RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

Thanks for the pointers!

  _  

From: Jim Majorowicz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:14 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



I don’t know about Schwab or Fidelity as I don’t have any clients that use
those houses, but LPL just releases a new set of standards for their brokers
that includes specific wording about physical security.

Keep in mind that you do need a good set of security controls for any device
that contains “confidential” information about your clients and/or their
investments.  Realistically, you can point to Title V of the Gramm-Leach
Bliley Act as well as SEC Regulation S-P to say that any computer device
that contains “confidential information” about your customers needs
additional physical security.

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I agree with your totally, but they have never in the 15 years I have work
at this company had a locked room for the servers.  They are in my cubicle
now, but before that they were in the common work area where the copier,
printer etc.  We are independent advisors that manage investments for high
net work individuals along with some corporate plans.  The assets, though,
are held at a custodian like Schwab or Fidelity.  We just went through an
SEC audit, but luckily nothing was said about the fact that the servers were
in my cubicle.

 

  _  

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Right now, from what you describe, I don’t see any value benefit with the
Blade Technology, since you aren’t going to load the Blade to capacity or at
least ½ capacity, you aren’t really getting a return on investment ( Blades
can be quiet expensive also) If your server system is adequate for 20
people, then, spending more money with the blade and the time to migrate
probably isn’t going to be the best move. 

 

I would definitely have you re-think your plan about putting the servers in
your cubicle. What happens if someone wants to lift your server from your
unsecured cubicle and now your data and server are in the hands of an
unauthorized party and you are SOL.  Your server should be in a temperature
controlled locked room with adequate physical controls, and limited access. 

 

I hope you all aren’t under Sarbanes or PCI compliance at your company, I
fear you might be heading down a bad road with this if you get audited. 

 

Just my 2 cents, 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[gsweers]

Find a Dell Certified Partner.  The new blade chassis being released by
Dell has by far the most features, performance, lowest energy use per
blade/per chassis than any of the other vendors and its got a really
cool swivel display screen.  Certified partners also can get you the
best pricing vs the call in sales rep.

 

HP is good, no doubting it, you would not be sad if you went with them
either.

 

Greg

 

From: Louis, Joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Get your self an HP Blade chassis, although I wouldn't put it in a
closet. I wouldn't put any server in a closet. 

 

I chose HP because (beside the bill Dell sent me just to get a quote on
their blade) it is very solid. When I bought mine, it was second
generation. The third generation has half the bays (if you want only
half). I can add 16 server blades to mine. They now make card blades for
legacy applications that need a special card, tape blades for backups
and more. There is a case to make with blades about less footprint,
BTUs, and electricity consumption. 

 

Nice thing about the half chassis is that if gives you room to grow. It
was an easy sell for me to the ownership here since the 4th server paid
for itself. I say that to say that the initial investment is truly that;
an investment and you save on all servers you purchase after than, since
all you are doing is buying the blade. 



 

 



From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.
Two principals are staying at the current location and the other two are
moving to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the
two that are moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have
four servers now:  Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL
(of which I will replace in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need
one UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8
people at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current
Primary server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the
company now.  There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is
an "IT closet" where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is
basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered doors in the common
supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the closet sideways of
which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle
with me as it makes it easier to manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of
your opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Louis, Joe]

Get your self an HP Blade chassis, although I wouldn't put it in a closet. I 
wouldn't put any server in a closet.

I chose HP because (beside the bill Dell sent me just to get a quote on their 
blade) it is very solid. When I bought mine, it was second generation. The 
third generation has half the bays (if you want only half). I can add 16 server 
blades to mine. They now make card blades for legacy applications that need a 
special card, tape blades for backups and more. There is a case to make with 
blades about less footprint, BTUs, and electricity consumption.

Nice thing about the half chassis is that if gives you room to grow. It was an 
easy sell for me to the ownership here since the 4th server paid for itself. I 
say that to say that the initial investment is truly that; an investment and 
you save on all servers you purchase after than, since all you are doing is 
buying the blade.




From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two 
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving to 
a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are 
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:  
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace in 
early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a 
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one UPS 
and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people at the 
new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary server is more 
than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.  There is no 
temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet" where the wiring 
will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered 
doors in the common supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the 
closet sideways of which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in 
my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to manage them.

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your 
opinions.

Sharie Breaux
Systems Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]








~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[lists]

Check out http://www.stikc.com/  They sell used/refurbished gear. I
recently bought a blade chassis and one blade server for about $750,
total.  

I've only bought used/refurbed since 1999. They work great, some have
remaining warrantee. Tell them I sent you.

 



From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Steven Peck]

Virtualization is an excellent thing and works in many environments
_depending_ on several factors.  It is not in any way shape or form a
magic solution.

Does you hardware support the load?  On a virtualized environment will
you have sufficient disk IO/latency to support your apps?  Here we do
not put SQL or Exchange mailbox servers in VM.  Because our SAN
infrastructure latency kills it.  We did test it and it just doesn't
work for us.  At all.

We have another production environment 3 VMware servers in a
cluster.  One virtual center server and a seperate SQL db box for the
back end.  Here's the fun part.  The AD DC is virtualized.  The SQL
service account for the server is a domain account.  If we shut down
the environment, then we have to bring up the VMWare box with the DC
on it and power it up before we can bring up the cluster
environment

It all depends on your needs and equipment whether or not a virtual
solution will work for you.

That said, if you are going to keep the servers in your cube, get a
half height rack or something and have a locking door.  Frankly the
fan noise would irritate the hell out of me and my cube neighbors.
They need to find secure space for their servers.  Closed, non-climate
controlled closets get HOT.  Heat shuts down servers.

Other random notes confirming stuff.
Blades run warm, very very warm.
One UPS?  So, single point of failure then?  Blades need a lot of power, lots.

Over all at one location we have 47 VMWare host systems comprising 2
production environments, 2 full test environments and 2 development
labs.

VMWare, it's what's good for the resume :) but not always the right answer.

