[theforum] RFC: w.e.o and l.e.o Server Integration

Martin Burns martin at easyweb.co.uk
Mon May 24 00:44:39 CDT 2004

Hash: SHA1

On 23 May 2004, at 15:32, Dean Mah wrote:

> Options:

This looks to me like an option set of two parts:
a) Integrate the servers or not
b) if so, on which platform.

I'd be happier answering them separately, and to have some guidance 
from sysadmin about which of options 1 & 2 they'd be more comfortable 

Answering point (a) will decide the box spec, which we should get on an 
order right bloody now.

To talk to Paul's point about licensing costs, Finance talked about 
this a month or three ago:
and followups

The headline of that was "If our hosting provider wants to charge us 
more for non-free platforms (OS/db/App Server) because they have to 
cover their licensing costs, we'll need a pretty damned good reason for 
doing it"

The way many hosting providers will charge you is that they'll include 
the Win2k/2003 price in your standard monthly price - this may or may 
not be higher than the equivalent Linux price. However, if you want 
anything else on it (SQLServer/CF), you'll pay a set-up fee, and a 
monthly supplement. So while we wouldn't be buying licenses directly, 
in the long run we will.

> 1) Move l.e.o, d.e.o, and b.e.o to a Windows platform to be place with
>    w.e.o which is currently running on Windows with CF/IIS/SQL Server.
> 2) Move w.e.o to a Linux platform which is what l.e.o, d.e.o, and
>    b.e.o currently run on.
> 3) Defer the decision and just move l.e.o, d.e.o, and b.e.o with the
>    intention of re-visiting the issue either through another migration
>    or by going to a distributed computing model.

+1 to 3, not so much as a 'deferring the decision' as "I'd rather get 
the new box up and running rsn, even if we've decided what the end 
result will be"

- --

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)


More information about the theforum mailing list