Is the Time for VMware in the SMB Over?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I didn't think it included the server, but perhaps it did and I didn't understand.
Colo does not include the server. It is priced per server that you install (a 1U server costs X, a 2U server costs Y or 22U costs Z.) When you get into "per U" pricing it is not per U but goes down as the size gets bigger. A full cabinet is only a tiny bit more than a half cabinet.
OK, I Don't know what we pay for power/HVAC, but I find it difficult to believe (but I'll dig into it after my phone project) that we pay even $200/month for my data closet.
Granted we will get several other benefits by moving there (once we consolidate) I'd still most likely be stuck with at least one VM host onsite handling File and Print.
In fact, I'm trying to consider the best option for providing print servers at my new location without dropping a server there. I suppose I could use GPO to publish IP printers and have the drivers come from a printer setup on the main server in my office. Might make for a bit of a slow install the first time out, but after that should be OK. I can probably get away from printer queues.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK, I Don't know what we pay for power/HVAC, but I find it difficult to believe (but I'll dig into it after my phone project) that we pay even $200/month for my data closet.
Once upon a time NTG built a datacenter in my house (dedicated room, concrete enclosed, fully enclosed, six foot viewing window, full rack, dedicated commercial pipe, etc.) and we found that HVAC and power costs were closing in on $400/mo back in the early 2000s around 2003, probably. That was for probably 18U, but only about six servers.
Not only did we improve performance and lower the manpower needed, but we paid for our move to colo 100% out of the power cost savings and all the other benefits were totally wins.
-
@Dashrender said:
In fact, I'm trying to consider the best option for providing print servers at my new location without dropping a server there. I suppose I could use GPO to publish IP printers and have the drivers come from a printer setup on the main server in my office. Might make for a bit of a slow install the first time out, but after that should be OK. I can probably get away from printer queues.
I see more and more places not having print servers. I run into them pretty rarely in the SMB these days. Just not that much printing being done and all printers (more or less) have built in print servers for the past decade so the need for a print server hooked to print servers instead of printers directly rarely makes sense. In a huge environment, maybe, but in the SMB, just use the print server in the printers - it's free!
-
File serving is always going to be the hardest thing to deal with because files are big. Although more and more I see companies not working with files in traditional ways. I've worked with a lot of companies recently that have no file servers (or NAS) at all and it is great. Doesn't work for everyone, but it works for a lot.
NTG has no primary file server and hasn't for years. We moved away from file serving as a concept long ago.
-
Current work load on servers
VM1
__Appassure backups
__secondary AD, File and Print
__Gateway software for phone system
VM2
__CentOS-mediawiki
__Spiceworks
__ISA server protecting Exchange
__Exchange (yeah I know - move to O365, probably will after our current SA expires)
__primary AD
__accounting system - used with PC based app
__WSUS
Physical 1
__User personal drives
Physical 2
__Old EHR DB
Physical 3
__Old EHR IIS and image storage
Physical 4 (IBM P series)
__ Old practice management -
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In fact, I'm trying to consider the best option for providing print servers at my new location without dropping a server there. I suppose I could use GPO to publish IP printers and have the drivers come from a printer setup on the main server in my office. Might make for a bit of a slow install the first time out, but after that should be OK. I can probably get away from printer queues.
I see more and more places not having print servers. I run into them pretty rarely in the SMB these days. Just not that much printing being done and all printers (more or less) have built in print servers for the past decade so the need for a print server hooked to print servers instead of printers directly rarely makes sense. In a huge environment, maybe, but in the SMB, just use the print server in the printers - it's free!
I do this at my current remote locations, they never have more than 4 people, and there haven't been any problems. My new location will have more like 10 people over 2 printers, but I'm sure with the Lanier machines I'm looking at it should be no problem.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I didn't think it included the server, but perhaps it did and I didn't understand.
Colo does not include the server. It is priced per server that you install (a 1U server costs X, a 2U server costs Y or 22U costs Z.) When you get into "per U" pricing it is not per U but goes down as the size gets bigger. A full cabinet is only a tiny bit more than a half cabinet.
OK, I Don't know what we pay for power/HVAC, but I find it difficult to believe (but I'll dig into it after my phone project) that we pay even $200/month for my data closet.
Granted we will get several other benefits by moving there (once we consolidate) I'd still most likely be stuck with at least one VM host onsite handling File and Print.
In fact, I'm trying to consider the best option for providing print servers at my new location without dropping a server there. I suppose I could use GPO to publish IP printers and have the drivers come from a printer setup on the main server in my office. Might make for a bit of a slow install the first time out, but after that should be OK. I can probably get away from printer queues.
I don't have a print server at a remote location. I use GPO to deploy the IP/drivers for the printer when they first launch. Makes it very easy to setup new machines.
-
Spiceworks you would not run remotely as it is a scanner but would move that to a desktop in house, generally.
-
Move to Office 365 and one huge workload (Exchange) and one small one (ISA) go away completely. That's a huge first step.
-
Don't look to migrate "old" workloads, get the "new" or "current" workloads to the colo then focus on retiring the old stuff.
-
WSUS should not go to colo. But Microsoft is offering a WSUS replacement option soon that will make you likely not want to run that at all, which is nice.
-
From what I am seeing here, retiring some stuff, making some changes, you probably can't EVEN justify colo but should go to cloud. There is too little here to make owning a physical server justified.
But if you HAD to keep physical servers for some reason, I don't see any reason to have more that two 1U servers for this tiny workload (in addition to a storage device on-premises probably.)