Steven

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Martin Blackstone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I only say this because I am a perfect example of it, but there is still a
> lot of fear around virtualization and it seems until you have done it or
> really seen it done, that fear persists.
>
> At my last employer I never would have considered it. Now that I am living
> with it, I wish I had done it there.
>
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:29 AM
>
>  To: NT System Admin Issues
>  Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
>
> I have to disagree with you there Mike.  Virtualization works will for
> production, dev and test environments.   I have more virtual servers than
> actual physical servers.  I have production SQL server applications (heavy
> I/O too) that run flawlessly in VMWare.  I also have a production box with
> an inventory control application that the company said they didn't think
> would run on VMWare and it not only runs on VMWare, it runs better on VMWare
> than it ever did on a physical box.
>
>  OK, stepping off my VMWare soapbox..
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that I will be
> buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and we already have
> an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as the other company is
> using something else for mail.  The exchange server is only about 1-1/2
> years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they don't want to spend the
> money on that now because of all the other moving expenses - furniture,
> cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will also be taking with me and it is
> only 1-1/2 years old.
>
>
>
> I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed some backup on
> this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.  Anymore at any time will
> be greatly appreciated!
>  ________
>
>
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
>
>
>
>
>  To: NT System Admin Issues
>  Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
>
>
> Sharie, how many servers do you need?
>
> What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
>  To: NT System Admin Issues
>  Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
> system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sharie
>  
>
>
> From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
>  To: NT System Admin Issues
>  Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
> It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
> box for everything since its only eight people, howev

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[David Lum]

Oh yeah, forgot out the soundgood Lord, take out a Mgmt module and
the fans go into spastic mode! Like a mini-jet taking off...

 

From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I'm very familiar with Dell's line of blade servers. As most everyone
has pointed out, it sounds like one would be incredibly overkill for
your environment. The cost of an entire chassis plus one blade is not
very cost effective either, considering it doesn't sound like there's
going to be rapid growth anytime soon. And finally, the noise and heat
generated by a blade chassis would make it impossible for you to
function with them sitting right next to you. 

 

Take the money management was willing to throw down on a blade
chassis/server and put it towards building an adequate server room for
your equipment.

 

- Sean

 

On 4/22/08, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.
Two principals are staying at the current location and the other two are
moving to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the
two that are moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have
four servers now:  Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL
(of which I will replace in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need
one UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8
people at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current
Primary server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the
company now.  There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is
an "IT closet" where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is
basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered doors in the common
supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the closet sideways of
which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle
with me as it makes it easier to manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of
your opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sean Martin]

I'm very familiar with Dell's line of blade servers. As most everyone has
pointed out, it sounds like one would be incredibly overkill for your
environment. The cost of an entire chassis plus one blade is not very cost
effective either, considering it doesn't sound like there's going to be
rapid growth anytime soon. And finally, the noise and heat generated by a
blade chassis would make it impossible for you to function with them sitting
right next to you.

Take the money management was willing to throw down on a blade
chassis/server and put it towards building an adequate server room for your
equipment.

- Sean


On 4/22/08, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
> principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
> to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
> moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
> Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
> in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.
>
> One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
> smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
> UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
> at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
> server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
> There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
> where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
> 30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
> putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
> no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
> manage them.
>
> Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
> opinions.
>
> Sharie Breaux
> Systems Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Jim Majorowicz]

I don’t know about Schwab or Fidelity as I don’t have any clients that use
those houses, but LPL just releases a new set of standards for their brokers
that includes specific wording about physical security.

Keep in mind that you do need a good set of security controls for any device
that contains “confidential” information about your clients and/or their
investments.  Realistically, you can point to Title V of the Gramm-Leach
Bliley Act as well as SEC Regulation S-P to say that any computer device
that contains “confidential information” about your customers needs
additional physical security.

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I agree with your totally, but they have never in the 15 years I have work
at this company had a locked room for the servers.  They are in my cubicle
now, but before that they were in the common work area where the copier,
printer etc.  We are independent advisors that manage investments for high
net work individuals along with some corporate plans.  The assets, though,
are held at a custodian like Schwab or Fidelity.  We just went through an
SEC audit, but luckily nothing was said about the fact that the servers were
in my cubicle.

 

  _  

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Right now, from what you describe, I don’t see any value benefit with the
Blade Technology, since you aren’t going to load the Blade to capacity or at
least ½ capacity, you aren’t really getting a return on investment ( Blades
can be quiet expensive also) If your server system is adequate for 20
people, then, spending more money with the blade and the time to migrate
probably isn’t going to be the best move. 

 

I would definitely have you re-think your plan about putting the servers in
your cubicle. What happens if someone wants to lift your server from your
unsecured cubicle and now your data and server are in the hands of an
unauthorized party and you are SOL.  Your server should be in a temperature
controlled locked room with adequate physical controls, and limited access. 

 

I hope you all aren’t under Sarbanes or PCI compliance at your company, I
fear you might be heading down a bad road with this if you get audited. 

 

Just my 2 cents, 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[RITA KAUR]

Blade servers are the way to go in terms of space and cost and also for future 
enhancements and go virtualization.
M


- Original Message 
From: David Lum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59:24 AM
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers


Why isn’t it supported?
 
I’m with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft’s virtualization software 
(both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not very steep at all. 
I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista and XP systems) with 
Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270 )with 4GB in no more time that 
it takes to normal create those systems.
 
I also have VMWare workstation…pretty similar stuff, and the ability to go from 
physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as well. A single fast 
box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be cheaper than a blade center + 
blades.
 
Also, once VM’d you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware and 
have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.
 
Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 
 
 
 
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
 
Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading system 
uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 
 
Sharie



From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS box 
for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more to it 
than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)
 
As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an ideal 
candidate.  It’s small and there is no physical space allocated for severs.  I 
would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing out the RAM and 
putting everything I could on it.
 
My outside view, $.02
 
Shook
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sherry Abercrombie]

I've never used VMWare server, never said I did, we've used VMWare for a
number of years, starting out with GSX, and now have a ESX server farm
consisting of 12 servers, connected to an HP EVA San.

