build. I pretty much shoulder the 'support' except for 1 or 2 times over the past 8 years when I could not solve an issue.

Thought about building this stuff myself, but I just do not have the time, plus MS Server gets more and more complex with each release and has a lot of subtleties I am not familiar with. Also, most builders can get the components and software quite a bit cheaper then I could, so they can deliver a finished product for not too much more then what I would be paying for the components and software.

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 11:47 AM
Curious what you are thinking here. PM me if you want.Current firewall is a Linux box running Smoothwall. It's been pretty easy for me to maintain, but the software is several versions behind the current one.

Jake's Oy
10-03-2012, 02:43 PM
Hardware/ software build. I pretty much shoulder the 'support' except for 1 or 2 times over the past 8 years when I could not solve an issue.

Thought about building this stuff myself, but I just do not have the time, plus MS Server gets more and more complex with each release and has a lot of subtleties I am not familiar with. Also, most builders can get the components and software quite a bit cheaper then I could, so they can deliver a finished product for not too much more then what I would be paying for the components and software.

I'm currently an out of work IT admin jack of all trades guy not looking for work. But I could be interested in a project like this. I've worked with DHS, FMSHRC and BAE systems. I don't have any builder connections, but I can build pc's from scratch to your specs if you want. I don't recommend it though, its much easier to have HP or DELL provide support. Do you have ghosting software? What will the server do that you are worried about with MS server "subtleties"? Just hardening it? If you are comfortable with your current firewall software why not just update it?

Fritz
10-03-2012, 03:08 PM
I don't have any builder connections, but I can build pc's from scratch to your specs if you want. I don't recommend it though, its much easier to have HP or DELL provide support. Do you have ghosting software? What will the server do that you are worried about with MS server "subtleties"? Just hardening it? If you are comfortable with your current firewall software why not just update it?

X2

Custom building computers makes zero sense for a business. It's really just an option for those that live in their parents basements and need the top score on whatever role playing game they are currently wasting time on instead of dating.

I like Dell a lot. Great support and have not had issues. That said, others prefer HP which is also quite good. I'd also recommend laptops instead of desktops, but it does add a bit of a premium. In return you can be progressive and have your workforce work remotely and save lots of money on office space. This also helps out Starbuck's economy. ;)

Use an IT consultant for the data transition and issues arising from software maintenance, but the vendors for all things hardware related.

joep
10-03-2012, 04:26 PM
I'm afraid I must disagree with both Jake and Fritz on custom built PCs. Conventional wisdom for large shops says buy in bulk with the supplier who will also handle support. But that wisdom needs scale to produce a return.

Point #1 - In this case the customer (David) is asking for something other.
Point #2 - He is doing his own support long term so the solution must be something he can support efficiently.
Point #3 - w/o the costly support contracts the large suppliers (Dell, etc) the Dells are harder to support w/o access to parts or VERY timely repairs.

Keep in mind they have a very small shop and having one man down for days is unacceptable. Therefore he must be able to act by buying the part and replacing it himself. Its much cheaper for a capable IT support person.

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 04:32 PM
X2

Custom building computers makes zero sense for a business. It's really just an option for those that live in their parents basements and need the top score on whatever role playing game they are currently wasting time on instead of dating.

I like Dell a lot. Great support and have not had issues. That said, others prefer HP which is also quite good. I'd also recommend laptops instead of desktops, but it does add a bit of a premium. In return you can be progressive and have your workforce work remotely and save lots of money on office space. This also helps out Starbuck's economy. ;)

Use an IT consultant for the data transition and issues arising from software maintenance, but the vendors for all things hardware related.
Well, we have different philosophies.

Dell and HP may make sense to you, but I have to be able to troubleshoot and keep things running. Boxing up a computer and shipping it somewhere to get looked at kinda cripples the engineer who needs to use it for a week or so. Not being able to easily but replacement components also sucks. And if having them built for a business makers no sense, why the fuch are there so many builders out there???

