Office System Setup question

[akhtarkasia]

How is most small office PC / Network setup?

Reason I ask is my IT guy has come to me with a request to upgrade all our systems and network.

I dont understand the hardware side, and want to gain kowledge on what is the best way to set this up.

We have say for e.g. 10 PCs. WHat our IT guys wants to do is buy a server with huge memory, and than run all the pcs from this server. Most pc / workstation will be running to browse website, and our internal software including emails.

Benefits I have been sold is that

# No more license requirements for each PC/workstations
# Regular backups from all PC/Workstations
# Regular simple updates to PC/Workstations

What do you guys think?

Is there any other configuration that he has missed or you can recommend?

All help is appreciated. Sorry to be vague.

Akhtar

 

[chip_y2kuk]

# No more license requirements for each PC/workstations
Akhtar

that sounds like a text book plus side of a server client setup (and isn't necessarily, wholly true)

you will still have windows licensing requirements for each pc with regards to what most small companies licence e.g office, windows, specialist software etc (unless you have a VLK which i'm sure microsoft changed to open licensing)

regular simple updates? would mean installing something like WSUS (windows server(or something) update service).

and simply downloads updated to the server and allows for computers on the network configured to download them from the wsus server to retrieve them from there and not the windows updates site

regular backups? can be done with/without a server online/offline but what about the backups how are they going to be stored

just on the server? (what if the office where to burn down?)
on tape? (tape is an aging technology, and there are better more efficient ways nowadays)

what are you backing up? the whole system, important files?

just out of curiousity have you been quoted for this?

Joe

 

[Leo-InstallingIT]

Hi

What I am assuming he is suggesting is a thin client solution, where your server is a little bit more powerfull than it probably is now - but the machines are completely dumb.

In principle these solutions are great, however for smaller companies I tend to find they don't quite tick the financial sense box at the moment. This is for two main reasons:

1) You don't really save on licensing costs. Microsoft Office is still licensed "per machine" therefore each machine that uses office needs a license for it, not just the server it is installed on. You can also only install VL versions in a terminal services environment, so you can't take advantage of OEM savings.

2) Each terminal services connection needs a license (be it per device or per user), and these aren't cheap - easily equal out any savings from not having a Windows license.

However they do win is in ease of maintenance, because there is really only one machine to maintain it is easier and more cost effective.
You also gain from the fact that no data is actually installed on the machines, so if one dies (not that thin clients tend to) you can just quickly plug a new one in and you are away.

Backups are obviously also simpler as all the data is definitely in one place.

Do you know what sort of spec he has quoted you for?

Many Thanks

Leo

 

[stugster]

Akhtar, why not spend the £80 on getting a completely different IT guy in from the local area and talk to him about the options available? Any reputable IT firm will be more than happy to produce a report on the various options available to you, their recommendations, and why they recommend those solutions.

 

[adxba]

Akhtar, why not spend the £80 on getting a completely different IT guy in from the local area and talk to him about the options available? Any reputable IT firm will be more than happy to produce a report on the various options available to you, their recommendations, and why they recommend those solutions.

I couldn't have said it better myself, thin client solutions are becoming more viable nowadays because most work can only be done with either a network or internet connection. [ie. you can't send an email from your laptop without internet anyway so you may as well do it through your server.]

The main issue i've found with a thin client solution, especially ones that we've inherited from other IT companies is that it really needs to be set up right in order to be most effective. A new client of ours has a thin client solution and all users had admin privileges to the server and could view all of the critical files because someone decided it was a good idea due to the fact they need to be able to install some applications etc...[easily solved, but easily missed!]

Out of interest do you know how old your PCs are and what kind of specification they are, do you already have a server. Do you require to be able to access the office / server / files remotely?

Your best bet is to contact a local IT company with what you already have, ask them what they would deem fit for purpose.

Backup wise its not strictly true as most networks should already be backing up critical data anyway, whether its easier having it all in the same place or not [some simple well tested scripts sort that!]

 

[akhtarkasia]

Thank you guys. Sorry for late reply.

Leo is correct. And that is what our guys are suggesting. I am hoping to bring a local firm over to give us some ideas.

But you know how it is to keep your staff happy and to be seem to be listening to them at the same time.

Was just curious on how the offices are setup...

By the way we will be running on Linux. Our dumb pc are old about 3 years and they are working fine. We will require new Server and our IT guy is going to build inhouse at a cost of about £1400.

I think it is good idea, but didn't understood the thin client bit. SO thank you for explaining in detail.

 

[davek17]

If you want a think client solution, I wouldn't bother with in an in-house solution like this. I've worked at big corporates that use systems like this and they never work well. Anyone remember University systems?!!

If the main server has issues then everyone is down and the benefits (if there are any any more) are not apparent for a small company.

Why don't you just outsource the whole thing and set-up a Google account and rent all your office software requirments through them if you want to go this route? I think Microsoft also has new "Cloud" versions of its office suite just come out?

 

[adxba]

Ah good definitely the right thing to do, if you need any help then obviously let us know!

Just something to bear in mind with a supplier building the server themselves. What warranty are they providing with the equipment? Have you got good reason to believe that if hardware did fail they would get it back up and running ASAP.

If they buy the server from HP etc then by default you get a 3 year warranty straight from them, but you also get guaranteed response and fix times [they'll be on site within 4 hours to fix most of the time]

I'd seriously consider pricing up a standard manufactured unit, especially if all of the rest of the computers on your network are going to be 'dumb', it will be the one machine that keeps your company running.

Depending on spec, you probably wouldn't be looking at much of a price difference, we'd never consider putting a selfmade server into a client purely from their standpoint. In the same way we'd never ask them to pay us for broadband etc. [Hense why we work with BT!] You never know what might happen!

Make sure you have all corners covered. Make sure that the server has at least a Raid 1 so all data is backed up, and obviously ensure you have your backup's sorted!! Its all about managing risk, as i'm sure you know!

 

[KM-Tiger]

I'd seriously consider pricing up a standard manufactured unit, especially if all of the rest of the computers on your network are going to be 'dumb', it will be the one machine that keeps your company running.

As said it's a question of risk assessment combined with cost/benefit analysis.

What's proposed will give you a single point of failure that could stop your business dead in its tracks.

Manufacturers warranty will help mitigate that risk, but remember it's the response time that is guaranteed not the fix time. I've seen a prompt response turn into "I'm sorry we are out of stock of that component, should be about 4 days".

You might consider a high availability solution. In its simplest form you would have two servers with automatic failover in the event that one fails. Typically that happens in seconds and your users would not notice.

Expensive? Yes and no. The hardware spec of a pair can often be reduced, eg you don't need dual redundant power supplies. After that it's the cost against the cost of downtime.

 

[raff.me]

I don't see why a self built server should pose any more problems than one from HP or Dell.

Fair enough, they have their warranty deals, but is this really an advantage over having the person who built the server available immediately?

I can understand using pre-built servers when installing systems for clients, but if you've got a guy in-house who knows what he's doing and running everything on a low cost Linux solution, I'd say go for it.

On the other hand, you do seem to have your doubts about the guy and letting him build the system also means giving him a lot of control - what if he leaves the company? I know I wouldn't be very happy after reading this thread if I was your IT guy. At the latest, he will be disgruntled when you bring in an external company to handle it.

 

[PureIT]

Make sure that the server has at least a Raid 1 so all data is backed up,!

RAID isn't a backup solution by the way! Also remember that if the server fails then everyone's system is down as you don't have local installs.

Have you thought about remote workers? How will they access the system?

Also it's worth thinking about a DR solution and making sure you proper offsite backups.