RE: Servers Spreading Like Rabbits... -- MIDRANGE-L

>> Jim:
>>If you didn't have the SQL server...
> Walden:
>My web server could still serve static content and inform my customers 
>that we are experiencing technical difficulities. My VPN server would 
>allow my support staff to look at the problem from home at 1AM.
>> 
>>If you didn't have the web server...
>
>My internal CRM application would still have a database. And again
>my support staff could connect to fix at 1AM.
>>
>>When the VPN server goes down...
>
>My customers still have an active web site and my internal users still
>have an active CRM app. And my support staff can get in their car the
>next morning since the business critical stuff is still up.

To you, the point is that at least you'll have some availability.  To me,
the point is that the users need all of the tiers.  I have yet to see a web
app where falling back to static content is in any way meaningful.  I have
yet to meet a VP of IS (or user community) who would be satisfied to know
that the database is still available when the users can't get to the front
end.

This goes back to your "no big deal" response to Chuck Lewis' post:

>>Guess what ? To do this we will ONLY need 4 (FOUR) additional 
>>servers...
>>
>>One for the CRM package, one for Active Directory, one for Exchange 
>>and one for BizTalk...

>Why? Each being a 1U rackmount, it's not going to take much space. 

If I had a dime for every time a software vendor, consulting services
professional, or PHB minimized the effort and ongoing cost involved in
installing and supporting another server...

>And this all ignores the fact that if any of these are business critical
>I can cluster them and reduce the likelyhood of a complete failure.

I'm not ignoring clustering -- clustering is beside the point.  Yes, you can
cluster servers.  In this case you'd have to cluster that much many more
servers/apps.  We're talking about two different things.  We're saying "it's
a lot more administrative work" while you're saying "it's possible".

>Walden again:
>...GOOD server hardware running correctly configured W2K
>in a fault-tolerant setup is just as stable.

I'd like to meet the Elves, Faeries, and Unicorns who produce and configure
such a software/hardware environment.  I've participated in quite a few
third-party implementations.  I have yet to see a product where the vendor
did not leave us hanging in some way over some OS, database, or middleware
compatibility issue.  The most stable apps are, in my experience, the ones
that minimize the hardware and software points of integration, or
opportunities for failure.

-Jim

James P. Damato
Manager - Technical Administration
Dollar General Corporation
<mailto:jdamato@dollargeneral.com>