Re: Scalable
Sorry 'bout that. Tried to get a Postfix-users off list reply back on list and
fat fingered the auto-complete in T-bird.
My apologies.
--
Stan
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 2/12/2010 11:11 PM:
> Jonathan Tripathy put forth on 2/12/2010 5:05 PM:
>> Hi Stan,
>
> Hi. Try to keep the discussions on list so everyone can assist.
>
>> You've hit a very good question. They don't currently have an office
>> email system. Staff are using their personal Hotmail accounts when they
>> need to send the odd email. Do you see why I orignally was going to get
>> a 256MB RAM VM to allow them to have 50 or so email accounts?
>
> No, I can't. I can understand your thought process, but it's wrong. Leaving a
> really bad situation for another one that's not quite as bad is not the same as
> going to a good situation. Architect a solution that fits the client's needs,
> not a solution that's just a little better than what they have, but overall
> still doesn't come close to meeting their needs.
>
>> Just some other company has come in saying that they'll do 600, and even
>> though my price is much cheaper, it's now being seen as "too cheap"...
>
> Bid the job right. Write up a proposal explaining what they need, why they need
> it, and how much it's going to cost.
>
>> I was thinking this server:
>>
>> http://www.fasthosts.co.uk/dedicatedservers/linux-servers/ds300-linux/
>
> You're still not looking at this from the proper perspective. You're looking at
> ISP rented colo offerings and trying to match one you think might fit the
> client's need. This is called an "ass backwards" approach to system design.
>
> Identify the client's needs, then architect the system, then pick the hardware,
> vendors and providers that best fit that need.
>
> You didn't mention what their broadband connection speed is. We need to know
> that to help you properly architect this thing. The lower that bandwidth, the
> greater the need to have the mail server on site and not in a colo.
>
> To be completely honest, from what I've seen from you to this point, it sounds
> like everyone in this scenario might be better off just using Google apps.
> Charge a decent "conversion" fee, add in some training, and once they're up and
> running you don't have to "manage the box", which it seems you're not really up
> to anyway.
>
Reply to: