Comments on: Lower TCO of IT Infrastructure http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/lower-tco-of-it-infrastructure/ Sat, 25 May 2013 00:24:16 +0000 hourly 1 By: solutions1 http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/lower-tco-of-it-infrastructure/#comment-48451 solutions1 Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:08:11 +0000 #comment-48451 As noted by other respondents, there are a lt of dimensions to TCO. One perhaps not mentioned was to maintain “TCO over time.” If, for example, you swap out your many servers for, say two or three 2005 vintage servers, you will be state of the art for 2005. However, to move ahead in, say, 2006 or 2007, you would then have to swap out big chunks of your infrastructure rather than in little chunks. Sometimes people who consolidate too far end up paralyzed, because to upgrade they have to put too much money or, worse still, too much organizational energy on the table. Therefore do a multi-year draft plan that leaves you maneuvabilty in the out years.

]]> By: amigus http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/lower-tco-of-it-infrastructure/#comment-48453 amigus Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:47 +0000 #comment-48453 That’s a lot of servers! Without knowing all the details I’d suggest:

Using Linux boxes for the DNS servers, and the Exchange MTA, doubling up the task of secondary name-server and sendmail/postix MTA on one box.

Combine the Test and Production SQL servers unless there’s a good reason not to do so, such as the “Test” application crashing the entire server.

Combine the BDC, Misc storage, File/Print and even the Application server, onto one box, leaving the PDC to do it’s job. That should actually spead up your network unless some users end up authenticating from the BDC for some reason.

Combine the VSS with the Image storage if it makes sense given the two servers are probably similar and do similar but in some ways complimentary processing.

If my math is right that brings you down to 6 servers from the original 13 given in your list.

Regards

]]>