Pros/Cons of replacing server

[Velvis]

A client of mine has a Win 2k3 server thats probably 10 years old. With the move to web based applications, all the server is used for now is active directory and a file server. LOB apps are all web based now, and email is hosted offsite.

Software wise the server is fine for our needs, but I am starting to get concerned about hardware failure since it is so old.

I started looking at what it would cost to replace it with a new server and it just seems like the MS licensing is so expensive (there is about 20-25 users) for what really amounts to a file share.

The possibilities are:
replace the hardware and software
replace the hardware and reinstall Server 2k3
leave it as is until something fails

Any one have any opinions?

 

[Dagooseisloose]

Why don't you get a new server and convert the existing server into 2 virtual servers running under vmware esxi. Only licensing you would need is new licensing for the 2nd server and that should be cheap if you keep win 2003.

And you can move the server from esxi to esxi as virtual machines are more or less hardware independent.

 

[Brand]

Why don't you get a new server and convert the existing server into 2 virtual servers running under vmware esxi. Only licensing you would need is new licensing for the 2nd server and that should be cheap if you keep win 2003.

And you can move the server from esxi to esxi as virtual machines are more or less hardware independent.

The OS license for the current physical server may be an OEM license that is tied to the hardware that it is installed on.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Once a server is out of warranty (typically 3 years for a real server)...your hardware support and overnight warranty stuff disappears. After that..becomes harder, and more expensive...to find replacement parts. Not to mention support for troubleshooting issues like RAID controllers.

After that...you start walking on thinner and thinner ice as far as hardware reliability....typically I don't like to see a business let a server get over 5 years old. My rule of thumb...after a server is 3 years old start planning to budget in a replacement. Once a server hits 5 years old...OK...lets get replacing it now!!!

Especially if it's a business that cannot afford downtime..such as healthcare, insurance, etc.

10 years old? Time to sit down and have a serious conversation with them. Don't forget..when that current server goes Tango Uniform...you're the one under the gun to get it fixed quickly.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

A client of mine has a Win 2k3 server thats probably 10 years old. With the move to web based applications, all the server is used for now is active directory and a file server. LOB apps are all web based now, and email is hosted offsite.

Software wise the server is fine for our needs, but I am starting to get concerned about hardware failure since it is so old.

I started looking at what it would cost to replace it with a new server and it just seems like the MS licensing is so expensive (there is about 20-25 users) for what really amounts to a file share.

The possibilities are:
replace the hardware and software
replace the hardware and reinstall Server 2k3
leave it as is until something fails

Any one have any opinions?

You got to replace hardware. So you have hwr $$$ plus setup and config $$$ so now you have to go with that amount or that amount plus new NOS $$$ as well.

hardware $5k
Setup and config $2k
without new NOS
With new NOS +$2k

It seems once I move the client from a no move situation to a move situation they then tend to move themselves to a more optimum solution once it is explained. Alternatively you can bone up on linux and give them a linux server.

 

[Metanis]

The whole Microsoft software licensing thing could be a major time sink. Check this poor guy's experience:

http://www.interactivewebs.com/blog...ine-to-a-hyper-v-virtual-machine-p2v-problem/

I would use the opportunity to re-validate the customer's IT infrastructure and modernize it. If they have Microsoft OEM licensing on their 2003 box then that software will need to be retired and replaced with new. And there is no upgrade pricing on Server 2012 that I can find.

For 25 users you could get 2012 Essentials for about $450 from Newegg. Of course that is OEM and would be locked to the new hardware you buy/build!

Microsoft is gonna get you ... one way or the other.

 

[justalfe]

The whole Microsoft software licensing thing could be a major time sink. Check this poor guy's experience:

http://www.interactivewebs.com/blog...ine-to-a-hyper-v-virtual-machine-p2v-problem/

I would use the opportunity to re-validate the customer's IT infrastructure and modernize it. If they have Microsoft OEM licensing on their 2003 box then that software will need to be retired and replaced with new. And there is no upgrade pricing on Server 2012 that I can find.

For 25 users you could get 2012 Essentials for about $450 from Newegg. Of course that is OEM and would be locked to the new hardware you buy/build!

Microsoft is gonna get you ... one way or the other.

the only thing i dont like about essentials 2012 is that it doesnt have wsus to update all the client computers, but as far as file server wouldnt it just be better to get an os like freenas and setup a raid and back up in place?

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

burn the motherboard

you can always burn the motherboard and then replace it with the same mfgr-get as close to an exact replica upgrade and legally use the same 2003 server software license. Probably use a new Hard drive to install the NOS on.

You can then move all data to a new NAS.

Legal new hardware with old OEM license.