| Author | Messages | |
sbradcpa
Posts:315
 | | 09/24/2008 1:35 PM |
| The amount of RAM/size of a system would have no bearing on
capitalization though.
Assuming your company has a capitalization policy and assuming that even
a DC with 4 gigs costs above that capitalization policy, you book an
asset because it has a life span of greater than one year. (Beancounter
opinion)
Even my cheapest computers last longer than a year and we capitalize
them.... a laptop that we bought for $600 arguably could be expensed,
but we capitalized it given the life of the asset.
Given the advances/changes in virtualization lately though, (throwing
this out as a question), should one be future proofing quite so much or
making the server more 'moveable'?
(and on a funny note, because I'm so tuned into Exchange 2007/64bit
world, I didn't realize that there was a 32bit Windows 2008 until later
on in the beta testing process)
We're starting our roll out of 64bit Vista workstations, seeing out
bleeding edge we can be. :-)
Sabharanjak, Ravi BGI SF wrote:
>
> Not really, but the cost of the DC can be capitalized over 3 years
> instead of it being just an expense. Also, we want to build it so that
> it is at least a bit future proof, hence the RAM and the extra disks.
> Buying RAM later on is actually more expensive in some cases. We have
> Linux servers authenticating and authorizing from the DC’s in addition
> to windows servers and clients. Also, all of our internal apps target
> the DC for single sign-on. So there is a lot of load on the DC’s
> because of this.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian Desmond
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:50 AM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> *16GB is a TON of RAM for a 3GB DIT. Are you expecting that much growth?*
>
> * *
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Brian Desmond*
>
> *brian@briandesmond.com*
>
> * *
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> * *
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Sabharanjak, Ravi BGI SF
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:46 PM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> We’ll be shortly going to x64 on our DC’s. The DIT is about 3 gb
> currently, which should fit nicely in-RAM, with 16 GB on the server.
> We would be having 6 disks configured into 3 spindles (mirrors of 2
> disks each), one spindle each for the OS, logs and the DIT file.
>
> What has been the experience of people going to x64 for the DC’s? Are
> there any major design / configuration changes that you’ve had to make
> because of x64? How about pagefile configuration etc?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Ravi
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] *On Behalf Of *joe
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:30 AM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> You can load the full DIT into RAM on x86 for many many many
> companies. It simply depends on the size of the DIT. I expect the vast
> majority of users of AD (thinking of all the mom and pops as well as
> medium and large, etc) will have their DIT fit into RAM with a normal
> x86 machine. Prior to loading Exchange into an AD Forest the DIT for
> one company I worked with with a couple of hundred thousand users fit
> in less than 800MB of RAM on Windows 2000. Exchange is one of the top
> causes of DIT bloat, another reason I like Exchange resource forests. 
>
> This really is, I think, more of a push to get people's servers onto
> x64 so they can drop the x86 support for them and the resulting
> savings to MSFT from having to support both. It also allows them to
> start making assumptions based on x64 for other server products.
>
> --
>
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael B.
> Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:58 AM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> Drop support for /3gb, /userva/, and /pae comes to mind.
>
> I know that lots of performance issues in exchange went away by going
> to x64, and I know of a couple that go away in AD (loading the full
> dit into memory pops to mind).
>
> If css/pss no longer has to take those kinds of calls…it represents a
> savings to MSFT and a reduction in problems for the client.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael B. Smith
>
> MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
>
> http://TheEssentialExchange.com
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] *On Behalf Of *joe
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:43 AM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> To get people out onto the dance floor....
>
> --
>
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] *On Behalf Of *Brandon Shell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:37 AM
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> That is how I perceive it working as well... but I am curious what the
> value will be.
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:08 AM, joe <listmail@joeware.net
> <mailto:listmail@joeware.net>> wrote:
>
> It can be the same code base, they just don't release the x86 bins...
>
> --
>
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>] *On Behalf Of *Brandon Shell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:03 AM
>
>
> *To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org <mailto:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> Perhaps I am off base, and yes I clearly see the "server" reference,
> but it is my understanding the idea was to keep 2k8 and Vista on the
> same base. I wonder what impact , if any, this will have on Vista.
>
> I suppose we should take it to mean that the R2 extensions will only
> be available for x64.
>
> p.s. I realize there is a difference between RX and SPX.
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Coleman, Hunter <hcoleman@mt.gov
> <mailto:hcoleman@mt.gov>> wrote:
>
> "Microsoft announced several years ago that Windows Server 2008 would
> be the last server OS available in 32-bit. (And let's not overlook the
> word "server" there! I'm not talking about the desktop.) Windows
> Server 2008 R2 will be 64-bit only."
> (http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2008/09/08/64-bit-windows-server-hyper-v-and-the-future.aspx)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:37 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org <mailto:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> Mark (or anyone else), do you have a reference for this?
>
> (I support it - I just want a reference.) :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael B. Smith
> MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
> http://TheEssentialExchange.com <http://theessentialexchange.com/>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>] On Behalf Of
> Grillenmeier, Guido
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:23 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org <mailto:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org>
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> Yep, they've touted this for a while now. Makes perfect sense.
>
> /Guido
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
> <mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org>] On Behalf Of Mark Parris (L)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:04 AM
> To: ActiveDir
> Subject: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
>
> True to their word:
>
> I read yesterday that Windows 2008 R2 will ship as a 64bit version only.
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Parris
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
>
> --
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential, proprietary, and
> may be privileged. If this message was misdirected, Barclays Global
> Investors (BGI) does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and
> destroy the message without disclosing its contents to anyone. Any
> distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
> contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. The
> views and opinions expressed in this e-mail message are the author's
> own and may not reflect the views and opinions of BGI, unless the
> author is authorized by BGI to express such views or opinions on its
> behalf. All email sent to or from this address is subject to
> electronic storage and review by BGI. Although BGI operates anti-virus
> programs, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever
> caused by viruses being passed.
>
> --
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential, proprietary, and
> may be privileged. If this message was misdirected, Barclays Global
> Investors (BGI) does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and
> destroy the message without disclosing its contents to anyone. Any
> distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
> contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. The
> views and opinions expressed in this e-mail message are the author's
> own and may not reflect the views and opinions of BGI, unless the
> author is authorized by BGI to express such views or opinions on its
> behalf. All email sent to or from this address is subject to
> electronic storage and review by BGI. Although BGI operates anti-virus
> programs, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever
> caused by viruses being passed.
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
| | | |
|
|