Network Admins / Data center/ Infrastructure managers....Question for ya.
 

Can anyone here direct me to a white paper or industry standards on Network Admin to Server ratios?

I'd like to understand what is standard for both Unix and Windows environments of varying complexity.

Any leads appreiciated.

Unix, regardless of the number of servers, 1 admin, they don't break and it takes a wizard to work on them.

Windows, 5 admins per server, they take constant maintenance, similar to incubating eggs that never hatch, and 5 paper MCP's almost equal 1 monkey.

:D

No whitepapers, etc. but I think t his question has been on "Ask Slashdot" before... maybe search there?

Thanks id10t. An initial search doesn't show a related thread. I'll dig deeper. If anyone recalls the specifics please share. Thanks!

Hah hah funny guy.

The opposite is true. Microsoft boxes require less administration than Unix or Linux boxes. Of course if you get your Linux from IBM, you don't have to have any administrators....because you are paying 200k are year for a couple of Big Blue chimps to be on your staff... :P

Rick, you are looking for information that is likely going to be tainted by marketing hype. Microsoft had done massive studies on this issue, and there is a strong correlation between labor costs and the use of Unix/Linux. In environments where costs are high, Mircosoft dominates, because more of the day to day administrative tasks are automated. In envrionments where labor costs are low, unix/linux dominate because they can afford the staff to deal with the hands on work.

Frankly, I would be very suspicious of any one claiming to have a 'magic number'. I know of environments with 1000+ users and only 2 admins, but those are tightly controlled Citrix shops. Other environments, like law firms, may have a very high number of administrators 'per server' because they staff requres a lot of support.

The number of administrators will typically correlate more strongly with the number of people, not servers.

Someone needs to get Thom F to respond, he's one o' dem der UNIX wizards.

Sorry. the bit about Windows was a low blow. You only really have to keep someone around to power cycle the boxes from time to time and the MS stuff runs great.



Yes, I'm just making jokes. I'm an MS user and have few to no problems with XP. I hear people griping about how Windows is Junk and I defend it. It's the end user monkeys that cause problems, not Windows. The only problem with Windows is that it's versatile, allows any software or hardware to run, even the crap, and is too easy for people that should be limited to Macs to screw up.

Interesting info..very much appreciated and noted. I shouldn't have let my Gartner subscription lapse.

How would the number of SAs have anything to do with the number of users? I don't get that one.
:confused:
Unix boxes (superdomes and Suncrap) I use 1 senior per 20 or so with another junior for gruntwork. Also depends on the complexity of the Pars and storage. I try to group the guys in relation to the type of applications living on the boxes, as they are apt to be more familiar with the tuning requirements. I also require them to work closely with the apps teams in a sort of architectural role during the design phases of home-grown apps. We catch a lot more crappy java that way.
I have asked the same question for years. From Gartner, Giga, whoever. There's no magic number.
Budget adjustment time already?
edit: Oops, forgot AIX. About 1/10. I'm out of the Wintel world anymore, but it always seemed to require more babysitting. Although the MCSESAMOUSEs claimed differently.

There is no magic number. I've personally managed just under 500 UX boxes, solo. It was a mix of AIX, Solaris, HP-UX and Linux, 80% of which was for application development and testing. My secret is that I automate anything that can be automated. The less human intervention, the better. I kept native OS images of all of the important boxes, and critical data was kept on the SAN. If something went south on a box, I'd lay the image back down on another piece of h/w and switch over - poor man's clustering.

The big wildcards are the number of users and types of apps on the boxes. Home-grown and custom apps tend to need more care and feeding than out-of-the box professional stuff. The more privs you give the users, the more problems they'll cause for you.

Another variable is the age of the boxes. If you're running 10 year old h/w trying to save $1, you'll spend $1.25 chasing down various h/w issues, but that won't show up on paper.

Microsoft stuff doesn't require as hefty a skillset to get up and running, but when something does go wrong, it's harder to fix not because of the actual complexity of the problem, but because the people administering the things usually don't understand them beyond "Right-click 'My Computer'..." For instance, the Verisign DNS boondoggle a couple years ago decimated our PC infrastructure, and the mouse jockeys were helpless because they didn't understand DNS. (Sure, they knew WINS...) The UX guys figured out what was going on and had a workaround established before the news officially broke.

The thing about admining a server is automation of maintainence and proper setup. Once it is setup, anything an admin has to do more than 2 or 3 times should be scriptied. This is where the *nix family rocks - anything can be scripted, using just about any language the SA desires.

Excellent feedback gents. Your time to respond is much appreciated.

I think Linux/Unix can have a very small administrative footprint... if the administration/administrator is a GOOD admin. Linux/Unix offers a ton of automation via scheduling jobs and shell scripts that are just tough to duplicate on a Windows box.

The thing is, Windows is easier to admin, because MS makes it simple to use, and has it automatically do a lot of things, whereas Linux/Unix is more esoteric, more bare, and not as user/admin friendly.

From what I hear, though, MS may move toward a command-line only interface in future Server iterations of their operating systems. Could just be rumor, but it would be nice to be able to cut the overhead of the graphical interface.

I'd also personally like it if MS would make it easier to backup application configuratoins. Linux/Unix is already easy. You configure services through text configuration files. While sometimes it's very tricky to get right, once it's configured, make a backup of the config, and you're good to go. With MS, you have to back up the System State, and Registry, and then getting it back in when you reload the OS to recover from a failure.