Trying to find an optimal solution for a client with various problems!
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Ok adding second DC solves the AD connectivity part, user login etc. Now what about the files that the users access on daily basis? Quickbooks is one, apart from that they have other files as well (documents, images etc)
They made the decision that money is no object when they bought QuickBooks. Using QB means you've got money to burn and not a care in the world because this isn't serious software. There is no enterprise means of backing it up, syncing it up or using it like business software. This is a toy. An expensive toy that is good for showing off how much money you can throw away.
There are free alternatives that are much better. To do QB in a highly reliable way requires a full fault tolerant system that Windows can't effectively do. You need something like Linux with DRBD to pull that off and you are into a range these guys aren't remotely considering.
You have a client with a complete mismatch of values. It sounds like these people have lost their minds.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
I initially suggested a Dell server, but since they didnt had much budget, the next option was to have a high end tower machine which actually worked well for 3 years.
This is silly, how can they afford to pay for you to talk to them if they are so far below the home line? Something is seriously wrong. Feels like they don't feel that they are a real business and aren't taking their data seriously, even to a home level. Why are you there and why are they paying for you? Something is very wrong.
And a Dell server is cheaper than a Drobo. So that's more layers of wrong.
Well, they started as small company, just growing. Their plans for next year is to move to a new office, have better Infrastructure, as they are well aware of the risks but with the current budgets they cant afford to have more than that.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
My bad, should've mentioned that specifically in the beginning. Personally I would love to go with servers, RAID and all those which i know will protect them, but not all clients will have the budget to do so
That sounds pretty silly. I truly don't believe any business can't afford RAID. Not a real business that can afford to talk to an IT pro. RAID is home level stuff, if it even comes up as a question in a business, walk away, they aren't staying in business for long. We've literally put more money into this conversation on here about how silly they are than you are saying they are willing to invest in protecting their data.
And all of the things that you are suggesting, like QB and Drobo, are horrible ideas and cost far more than doing the right thing (just having RAID.) So there is no question, it seems, that these guys have far, far more than enough money. They just don't care about their data. Or else Drobo and QB couldn't be options, nor could second servers or anything else. None of this makes sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
Ok adding second DC solves the AD connectivity part, user login etc. Now what about the files that the users access on daily basis? Quickbooks is one, apart from that they have other files as well (documents, images etc)
They made the decision that money is no object when they bought QuickBooks. Using QB means you've got money to burn and not a care in the world because this isn't serious software. There is no enterprise means of backing it up, syncing it up or using it like business software. This is a toy. An expensive toy that is good for showing off how much money you can throw away.
There are free alternatives that are much better. To do QB in a highly reliable way requires a full fault tolerant system that Windows can't effectively do. You need something like Linux with DRBD to pull that off and you are into a range these guys aren't remotely considering.
You have a client with a complete mismatch of values. It sounds like these people have lost their minds.
This is one thing i suggested to move out of QB the moment i heard about that. But the usual answer, its been working for us, even though i've shown them the pain points. But to be honest these ppl are not the worst comparing to few other clients i met previously. They really wanted to do more on their IT infrastructure, and has plans on improving it next year. Few of their plans for next year includes moving out of traditional pbx system to an advanced one, CRM etc
So not that they dont want to, they are just slowly moving up as the business grows
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Well, they started as small company, just growing. Their plans for next year is to move to a new office, have better Infrastructure, as they are well aware of the risks but with the current budgets they cant afford to have more than that.
They started HOW SMALL? Even in the third world, we are talking so little money to do things right. There is a reason that I refer to the "home line". They are not taking their business as seriously as you should your own home. E.g. they are thinking of what they do as a hobby with no value rather than as a business with a value attached to the data.
The cost of this is so absolutely tiny compared to the cost of you, or the Drobo, or the QB. So you can't say they don't have money. Obviously they have plenty. And they are running WIndows.... again not something you do when you are so tight on money that you can't afford the necessary hardware on which to run it. They could have had RAID for what, $100, but they blew how much money on Windows and QB?
-
@Ambarishrh said:
This is one thing i suggested to move out of QB the moment i heard about that. But the usual answer, its been working for us....
But you've stated that they don't have enough money to pay for it's upkeep or to protect it. So clearly they know that it is not working for them currently or we would not be having this discussion.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
They really wanted to do more on their IT infrastructure, and has plans on improving it next year.
This does not fit with the description of their attitude or their mentality that you have been describing. Nor their willingness to do sensible things now. Neither their described part nor their present support this statement.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
So not that they dont want to, they are just slowly moving up as the business grows
But they aren't even up to the minimal "thinking of themselves as a business" level yet. Not even close. Nor does it sound like they have business thoughts.... like that data has value or saving money is important, etc.
-
OK let me put it this way, they may have the money considering the way they spent it till now on Windows licenses, Server OS, QB etc but for them they want to invest more on other operational stuffs. Now that they are seeing issues, slowly they are adding up more budget to IT, part of it is to check for next options, future upgrades, office move etc
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Few of their plans for next year includes moving out of traditional pbx system to an advanced one, CRM etc
This seems insane. Today they can't even implement a working fileserver for themselves and refuse even the most basic means of protecting critical data, but tomorrow they plan on making their IT even more critical to their "business"? These don't sound like rational people.
-
For the data protection, as i said the bare minimum with the budget they gave me, I gave them the crashplan option which they used it couple of times, not saying thats the greatest thing they could have, but they run the business with this setup for some time. And now wanted to invest a bit more to improve.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
OK let me put it this way, they may have the money considering the way they spent it till now on Windows licenses, Server OS, QB etc but for them they want to invest more on other operational stuffs.
Right, they have loads of money. There is clearly no concern about finding money to spend. They just don't trust you and don't think of themselves as a business from an IT perspective.
They sound, from your description, like either they couldn't care less about this hobby that they have and/or they are mentally struggling with basic reasoning. I'm sure there is another option, but you are painting them as so dumb or uncaring.... why are they paying you to be there?
-
@Ambarishrh said:
For the data protection, as i said the bare minimum with the budget they gave me, I gave them the crashplan option which they used it couple of times, not saying thats the greatest thing they could have, but they run the business with this setup for some time.
But they are looking to spend tons when a tiny bit of money would do.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
And now wanted to invest a bit more to improve.
So pop in a second hard drive and put RAID on the desktop that they have. I'm unclear why they are so against the most clear path with the least money?
-
Dont know how well to put this, but i can see that they are willing, but could also see that as a small-mid business they already allocated budgets for this year and for IT thats not even enough for what they need. Now that they are learning from the experiences, that is changing which is why they are willing to add more budget to improve things, but that happens only next year allocation
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Dont know how well to put this, but i can see that they are willing, but could also see that as a small-mid business they already allocated budgets for this year and for IT thats not even enough for what they need. Now that they are learning from the experiences, that is changing which is why they are willing to add more budget to improve things, but that happens only next year allocation
You keep stating that they have used their budget but I don't think that it means what you think that it means. Businesses aren't bound by budgets, that might be the impression that they give IT but it certainly it not a real thing. If they saw value in their data, they would allocate funds. And the budget you are talking about is much bigger than the budget needed.
I'm just not seeing how any of this adds up.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
And now wanted to invest a bit more to improve.
So pop in a second hard drive and put RAID on the desktop that they have. I'm unclear why they are so against the most clear path with the least money?
The issue last time happened was the servers in built network adaptor had some issues and the whole network was down, as in no one was able to access the files, which is why i was looking for adding another server to avoid such issues. Adding a second hard drive/configuring RAID will add redundancy on that machine but if things like the network/power supply of that servers goes bad. they have to wait for someone to come in and replace
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Now that they are learning from the experiences....
I'm unsure that I agree here. They learned that they needed to listen? It does not appear so. They learned that they overspent in the wrong places? That does not appear to be true. They learned that they were not taking their business seriously? Again, that doesn't match what they are saying, right?
What is it that they have learned and how has their behaviour changed? They were willing to spend way too much in the past, budget was never an issue it seems. Just being reckless, not listening to the most basic professional advice, not seeing IT as a business need, ignoring best practices and the most basic guidance, spending where they wanted and not where they needed.... that's what it sounds like they did, and it seems to be where they remain.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
The issue last time happened was the servers in built network adaptor had some issues and the whole network was down, as in no one was able to access the files, which is why i was looking for adding another server to avoid such issues.
But having a second NIC would have solved that one particular issue. The lesson should have been that a minimal investment in good hardware would have protected them. Both from equipment dying and would have failed over as well. That is a very simple thing to fix that would not have happened had they had a server (real one) instead of a desktop.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Adding a second hard drive/configuring RAID will add redundancy on that machine but if things like the network/power supply of that servers goes bad. they have to wait for someone to come in and replace
Which is more important, protecting the data or having some downtime? Two different issues tackled in two different ways.