As far as laptops and being progressive by letting our workers telecommute, you frankly have no idea about our business. We are very specialized, and it takes several years to fully train/ educate employees. And it's a fuch-load easier to review 10 sheets of drawings that are plotted out at 30x42 in the office vs trying to do it on a dinky 17 inch laptop screen while sitting at a kitchen table with kids running around. Or even better, while working off the sofa in your mother's basement. I'll take being left in the stoneage, as it has served us very, very well.

While I appreciate the advice (okay, I really didn't), I am still hoping to get some recommendations for a local company. This method has worked very well for us over the last ~14 years. I have a couple email exchanges going, but at this point none really cover the full range of services, so I may think about splitting into consulting/ installation and hardware/ software.

joep
10-03-2012, 04:40 PM
Well, we have different philosophies.

As far as laptops and being progressive by letting our workers telecommute, you frankly have no idea about our business. We are very specialized, and it takes several years to fully train/ educate employees.

Not to mention you need beefy graphics hardware not possible on laptops and the monitor landscape to boot.

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 04:53 PM
I'm currently an out of work IT admin jack of all trades guy not looking for work. But I could be interested in a project like this. I've worked with DHS, FMSHRC and BAE systems. I don't have any builder connections, but I can build pc's from scratch to your specs if you want. I don't recommend it though, its much easier to have HP or DELL provide support. Do you have ghosting software? What will the server do that you are worried about with MS server "subtleties"? Just hardening it? If you are comfortable with your current firewall software why not just update it?Coming up with the desktop specs is one thing I really want to bounce off a builder, as I know what looks good on paper but they typically have better working knowledge. As far as MS Server, I know there are a lot of new features, settings, etc. since SBS 2003 came out, so figuring out what is actually useful, etc. for our particular needs is what is most important (stuff beyond printer sharing, file sharing and Exchange Server). Also hoping for some good feedback on potentially moving to hosted Exchange instead of keeping in-house.

As far as the firewall goes, it is an 8 year old box. I'm pretty well hands-off except for logging into Smoothwall every couple months and checking things out. But at 8 years of age, I suspect it is entering the timeframe when component failure could start. Since we are essentially replacing all of our computer systems (and probably will rewire the office and upgrade the hub), it makes sense to go ahead and replace the firewall now as well. Frankly out of all the computers here in the office, that is the one I have very little clue about, as I know zero about Linux.

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 05:00 PM
Not to mention you need beefy graphics hardware not possible on laptops and the monitor landscape to boot.We do have a couple people here running dual monitors.

As far as AutoCad goes, we do very little 3D modeling ourselves right now, but as more and more architects design in 3D we need to be able to easily open and manipulate their files. We also work with a lot of photos for reports, get drawn into online meetings that feature a lot of graphics, and will soon have to deal with editing videos. And emails are regularly coming in with 10-20 MB files attached that we need to view/ manipulate.

We are not in a 3 year cycle for upgrading computers; I would rather spend more right now for systems that can take us out 5 years without much more then adding RAM.

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 05:01 PM
I'm afraid I must disagree with both Jake and Fritz on custom built PCs. Conventional wisdom for large shops says buy in bulk with the supplier who will also handle support. But that wisdom needs scale to produce a return.

Point #1 - In this case the customer (David) is asking for something other.
Point #2 - He is doing his own support long term so the solution must be something he can support efficiently.
Point #3 - w/o the costly support contracts the large suppliers (Dell, etc) the Dells are harder to support w/o access to parts or VERY timely repairs.

Keep in mind they have a very small shop and having one man down for days is unacceptable. Therefore he must be able to act by buying the part and replacing it himself. Its much cheaper for a capable IT support person.You hit the nail on the head, Ken!

Fritz
10-03-2012, 05:52 PM
I forgot you are in the design industry so you're right on the laptops. They don't make sense. That said, the build vs. buy is still very viable for small businesses. Dell, HP, and IBM will all have a technician on site within hours. Yes you pay a bit of a premium for that at time of purchase, but I have heard of few issues that aren't resolved within their visit. In return there is minimal disruption to the billable workforce and you don't need an IT person on staff which is a huge savings.

I'm sure there are small shops that can do this as well still, but there are fewer and fewer of them because the financials don't work in their favor. Hopefully you can find one in your area. I know that just about every one I knew of between DC and Gaithersburg packed it in due to geeks on call, best buy, dell, and HP.

As for hosted exchange, check out Rackspace. Well priced, easy transition, and support secure exchange, webmail, and all mobile devices. It also includes a sharepoint web service for collaboration.

BlackTalon
10-03-2012, 05:53 PM
I forgot you are in the design industry so you're right on the laptops. They don't make sense. That said, the build vs. buy is still very viable for small businesses. Dell, HP, and IBM will all have a technician on site within hours. Yes you pay a bit of a premium for that at time of purchase, but I have heard of few issues that aren't resolved within their visit. In return there is minimal disruption to the billable workforce and you don't need an IT person on staff which is a huge savings.

I'm sure there are small shops that can do this as well still, but there are fewer and fewer of them because the financials don't work in their favor. Hopefully you can find one in your area. I know that just about every one I knew of between DC and Gaithersburg packed it in due to geeks on call, best buy, dell, and HP.

As for hosted exchange, check out Rackspace. Well priced, easy transition, and support secure exchange, webmail, and all mobile devices. It also includes a sharepoint web service for collaboration.Thanks.

Our IT person works for free (i.e., me!) :lol:

savowood
10-03-2012, 08:44 PM
One of the DC area companies we use for government systems and installations is Thundercat in Reston. Goofy name, but good people.

Jake's Oy
10-05-2012, 08:18 AM
Keep in mind they have a very small shop and having one man down for days is unacceptable. Therefore he must be able to act by buying the part and replacing it himself. Its much cheaper for a capable IT support person.

Down for days? Depending on how many people you are supporting you should have 1-3 spares. It doesn't sound like he uses encryption software so it should be a simple matter to swap hard drives. If the hard drive fails a spare will still work as a stop gap till you recover there data via whatever you are using as a backup.


Not to mention you need beefy graphics hardware not possible on laptops and the monitor landscape to boot.

Thats not really true any more. http://www.sagernotebook.com/index.php?page=product_info&model_name=NP9370

But if you never need to be mobile then a desktop is a better choice, I've found them to last longer due to less heat. I still prefer supporting laptops though as they are not as heavy :p



We are not in a 3 year cycle for upgrading computers; I would rather spend more right now for systems that can take us out 5 years without much more then adding RAM.

Imo this is hard to do if the demands of the system increase over the years. As a gamer that builds my own machines I've found its more efficient to buy performance in the mid range. Splurging for the very best of the best usually has depreciating gains vs money spent. Things are being out dated so quickly a medium grade system will out preform the hotsauce of 2 years ago.


Just my 2 cents. It sounds like your environment has specific needs and you know what you want. I am not trying to change your mind, but just thinking out loud.

smdubovsky
10-05-2012, 08:57 AM
Down for days? Depending on how many people you are supporting you should have 1-3 spares.

x10.

FWIW seperate gpus aren't needed as much anymore w/ the new intel hd4000 (unless you're strictly gaming). Its does DirectX11 3d CAD very well. No experience w/ OpenGL drivers though. Its not your fathers built in gpu (of just last year.)

IMO buy any box w/ an i7 3770k and be done w/ it :P I recently bought a shuttle instead of a dell just because I needed a small form factor. Dell wasn't sticking the new ivy bridge i7s in mini cases yet.

So I guess I fail on this thread because I can't recommend someone who builds computers:( But I still think nearly any possible desire can be satisfied off the shelf nowadays. Computer shops disappeared for a reason;)

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 09:28 AM
Actually there are TONS of computer shops around, which is why I initially posted asking for recommendations.

This setup is for our entire office, not just a small portion of it. Probably one set of spares (hey, that's 10%! :) ) -- possibly 2 spare MBs just in case. The nice thing about going with 'white boxes' is I can easily source replacement power supplies, RAM, etc. later on, so I do not need to stock.

