Hi Guys, I have a client who hopes to keep their server another 5 years making it 10 years old at that time. At this point there are no plans to add new infrastructure or a new server to the mix. Their business model is fairly static. I'd like to see them upgrade. Can anyone suggest specific reasons why running a business on 10 year old equipment is a bad thing? Specific arguments I can think of would be: - Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardware - Lack of support for both H/W and S/W - Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOS - Higher probability of hardware failures over time - Performance bottlenecks Any other thoughts? Shawn
Good one. I run into very similar situations. Focus purely on cash cost of maintenance of older stuff vs newer stuff. Quote reputable sources like Gartner Group, etc... Get a little familiar with ITIL in terms of like cycle. Its very daunting to convince companies to spend money but if you frame your Power Point, Project presentations around road A costs this much, road B costs that much, you pick, then mebbe good things will happen. Another thing my mom has instilled is that "you catch more bees with honey". I have a tendency to sound like I am preaching and I am not, in fact my motto is "I dunno shizzle". But I just want to emphasize the pain that I run into this all the time and some times succeed, I pretend to be a CFO/bean counter with the attitude "if it ain't broke, why replace it", which is valid if you think of it. On Oct 9, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Shawn Everett wrote:> Hi Guys, > > I have a client who hopes to keep their server another 5 years > making it > 10 years old at that time. > > At this point there are no plans to add new infrastructure or a new > server > to the mix. Their business model is fairly static. > > I'd like to see them upgrade. Can anyone suggest specific reasons why > running a business on 10 year old equipment is a bad thing? > > Specific arguments I can think of would be: > - Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardware > - Lack of support for both H/W and S/W > - Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOS > - Higher probability of hardware failures over time > - Performance bottlenecks > > Any other thoughts? > > Shawn > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009, Shawn Everett wrote:>Hi Guys, > >I have a client who hopes to keep their server another 5 years making it >10 years old at that time. > >At this point there are no plans to add new infrastructure or a new server >to the mix. Their business model is fairly static. > >I'd like to see them upgrade. Can anyone suggest specific reasons why >running a business on 10 year old equipment is a bad thing? > >Specific arguments I can think of would be: >- Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardware >- Lack of support for both H/W and S/W >- Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOS >- Higher probability of hardware failures over time >- Performance bottlenecks > >Any other thoughts?These are plausible reasons, but may not be in the client's best interests, assuming that you are monitoring the system for potential hardware problems and have good, verified backups that can be used to build a new system quickly if necessary. We have many commercial clients doing accounting/database things where the existing hardware and software does everything they need and want, and their systems are behind good firewalls so they're not generally exposed to the Internet (and none run Windows). They much prefer to put off hardware replacement until there's some good or compelling reason to do so (e.g. one of our clients is running SCO OpenServer 5.0.6a on hardware installed in November 1999, and we're planning on building a CentOS box with VMware to replace it after first of the year). Most of our clients are small-to-medium businesses that only work one shift, not huge enterprises going 24/7 where zero down time is a must. Uptimes on these systems is often measured in years, and outages are mostly due to an Internet connection going down when the telco screws up. Hardware updates are usually done by building a new server in parallel with the production box, then rsync'ing data over at close-of-business on Friday night with the weekend available to deal with visits from Mr. Murphy. Bill -- INTERNET: bill at celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820 Fax: (206) 232-9186 Skype: jwccsllc (206) 855-5792 Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Shawn Everett <shawn at tandac.com> wrote:> Hi Guys, > > I have a client who hopes to keep their server another 5 years making it > 10 years old at that time. > > At this point there are no plans to add new infrastructure or a new server > to the mix. ?Their business model is fairly static. > > I'd like to see them upgrade. ?Can anyone suggest specific reasons why > running a business on 10 year old equipment is a bad thing? > > Specific arguments I can think of would be: > - Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardware > - Lack of support for both H/W and S/W > - Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOS > - Higher probability of hardware failures over time > - Performance bottlenecks >So they're running a five year old version of centos now? There's no reason a server if properly maintained shouldn't run for ten years. Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading isn't much of a justification. Unless the machine is showing signs of degradation, there's no reason to fault the hardware. Software support is a subjective problem; software support for what exactly? If the machine has made it five years with no hardware failures, anything that was going to fail should have by now. Slow performance might be a valid point, but it ties into the software question, what exactly does the server do, is high performance a big issue? One of my customers is running a 12+ year old SCO machine right now, and it's running custom software created more like 20 years ago. The vendor that set it all up is a "one man" operation, and it looks like he could fall over at any minute. The data is all locked up in thousands of files that comprise some sort of crazy proprietary database. The server's power supply has been complaining lately, so the client went to the vendor for a quote on fixing the problem. The vendor's solution is to spend thousands and thousands for new hardware and to "upgrade" the software. Researching the problem I contacted a regulatory agency that overseas the operation of my client and found documentation it was strongly advised ten years ago that they stop using the vendors software and hardware. That advice was ignored and now they have an expensive mess with no clean way out. Lots of fun! -Gordon