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Virtualization works well for production, Dev , and test, however, I use
> ESX Server for production not VMware Server.
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:29 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> Adding to the VMware
>
>
>
> /Vmware ESX hat on.
>
>
>
> Yes we do use Dev test and production for Vmware ESX hosts on SQL, apps,
> File servers, Print servers, etc etc. Only thing I don't use it for is
> Exchange and DC's. I even have small/low end SQL databases on ESX hosts and
> they work fine. Also forgot that anything with Java in it, keep it away from
> ESX hosts, Java runs like a pig in ESX hosts, but fine on regular similarly
> sized hardware. (Seen about 20X issues across our farm with java and Vm not
> playing nice nice. )
>
>
>
> /Vmware ESX hat Off
>
>
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward E. Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA
>
> Phone: 401-639-3505
>
> -Original Message-
> *From:* Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Mike Semon]

Virtualization works well for production, Dev , and test, however, I use ESX
Server for production not VMware Server.

 

  _  

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:29 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Adding to the VMware 

 

/Vmware ESX hat on. 

 

Yes we do use Dev test and production for Vmware ESX hosts on SQL, apps,
File servers, Print servers, etc etc. Only thing I don't use it for is
Exchange and DC's. I even have small/low end SQL databases on ESX hosts and
they work fine. Also forgot that anything with Java in it, keep it away from
ESX hosts, Java runs like a pig in ESX hosts, but fine on regular similarly
sized hardware. (Seen about 20X issues across our farm with java and Vm not
playing nice nice. )

 

/Vmware ESX hat Off

 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Martin Blackstone]

I only say this because I am a perfect example of it, but there is still a
lot of fear around virtualization and it seems until you have done it or
really seen it done, that fear persists.

At my last employer I never would have considered it. Now that I am living
with it, I wish I had done it there.

 

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:29 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I have to disagree with you there Mike.  Virtualization works will for
production, dev and test environments.   I have more virtual servers than
actual physical servers.  I have production SQL server applications (heavy
I/O too) that run flawlessly in VMWare.  I also have a production box with
an inventory control application that the company said they didn't think
would run on VMWare and it not only runs on VMWare, it runs better on VMWare
than it ever did on a physical box.  

OK, stepping off my VMWare soapbox..

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that I will be
buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and we already have
an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as the other company is
using something else for mail.  The exchange server is only about 1-1/2
years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they don't want to spend the
money on that now because of all the other moving expenses - furniture,
cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will also be taking with me and it is
only 1-1/2 years old.  

 

I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed some backup on
this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.  Anymore at any time will
be greatly appreciated!

  _  

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Sharie, how many servers do you need?

What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange? 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 




-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Arthur C. Clarke 

Adding to the VMware 

 

/Vmware ESX hat on. 

 

Yes we do use Dev test and production for Vmware ESX hosts on SQL, apps,
File servers, Print servers, etc etc. Only thing I don't use it for is
Exchange and DC's. I even have small/low end SQL databases on ESX hosts and
they work fine. Also forgot that anything with Java in it, keep it away from
ESX hosts, Java runs like a pig in ESX hosts, but fine on regular similarly
sized hardware. (Seen about 20X issues across our farm with java and Vm not
playing nice nice. )

 

/Vmware ESX hat Off

 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[David Lum]

Enterprise class.umSBS *IS* enterprise class, it's the same as
2K3 Server except licensing and wizards. Anything 2K3 server can do SBS
2K3 can (ok dunno about clustering...).

 

Not to beat this to death, but I'd get clarification on why they don't
support SBS - it doesn't make much sense since SBS is using the same
core as 2K3 - it's not at all like a "2K3 Server SE Lite". My parting
shot about SBS:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/evaluation/topmyths.mspx

 

The page list was funny for me, I had a second DC and a member server in
my SBS domain before I heard it "wasn't possible". To me SBS is 2K3
Server / 2K3 Exchange at an unbeatable price for 75 users or less (also
note #6 in that list), and adds wizards. Except for wizards you treat it
like a normal domain...

 

Anyhow, not my battle, just my thoughts J

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

They didn't say why it was not, but we pay big bucks for service and
maintenance and I can't do something they don't support.  I look forward
to it in the future, though.  Thanks for the info!

 



From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Why isn't it supported?

 

I'm with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft's virtualization
software (both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not
very steep at all. I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista
and XP systems) with Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270
)with 4GB in no more time that it takes to normal create those systems.

 

I also have VMWare workstation...pretty similar stuff, and the ability
to go from physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as
well. A single fast box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be
cheaper than a blade center + blades.

 

Also, once VM'd you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware
and have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.

 

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 

 

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie



From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a
SBS box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may
be more to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be
an ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated
for severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box,
maxing out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Ziots, Edward]

I have to disagree with you there Mike.  Virtualization works will for
production, dev and test environments.   I have more virtual servers
than actual physical servers.  I have production SQL server applications
(heavy I/O too) that run flawlessly in VMWare.  I also have a production
box with an inventory control application that the company said they
didn't think would run on VMWare and it not only runs on VMWare, it runs
better on VMWare than it ever did on a physical box.  

OK, stepping off my VMWare soapbox..


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that
I will be buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and
we already have an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as
the other company is using something else for mail.  The exchange server
is only about 1-1/2 years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they
don't want to spend the money on that now because of all the other
moving expenses - furniture, cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will
also be taking with me and it is only 1-1/2 years old.  
 
I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed
some backup on this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.
Anymore at any time will be greatly appreciated!



From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
        Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Sharie, how many servers do you need?

What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange?


 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
        Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our
trading system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as
well. 

 

Sharie



From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
        Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to
put in a SBS box for everything since its only eight people, however,
there may be more to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are
awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment
would be an ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space
allocated for severs.  I would look into the option of taking your
beefiest box, maxing out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
    Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 


















-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Arthur C. Clarke 

Adding to the VMware 

 

/Vmware ESX hat on. 

