[mitchell_pgh]

OK, our Windows 2000 server has been hacked into for the third time and we must take it down until it's blessed as being "clean" from an outside agency. This is the third time that this has happened NOTE: I'm not the server admin. I'm starting to look "bad" because I'm the content manager (the guy that takes copy, graphics, video etc. and places them on the site) and most people associate me as "the web guy".

Current configuration: Windows 2000, MS IIS Web Server, ColdFusion, MS SQL server (along with various other back end pieces)

We are switching to a PHP/MySQL based content management system.

I'm going to propose that we buy an Xserve.
My reasoning:

1) Cost: I can manage the system vs. us having to constantly bring in a consultant at $40 to $150 per hour. We are also paying BIG software licensing fees for a site that has less then 6000 hits a month.

2) Security: You can debate the security of OS X vs. Windows until you are blue in the face, but we seem to have less problems with Unix servers around here. Also, this would ONLY be a Web server, my thoughts... the fewer services running on the server, the fewer problems we will have.

This is going to go in front of a Windows only technology committee so I wanted to hear some thoughts on the subject and also hear what I should be prepared to answer.

[weene27]

All your reasons sounds quite sound. Have you talked about this with your server admin? Will there be issues there if an XServe comes into play and YOU administer it, not him?

For a low end XServe with some extra RAM, it'll put your company back around $3,000. which isn't horrible. Try hard to play up the fact that it won't need outside expertise to troubleshoot and upgrade.

Unix unix unix....! No virii + stability = easy sell.

Lastly, maybe sell them on a trial basis for the XServe. This way, if for some reason they are unhappy with it, you can always sell it and re-coup most of the cost. But it will never come to that, will it?

Good luck!

[larkost]

If this server is only going to PHP/MySql, then I would advise moving to a BSD (FreeBSD would be my vote). Whatever hardware you are currently running could be re-used, and would likely see an impressive speed boost. Plus it is all free (beer and speech)

I admin both Mac, Windows, and BSD servers, and for simple services I have found FreeBSD to be the most bulletproof solution out there. An easy install process (just need two floppies, and follow the default path in the online documentation), really easy PHP and MySql/PostgreSQL installs, and the default install is very secure.

Now, when it comes to fileshareing, and admining for users, then MacOS X Server is much nicer... but it sounds like you have limited uses in mind, and there I will recommend a BSD. Installing SaMBa is even easy, and then you can get at things through the MacOS X finder...

[mitchell_pgh]

larkost: The admin is a she, and she is knowledgeable, but stretched VERY thin. FreeBSD is not an option because if something happened, NOBODY around here (other then myself) would be able to admin the computer.

I also would consider using the QuickTime Streaming Server if things went well.

weene27: Trial basis? After we purchased it, there really isn't any going back is there?

I just don't want to come off as a "Mac Drone" when I give the pitch. In fact, I want to say "Unix" more then "Apple" during the conversation.

I'm also going to go down the "Open Source" path as we are being crunched by licensing fees.

What additional hardware should I buy for backup? Power supply etc.?

P.S. Thanks for the info... (I love having intelligent threads)

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by larkost:
If this server is only going to PHP/MySql, then I would advise moving to a BSD (FreeBSD would be my vote).

Some things would still need to run on the old Windows/ColdFusion/M$ SQL server. But they are less "mission critical". I want to break the server off on to it's own, more secure, server.

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Is it located in house? Is it colocated?

What is going to be run on it?

I am a Windows network admin, I also admin Linux/FreeBSD clusters that I used for distributed computing.

I have an AlBook that I just got and I absolutely love it - I think OS X is a fantastic desktop OS.

That said, I would never ever ever ever ever EVER run it on a server. I can't think of a single reason why someone would run it aside from that the XServes look pretty cool if you have a lot of them.

Servers are all about the bang for the buck. With a desktop I can justify that there are intangibles that you need to consider and speed and price are just a small part of that.

Depending on what you need to do on your server, then the only things you should care about are speed and price.
You can get an absolutely amazing machine and put FreeBSD on it and it is a total tank and the OS is free.
The XServe is mediocre at best in the base configurations and then it has an overhead in the OS that is not something I would want on a server personally.

If you can colocate it, just get a managed server and save yourself the admin and pay less for a company to do it. www.pair.com has very reasonable prices and very little admin is needed - and when it is, it is all web based (it can be command line based as well).
Their customer service is excellent too.

