Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      25 Apr 2001 23:15:53 EST
From:      "Mark Sergeant" <msergeant@snsonline.net>
To:        "tony" <tony@tntpro.com>, <nathan@vidican.com>
Cc:        <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: HotmailMigration
Message-ID:  <200104260416.f3Q4FvL37409@xyzzy.intranet.snsonline.net>
In-Reply-To: <008901c0cda9$09d07f40$0a00a8c0@tntpro.com>
References:  <3AE6F95A.4D51D58D@wmptl.com> <008901c0cda9$09d07f40$0a00a8c0@tntpro.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You also neglected to mention that they had to increase the number of machines
from 3500ish to 5000+ just one other "minor" cost ;)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:59:00 -0400, tony said:

:: Just wanted to congratulate you on a well said email, and ask, "did they
::  actually answer you?"
::  ----- Original Message -----
::  From: "Nathan Vidican" <webmaster@wmptl.com>
::  To: <technet@microsoft.com>
::  Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
::  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:20 PM
::  Subject: HotmailMigration
::  
::  
::  > I've got a few questions which were not answered in your article. I
::  > will tell you a little about my business, and what I am currently
::  > working with. I cannot justify moving from my open-sourced system to
::  > Windows 2000, and am curious as to why you would choose HotMail as a
::  > prime example? I do not know of too many companies which could afford
::  > (primarily speaking about financially) the migration of 5000+ servers
::  > from an open-source (cost-free licensed) to Windows 2000. I cannot even
::  > begin to fathom what such a cost would be, based upon my experiences
::  > with Microsoft and it's software licensing charges. I am attempting not
::  > too be biased with this email, as I am dead serious, and would truly
::  > appreciate an honest reply.
::  > I am currently involved in the startup phase of a new devision to an
::  > existing company. My network is a relatively small network with a
::  > cluster of about 30 servers (and growing), running web, database, and
::  > email services. On all of the intel-based machines I am running the
::  > FreeBSD (various releases from 2.2.8-RELEASE -> 4.3-STABLE) operating
::  > system, on Sun Sparc based machines I am running either Solaris 2.8, or
::  > OpenBSD 2.8 and on all of the Apple Macintosh systems I am running
::  > OpenBSD 2.8 (used primarily for SSL servers). All servers are on a
::  > 100mbit switched LAN, (using Cisco Catalyst switches), with Gigabit
::  > (over fiber) connections between several of the key servers (eg: primary
::  > user database and mail servers) in the progress of implementation. We
::  > offer web-hosting, server co-location, and custom web/database design. I
::  > use Oracle, MySQL, and PostGre SQL as well as a custom design which
::  > leverages the UFS filesystem's capabilities for the databases. In
::  > general, I am happy with the design, and really satisfied with the
::  > performance.
::  > I cam accross your article reading a thread posted to
::  > questions@freebsd.org; and from there I understand that your move from
::  > FreeBSD to Windows 2000 was primarily motivated by political reasons. I
::  > can see how it would be a huge embarassment to be running one of the
::  > most successful sites on the internet from a platform which you cannot
::  > market and/or sell yourselves. Still, from an unbiased perspective, I'd
::  > ask you to answer a few questions regarding this migration.
::  > First and foremost, I can see how this migration wouldn't have incurred
::  > the licensing charges as it is a part of Microsoft; but how much would
::  > the total cost for the licensing on all of the HotMail webservers cost
::  > the average business (which is not owned nor operated by Microsoft)?
::  > Judging by what it would have cost me to run Win2000 Server for a measly
::  > 25 users on our local office LAN I can't even contemplate the licensing
::  > cost for 5000+ servers serving millions of users. I do understand that
::  > one may be able to get away without purchasing so many copies of the
::  > O/S, but I cannot see how you would legally allow an outside company to
::  > run that many servers without individually licensing them. To be honest,
::  > I do not know much about Microsoft's licensing policies... perhaps you
::  > do offer some sort of bulk, flat-rate, or site-wide licensing fee
::  > schedule for large server farms of this nature, do you? If so, what
::  > would the MSRP be for say 5000 servers each serving 2000 users a piece?
::  > Secondly, what about the upgrade path? What kind of options would you
::  > be able to offer someone with a 5000 unit server farm when you're next
::  > 'Service Pack' comes out? Would that company then have to 'upgrade' all
::  > machines to the new service pack in order to avoid some threatening