 

Yes we do use Dev test and production for Vmware ESX hosts on SQL, apps,
File servers, Print servers, etc etc. Only thing I don't use it for is
Exchange and DC's. I even have small/low end SQL databases on ESX hosts
and they work fine. Also forgot that anything with Java in it, keep it
away from ESX hosts, Java runs like a pig in ESX hosts, but fine on
regular similarly sized hardware. (Seen about 20X issues across our farm
with java and Vm not playing nice nice. )

 

/Vmware ESX hat Off

 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

Advent's Axys 3.5.1

  _  

From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:15 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Bummer.stopped by the software vendor.what software is it? (I coulda swore
you posted it already, but I can't find it).

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

They didn't say why it was not, but we pay big bucks for service and
maintenance and I can't do something they don't support.  I look forward to
it in the future, though.  Thanks for the info!

 

  _  

From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Why isn't it supported?

 

I'm with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft's virtualization
software (both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not very
steep at all. I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista and XP
systems) with Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270 )with 4GB in no
more time that it takes to normal create those systems.

 

I also have VMWare workstation.pretty similar stuff, and the ability to go
from physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as well. A
single fast box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be cheaper than a
blade center + blades.

 

Also, once VM'd you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware and
have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.

 

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 

 

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

I know, but like everyone else they are moving towards enterprise class
software and leaving the small business to fend for themselves.  They also
have a hosted software based on a SQL based environment, so I think that is
going to be their small business answer.
 
For example, our exchange server is Small Business server with Goodlink on
it, and when Motorola bought Goodlink, they discontinued support for SBS .
Next time we renew our contract with Verizon, we are going with Blackberrys
and Blackberry Professional software.

  _  

From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:10 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



I'm REALLY curious why your software doesn't support SBS - everything you
listed has SBS written all over it.

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:06 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that I will be
buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and we already have
an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as the other company is
using something else for mail.  The exchange server is only about 1-1/2
years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they don't want to spend the
money on that now because of all the other moving expenses - furniture,
cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will also be taking with me and it is
only 1-1/2 years old.  

 

I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed some backup on
this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.  Anymore at any time will
be greatly appreciated!

  _  

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Sharie, how many servers do you need?

What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange? 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[NTSysAdmin]

I had the same issue with our largest vendor. I asked them why not and they 
couldn't give me a good enough reason. We informed them that as we were moving 
to a totally virtual infrastructure with ESX, that we would have to change 
vendors. Lo and behold, same afternoon we received a call from our account 
manager informing us that there had been a breakdown in communication somewhere 
along the line and that they did support their application in a virtual 
environment.

Go figure

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

They didn't say why it was not, but we pay big bucks for service and 
maintenance and I can't do something they don't support.  I look forward to it 
in the future, though.  Thanks for the info!


From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
Why isn't it supported?

I'm with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft's virtualization software 
(both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not very steep at all. 
I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista and XP systems) with 
Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270 )with 4GB in no more time that 
it takes to normal create those systems.

I also have VMWare workstation...pretty similar stuff, and the ability to go 
from physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as well. A single 
fast box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be cheaper than a blade 
center + blades.

Also, once VM'd you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware and 
have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands"



From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading system 
uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well.

Sharie

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS box 
for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more to it 
than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an ideal 
candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for severs.  I 
would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing out the RAM and 
putting everything I could on it.

My outside view, $.02

Shook
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers























~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[David Lum]

Bummer...stopped by the software vendor...what software is it? (I coulda
swore you posted it already, but I can't find it).

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

They didn't say why it was not, but we pay big bucks for service and
maintenance and I can't do something they don't support.  I look forward
to it in the future, though.  Thanks for the info!

 



From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Why isn't it supported?

 

I'm with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft's virtualization
software (both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not
very steep at all. I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista
and XP systems) with Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270
)with 4GB in no more time that it takes to normal create those systems.

 

I also have VMWare workstation...pretty similar stuff, and the ability
to go from physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as
well. A single fast box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be
cheaper than a blade center + blades.

 

Also, once VM'd you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware
and have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.

 

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 

 

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie



From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a
SBS box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may
be more to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be
an ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated
for severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box,
maxing out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sherry Abercrombie]

I have to disagree with you there Mike.  Virtualization works will for
production, dev and test environments.   I have more virtual servers than
actual physical servers.  I have production SQL server applications (heavy
I/O too) that run flawlessly in VMWare.  I also have a production box with
an inventory control application that the company said they didn't think
would run on VMWare and it not only runs on VMWare, it runs better on VMWare
than it ever did on a physical box.

OK, stepping off my VMWare soapbox..

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  *We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that I will
> be buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and we already
> have an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as the other
> company is using something else for mail.  The exchange server is only about
> 1-1/2 years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they don't want to spend
> the money on that now because of all the other moving expenses - furniture,
> cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will also be taking with me and it is
> only 1-1/2 years old.  *
> **
> *I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed some backup
> on this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.  Anymore at any time
> will be greatly appreciated!*
>  --
> *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>  Sharie, how many servers do you need?
>
> What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange?
>
>
>
> *From:* Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> *Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
> system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. *
>
>
>
> *Sharie*
>  --
>
> *From:* Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
> It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
> box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
> to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)
>
>
>
> As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
> ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
> severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
> out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.
>
>
>
> My outside view, $.02
>
>
>
> Shook
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook
>  --
>
> *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Mike Semon]

When implementing ESX solutions I use a minimum of two ESX hosts and
preferably three. This way if one of the hosts crashes

or needs to be taken down for maintenance at least one other box is
available. VMotion isn't critical, however, it makes management

much easier being able to move Vm's between hosts.

 

  _  

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Well, if you take the total cost of 4 reasonably beefy servers to be around
$24K then it's a no brainer.

 

2 1u servers 12K

ESX License $3K - 6K

Reasonable iSCSI SAN 5K

 

Save a grand

 

IMHO, in a small shop and replacing 4 physical with virtual, VMotion isn't
as critical, certainly usefull tho'

 

 

From: Mike Semon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

It is not just the cost of the 3 server ESX license to consider. Also, have
to look at shared storage either Fibre Channel SAN, iSCSI SAN, or NAS.

In addition, with ESX you will want the add on features for high
availability such as HA, DRS, and VMotion. Also have to plan backup solution
to

do virtual machine and file level backups which you can use VCB.