That is just my opinion - OS X is a great desktop, but never on a server.
Also, there are Linux options to replace pretty much anything that you can do on a Windows server - the only thing that I'm not sure that you can replace are the Windows specific object calls in ASP pages if you are running those. (you can run asp pages on Apache with the proper plug-ins, but you don't get the Windows specific objects last I saw).

[IamBob]

6000 hits a month could be handled by any machine capable of running OSX. Head on over to ebay and pick up a new-used machine.

Get that box configured as close as possible to your production machine. The idea being that you want a drop-in replacement or as close to it as you can get.

If at all possible you want to be able to run your machine side-by-side with the production machine, having it do all the same work (sandboxed if there are any concerns). This way you could let the box prove itself over a month or 6.

Remember to document everything so that you can point to something and say, "This is how long it took me, this is how I did it and this is how much it cost me." Get numbers for a suitable xServe because I doubt you'd want to use a desktop machine in a server environment but as a test-bed a desktop is good enough and you can reuse or resell it when you're done.

Now, when it comes to fileshareing, and admining for users, then MacOS X Server is much nicer... but it sounds like you have limited uses in mind, and there I will recommend a BSD.

Darwin/OSX, being a BSD variant, should perform well enough right?

I'm not in the industry personally but I know several who are. They'll sell you on their solution and it will come crashing down around you and/or end up costing more than they projected....

Plus it is all free (beer and speech)

That may be true until you consider the costs of getting it up and running and maintaining it.

Anyway...

[wadesworld]

You can get an absolutely amazing machine and put FreeBSD on it and
The XServe is mediocre at best in the base configurations and then it has an overhead in the OS that is not something I would want on a server personally.

All the reports I've seen says it performs very well, and has great administration tools. It used to be a very good value on the price/performance curve, but in recent months, folks like Dell and IBM have released products that put it a bit behind. I expect the next refresh of the XServe will address that. There are always going to be cheaper alternatives out there, but within the same general class of servers from respected manufacturers, the XServe is pretty competitive.

But hardware cost is not the only part of the equation. I'd be willing to bet that his company thought the Windows server was a great price/performance value. Once you add in the cost of three outages, consulting firms, etc, you see that it's *far* more expensive than an XServe / BSD server, etc. Of course we're assuming that the XServe or BSD server will be competantly administered and not suffer the same hacks.

If you're going to go the BSD route, then OpenBSD would be the better choice for a server. It's got the best security reputation of any of the BSD's.

Wade

[kmkkid]

Why not just upgrade to Windows Server 2003? It's stable, secure, and would cost alot less than purchasing extra hardware.



Chris

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by OMGWTFBBQ:
Is it located in house? Is it colocated?

I am a Windows network admin, I also admin Linux/FreeBSD clusters that I used for distributed computing.

I have an AlBook that I just got and I absolutely love it - I think OS X is a fantastic desktop OS.

That said, I would never ever ever ever ever EVER run it on a server. I can't think of a single reason why someone would run it aside from that the XServes look pretty cool if you have a lot of them.

Servers are all about the bang for the buck. With a desktop I can justify that there are intangibles that you need to consider and speed and price are just a small part of that.

Depending on what you need to do on your server, then the only things you should care about are speed and price.
You can get an absolutely amazing machine and put FreeBSD on it and it is a total tank and the OS is free.
The XServe is mediocre at best in the base configurations and then it has an overhead in the OS that is not something I would want on a server personally.

If you can colocate it, just get a managed server and save yourself the admin and pay less for a company to do it. www.pair.com has very reasonable prices and very little admin is needed - and when it is, it is all web based (it can be command line based as well).
Their customer service is excellent too.

That is just my opinion - OS X is a great desktop, but never on a server.
Also, there are Linux options to replace pretty much anything that you can do on a Windows server - the only thing that I'm not sure that you can replace are the Windows specific object calls in ASP pages if you are running those. (you can run asp pages on Apache with the proper plug-ins, but you don't get the Windows specific objects last I saw).

I know what you are saying... if I were in business, you and I would be on the same page, but in the education market, it doesn't work that way. Think of that guy that doesn't know a PDA from a PDF making the final decision about the servers. He wants two questions answered every day: 1) Is the server up, and 2) Show me the traffic results. I'm willing to pay 2X the normal price if it means that I can take control.

It must be in house (I think it has something to do with job security) and under $5000 (the TOTAL solution)

We are going to have our web site on the Xserve, that's it. Nothing else on the system. Apache, PHP and MySQL (everything else turned off).