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Shawn Everett <shawn at tandac.com> wrote:> Hi Guys, > > I have a client who hopes to keep their server another 5 years making it > 10 years old at that time. > > At this point there are no plans to add new infrastructure or a new server > to the mix. ?Their business model is fairly static. > > I'd like to see them upgrade. ?Can anyone suggest specific reasons why > running a business on 10 year old equipment is a bad thing? >To be honest, I don't think any of the above are reasons to upgrade for many businesses.> Specific arguments I can think of would be: > - Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardwareThere are tons of 486 systems still at various surplus places. Getting replacement hardware is going to be harder but you need to show actual numbers of availability and costs and time to replace. In some cases, the business will just decide to buy 4 boxes to scavenge from and call it good. And for a lot of places that makes perfect sense.> - Lack of support for both H/W and S/WMost likely the hardware is already out of support. Depending on which version of S/W they are running it is less likely to be out of support. If they are using CentOS-3 then they are going to be Out of Support next year. But to be honest for a lot of places they aren't set up to upgrade to anything newer until it becomes a crisis for them.> - Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOSThis could be a catch 22 for them. The applications they may have may only run on CentOS-3 or 2 and aren't something they can afford to update to something newer. [Either the software is no longer updated or the cost model for an update is prohibitive to them.] So they may not want to run later versions of CentOS because it just won't work for them.> - Higher probability of hardware failures over timeWell that may be likely but so is getting new hardware that fries itself.> - Performance bottlenecksIf its not had a performance bottleneck in 5 years.. its very unlikely to have one in 5 years future. The bigger issue is stuff thats outside of an OS. A) What is the business model of the company? B) Is it expecting large growth or small growth or decline in the next 5 years? C) What are its planning mechanisms for current operations? Future operations? D) How is spending money on updates, consulting, and unknown unknowns going to lower costs versus having a known cost level (it works why play with it) E) Why and how are they using the equipment currently? If you answer those questions and they are wanting to improve or you can show significant lowering of costs, then an upgrade may be in order. But for a lot of places those questions and how the company is run will make upgrading more expensive or more likely for project failure.> Any other thoughts?> Shawn > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning
Thanks to everyone for their comments so far. The "server" in question is a basic 2 node cluster connected to an MSA500. It runs a variety of applications including Oracle, Apache, Samba, and a proprietary app built by another vendor. The hardware is monitored, maintained and backed up regularly. The setup is mission critical to my client. They spent a lot of time and money to make sure it wouldn't go down. The list's point is well taken that old *nix installs are very reliable long term. I've had similar experiences. Given this particular client's need for a reliable, stable, redundant system, I was contemplating alternatives or future upgrades rather than letting things age. Shawn> Hi Guys, > > I have a client who hopes to keep their server another 5 years making it > 10 years old at that time. > > At this point there are no plans to add new infrastructure or a new server > to the mix. Their business model is fairly static. > > I'd like to see them upgrade. Can anyone suggest specific reasons why > running a business on 10 year old equipment is a bad thing? > > Specific arguments I can think of would be: > - Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardware > - Lack of support for both H/W and S/W > - Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOS > - Higher probability of hardware failures over time > - Performance bottlenecks > > Any other thoughts? > > Shawn > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
> > Specific arguments I can think of would be: > - Hard/Impossible to find replacement hardware > - Lack of support for both H/W and S/W > - Possibly unable to run current versions of CentOS > - Higher probability of hardware failures over time > - Performance bottlenecks > > Any other thoughts? > > Shawn > > __Shawn, i dont think you mentioned the specific hardware involved... i.e. brand and model number and config it makes a difference in how we would approach it... mainly because we have some 10 year old and older hardware that has been running rock solid it's entire life and we expect several more years out of some of it... we keep hot and cold spares of everything though... to be semi generic, i am talking about business / industrial rackmount Compaq & HP servers, and some telco quality Cisco of course... :-) please do share... - rh