 

  _  

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

At the price a 3 server ESX license can be got for now, (less than the price
of a mid range server), it makes a lot of sense to go the ESX route.
Learning curve is not that steep. I had my first up & running in 25
minutes...

 

My 2c

 

S

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I personally would think that most of the add-on extras that ESX would be
over kill for this.  I would think she could do all of it in the free either
VMWare server or Microsoft Virtual Server.  I know that Andy and Edward
would know better about this than me.

 

I know I have run SQL in a virtual enviornment but that a lot of that
ability is in the enviornment I am in.

 

Jon

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I agree Blades are overkill for your environment. Virtualization makes since
if you want to consolidate servers and have a number of boxes with low
resource utilization, however, It sounds like you have a small number of
physical servers. I would stick with a small number of 1 or 2 U boxes which
should have adequate horsepower.

When you add a virtualization product such as VMware you not only have
license cost, server cost, but also must have the network infrastructure to
support it.

To use many of the features of ESX you are going to need Gigabit switches
and setting up Vlans. So if you are not familiar with VMware or
virtualization you are going to 

have to add training cost as well.

 

Mike

 

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:56 AM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
long it will take.

 

Sharie

 

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

My opinion only.

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than
enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will b

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

They didn't say why it was not, but we pay big bucks for service and
maintenance and I can't do something they don't support.  I look forward to
it in the future, though.  Thanks for the info!

  _  

From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Why isn't it supported?

 

I'm with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft's virtualization
software (both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not very
steep at all. I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista and XP
systems) with Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270 )with 4GB in no
more time that it takes to normal create those systems.

 

I also have VMWare workstation.pretty similar stuff, and the ability to go
from physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as well. A
single fast box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be cheaper than a
blade center + blades.

 

Also, once VM'd you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware and
have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.

 

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 

 

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[David Lum]

I'm REALLY curious why your software doesn't support SBS - everything
you listed has SBS written all over it...

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:06 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that I will
be buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and we
already have an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as the
other company is using something else for mail.  The exchange server is
only about 1-1/2 years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they
don't want to spend the money on that now because of all the other
moving expenses - furniture, cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will
also be taking with me and it is only 1-1/2 years old.  

 

I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed some backup
on this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.  Anymore at any
time will be greatly appreciated!



From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Sharie, how many servers do you need?

What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange? 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie



From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a
SBS box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may
be more to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be
an ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated
for severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box,
maxing out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

We only need one server at this point.  The primary server that I will be
buying needs Windows 2003 Server Std edition.  Yes to AD and we already have
an Exchange Server of which I will be taking with me as the other company is
using something else for mail.  The exchange server is only about 1-1/2
years old.  The SQL server is the oldest, but they don't want to spend the
money on that now because of all the other moving expenses - furniture,
cubicles, etc.  The backup server I will also be taking with me and it is
only 1-1/2 years old.  
 
I felt that blade servers were overkill myself, but I needed some backup on
this issue.  Thanks everyone for the information.  Anymore at any time will
be greatly appreciated!

  _  

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Sharie, how many servers do you need?

What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange? 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[David Lum]

Why isn't it supported?

 

I'm with Shook and most of the other folks. Microsoft's virtualization
software (both server and PC) are free and the learning curve is not
very steep at all. I built a complete network (DC ,member server, Vista
and XP systems) with Virtual PC on desktop hardware (a single GX270
)with 4GB in no more time that it takes to normal create those systems.

 

I also have VMWare workstation...pretty similar stuff, and the ability
to go from physical to virtual (P2V) is stupidly easy and effective as
well. A single fast box, full of redundant disk space and RAM will be
cheaper than a blade center + blades.

 

Also, once VM'd you can duplicate the entire network on desktop hardware
and have a test environment for the price of the OS licenses.

 

Dave Lum  - Systems Engineer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025
"When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands" 

 

 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie



From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a
SBS box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may
be more to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be
an ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated
for severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box,
maxing out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Martin Blackstone]

Sharie, how many servers do you need?

What systems will you be running here? Do you need AD? Exchange? 

 

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:49 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 

 

Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Jon Harris]

That was the quote I got from VMWare 2 years ago.  I figured it would still
be close I am suprised it has dropped that much.  Here anything over the
cost of the hardware is considered excessive.  I have been begging for a new
physical server to back up what we have now and the $15K I have asked for
has been turned down out of hand.  That would replace 3 physical boxes and
allow what I have already virtualized to be shared/moved to a beefer box.

Jon

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:47 AM, NTSysAdmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Where you get 5K from? Nearer 3
>
>
>
> *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:36 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> Some of us have little or no choice in the matter but is she can get the
> big bucks and training then I would go for it as well but $5k just to run 3
> or maybe 4 virtual machines it a lot and that does not even include the cost
> of training, just the ESX software.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think virtualization of any kind for this project would be overkill. I
> don't use VMware Server in production. VMware server like other hosted
> virtualization
>
> solutions does not scale like those that utilize hyper-visor technology.
> Hosted virtualization products also have higher virtualization overhead so
> loose
>
> some of the advantages of virtualization. Good in test and dev
> environments but not something I would unleash in production environment.
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:18 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[NTSysAdmin]

Well, if you take the total cost of 4 reasonably beefy servers to be around 
$24K then it's a no brainer.

2 1u servers 12K
ESX License $3K - 6K
Reasonable iSCSI SAN 5K

Save a grand

IMHO, in a small shop and replacing 4 physical with virtual, VMotion isn't as 
critical, certainly usefull tho'


From: Mike Semon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

It is not just the cost of the 3 server ESX license to consider. Also, have to 
look at shared storage either Fibre Channel SAN, iSCSI SAN, or NAS.
In addition, with ESX you will want the add on features for high availability 
such as HA, DRS, and VMotion. Also have to plan backup solution to
do virtual machine and file level backups which you can use VCB.


From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

At the price a 3 server ESX license can be got for now, (less than the price of 
a mid range server), it makes a lot of sense to go the ESX route. Learning 
curve is not that steep. I had my first up & running in 25 minutes...

