Chris's Wiki :: blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime Commentshttps://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime?atomcommentsDWiki2016-03-31T18:36:52ZRecent comments in Chris's Wiki :: blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime.By Chris Siebenmann on /blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetimetag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime:6face360e06436dc39d110ea41a28746a303fb84Chris Siebenmann<div class="wikitext"><p>We're still non-virtual and non-containerized for our servers and services
(which leads to low utilization of physical servers, which is one reason
they last so long for us). I understand the appeal in the abstract,
but in the concrete, real use of virtualization clearly has significant
setup costs (<a href="https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/tech/ExpensiveVirtualization">cf</a>). So far there
isn't a good enough reason to make the big commitment and investment
that virtualization would require. On top of that, a large fleet of
inexpensive small things may well be the right decision for us due to
<a href="https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/FundingAndHardwareSize">how this interacts with funding issues</a>.</p>
</div>2016-03-31T18:36:52ZFrom 88.192.212.75 on /blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetimetag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime:f868a6cc45a792840875be7b2f85ea857a19b51aFrom 88.192.212.75<div class="wikitext"><p>Has your view on virtual servers changed, I have the impression from earlier posts that you don't use them much?</p>
<p>At work we currently administer over 350 Linux servers running on mostly on VMware, using about 10 physical blade servers.</p>
<p>I love the convenience on not being tied to physical hardware and the cheapness of them. Since a basic 1 CPU, 2 GB RAM server is practically free we can throw up a new one pretty much without a second thought.</p>
</div>2016-03-31T17:43:45ZBy Ben Cotton on /blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetimetag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime:baf8273e380fecaaf682f9389a8aa6fd41669422Ben Cottonhttps://funnelfiasco.com<div class="wikitext"><p>The other consideration for upgrading low-utilization servers is power (and thus cooling) efficiency. I suspect your university is like my former employer and that your department doesn't have to worry about paying for electricity. In other environments, though, lowering the power bill might be worth a pre-mortality upgrade. This is even more true if rack space/weight is a consideration. I once ran a 4U monstrosity as a syslog server because it was free, but once I needed that extra space, it got shoved off to the VM farm.</p>
</div>2016-03-27T19:44:35ZBy Chris Siebenmann on /blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetimetag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime:3b360359e13b2f5037c0379649111ef5c7f0123dChris Siebenmann<div class="wikitext"><p>Support contract durations aren't an issue for us because we don't
have the money for them in the first place. We treat the hardware
warranty mostly as an insurance against dead on arrival units and infant
mortality.</p>
<p>(Occasionally we have the funding to get extended hardware support,
but even then we'll keep running hardware once that runs out.)</p>
</div>2016-03-25T20:33:45ZBy guaq on /blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetimetag:CSpace:blog/sysadmin/ServerUtilizationAndLifetime:a5a0ae546333e3efeedaff49657022a25c07dbe6guaqhttp://twitter.com/guaq<div class="wikitext"><p>When I was involved in hosting and system administration and had to deal with server lifetimes, there were a handful of servers which actually had to be upgraded because of running out of capacity. These were shell servers, database servers and web servers. And then there was the rest of the supporting fleet for mail, DNS, logging and the lot which had to be upgraded because the support contracts for the servers were getting too expensive.</p>
<p>How do the support contract pricing policies fit your budget? They must be a factor?</p>
</div>2016-03-25T18:27:16Z