- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Server 2008 update goes bad...
Posted on 8/7/14 at 10:33 am to jcole4lsu
Posted on 8/7/14 at 10:33 am to jcole4lsu
I have been a server admin for many years. If the system can run the OS, win 2008, then running an update should not be an issue. I would suggest that if it was a service pack, that may not be such a good idea on an older system. Depending on the size of the company and the exposure of the server to outside traffic, you may want to skip some updates to keep the system running well.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 10:34 am
1
Posted on 8/7/14 at 10:57 am to FreddieMac
quote:They should upgrade the system with the quickness. replace the hardware. upgrade the software, etc. something. Leaving old systems running old software is a terrible idea. Sure, it is cheaper today. But, it will eventually cost you much more in the long run.
I would suggest that if it was a service pack, that may not be such a good idea on an older system. Depending on the size of the company and the exposure of the server to outside traffic, you may want to skip some updates to keep the system running well.
You need to have a built-in policy/system for upgrading hardware and software. If not, you are going to fail long term, guaranteed.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 11:13 am to hashtag
quote:
They should upgrade the system with the quickness. replace the hardware. upgrade the software, etc. something. Leaving old systems running old software is a terrible idea. Sure, it is cheaper today. But, it will eventually cost you much more in the long run.
You need to have a built-in policy/system for upgrading hardware and software. If not, you are going to fail long term, guaranteed.
And this is the age-old problem where management (and most of the world, really) is too focused on quarterly numbers to realize that a small cost now can avoid a big cost later.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 11:28 am to Korkstand
It is also an issue where Security/Risk Management departments have responsibility but not actionable authority. Those departments should be able to remove servers like that from the network if there are security concerns.
It would help remove those decisions from penny pushing managements.
It would help remove those decisions from penny pushing managements.
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 11:29 am
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:48 pm to TigerGman
the better question is why the hell you'd still be running Server 2008.
But shouldn't be any problem installing updates on it.
But shouldn't be any problem installing updates on it.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 12:53 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
the better question is why the hell you'd still be running Server 2008.
The same reason people still run XP
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:18 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
he better question is why the hell you'd still be running Server 2008.
because most small businesses dont have the budget to upgrade every time a new OS comes out.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:23 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
most small businesses dont have the budget to upgrade every time a new OS comes out.
Um no....There are billion dollar corps that run 08....
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:27 pm to GrammarKnotsi
thats my point. there is no real need to upgrade OS as long as its still supporting your necessary software. its precisely why so many companies were running XP for so long.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:32 pm to jcole4lsu
meh, most of these companies you are referring to have volume license agreements with Microsoft. Running XP, Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Server 2003, Server 2008 R2, Server 2012 R12 has no cost difference. These companies can upgrade their server software at no cost of software.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 1:35 pm to hashtag
quote:
These companies can upgrade their server software at no cost of software.
And they choose not too..Keep up
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:10 pm to hashtag
quote:
These companies can upgrade their server software at no additional cost of software.
FIFY, nothing is free!
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:13 pm to TigerGman
I'm thinking that there should be a Change Management Policy in place for installing patches or updates to the system.
There should also been a auditable approval process. The person who approves the changes shouldn't be able to make the changes.
There should also been a auditable approval process. The person who approves the changes shouldn't be able to make the changes.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:15 pm to Vlad
quote:
FIFY, nothing is free!
He didn't say free, he said no additional cost. That cost would already be in the original agreement.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:35 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
There should also been a auditable approval process. The person who approves the changes shouldn't be able to make the changes.
Can you expound upon this idea? It sounds like something to implement in my organization. Do you do this now, and if so, how does your process work?
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:38 pm to TigerRob20
quote:
Can you expound upon this idea?
Could be as easy as WSUS...
Posted on 8/7/14 at 2:44 pm to TigerRob20
quote:
Can you expound upon this idea? It sounds like something to implement in my organization. Do you do this now, and if so, how does your process work?
Have someone in management approve the changes who doesn't have access to move changes into production. Use a change control form for it that specifies the reason for the change, who requested the change, and what testing is done - with backup procedures if the change fails.
Weekly change meetings can be used for approval too. It should be pretty easy to find the information, but I can't say much more without billing you
This post was edited on 8/7/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 8/7/14 at 6:50 pm to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
Um no....There are billion dollar corps that run 08....
And nothing is wrong with that since it's a supported OS.
The same cannot be said for XP though.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 6:52 pm to hashtag
quote:
meh, most of these companies you are referring to have volume license agreements with Microsoft. Running XP, Windows 7, Windows 8.1, Server 2003, Server 2008 R2, Server 2012 R12 has no cost difference. These companies can upgrade their server software at no cost of software.
This is only true if you have software assurance which costs significantly more than just buying the software with an open license agreement.
Posted on 8/7/14 at 8:44 pm to MikeBRLA
I do updates on 50 servers every month that are all mission critical. If you are not over the fear of MS screwing you on updates, then you need to not be a server admin. Have faith in your backups and protect your systems.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News