My 2c

S

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

I personally would think that most of the add-on extras that ESX would be over 
kill for this.  I would think she could do all of it in the free either VMWare 
server or Microsoft Virtual Server.  I know that Andy and Edward would know 
better about this than me.

I know I have run SQL in a virtual enviornment but that a lot of that ability 
is in the enviornment I am in.

Jon
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>> wrote:

I agree Blades are overkill for your environment. Virtualization makes since if 
you want to consolidate servers and have a number of boxes with low resource 
utilization, however, It sounds like you have a small number of physical 
servers. I would stick with a small number of 1 or 2 U boxes which should have 
adequate horsepower.

When you add a virtualization product such as VMware you not only have license 
cost, server cost, but also must have the network infrastructure to support it.

To use many of the features of ESX you are going to need Gigabit switches and 
setting up Vlans. So if you are not familiar with VMware or virtualization you 
are going to

have to add training cost as well.



Mike





From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:56 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't 
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how long 
it will take.



Sharie





From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

My opinion only...



Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion 
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than 
enough (physical) horsepower.



Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook



From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two 
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving to 
a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are 
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:  
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace in 
early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.



One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a 
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one UPS 
and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people at the 
new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary server is more 
than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.  There is no 
temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet" where the wiring 
will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered 
doors in the common supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the 
closet sideways of which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in 
my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to manage them.



Since I do 

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

Small Business Server is not supported by our software and our trading
system uses SQL databases that have to be on a separate box as well. 
 
Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a SBS
box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may be more
to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be an
ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated for
severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box, maxing
out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[NTSysAdmin]

Where you get 5K from? Nearer 3

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Some of us have little or no choice in the matter but is she can get the big 
bucks and training then I would go for it as well but $5k just to run 3 or 
maybe 4 virtual machines it a lot and that does not even include the cost of 
training, just the ESX software.

Jon
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>> wrote:

I think virtualization of any kind for this project would be overkill. I don't 
use VMware Server in production. VMware server like other hosted virtualization

solutions does not scale like those that utilize hyper-visor technology. Hosted 
virtualization products also have higher virtualization overhead so loose

some of the advantages of virtualization. Good in test and dev environments but 
not something I would unleash in production environment.





From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:18 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers







~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Mike Semon]

It is not just the cost of the 3 server ESX license to consider. Also, have
to look at shared storage either Fibre Channel SAN, iSCSI SAN, or NAS.

In addition, with ESX you will want the add on features for high
availability such as HA, DRS, and VMotion. Also have to plan backup solution
to

do virtual machine and file level backups which you can use VCB.

 

  _  

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

At the price a 3 server ESX license can be got for now, (less than the price
of a mid range server), it makes a lot of sense to go the ESX route.
Learning curve is not that steep. I had my first up & running in 25
minutes...

 

My 2c

 

S

 

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I personally would think that most of the add-on extras that ESX would be
over kill for this.  I would think she could do all of it in the free either
VMWare server or Microsoft Virtual Server.  I know that Andy and Edward
would know better about this than me.

 

I know I have run SQL in a virtual enviornment but that a lot of that
ability is in the enviornment I am in.

 

Jon

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I agree Blades are overkill for your environment. Virtualization makes since
if you want to consolidate servers and have a number of boxes with low
resource utilization, however, It sounds like you have a small number of
physical servers. I would stick with a small number of 1 or 2 U boxes which
should have adequate horsepower.

When you add a virtualization product such as VMware you not only have
license cost, server cost, but also must have the network infrastructure to
support it.

To use many of the features of ESX you are going to need Gigabit switches
and setting up Vlans. So if you are not familiar with VMware or
virtualization you are going to 

have to add training cost as well.

 

Mike

 

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:56 AM 


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
long it will take.

 

Sharie

 

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

My opinion only.

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than
enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Jon Harris]

Some of us have little or no choice in the matter but is she can get the big
bucks and training then I would go for it as well but $5k just to run 3 or
maybe 4 virtual machines it a lot and that does not even include the cost of
training, just the ESX software.

Jon

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I think virtualization of any kind for this project would be overkill. I
> don't use VMware Server in production. VMware server like other hosted
> virtualization
>
> solutions does not scale like those that utilize hyper-visor technology.
> Hosted virtualization products also have higher virtualization overhead so
> loose
>
> some of the advantages of virtualization. Good in test and dev
> environments but not something I would unleash in production environment.
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:18 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Andy Shook]

It all depends on the needs of the firm.  My knee-jerk was to put in a
SBS box for everything since its only eight people, however, there may
be more to it than meets the eye.  (Dude, transformers are awesome!!)

 

As far as host based virtualization, I think this environment would be
an ideal candidate.  It's small and there is no physical space allocated
for severs.  I would look into the option of taking your beefiest box,
maxing out the RAM and putting everything I could on it.

 

My outside view, $.02

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[NTSysAdmin]

At the price a 3 server ESX license can be got for now, (less than the price of 
a mid range server), it makes a lot of sense to go the ESX route. Learning 
curve is not that steep. I had my first up & running in 25 minutes...

My 2c

S

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

I personally would think that most of the add-on extras that ESX would be over 
kill for this.  I would think she could do all of it in the free either VMWare 
server or Microsoft Virtual Server.  I know that Andy and Edward would know 
better about this than me.

I know I have run SQL in a virtual enviornment but that a lot of that ability 
is in the enviornment I am in.

Jon
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>> wrote:

I agree Blades are overkill for your environment. Virtualization makes since if 
you want to consolidate servers and have a number of boxes with low resource 
utilization, however, It sounds like you have a small number of physical 
servers. I would stick with a small number of 1 or 2 U boxes which should have 
adequate horsepower.

When you add a virtualization product such as VMware you not only have license 
cost, server cost, but also must have the network infrastructure to support it.

To use many of the features of ESX you are going to need Gigabit switches and 
setting up Vlans. So if you are not familiar with VMware or virtualization you 
are going to

have to add training cost as well.



Mike





From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:56 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't 
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how long 
it will take.



Sharie





From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

My opinion only...



Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion 
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than 
enough (physical) horsepower.



Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook



From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two 
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving to 
a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are 
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:  
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace in 
early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.



One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a 
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one UPS 
and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people at the 
new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary server is more 
than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.  There is no 
temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet" where the wiring 
will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered 
doors in the common supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the 
closet sideways of which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in 
my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to manage them.



Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your 
opinions.

Sharie Breaux
Systems Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>























~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Mike Semon]

I think virtualization of any kind for this project would be overkill. I
don't use VMware Server in production. VMware server like other hosted
virtualization

solutions does not scale like those that utilize hyper-visor technology.
Hosted virtualization products also have higher virtualization overhead so
loose

some of the advantages of virtualization. Good in test and dev environments
but not something I would unleash in production environment.

 

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

 


~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Martin Blackstone]

Not to mention that you might want to take a look at the actual power
consumption and BTU output of blade enclosures. You may be surprised how
much heat they actually put out.

Those things can run up to 8 or 14 or so servers. So when you buy the
chassis, it is built to support that many systems.  

Also unless you have a SAN, you are limited to the amount or drives you have
on a blade. Usually 2 per blade but some of the higher end ones have 4.

I have a Blade system and it's the bomb. Built in switch, KVM, web
management of the servers if they are offline, easy expandability. Rocks.

BUT, it uses a boatload of power (230v) and it puts out a ton of heat. And I
only have 3 blades in it.

 

I'm with Andy. If your company is willing to fork out the big bucks which it
sounds like they are, get a nice server with dual procs, lots and lots of
memory, and run ESX.

 

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

My opinion only.

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than
enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Ziots, Edward]

SEC isn't going to tell you about physical secure/data access protection. Since 
you are working financials, you probably fall somewhere under Sarbanes Oxley, 
only a Auditor will be able to ascertain where you might be in or out of 
compliance, but I would definitely say the physical security plan for you data 
is lacking, and when you don't have physical control of your servers anymore, 
then they aren't your servers, and if they aren't your servers then the data on 
them isn't yours anymore and if you are managing investments, for high Net, 
Worth individuals, I think those individuals probably, if they knew wouldn't be 
too happy that there personal information or even systems that its being 
transacted on by a 3rd party company is not being held in a secure responsible 
manner definitely could lead you into some hot water. I would definitely, start 
to CYA on this front, before it might bite you in the butt. 

 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I agree with your totally, but they have never in the 15 years I have work at 
this company had a locked room for the servers.  They are in my cubicle now, 
but before that they were in the common work area where the copier, printer 
etc.  We are independent advisors that manage investments for high net work 
individuals along with some corporate plans.  The assets, though, are held at a 
custodian like Schwab or Fidelity.  We just went through an SEC audit, but 
luckily nothing was said about the fact that the servers were in my cubicle.

 



From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

Right now, from what you describe, I don't see any value benefit with the Blade 
Technology, since you aren't going to load the Blade to capacity or at least ½ 
capacity, you aren't really getting a return on investment ( Blades can be 
quiet expensive also) If your server system is adequate for 20 people, then, 
spending more money with the blade and the time to migrate probably isn't going 
to be the best move. 

 

I would definitely have you re-think your plan about putting the servers in 
your cubicle. What happens if someone wants to lift your server from your 
unsecured cubicle and now your data and server are in the hands of an 
unauthorized party and you are SOL.  Your server should be in a temperature 
controlled locked room with adequate physical controls, and limited access. 

 

I hope you all aren't under Sarbanes or PCI compliance at your company, I fear 
you might be heading down a bad road with this if you get audited. 

 

Just my 2 cents, 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two 
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving to 
a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are 
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:  
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace in 
early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a 
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one UPS 
and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people at the 
new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary server is more 
than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.  There is no 
temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet" where the wiring 
will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered 
doors in the common supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the 
closet sideways of which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in 
my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your 
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Jon Harris]

I personally would think that most of the add-on extras that ESX would be
over kill for this.  I would think she could do all of it in the free either
VMWare server or Microsoft Virtual Server.  I know that Andy and Edward
would know better about this than me.

I know I have run SQL in a virtual enviornment but that a lot of that
ability is in the enviornment I am in.

Jon

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Mike Semon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I agree Blades are overkill for your environment. Virtualization makes
> since if you want to consolidate servers and have a number of boxes with low
> resource utilization, however, It sounds like you have a small number of
> physical servers. I would stick with a small number of 1 or 2 U boxes which
> should have adequate horsepower.
>
> When you add a virtualization product such as VMware you not only have
> license cost, server cost, but also must have the network infrastructure to
> support it.
>
> To use many of the features of ESX you are going to need Gigabit switches
> and setting up Vlans. So if you are not familiar with VMware or
> virtualization you are going to
>
> have to add training cost as well.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:56 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> *I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
> support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
> long it will take.*
>
>
>
> *Sharie*
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
> My opinion only…
>
>
>
> Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants
> expansion options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got
> more than enough (physical) horsepower.
>
>
>
> Shook
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook
>  --
>
> *From:* Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
> principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
> to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
> moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
> Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
> in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.
>
>
>
> One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
> smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
> UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
> at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
> server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
> There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
> where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
> 30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
> putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
> no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
> manage them.
>
>
>
> Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
> opinions.
>
> Sharie Breaux
> Systems Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Mike Semon]

I agree Blades are overkill for your environment. Virtualization makes since
if you want to consolidate servers and have a number of boxes with low
resource utilization, however, It sounds like you have a small number of
physical servers. I would stick with a small number of 1 or 2 U boxes which
should have adequate horsepower.

When you add a virtualization product such as VMware you not only have
license cost, server cost, but also must have the network infrastructure to
support it.

To use many of the features of ESX you are going to need Gigabit switches
and setting up Vlans. So if you are not familiar with VMware or
virtualization you are going to 

have to add training cost as well.

 

Mike

 

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:56 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
long it will take.

 

Sharie

 

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

My opinion only.

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than
enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

It is Advent Software's Axys 3.5.1.  Software for keeping track of
investments.

