System Administration Cost Studies?

davodavodavo asks: "I'm a market researacher looking for any industry data on the costs of administering UNIX, Linux and Wintel server farms. I've got the overview stuff (Gartner grp), but I'm looking to build a fairly detailed cost model. Specific focus are the activities of server configuration management -- binary images, software distribution, and application deployment. How frequently does some part of a server's software stack have to be updated / upgraded? Any data along the following lines will be appreciated: amount of time it takes an admin to update 50 machine; frequency of distribution or configuration error requiring a roll-back to a previous configuration; average time to perform a rollback; and so forth. If anyone knows of a good detailed model on this topic, please send pointers! I will happily provide the results of my work to the slashdot community (if you are interested, please email me). Basically, I am simply trying to understand the economics behind server management."

Personal experience

[dfreed]

Not sure about formal studies but in general I have found that debian when installed with apt-cron and pointing the sources.list to an internal machine with custom packages. That way there is no difference between updateing 1 client and 100 clients.

Term Paper or Dot Bomb Business Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one are you developing with this question?

I'd recommend that you get a job as a sys admin. Once you've done it for a while, you'll know what all seasoned sys admins know.

It takes x long to do y job in z environment. x and y will be different with every variant of z.

email

[tstock]

if you are interested, please email me

If you're going to ask for email feedback, giving a fake address doesn't help.

tstock

Education Costs

[Lando]

Don't forget about education costs... Figure that a sysadmin to stay current with technology needs about 4 weeks of training each year... At ~2500 a week that's about 10K right off the top.

Not sure what level of system administration you are looking for. Enterprise system administration is different from a medium or small size company.

It's would probably be better to try to find some complete IT budgets and see what they spend on systems administration. Also look at the metrics for each system type.

Re:You get what you pay for

[krinsh]

Most UNIX admins I know are nothing like a stereotypical 'professional' - they're the Monty Python DVD, shorts-wearing set with NERF guns. That doesn't mean they don't get the job done. I do a little UNIX-adminning myself. I'm not a Devry, ITT, or any other "cookie-cutter" tech school graduate -- I did the work, studied at home and took the tests to get all the certs I have -- not just from Microsoft. And I'm nowhere near obese; I live in my own home with my own multi-thousand dollar SUV [and share it and an older one of the same model with my wife of three years whom I dated for three more years before marrying her]. I also have three great kids so you *could* call me a stereotypical nuclear father except my father is the nuclear engineer and my older two kids are from my first marriage. Of all people; I'd figure /.ers less likely to make assumptions. You're going to find in your TCO studies for administration that you will be hard pressed to break out 'Linux' versus 'Novell' versus 'Windows' versus any other NOS. Every IT shop I've been to has had more than one operating system and in a lot of cases only one admin for 15 or more servers - the dollars paid to this admin depend more on the area they're living in than the operating systems they support. In all cases they needed more than one set of skills to do their job; sometimes because of the variety of systems but other times because management expected them to walk on water with their certifications and experience. And nowhere, nowhere have I seen anyone pay for any training. They expect you to maintain training and certification but there's a clause in your employment agreement that says they will only pay for exams; and then only if you pass an exam. Not everyone gets an exam when they require some training.

Re:You get what you pay for

[Zugot]

Of all people; I'd figure /.ers less likely to make assumptions.

You've got to be kidding me. For all my years in reading slashdot. I've come to see the "Slashdot Way." Most people do think alike, or do think how they are told.

Depends on who you hire

[pardasaniman]

The cost of a UNIX administrator will vary significantly. Some will hack around all day at your expense, others will be only business. Some will be defensive in their approach to computers, meaning that they are meticulous and have rules on how computers should be used. Although these are the most annoying to employees, they will be the most least expensive because they will be able to maintain a network all the time. They usually are the most experienced as well.

You're going to have to do it yourself.

[BitGeek]

Forget Gartner, IDC and all those other companies that do NOT DO RESEARCH and just post reports showing whatever it is they want to show (usually that windows is the One True Way).