Our use is not that intensive, so not looking for bleeding-edge. But would rather pay a little more for a 'better' CPU and RAM right now if it helps get another year or two out of the machine. Our uses are no where near as demanding as gaming. We need capacity to handle large files more then we need blazing-fast graphics.

FWIW, our current crop of machines are 8 years old (:shock:). Added RAM helped a bit about 3-4 years ago when things were starting to bog down a bit. We really did not need to consider new systems until last year, when some of the computers started to have issues related to age (had to replace 2 HDs and some RAM, plus two seem to have MB issues now). The Server has speed issues, but frankly it was under-built a bit when new. We would have tackled the replacements last year but health issues with one of my business partners clouded our financial picture.

I'd say the biggest demands on our desktops are from people surfing YouTube videos, streaming audio, etc. The network infrastructure is a bit overloaded now as well (we will finally be redoing for Gb ethernet). We are definitely in the dark ages a bit now, yet what we have is still more then adequate for 80% of our day-to-day tasks.

As fas as notebooks go, there is no real need at our end for portability. Desktops typically offer more bang for the buck and are much easier to maintain/ repair.

Thanks for all the input so far!

smdubovsky
10-05-2012, 09:59 AM
FWIW, our current crop of machines are 8 years old (:shock:).

:shock: is right. Someone is throwing money away. You should do a quick ROI calc. Unless your company pays employees minimum wage they are loosing money. Saving even 60s of wait time every day will pay for a new PC in short order. GbE alone will pay for itself in mere days if moving large files like you say. I would imagine employee satisfaction isn't helped by using decade old technology either;) Penny wise pound foolish.

We also have 10 employees here (but each of us has ~2 PCs). 4 yrs is about the max age limit for a desktop here for non power users. The big cad and sim machines go every ~2. When I worked at GE ages ago, they had a similar policy.

I don't think you need multiple spares of parts. Buy a whole machine. When that one gets used, replace it w/ something new (another whole machine.) FWIW, We don't have spare machines around here. Users can get by on their lab machine for a day or two while we wait for a new one to arrive.

The server is another story though. Thats our lifeblood. We upgraded to a new one this year and are now using VMWare underneath MS S2008. We have an onsite contract for that one only. If it was hit by lightning and totally unfixable, we should be able to get the server up and running again in hours on temporary desktop hardware (due to VMware) while we wait for a new real server to arrive.

joep
10-05-2012, 10:30 AM
FWIW, our current crop of machines are 8 years old (:shock:).

:shock: is right. Someone is throwing money away. You should do a quick ROI calc.

For workstation this is common sense, but not always for infrastructure or some servers. If it ain't broken, insecure, and stable, then "don't fix it". But do have a back-up plan. :D I have a P2-300 intel happily still crunching away in my basement. I doubt it will ever die at its current rate but man are those resistors huge!

smdubovsky
10-05-2012, 10:49 AM
For workstation this is common sense, but not always for infrastructure or some servers. If it ain't broken, insecure, and stable, then "don't fix it". But do have a back-up plan. :D I have a P2-300 intel happily still crunching away in my basement. I doubt it will ever die at its current rate but man are those resistors huge!

Our old server (that we are migrating off of as of earlier this year) is ~10yrs old. Also a Dell. Its scsi drive backplane hiccuped years ago while still under warranty but otherwise refuses to die.

But I think the "if it isn't broke, dont fix it" mantra has LONG gone out the window w/ server virtualization. EVERYONE uses it now and you can move a running server from physical hardware to hardware, instantly, w/o shutting down, or even interrupting users, fully automatic on failure or load leveling if you have 2 or more physical servers. Arguably, servers are less critical to user uptime than office machines now. Its silly to not use it on a server. While virtualization exists for desktops its not as common yet. Some levels of vmware are free. I use it to run old XP32 software on a my win7-64 desktop. Another of our programmers uses it to run *every* OS on his machine for testing product releases and bare metal install tests.

Trak Ratt
10-05-2012, 10:54 AM
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3033/b45f5569c262b4968398e9e.gif (http://www.vayagif.com/132774/carga-cono)

joep
10-05-2012, 11:21 AM
Our old server (that we are migrating off of as of earlier this year) is ~10yrs old. Also a Dell. Its scsi drive backplane hiccuped years ago while still under warranty but otherwise refuses to die.

But I think the "if it isn't broke, dont fix it" mantra has LONG gone out the window w/ server virtualization. EVERYONE uses it now...

Virtualization is a cool technology and it has its uses. In my example there's no budget. For testing and software development its awesome.

But I have a problem with those who change for the sake of change. It's one thing to stay current, or increase capacity to keep up with demand. Gaming is one great example where each year they need new hardware to keep up. But when $$ are on the bottom line, change for change's sake is needless risk. I'll be first to demand updates and upgrades to mitigate risk for security reasons, but not to justify a cool new purchase of the latest marketing buzz word. This is one area where I find myself growing ever more conservative.

I'm just not ready to bask my laptops on the desk though. That's sacrilege! :lol:

Jazzbass
10-05-2012, 11:43 AM
Virtualization is a cool technology and it has its uses. In my example there's no budget. For testing and software development its awesome.

But I have a problem with those who change for the sake of change. It's one thing to stay current, or increase capacity to keep up with demand. Gaming is one great example where each year they need new hardware to keep up. But when $$ are on the bottom line, change for change's sake is needless risk. I'll be first to demand updates and upgrades to mitigate risk for security reasons, but not to justify a cool new purchase of the latest marketing buzz word. This is one area where I find myself growing ever more conservative.

I can't say I understand this, to be honest. I've run farms of servers for two companies, and virtualization is a godsend, for three reasons:

1. We do software development, so standing up different environments easily is a must. This is not applicable to most non-development based companies, but the next two are

2. It allows me to more efficiently load balance my systems across available hardware. If I need 10 servers, all of which run at an average of 20% capacity on a machine, why buy 10 separate boxes? At the very least you buy 5, stick two virtual servers per box and run them at 40% capacity. I'd probably run higher (like 60%) but that's just me. Hardware costs get slashed.

2a. Running 5 servers instead of 10 cuts utility costs in a non-insignificant way. If you've every run more than a couple servers AND been the guy paying the electric bill, you know what I'm talking about. For a while I hosted a rack of 6 of my company's servers in my basement. My electric bill jumped $100/month.

3. Like SMD said, the status of the hardware of a specific server becomes less of an issue. Hardware failure? If you've done things with virtual failover correctly, simply start the VMs on different machines and everyone keeps working while you repair the broken server.

There is a lot of stuff in the IT industry that you can point at and say "whatever, just a fad, blah blah". Server virtualization isn't one of those.

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 01:06 PM
I'm new to virtualization, but I did talk with a Dorki yesterday who outlined the benefits even when only one SBS server is needed (sim to what SMD stated), and it looks like a smart way to go for us in case we have a server hardware failure down the road. I had to deal with a RAID card issue and hard drive failure when the server was ~3 years old it was a PITA. Would be good to have the ability to quickly throw in a different machine and get it running with minimal downtime.

As far as ROI goes, there is no question replacing what we have should have happened probably ~3 years ago. But welcome to the world of a small business that has (I should say had) 3 owners. The upcoming office-wide upgrade will be >$35k, and that does not include annual subscription fees for AutoCad and some other software, plus our monitors and printers do not need replacement at this time. We will likely need to replace the plotter, which will be another ~$10k.

Our employees spend half their time out in the field, and the time they spend working on drawings, reports, etc. is not affected much by the old computers. The time spent checking used car listing, watching funny videos, etc. IS affected, though!

I suspect recabling/ upgrading our Ethernet will probably result in the most time savings. I'm also starting to look into a higher through-put Internet connection. Our DSL line is barely adequate sometimes (think NCAA B-Ball tourny :roll:) and I really don't want to entrust our operation with Comcast Business service, as I know first-hand how horrible their residential service is. I wish we were in a big building where the Owner had a T1 line or something, but our condo complex does not have anything like that.

joep
10-05-2012, 01:27 PM
I can't say I understand this, to be honest. I've run farms of servers for two companies, and virtualization is a godsend, for three reasons:

All of those points are valid, and I'm not dismissing the benefits. Virtualization is here to stay I believe, but I also think the pendulum will swing back again.