  _  

From: Jon Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:05 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers


FWIW, I don't know the software you have concerns about but I have a
software package on a Windows 2000 OS server that I migrated to a virtual
server.  Trust me on this old Library card catalog software is not very good
to begin with but running it in a virtual environment is much better than in
the physical environment.
 
Jon


On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
long it will take.
 
Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM 

To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



My opinion only.

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than
enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  


  _  


From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

































~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

I agree with your totally, but they have never in the 15 years I have work
at this company had a locked room for the servers.  They are in my cubicle
now, but before that they were in the common work area where the copier,
printer etc.  We are independent advisors that manage investments for high
net work individuals along with some corporate plans.  The assets, though,
are held at a custodian like Schwab or Fidelity.  We just went through an
SEC audit, but luckily nothing was said about the fact that the servers were
in my cubicle.

  _  

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



Right now, from what you describe, I don’t see any value benefit with the
Blade Technology, since you aren’t going to load the Blade to capacity or at
least ½ capacity, you aren’t really getting a return on investment ( Blades
can be quiet expensive also) If your server system is adequate for 20
people, then, spending more money with the blade and the time to migrate
probably isn’t going to be the best move. 

 

I would definitely have you re-think your plan about putting the servers in
your cubicle. What happens if someone wants to lift your server from your
unsecured cubicle and now your data and server are in the hands of an
unauthorized party and you are SOL.  Your server should be in a temperature
controlled locked room with adequate physical controls, and limited access. 

 

I hope you all aren’t under Sarbanes or PCI compliance at your company, I
fear you might be heading down a bad road with this if you get audited. 

 

Just my 2 cents, 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Jon Harris]

FWIW, I don't know the software you have concerns about but I have a
software package on a Windows 2000 OS server that I migrated to a virtual
server.  Trust me on this old Library card catalog software is not very good
to begin with but running it in a virtual environment is much better than in
the physical environment.

Jon

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Sharie Breaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  *I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
> support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
> long it will take.*
> **
> *Sharie*
>
>  --
> *From:* Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>   My opinion only…
>
>
>
> Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants
> expansion options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got
> more than enough (physical) horsepower.
>
>
>
> Shook
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook
>  --
>
> *From:* Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
> principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
> to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
> moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
> Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
> in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.
>
>
>
> One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
> smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
> UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
> at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
> server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
> There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
> where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
> 30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
> putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
> no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
> manage them.
>
>
>
> Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
> opinions.
>
> Sharie Breaux
> Systems Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Sharie Breaux]

I have check into virtualization with our software vendor and they don't
support it, yet.  I understand that it is coming, though I don't know how
long it will take.
 
Sharie

  _  

From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:54 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers



My opinion only.

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants expansion
options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got more than
enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  

  _  

From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 










~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Ziots, Edward]

Right now, from what you describe, I don't see any value benefit with the Blade 
Technology, since you aren't going to load the Blade to capacity or at least ½ 
capacity, you aren't really getting a return on investment ( Blades can be 
quiet expensive also) If your server system is adequate for 20 people, then, 
spending more money with the blade and the time to migrate probably isn't going 
to be the best move. 

 

I would definitely have you re-think your plan about putting the servers in 
your cubicle. What happens if someone wants to lift your server from your 
unsecured cubicle and now your data and server are in the hands of an 
unauthorized party and you are SOL.  Your server should be in a temperature 
controlled locked room with adequate physical controls, and limited access. 

 

I hope you all aren't under Sarbanes or PCI compliance at your company, I fear 
you might be heading down a bad road with this if you get audited. 

 

Just my 2 cents, 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505

-Original Message-
From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two 
principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving to 
a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are 
moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:  
Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace in 
early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a 
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one UPS 
and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people at the 
new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary server is more 
than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.  There is no 
temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet" where the wiring 
will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered 
doors in the common supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the 
closet sideways of which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in 
my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your 
opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

Re: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Clayton Doige]

the backplane can be a nasty single point of failure as well

On 22/04/2008, Andy Shook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  My opinion only…
>
>
>
> Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants
> expansion options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've got
> more than enough (physical) horsepower.
>
>
>
> Shook
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook
>  --
>
> *From:* Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Need opinion on Blade Servers
>
>
>
> Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.  Two
> principals are staying at the current location and the other two are moving
> to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the two that are
> moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have four servers now:
> Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL (of which I will replace
> in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.
>
>
>
> One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
> smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need one
> UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8 people
> at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current Primary
> server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the company now.
> There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is an "IT closet"
> where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is basically only 8' wide x
> 30" deep with louvered doors in the common supply room.  He suggested
> putting the servers in the closet sideways of which I am against and said
> no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle with me as it makes it easier to
> manage them.
>
>
>
> Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of your
> opinions.
>
> Sharie Breaux
> Systems Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Clayton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://alsipius.com

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~

RE: Need opinion on Blade Servers

[Andy Shook]

My opinion only...

 

Blades are overkill for you situation.  If the guy in charge wants
expansion options, then look into virtualization.  It sounds like you've
got more than enough (physical) horsepower.

 

Shook

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook  



From: Sharie Breaux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:45 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Need opinion on Blade Servers

 

Our company is in the process of dividing the business into two.
Two principals are staying at the current location and the other two are
moving to a new location.  It is my job to purchase the server for the
two that are moving (of which I am going with them as well).  We have
four servers now:  Primary (which is the one I am replacing now), SQL
(of which I will replace in early 2009), Exchange & a Backup server.

 

One of the principals is pushing blade servers.  He feels there is a
smaller footprint, more room for growth for the future, you only need
one UPS and there is less power consumption. There is only going to be 8
people at the new company with room to expand to 4 more.  The current
Primary server is more than adequate for the 20 people that are at the
company now.  There is no temperature controlled server room.  There is
an "IT closet" where the wiring will be (Phone & Data) which is
basically only 8' wide x 30" deep with louvered doors in the common
supply room.  He suggested putting the servers in the closet sideways of
which I am against and said no.  I will be putting them in my cubicle
with me as it makes it easier to manage them.

 

Since I do not know that much about blade servers, I need all of
your opinions.

Sharie Breaux 
Systems Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 

 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~
~   ~