To figure this out yourself, you're going to have to do direct research that is specific to your environment. Price the hardware. Figure the average lifespans (for a PC its 2 years, for a Mac, 4 years). Look at the OS costs. Figure out directly the support costs-- eg: an average of 4 incidents per cleint seat per week for Linux, 3 for windows and 1 for Mac. The costs of basic training classes, or hiring a trainer (you can call the trainers and ask them how long it will take and how much it will cost) and all that.

In the end you'll find Macs are cheaper- but don't take my word for it (or garnters or anyone elses) do the research yourself.

Its the only way to be sure.

Re:You're going to have to do it yourself.

[sheldon]

Actually you'll find that an Abacus is exceptionally cheaper to maintain than any model of computer.

The problem is, like the Macintosh, they only have a limited range of applications that they are good at, making them a poor choice for most consumers.

Re:You're going to have to do it yourself.

[BitGeek]

Well, the Abacus increases productivity a little, but the Macintosh increases productivity more than any person computer environment yet invented. This according to the studies I've read, and the experience I have had, and also, the test I did. (Took two secretaries who had windows MS Word experience. Had them type a series of white papers under MS Word on both Windows and Mac machines. In both cases the Mac test resulted in about a %40 savings in speed-- even though they were not Mac trained, and even when the Mac was the first one they typed it on.

Not everyone can do their own testing, but if you do, the results are clear.

I know you were just trolling. I mean, what applications are there that the Mac doesn't excell at? I know of none where the Mac doesn't enjoy an advantage.

Re:You're going to have to do it yourself.

[sheldon]

"I know of none where the Mac doesn't enjoy an advantage."

CAD, GIS, accounting, banking...

I realize you are just a Macintosh troll, but it's still funny to tweak you. :)

Re:You're going to have to do it yourself.

[BitGeek]

CAD, GIS, accounting, banking...


The Macs advantages are employed there as well. Furthermore, now that Macs are based on Unix, a lot of the high end apps are getting ported- No point in selling into only a Solaris market when you can have potentially millions of Mac desktops to sell into-- plus there's the cost advantages of desktop computers for what were traditionally workstation applications, and OS X is the best desktop Unix out there (with the widest installed base.)

Re:You're going to have to do it yourself.

[sheldon]

Interesting, I don't see Arc/Info or AutoCAD available for the Macintosh.

Ohwell, you remind me of when I was an Amiga zealot. Kind of funny actually.

Re:You're going to have to do it yourself.

[BitGeek]

Ignore reason, logic and facts and respond with an irrelevancy about two products... and you call me a zeolot.

Its not funny, its sad.

The Book...

[martin]

The Practice of System and Network Admin (well we all know this one, come one on , we ok ISBN 0201702711), has quite of the first two chapters on this. More of why you should have common automatic installs than the actual ROI costs for doing the automatic scripts etc.

BUT ya gotta remember that you'll need more and bigger M$ servers to accomplish the same things with Linux, *BSD or Unix. Hence the cost goes up.

Costs...

[AtariDatacenter]

Any data along the following lines will be appreciated: amount of time it takes an admin to update 50 machine; frequency of distribution or configuration error requiring a roll-back to a previous configuration; average time to perform a rollback; and so forth.

I think all and all, the answer is "it depends". The question is not very much unlike, "I am looking for statistical information on how long it takes to repair a car." Of course, repairing a car could mean anything. Putting in a new engine. Changing the spark plugs. It is hopelessly open-ended.

Much in the same way, "updating 50 machines" is also convoluted. We have a seasoned script at work which we use to update a very large number of boxes all at once. It can load software or change parameters, or whatever. The time it takes is usually far less than 1 minute per box.

On the other hand, upgrading the OS can be far trickier. There is the planning stage (working with the application groups to make sure their applications all support the new version of the OS and what patches they need), the implementation stage (which is slow and drawn out, and you have your choices of upgrading the existing machine or installing a new OS on top of it, both with advantages and disadvantages). The implementation usually takes 4 or 5 hours per machine, and is not done in an assembly-line fashion.

Of course, the second instance (os upgrade/replacement) is a case study for Sun's N1. If their software can magically track dependancies in OS upgrades and do it automatically, that'd be swell.