For those reading who don't know, Virtualization is the process of running a "virtual computer system" as a process on a real computer system. This means you can treat a computer as a big file which can be copied, stored or moved around. Now imagine building a server. Now imagine copying that server's virtual file to 100 places. You now have 100 servers all for the time spent building one! That's awesome!
You can also better utilize all the "free idle time" of the CPU on the host computer which runs all the virtualized hosts. This is much more energy efficient which saves on operating costs and physical space. NO more crashed hard drives cus its virtual!

A common buzz word today is cloud computing. Cloud computing does not equal virtualization, but virtualization is almost synonymous with it. Simply put, cloud computing means you outsource your applications and/or data to be hosted by someone else for a fee. For many businesses this is a very cost effective option which can make good sense. But every cloud casts a shadow too.

[Cloud Rant On]

But there are other offsetting things to consider which can dig back into the savings. First thing to realize and consider is that there is no one way to do it "correctly" for every business, and not every business model is suited to everything tech which comes along. Most of you know that added complexity can lead to things to more things which can go wrong, and more difficulty in troubleshooting or repairs. 100 computers built quickly is great until you have the "Whoopsie moment" when now you have 101 things to fix.

Ever crash a hard drive running multiple computers systems on it? Double your pleasure double your volume of screaming support calls! (BTW: If you did this in the Cloud you are doing Cloud(Virtualization) wrong! But that would never happen right?)

You can do most anything in either real hardware or the cloud today, including storing all of your personal files. Lose your laptop or phone, and your files are fine.

But what if you lose access to the Internet, or you loose control of your account to those files? How will you access them?

A major factor to consider is what is your business? How big is it in terms of scale, budget, and how important is your data? Is is more important to others who would want to steal it or deny you access to it?

The larger a business's IT needs are the more sense it makes to use cloud computing, but so is their operating budget and in house expertise. Very small to medium sized businesses can still benefit from cheaper cloud plans, but these are the folks I worry about most. They don't know what they don't know, and one day it will bite them in the ass.

I work in IT Security so a whole bunch of new requirements pop-up which put the brakes on changes from proven solutions. I can wipe out any cost saving in power and facility fees with one good outage or security breach due to added complexity of cloud computing, or loss of control of the data due to stupidity in mgnt/config of the cloud provider, or an outright breach of security beyond your control because TR's porn & avatar emporium was hosted next to your web store and got hacked. (No offense TR :p pls keep the avatars rolling!) $1200 in power costs per yr is nothing compared to a multimillion dollar loss of business, lawsuit, or fines due to one of the issues above.

I don't think most businesses have fully considered all the angles of cloud computing, or they are making poorly informed decisions because they feel they should make a change. They hear the benefits and go. I could start stuffing this post with links to horror stories of bad cloud experiences but if your interested google is your friend.

[Cloud Rant Off]

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 01:36 PM
I am leery of the cloud myself, at least for my business purposes. We might look into it for the purpose of off-site data back-up, and for a file exchange site, but that is about it. I had considered hosted Exchange Server so we could remotely access email, but I found out yesterday the current versions of SBS will allow access over a dynamic IP address (which the version of SBS we are currently running could not do). That makes it a much easier decision to keep that in-house.

Jake's Oy
10-05-2012, 01:38 PM
T1's are generally only 1.544 Mbit/s. I supported a remote office with one with 7 people and it was butt slow.

Are you upgrading your cables to 5e or cat 6? If you are going with a gig switch keep in mind your new comps need gig cards. Also you want to upgrade your patch cables and your office cables to the same speeds to take advantage of the upgraded switch. Its common sense, but I've seen people over look those minor steps >.>

smdubovsky
10-05-2012, 01:41 PM
Virtualization is a cool technology and it has its uses. In my example there's no budget.

