On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Goirand
<thomas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I do agree that a KVM is a good option, but also found that a properly
> configured server never needs it.
ANY server ALWAYS need it. Simply because it can fail and you might need
to access the BIOS to disable an HDD, or simply reboot the server, or
again boot on a diagnostic server. Now that I use KVMs everywhere, I
just feel I'm BLIND when I don't have one, and I hate the feeling.
Well, each to his own, I suppose :) I don't really sit and work on servers every moment of the day :)
> So, where I save
> money on the KVM, I pay it for server management, and this also cuts
> down support costs on my side a bit.
What saving are we talking about here? 100 USD per server wont make your
accountant have a heart attack ... But loosing precious time can make
your customers run away.
Well, with a KVM, I meant that I would need to sit and fix the problem, or pay a tech's salary to sit and fix the problem. It's more than often cheaper to pay the IDC to manage the servers, since time is valuable to me.
Thomas
P.S: PLEASE, do NOT Cc: when replying. This is just plain wrong (by
default you should never do this), and anyway, I'm registered to the list.
Please don't take offense in this, my gmail account replies to all, by default.
_______________________________________________