That reduces the cost even further. Maybe as low as $100/mo but no more than $140/mo.
-
But to me, it looks like you could probably drop to just 2-3 cloud servers. This doesn't shave cost over the colo hosting, but it makes the cost of buying and maintaining the servers themselves go away.
We use Azure for AD, for example. Two small Azure Windows servers and all of our Windows licensing is included in the cost. If you go 100% cloud, you don't need to deal with server licenses or CALs anymore! That's pretty huge.
You could consolidate workloads a little and get everything onto two cloud instances, likely.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Move to Office 365 and one huge workload (Exchange) and one small one (ISA) go away completely. That's a huge first step.
I have a huge concern over this. Our entire staff manages the calendars for the physicians, when using Outlook 2010 or 2013 in cached mode, frequently the calendars would not be updated as people are trying to add/change/delete items from the physician calendars. Disabling cached mode in Outlook completely solved this problem.
What kind of bandwidth requirements will Outlook have when moving to O365? -
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Move to Office 365 and one huge workload (Exchange) and one small one (ISA) go away completely. That's a huge first step.
I have a huge concern over this. Our entire staff manages the calendars for the physicians, when using Outlook 2010 or 2013 in cached mode, frequently the calendars would not be updated as people are trying to add/change/delete items from the physician calendars. Disabling cached mode in Outlook completely solved this problem.
What kind of bandwidth requirements will Outlook have when moving to O365?We have this issue right now, what we did originally was setup an single account to handle calendars, then add this account to each users calendar list. It updates instantly in most cases. However it is a bit cumbersome and sometimes the share is flat out rejected. So I am testing Sharepoint online calendars at the moment.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
WSUS should not go to colo. But Microsoft is offering a WSUS replacement option soon that will make you likely not want to run that at all, which is nice.
Yes, but will it work for Non Windows 10 systems? That asked, I do plan to upgrade to Windows 10 in house within one year of release assuming MS allows OEM Windows 7/8/8.1 pro licenses en mass to be upgraded to the same user (i.e. my office created passport account). I don't want the head ache that is managing Key Cards for Office.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Move to Office 365 and one huge workload (Exchange) and one small one (ISA) go away completely. That's a huge first step.
I have a huge concern over this. Our entire staff manages the calendars for the physicians, when using Outlook 2010 or 2013 in cached mode, frequently the calendars would not be updated as people are trying to add/change/delete items from the physician calendars. Disabling cached mode in Outlook completely solved this problem.
What kind of bandwidth requirements will Outlook have when moving to O365?Outlook uses a bit, but you can measure your environment today and know exactly how much. But keep in mind, that ALL connections that are currently from other offices will go to Office 365 and not your central office so the total that you have today is the total for all sites. So while there is the negative of going over the WAN, there is also the positive that other sites will go direct and not hairpin through the WAN like they are now. So you might see very little impact, or possibly even improvement!
If you want to improve it even more, move to OWA and the bandwidth essentially drops to zero as all of the load is handled externally and things are not shipped in and out of the office via the WAN at all.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
WSUS should not go to colo. But Microsoft is offering a WSUS replacement option soon that will make you likely not want to run that at all, which is nice.
Yes, but will it work for Non Windows 10 systems? That asked, I do plan to upgrade to Windows 10 in house within one year of release assuming MS allows OEM Windows 7/8/8.1 pro licenses en mass to be upgraded to the same user (i.e. my office created passport account). I don't want the head ache that is managing Key Cards for Office.
When I did the math Office came out to be about the same when looking at an Office 365 subscription then when purchasing outright, which is why we are moving new users and updated computers to O365, may be worth looking into for you.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
WSUS should not go to colo. But Microsoft is offering a WSUS replacement option soon that will make you likely not want to run that at all, which is nice.
Yes, but will it work for Non Windows 10 systems? That asked, I do plan to upgrade to Windows 10 in house within one year of release assuming MS allows OEM Windows 7/8/8.1 pro licenses en mass to be upgraded to the same user (i.e. my office created passport account). I don't want the head ache that is managing Key Cards for Office.
That I don't know. But as a path forward, it is important to consider in planning.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Move to Office 365 and one huge workload (Exchange) and one small one (ISA) go away completely. That's a huge first step.
I have a huge concern over this. Our entire staff manages the calendars for the physicians, when using Outlook 2010 or 2013 in cached mode, frequently the calendars would not be updated as people are trying to add/change/delete items from the physician calendars. Disabling cached mode in Outlook completely solved this problem.
What kind of bandwidth requirements will Outlook have when moving to O365?Outlook uses a bit, but you can measure your environment today and know exactly how much. But keep in mind, that ALL connections that are currently from other offices will go to Office 365 and not your central office so the total that you have today is the total for all sites. So while there is the negative of going over the WAN, there is also the positive that other sites will go direct and not hairpin through the WAN like they are now. So you might see very little impact, or possibly even improvement!
If you want to improve it even more, move to OWA and the bandwidth essentially drops to zero as all of the load is handled externally and things are not shipped in and out of the office via the WAN at all.
Calendar management of other people's calendars is critical. As long as you can see multiple calendars in OWA like you can in the Outlook client, that would be doable, this is not the case with OWA 2010, to manage another user's calendar, you have to switch users to that .....uh..er.. nevermind.. clearly there was an update. It now appears that one can mange calendars in OWA 2010 just like in Outlook 2010.