Its free. If you don't need realtime load balancing or switchover, the base VM pkg is free. Like I said, its a no-brainer to run at least that. Just copy the file to new hardware and restart server.

But welcome to the world of a small business that has (I should say had) 3 owners.

I can relate. GE was nearly as bad w/ red tape. My current co is good. Big companies and small ones just have different problems. No one is perfect.

I suspect recabling/ upgrading our Ethernet will probably result in the most time savings. I'm also starting to look into a higher through-put Internet connection. Our DSL line is barely adequate sometimes (think NCAA B-Ball tourny :roll:) and I really don't want to entrust our operation with Comcast Business service, as I know first-hand how horrible their residential service is. I wish we were in a big building where the Owner had a T1 line or something, but our condo complex does not have anything like that.

Buy a dual WAN router. Keep the dsl *AND* get comcast (or whatever fast is avail.) T1 is horribly expensive and not all that quick until you start bonding a lot of them together = even more $$$ (IIRC our quote was $800/mo:shock: for 4xT1 (6Mb/s)). Its exactly what we've done for years. dsl+Clear 4G at the old location and now dsl+comcast fiber at the new place. Never had a concurrent failure.

FWIW, on the router we've evolved from a RVL200(??), to a Netgear FVS336G, and finally now to a WatchGuard XTM 3 series. The new box 'just works'. So IMO skip the home office crap and go straight to a business class one. Supports plenty of IPSec and SSL VPNs for remote login too. Edit: and the last one can keep up a dynDNS service reliably too;)

Jazzbass
10-05-2012, 01:46 PM
A common buzz word today is cloud computing. Cloud computing does not equal virtualization, but virtualization is almost synonymous with it. Simply put, cloud computing means you outsource your applications and/or data to be hosted by someone else for fee. For many businesses this is a very cost effective option which makes good sense.


OK, so your problem is with cloud implementations, not virtualization. That's understandable. Like you said, they are two different things but are often confused. You were first saying that you didn't like virtualization, and now you're ranting about cloud implementations. This leaves me the impression that you were initially mixing the two up. Not sure.

Yes, cloud approaches have some issues, but that's a completely separate discussion than hardware virtualization of your local resources.

FWIW, on the router we've evolved from a RVL200(??), to a Netgear FVS336G, and finally now to a WatchGuard XTM 3 series. The new box 'just works'. So IMO skip the home office crap and go straight to a business class one. Supports plenty of IPSec and SSL VPNs for remote login too. Edit: and the last one can keep up a dynDNS service reliably too:wink:

Agreed. We used the Cisco/Linksys RVL router for a while and it was OK, but they do die. Our solution was to have two configured identically. One dies, power up the other and RMA the first. IT works but it's kind of a PITA. I still use the RVL at home - allows me to VPN from away locations to my home machine.

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 01:48 PM
Thanks both of you for the T1 info, as well as the idea of the dual WAN setup.

Our current router was supplied by our provider (now Earthlink). It is business class; I avoid home office stuff here.

cmartin
10-05-2012, 01:49 PM
Business FIOS, http://smallbusiness.verizon.com/products/internet/fios/packages.aspx

25/25 w/ static IP starts at $105/month

Hard to beat if it's available

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 01:51 PM
No need for load balancing, etc. here, but my education on the other benefits of virtualization has really moved forward over the last 24 hours :-)

Ken probably has the best handle on the 'keep it simple' approach we have here, but I'm getting some good bits and pieces tossed out by others to consider from these discussions.

joep
10-05-2012, 01:52 PM
Its free. If you don't need realtime load balancing or switchover, the base VM pkg is free. Like I said, its a no-brainer to run at least that. Just copy the file to new hardware and restart server.

