Securing Linux File Servers
-
We have an on staff employee who takes care of the new daily scans, etc. But that person isn't very efficient (they are old and not computer savvy at all). The summer hires we did this year were basically just project work. Sadly they weren't willing to put in closer to 40 hr work weeks, the project would have been completed, or at least much more so. But I guess that was less important to some.
-
@Dashrender said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Dashrender said in Securing Linux File Servers:
Considering the average person working that job is making $10/hr, after benefits/taxes, etc they cost the company $15/hr minimum, assuming that was the only cost and the company made zero money for the fact that he works, the employee is working 50 hours/month. But of course almost no company is out there making zero money.. so you have to assume that they are consuming at least 50% of the income in one way or other, so the employee is working 25 hours.
You can't include the profit from his work. If there is money to be made, either he's doing it in the remaining time or someone else will pick up the slack or someone else will be hired. Counting both the cost of the employee per hour and the profit that that employee can generate is double dipping unless the employee is irreplaceable and no one else can generate that revenue, which seems unlikely for a $10/hr position.
It's only the $15/hr that you need to consider. Does the employee save money or waste money is all that needs to be considered. You could easily hire a stay at home
momparent to do this part time only a few hours a day while their kid is at school two or three days a week if you had any concerns about the productivity of the full time existing staff.Yes, the OP only needs to worry about the $15/hr part.. but the outsourced company has to consider it's profits - that's where I was going with that, I wasn't talking about the OP's company worrying about profits on an internal $15/hr employee.
The profits of the outsourced company don't matter to the decision making, though.
-
@Dashrender You're confusing me man. There is an employee in medical records already. Instead of the company being paid to scan the stuff, we would do the initial project and then it would be maintained over time by her. It equates to 5 scans a day. I don't understand where the complication is here?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Dashrender said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@scottalanmiller said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Dashrender said in Securing Linux File Servers:
Considering the average person working that job is making $10/hr, after benefits/taxes, etc they cost the company $15/hr minimum, assuming that was the only cost and the company made zero money for the fact that he works, the employee is working 50 hours/month. But of course almost no company is out there making zero money.. so you have to assume that they are consuming at least 50% of the income in one way or other, so the employee is working 25 hours.
You can't include the profit from his work. If there is money to be made, either he's doing it in the remaining time or someone else will pick up the slack or someone else will be hired. Counting both the cost of the employee per hour and the profit that that employee can generate is double dipping unless the employee is irreplaceable and no one else can generate that revenue, which seems unlikely for a $10/hr position.
It's only the $15/hr that you need to consider. Does the employee save money or waste money is all that needs to be considered. You could easily hire a stay at home
momparent to do this part time only a few hours a day while their kid is at school two or three days a week if you had any concerns about the productivity of the full time existing staff.Yes, the OP only needs to worry about the $15/hr part.. but the outsourced company has to consider it's profits - that's where I was going with that, I wasn't talking about the OP's company worrying about profits on an internal $15/hr employee.
The profits of the outsourced company don't matter to the decision making, though.
True, the only thing that matters is, can the OP hire a person and acquire the needed hardware, etc to get the job done for less?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Dashrender You're confusing me man. There is an employee in medical records already. Instead of the company being paid to scan the stuff, we would do the initial project and then it would be maintained over time by her. It equates to 5 scans a day. I don't understand where the complication is here?
5 scans a day? since the beginning? or did it drop to this number recently?
-
@Dashrender said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Dashrender You're confusing me man. There is an employee in medical records already. Instead of the company being paid to scan the stuff, we would do the initial project and then it would be maintained over time by her. It equates to 5 scans a day. I don't understand where the complication is here?
5 scans a day? since the beginning? or did it drop to this number recently?
It's been this the entire time. The issue is they are charging for one huge project a year, an external hard drive and some cloud storage. 9k+ a year.
-
Hi,
Perhaps I'm missing something, or have not read the entire thread properly, but why would a NAS not work over here ? Unless, the server would be performing some other function, apart from acting as a File Server ... Most NAS boxes too use Linux-based operating systems...
-
@Veet said in Securing Linux File Servers:
Hi,
Perhaps I'm missing something, or have not read the entire thread properly, but why would a NAS not work over here ? Unless, the server would be performing some other function, apart from acting as a File Server ... Most NAS boxes too use Linux-based operating systems...
My company had some bad experiences with NAS and as a result are very close minded about them. This is my way around that.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Veet said in Securing Linux File Servers:
Hi,
Perhaps I'm missing something, or have not read the entire thread properly, but why would a NAS not work over here ? Unless, the server would be performing some other function, apart from acting as a File Server ... Most NAS boxes too use Linux-based operating systems...
My company had some bad experiences with NAS and as a result are very close minded about them. This is my way around that.
Call it a file server. Problem solved.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@Veet said in Securing Linux File Servers:
Hi,
Perhaps I'm missing something, or have not read the entire thread properly, but why would a NAS not work over here ? Unless, the server would be performing some other function, apart from acting as a File Server ... Most NAS boxes too use Linux-based operating systems...
My company had some bad experiences with NAS and as a result are very close minded about them. This is my way around that.
Call it a file server. Problem solved.
And just back it up to hard drives with a network card attached. (Don't call it a NAS, lol).
-
I guess I could do that but I have a server I can re-purpose for this. It would be really simple
![😕](https://mangolassi.it/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f615.png?v=3hrg7a1ige4 ":\")
-
Any NAS recommendations? I'd say 4 HD Max w/ raid 10. Might as well do it right.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
Any NAS recommendations? I'd say 4 HD Max w/ raid 10. Might as well do it right.
One without NAS in its name, like Synology or ioSafe.
-
@scottalanmiller Nothing stands out between them?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
I guess I could do that but I have a server I can re-purpose for this. It would be really simple
You've got a server to repurpose for holding the scanned data... But do you also have a server that can be repurposed to hold the backups of said data?
-
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@scottalanmiller Nothing stands out between them?
ioSafe uses Synology under the hood. So no. LOL
-
@dafyre said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
I guess I could do that but I have a server I can re-purpose for this. It would be really simple
You've got a server to repurpose for holding the scanned data... But do you also have a server that can be repurposed to hold the backups of said data?
Yes. Our backup servers are at 25% utilization
-
@scottalanmiller said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@wirestyle22 said in Securing Linux File Servers:
@scottalanmiller Nothing stands out between them?
ioSafe uses Synology under the hood. So no. LOL
So it's like HP vs. Canon. Got it.