::  > back-door entrance to the system that you 'weren't aware of'? What about
::  > say the next generation of the O/S? Would the company then have to
::  > re-purchase licensing for each server to be upgraded? What would this
::  > cost? I mean just the software cost; not including the IT staffing
::  > requirements to actually procure such a transition.
::  > Thirdly, to what level of customization could you possibly offer to
::  > such a company? With FreeBSD, (or any other Open-Sourced system), the
::  > company would have the extreme flexability in that they could simply
::  > change or alter components of the O/S which they simply do not require.
::  > For example, the GUI; similar to Novell Netware 5, wherein the GUI
::  > doesn't have to be using system resources because it doesn't always have
::  > to be loaded... or ever loaded to begin with for that matter. What if
::  > the company were involved in some obtuse practise, (say VOIP), wherein
::  > they were required to service thousands or even millions of clients over
::  > a protocol which your O/S doesn't directly support? Would they then have
::  > to fork-out more money for OS 'add-ons', and/or 'upgrades'? Would they
::  > then incur more licensing fees? Would they be forced to go to a third
::  > party to provide them with a solution that would work on your platform?
::  > Would you then refuse to support it because it was designed a third
::  > party; worse yet, would you blame problems their encountering on
::  > imcompatabilities or state that you 'do not support that'?
::  > Which brings us to another issue, support. What would you charge for a
::  > support contract to be able to fully provide technical support for a
::  > company of this magnitude? I know of several firms which support FreeBSD
::  > for such massive endeavors, but I would assume that something this large
::  > would have to be supported by Microsoft directly. Primarily so because
::  > no-one else (should) have more knowledge of the O/S and/or how it
::  > functions; and therefor be knowledgable enough to support it. What would
::  > a typical technical support contract for a company with 5000 servers
::  > running Windows 2000 cost?
::  > Lastly, what about performance. You stated in your article that FreeBSD
::  > does not perform well in a given scenario. From what I understand, that
::  > given scenario really doesn't apply to Apache. Therefor you compared the
::  > performance of two completely different things, of course stating that
::  > yours was better. My question is, that if yours is so much better then
::  > why are some of the largest sites on the internet still using FreeBSD
::  > and Apache? These are the few companies which this migration could
::  > potentially apply to, for example Yahoo. Companies which do service as
::  > many if not more clients than HotMail, yet I don't see them even
::  > attempting to justify such a migration. Why do you suppose they aren't?
::  > Have you approached companies like Yahoo? What was the typical response
::  > given to you by them?
::  > To sum up things a bit, I would like to know what it would have cost an
::  > outside company to make such a transition from and open-sourced system
::  > to Windows 2000. This would of course not include their IT staffing,
::  > programatic changes, and downtime incurred to do so. I would like to
::  > know why, (other than for the obvious political reasons), you chose to
::  > make such a migration public news. I would like to better understand how
::  > you could possible intend to market such a large migration for any other
::  > company outside of the Microsoft Corporation. If you could reasonably
::  > answer any of the above, in a manner as unbiased as possible I would
::  > truly like to hear from you. Please note that I have also carbon copied
::  > this message to the FreeBSD support list, in an effort to understand the
::  > FreeBSD community's viewpoint on this as well. I would encourage you to
::  > also carbon copy your response to this list, as I am sure I am not the
::  > only one with questions of this nature.
::  >
::  > Nathan Vidican
::  > Nathan@Vidican.com
::  > http://Nathan.Vidican.com/
::  >
::  > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
::  > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
::  >
::  
::  
::  To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
::  with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
::  
::  
::  

-- 
Mark Sergeant
Unix Systems Administrator

Fortune follows...

Any dramatic series the producers want us to take seriously as a
representation of contemporary reality cannot be taken seriously as a
representation of anything -- except a show to be ignored by anyone
capable of sitting upright in a chair and chewing gum simultaneously.
		-- Richard Schickel



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104260416.f3Q4FvL37409>