System Administration Cost Studies? 20
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Term Paper or Dot Bomb Business Plan (Score:1, Informative)
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 (Score:1)
If you're going to ask for email feedback, giving a fake address doesn't help.
tstock
Education Costs (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:1)
Re:You get what you pay for (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
You're going to have to do it yourself. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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.