I know it is. I've used VM server for free for years. Sorry I should have said there's no budget AND I need it to be a real piece of infrastructure. I use it as a firewall which I can't virtualize but I might replace it someday with a cheap fw/router. Again someday, no budget. ;)

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 01:52 PM
Chris, no FiOS here in City of Alexandria... And Verizon yanked their plans off the table last year, so no chance of it happening in the next 5 years. So even at home I am handcuffed still to Comcast for TV and Internet. Those fuchers... :grrr: :lol:

Jazzbass
10-05-2012, 01:54 PM
Chris, no FiOS here in City of Alexandria... And Verizon yanked their plans off the table last year, so no chance of it happening in the next 5 years. So even at home I am handcuffed still to Comcast for TV and Internet. Those fuchers... :grrr: :lol:
Too bad. I had business FIOS when I was hosting servers and it was awesome. Back to residential now - half the price, 10Mbps faster. Go figure. No static IP though.

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 02:00 PM
Since we don't run an Internet server here, the dynamic IP address service we have with our DSL service was not a problem until recently. Now it would be helpful to have full office email access while at home, via smartphone, etc. But as I said, I found out yesterday the current version of SBS will allow email access over dynamic IP, so I should not need to switch to a static IP service. I'm not a security guy, but the people who set up the network the last time recommended sticking with a dynamic IP so it would be harder to get targeted for an attack. But over the last 8 years I'm sure things have evolved to the point where it really doesn't matter -- they will get to you if they want to.

smdubovsky
10-05-2012, 02:01 PM
No need for load balancing, etc. here

Us neither. We only have one server. But as long as you install even the free vmware before you install MS server, you can choose to do as much or as little w/ it as you want later. The same 'file' runs on all of their versions. You can virtualize an existing server but its a little trickier. Best on a bare metal install to start w/ it. Though you could virtualize the old box and run it on the new hardware if you don't want to upgrade the OS or anything else.

One of the coolest things w/ VM is that you can 'snapshot' the running VMs. As in, that INSTANT, the state of memory, disk, everything of that server. Then just backup that file. Or, before installing some new software always take a snapshot. If something doesn't work out, you can revert to the snapshot instantly (well, it takes a couple seconds.) A full MS server reboot also takes only like 10s. I wish life made mulligans as quick and easy.

smdubovsky
10-05-2012, 02:04 PM
running a dynDNS updater on the router will give you a free dns name: companyxyz.dyndns.org You can vpn into that from anywhere. We have a static IP and still use it.

joep
10-05-2012, 02:07 PM
running a dynDNS updater on the router will give you a free dns name: companyxyz.dyndns.org You can vpn into that from anywhere. We have a static IP and still use it.

x2 Dyndns. Very handy!

BlackTalon
10-05-2012, 02:12 PM
Thanks, SMD!

Jazzbass
10-05-2012, 02:52 PM
x2 Dyndns. Very handy!
x3. I run it at home to VPN from outside. Works great.

Fritz
10-05-2012, 04:43 PM
Not to throw more options into the fire, but if the majority of your workload for half the staff is regular application use and web browsing without heavy graphic needs you could easily replace their desktop with Virtual Desktop Terminals if you are considering virtualization for your environment now. It would eliminate 5 desktops and replace them with $300 dumb terminals and zero support issues. I'm not saying it's a good candidate for your office as they may occasionally also have do CAD work and need extremely high resolution, but after setting up a 20 seat training facility on a single mid tier server a few years ago I recommend it for small businesses who are looking for maintenance and purchase cost reduction. You can work excel, word, webex conferences, and web browsing til your hearts content. If does fail for gaming. That's a good thing in an office. ;)

As for cloud services. Look to them for exchange / email and sharepoint without concern. It does not pay to have those services in house anymore unless you are 50+ person company. And then it's still questionable.

The bigger "cloud" picture for large corporations is more complex then should be in the thread, but is very interesting. And while I don't agree with the generic cloud terminology and over use of the word, it is a framework for the evolution of data processing. Which by the way was designed sometime in the '70s but not possible to implement effectively until technology caught up. Now if only microsoft, google, amazon, and the other providers would learn how to do it right. ;)

tbernard
10-05-2012, 10:17 PM
x3. I run it at home to VPN from outside. Works great.

X4, same here, use it to get back to our files on the server when at customer sites.

If you want something Cisco, PM me, we're a dealer.