Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000
From: Brad Pears (donotreply_at_notreal.com)
Date: 04/28/04
- Next message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Still have problem with DNS forwarding"
- Previous message: chris: "remote web"
- In reply to: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000"
- Next in thread: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000"
- Reply: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:28:59 -0400
Yes, this is a great discussion. It all depends on where you are coming from
I guess...
I think we'll likely wind up moving to SBS2003 eventually and then maybe the
transition pack after that if it looks like we are going to outgrow early...
I found out that the SBS 2000 server (50 users) allows 50 concurrent users
access (as opposed to a limitation of 50 user accounts period)- so really,
we have around 45 user accounts now on the system - but not all of them are
here - certainly not all of them on at the same time. This should buy us 6
months to a year I suspect.
If youi look at the message from "brad - not a fan of SBS2003" that guy
seems to be pulling his hair out with the migration!!! I don't want to get
into that right away!!
brad
"Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]" <javier_gomez@remove.this.engineer.com> wrote in
message news:%23w2pIeILEHA.268@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I would normally agree... but not in this case. Let's put it this way->
> Upgrading to SBS2003 for 50 users would cost you (retail pricing):
>
> 1 - SBS VUP $599
> 45 - VUP CALs $194 (5-pack)
>
> Total = $2345
>
> The migration pack alone costs more than that + you need to get migration
> CALs (which don't include SQL CALs). Now, consider that obtaining the
> migration pack (if you are even able to get it for SBS2k) will only give
you
> 2000 versions (not 2003). I think this way you can defer the cost of the
> migration pack for 2 yrs (many things can happen in 2yrs!) and then you
> finally decide to put the Transition pack you will get the 2003 versions.
> Applying the transtion pack is not something that would require
reinstalling
> the whole server.
>
> That's my point of view... of course that many other considerations, such
as
> replacement of the servers in that period that I didn't take into account.
> I'm sure this issue is highly debatable.
>
> --
> Javier [SBS MVP]
>
> << SBS ROCKS !!! >>
>
> "Jeff L" <newsgroupsremoveandunderscore_jeff@availabletech.net> wrote in
> message news:%23eTv4AILEHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > To Javier: Really, I would think that the upgrade would be based on new
> > functionality requirements rather than needing more users. Doubly so if
> > you
> > upgrade to SBS2003 only to exceed the limits there in less than two
years.
> >
> > To Brad: It always comes down to money but if your org is growing that
> > fast
> > it is not because the company doesn't have a need to be productive.
> > Perhaps
> > your IT budget should be growing making the people you have more
> > productive.
> > Spending 100 K on IT is much cheaper than adding 25 users. If I could
save
> > one user the ROI would be less than 3 years (Figuring they make more
than
> > 30
> > K). And that is just based on the cost for that users salary. When you
> > look
> > at from the perspective of training, HR hiring costs, advertising...
Well
> > you could double the IT spending.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]" <javier_gomez@remove.this.engineer.com> wrote
in
> > message news:OGwyzQHLEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> IMHO-> If you think that you will blow out the 75 user limit in couple
of
> >> years (>1-2yrs)... I would upgrade to SBS2003.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Javier [SBS MVP]
> >>
> >> << SBS ROCKS !!! >>
> >>
> >> "Brad Pears" <donotreply@notreal.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%23pIvGMHLEHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> > Jeff, we have a SBS 2000 server (DELL SC 1600) and a WIndows 2000
> >> > member
> >> > server (DELL SC600).
> >> >
> >> > The SC600 is basically the file server and terminal server. Our SBS
> >> > machine - other than being the PDC, does really nothing other than
run
> >> > Exchange and other stuff a PDC must do...
> >> >
> >> > I have been quite pleased by the performance overall. I was talking
to
> >> > Microsoft about the 'transaition' pack. However, he did mention that
it
> >> > doesn;t look like that product may even be available anymore for 2000
> > SBS
> >> > (they called it the 'migration' pack then.
> >> >
> >> > I understand, if I can find it, that we'd purchase the server
migration
> >> > pack
> >> > that comes with 5 CALS, and then purchase other CAL migration packs.
> >> >
> >> > Does this sound about right?
> >> >
> >> > It definately is an option. We are also looking at upgrading our SBS
> > 2000
> >> > box to SBS 2003 which gives you 75 users - but we'll likely blow by
> >> > that
> >> > in
> >> > a couple years too - so we have to try to make a decision about the
> > route
> >> > to
> >> > take. The problem will no doubt boil down to cash!!!
> >> >
> >> > Brad
> >> >
> >> > "Jeff L" <newsgroupsremoveandunderscore_jeff@availabletech.net> wrote
> >> > in
> >> > message news:uE29dqGLEHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Brad,
> >> >>
> >> >> You are not blocked from doing it but you will not get the
> > functionality
> >> >> without quirks and inconsistencies. Licensing errors will popup and
> >> >> you
> >> > will
> >> >> be violating your EULA. Actually tranisitioning to individual
servers
> > is
> >> > not
> >> >> really expensive. You have to buy a transition pack and pay a
minimal
> >> >> upgrade fee for users. You are not penalized for having choosen SBS.
> >> >> If
> >> > you
> >> >> would like help doing this please send me a personal email.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am very interested in the performance of your server. How has it
> >> >> been
> >> >> working for you as you appproach the 50 user barrier?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff Loucks
> >> >> Available Technology ®
> >> >> Solutions For Professionals ®
> >> >> www.availabletechnology.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Brad Pears" <donotreply@notreal.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:#lfgPMGLEHA.2736@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> >> > We currently are running SBS 2000. Ourt business has grown
> >> >> > substantially
> >> >> > over the past year and we are approaching the 50 user limit on
SBS.
> >> >> Because
> >> >> > of this, we are looking at upgrading to SBS 2003 (75 users) OR
full
> >> > blown
> >> >> > win 2003 server with Exchagne SQL server ISA etc... (very very
> >> >> > pricy!!!)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This morning as a test, I added 10 more 'test' users - which would
> > put
> >> > us
> >> >> > beyond the 50 user limit just to see what would happen. I created
> >> > Exchange
> >> >> > mailboxes for each. I expected SBS to prevent me from adding the
> >> >> > 51st
> >> >> user,
> >> >> > but was pleasantly surprised when this was not the case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where is the limit? Does it prevent 51 concurrent users only -
> > meaning
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > could have 100 users in the AD but as long as only 50 are logged
on
> > at
> >> >> once
> >> >> > I'm ok? If this is the case, then we are ok because we will not
have
> >> >> > all
> >> >> 50
> >> >> > users on at once.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Please let me know where the SBS limitations are. Maybe we do not
> > have
> >> > to
> >> >> > upgrade to 2003 SBS just yet...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Brad
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Still have problem with DNS forwarding"
- Previous message: chris: "remote web"
- In reply to: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000"
- Next in thread: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000"
- Reply: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: reaching the 50 user barrier on SBS 2000"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