After 3-6 months of proving itself, I would probably install the Quicktime Streaming Server and start working with that.

Why I'm thinking OS X: (basically it all comes down to money and simplicity)

1) We get the servers at a discount ($2,299 discounted from $2,799).

2) We can not afford to pay a technician to come in every few months to fix anything. It needs to "just work".

3) Cheap, hot swappable, drives. fiber card, simplistic OS. compact size. (I want a backup at all times that I can simply plug in and go when something "bad" happens)

4) Total cost of ownership.

5) Linux or any other form of Unix is not an option.

Take this for what it is, but I have sat on this for over a year now and have let the "experts" deal with the Windows server. First it's IIS, then it's Coldfusion, then it's SQL, then it's the security of Windows, then it's something else. Everyone blames the other guy, but is more then willing to help (naturally for a $100+ per hour price). (If I hear "Hmmm, looks like a hardware problem..." only to find out it's something basic, I'm going to freak out!!!)

Basically, I'm dealing with amateurs and have no budget. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!

I'm unable to assist much of the time because we have so much crap loaded onto the Windows server... People are skipping security updates because ColdFusion doesn't like the security update etc. etc. etc.

It's a never ending cycle.

Again, speed isn't an issue. A PDA could serve the site.

[OMGWTFBBQ]

In that case, it sounds like you do have a convincing argument to put forward.

I will certainly never argue against moving away from Windows servers - and I'm a Windows admin.

The longer I am using the servers, the more frustrated I get with them.
I'm a Unix guy at heart - not out of anything more than they are just less of a headache once they are made to work (that is the catch - they are a pain sometimes to get right, but once they are, they can run forever).
Windows is easier to get up and running in the first day, but you will be constantly fixing it for its whole life.

If performance isn't an issue and that price seems reasonable to you - then in that case, your argument seems valid. And yeah - education gets discounts too right?

[mitchell_pgh]

I know the group of people that I'm going to pitch this to, they like to roast anyone that has a different idea...

I'm trying to set them up so that I can answer ALL of them in one presentation.

[Thinine]

Well, it sounds like you have most of the info you need for a proposal. However, I would make sure the Xserve comes with Panther Server before ordering it. Panther Server has a lot of enhancements over Jaguar, especially in its remote admin tools.

This is where OS X Server's strength lies: its remote admin tools. They are vastly superior to anything on Windows and can't even be compared to *NIX admin tools.

But really, it sounds like any machine could run that site. You'd be paying a lot more for just rack mountability and hot swappable hard drives.

[nica]

Pitch: UNIX, UNIX, UNIX, Mac Server. Pound on the UNIX flavor pitch

[Superchicken]

Just say that right now you're running with an old server that is failing to work properly a lot, and the company who sold it to you doesn't have a solution that you feel is adequate, but you did some research and you've talked it over with a lot of people who work with these sorts of computers, and you think that this is the very best option.

[sodamnregistered2]

Linux on Intel would be a better bang for the buck.

[geekwagon]

Originally posted by sodamnregistered2:
Linux on Intel would be a better bang for the buck.

Have you priced linux lately? It is a hell of a long ways from free beer these days unless you want to roll your own (and I am not planning on staking my job on that..)

I am in the middle of pricing options for a couple of LDAP+Kerberos authentication servers. Redhat or Suse (need enterprise support..) cost about $1500. Plus a large yearly fee. Add to that a $2500 HPAQ DL380 and the cost is pretty much a wash.

That said, there are some places that I will definatley use Linux. But it isn't ALWAYS cheaper.

I guess, though, that if you are just somebody who needs a quicky webserver to slap in a colo or something to run their personal/small business website on then you can do it cheaper.

[RayX]

Originally posted by kmkkid:
Why not just upgrade to Windows Server 2003? It's stable, secure, and would cost alot less than purchasing extra hardware.



Chris

I REALLY hope you were joking.

[dtriska]

There are three advantages that you need to pound home.

1) Total cost of ownership. This is usually the biggest stumbling block. I've worked in education before, so I know what you mean about the decision makers not having a clue about the technology involved. You have to get across to them that the Xserve means paying a bit more up front, but saving a whole lot more in the long-run. I've had a school balk at paying $2000 more for Macs than PCs on a $30 000 purchase, and then pay $1500 more each year in technical support for the "cheaper" PCs.

2) Security. Point out the daily security problems with Microsoft's software, and how Bill Gates promised to fix his software almost two years ago (remember that "security is our number one priority" stuff?). Tell them horror stories of Windows servers being compromised and credit card numbers and other highly confidential information being stolen or exposed to the Internet. I guarantee the pro-Windows people will be playing up the initial cost angle; you may as well embellish the security angle a bit.

3) Stability, standards, ease of use, etc. This is where you hammer home Unix, Apache, and OS X. Unix is the stability (most stable OS, around for years, powers the Internet, etc.), Apache is one of the standards (used by something like 60% of websites, etc.), and OS X is the ease of use (you can admin the server from anywhere in the world, takes very little time, won't need expensive techs, etc.). Add in anything else along these lines here.

Good luck.

[RayX]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
The admin is a she, and she is knowledgeable, but stretched VERY thin. FreeBSD is not an option because if something happened, NOBODY around here (other then myself) would be able to admin the computer.

How is that any different from admining an Xserve? That is something completely different to Windows to learn as well.

If your admin is knowledgeable, then she should have no problems learning a new operating system and picking things up quickly.

Though from what you have said, she is not competent enough to admin a box connected to the Internet. The hacks were probably due to something trivial as not keeping up to date with patches.

FreeBSD, or OpenBSD (or a combination, eg. OpenBSD for firewall, FreeBSD for webserver behind that) would get my vote.

[Eug]

Originally posted by kmkkid:
Why not just upgrade to Windows Server 2003? It's stable, secure, and would cost alot less than purchasing extra hardware.

Of you can just run *nix on the same hardware.

Originally posted by OMGWTFBBQ:
I am a Windows network admin, I also admin Linux/FreeBSD clusters that I used for distributed computing.

-snip-

The XServe is mediocre at best in the base configurations and then it has an overhead in the OS that is not something I would want on a server personally.

Of course, you can just turn off the GUI in OS X, or else just run Linux.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by RayX:
How is that any different from admining an Xserve? That is something completely different to Windows to learn as well.

If your admin is knowledgeable, then she should have no problems learning a new operating system and picking things up quickly.

Though from what you have said, she is not competent enough to admin a box connected to the Internet. The hacks were probably due to something trivial as not keeping up to date with patches.

FreeBSD, or OpenBSD (or a combination, eg. OpenBSD for firewall, FreeBSD for webserver behind that) would get my vote.

Although I totally understand the FreeBSD argument, you need to remember that this is an educational institution that I'm talking about. We have a small budget compounded by a limited and underpaid technical staff.

I think if I were to suggest OpenBSD, FreeBSE (or any variation of Unix/Linux etc.) I would get shot down on the spot. Our people are not trained to install or use it. I'm also looking at this from a "One Stop Shopping" perspective.

The Xserve with OS X Server has an amazing and intuitive GUI. Security updates are timely and very simple to install (aka "Click This Button"). OS X Server is also backed by a reputable company and we have people on campus with OS X experience. Oh, and I love Apple.

I appreciate everyones comments [Even the Windows 2003 Server update post] and I'm seriously taking them to heart. These are the arguments that I'm going to hear (but probably with a Windows theme).

The theme of my presentation will be:

I'm trying to save us money,
I'm trying to secure our server,
I'm trying to preserve the reputation of our institution.

Unix and an Xserve can get us there.

[larkost]

Having had my recommendation of a BSD shot down (I understand that... it is easy to learn, but does require a bit of learning... learning that does not come from running a desktop box), I will say that MacOS X Server is much easier than Windows Server, and vastly easier to secure.

And it provides some very easy to interpret gauges that could make a nice demo to administration (ohh.... shiny....).

[JLL]

Originally posted by OMGWTFBBQ:
…and then it has an overhead in the OS that is not something I would want on a server personally.

What overhead? GUI? The admin apps are usually run from the admin's computer - not on the server itself.

You can install, configure and maintain an Xserve without connecting it to a monitor - ever.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by larkost:
Having had my recommendation of a BSD shot down (I understand that... it is easy to learn, but does require a bit of learning... learning that does not come from running a desktop box), I will say that MacOS X Server is much easier than Windows Server, and vastly easier to secure.

And it provides some very easy to interpret gauges that could make a nice demo to administration (ohh.... shiny....).

I'm not trying to say that BSD probably isn't the best option (if it were up to me, I wouldn't be in this situation as I would have made sure that the Windows box was secure), but I think I will only get one shot at a recommendation.

If they reject my initial high end Xserve solution (I'm guessing around $4000+), it's logical to come back with a low end alternative (OpenBSD etc.)

Going the other way around would mean certain failure.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by JLL:
What overhead? GUI? The admin apps are usually run from the admin's computer - not on the server itself.

You can install, configure and maintain an Xserve without connecting it to a monitor - ever.

We are also talking about a system that has MAYBE 100,000 requests a month (including all images, html, pdfs, etc. etc.

Seriously, a beige G3 233 with OS X could handle this. The reason I'm saying Xserve is for the swappable drives, pre-installed server, fiber card, and monitoring software/hardware.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by OMGWTFBBQ:
Is it located in house? Is it colocated?

What is going to be run on it?

I am a Windows network admin, I also admin Linux/FreeBSD clusters that I used for distributed computing.

I have an AlBook that I just got and I absolutely love it - I think OS X is a fantastic desktop OS.

That said, I would never ever ever ever ever EVER run it on a server. I can't think of a single reason why someone would run it aside from that the XServes look pretty cool if you have a lot of them.

Servers are all about the bang for the buck. With a desktop I can justify that there are intangibles that you need to consider and speed and price are just a small part of that.

Depending on what you need to do on your server, then the only things you should care about are speed and price.
You can get an absolutely amazing machine and put FreeBSD on it and it is a total tank and the OS is free.
The XServe is mediocre at best in the base configurations and then it has an overhead in the OS that is not something I would want on a server personally.

If you can colocate it, just get a managed server and save yourself the admin and pay less for a company to do it. www.pair.com has very reasonable prices and very little admin is needed - and when it is, it is all web based (it can be command line based as well).
Their customer service is excellent too.

That is just my opinion - OS X is a great desktop, but never on a server.
Also, there are Linux options to replace pretty much anything that you can do on a Windows server - the only thing that I'm not sure that you can replace are the Windows specific object calls in ASP pages if you are running those. (you can run asp pages on Apache with the proper plug-ins, but you don't get the Windows specific objects last I saw).

I really don't understand this... why not run OS X Server on a server?

Apache, JBoss, MySQL, perl, python, PHP, J2SE 1.4.1, integrated user managemt via LDAPv3, Samba 3.0 with Windows PDC functionality, server admin tools for configuration and graphical monitoring, yadda yadda yadda. And it can handle about 5000 web hits per second.

So what's not to like? OS X Server 10.3 is a great server OS -- as powerful as a Windows 2003 or Linux Server, and a helluva lot easier to set up, without the expense of CALs.

[Scarpa]

If you just back-end the SQL/cold fusion and put just IIS on the public server most of your problems would go away. Right now you've got two products with known vulnerabilities (SQL, IIS) and a third party product that doesn't want to play nice with updates. What do you expect? It really sounds like an issue with the competence of your admin, not the fact that it's a Windows server.

That said, it would simplify your life to get an XServe in there. Can you get this overworked admin on your side? If she endorses your idea I bet it would go further than having the content manager pitch new hardware. Not to knock you at all but you know how managers think.

If you have time run the numbers on how much it has cost to pick up the pieces from your three crashes. Factor that in along with time saved by relieving the overworked admin and you may have a decent pitch. I don't envy you, getting the PHBs to consider something besides Windows is awfully difficult.

Edit: Oh and if you can, get it all setup on an iBook or Powerbook and walk in there with a fully functioning version of your site to demo.

[mitchell_pgh]

Scarpa You are spot on with what I'm considering. Walk in with a fully functional sample server that's running on VERY old hardware (the beige G3 that I referenced). You are also correct with reference to getting my manager on board with the idea. Whenever I make a suggestion, they first look to her like she knows more then I do (I'm not knocking her, but networking and security aren't her thing).

I'm working up a POWERFUL (Keynote) presentation and a working dummy of the proposed site (with the proposed site redesign to boot). If I don't get what I'm looking for, I'm going to shut up and ignore the pain around me (there is a ton of finger pointing around here now that the site is down).

Ahhhh... Academia...

[cenutrio]

I was very impressed with a Xserve catalog that Apple sent to our lab. It summarized all Xserve strong points with very appealling photos and information regarding big companies that use it and why. It included comparative data between different server systems and the Apple including storage/$, etc.

interesting reading too.

[Scarpa]

Bump to see how this went. I might make the same proposal at my work in the near future.