Re: Admins to Boxes ratio

From: JOSEPH KREMBLAS (jkremblas_at_REDHEARTGIFTS.COM)
Date: 02/27/04

  • Next message: JOSEPH KREMBLAS: "Re: Admins to Boxes ratio" 
    Date:         Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:23:38 -0700
To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU

    I don't think you or your boss needs documentation to determine the
    number of system administrators to boxes ratio. Let's think about this
    for a moment. One S/A = SPOF (single point of failure), which equals
    high risk environment. Legal and insurance companies would have a heart
    attack if they heard that only one system administrator was managing one
    or thousands of boxes. Two is minimum regardless of number of boxes to
    satisfy risk management, legal, and insurance policies and/or
    requirements. I would always have three (3) S/A's at a minimum, because
    you never know who's going to be sick and who's going on vacation. If
    only one S/A is there, who will cover for you when you're on vacation or
    if you get sick.

    A nice reminder of the risk with system administrator's goes back to the
    late 1990's when three system administrator's used to ride to work
    together and all got killed in a fatal car crash. Never do the buddy
    system with such valuable assets. This is a huge lesson even if you do
    hire two or three system administrators. Also, not all of them should be
    on-site at the same time. If you do this, then you put the company at
    risk again in case of a major disaster. Don't believe me? I watch twin
    towers go down from my office in Jersey City and heard reports of the
    entire S/A team on site which put a particular firm at high risk.

    I think you get the idea. In summary:

            a) What if a S/A gets sick?
            b) What if a S/A wants to go on vacation?
            c) Don't put all your marbles in one basket.
            d) What about insurance policies?
            e) What about legal requirements?
            f) Two S/A's minimum; three is the right answer.

    Most companies would be wise to insure all their system administrator's
    if they choose to only hire and retain one S/A regardless of the number
    of boxes.

    My two cents.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: IBM AIX Discussion List [mailto:aix-l@Princeton.EDU] On Behalf Of
    Patrick B. O'Brien
    Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 4:44 PM
    To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
    Subject: Admins to Boxes ratio

    Anybody have any IBM Documentation defining the AIX Admins to Boxes
    ratio?

    I'm an AIX Admin supporting some 14 AIX Boxes and a few RH Boxes; I
    think I could use some help. My boss wants to see if IBM agrees.

    Thank you.

  • Next message: JOSEPH KREMBLAS: "Re: Admins to Boxes ratio"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Admins to Boxes ratio
      ... boss, it's CRITICAL that you make these ideas your boss's ideas. ... critical step if you're the only S/A managing these boxes. ... high risk environment. ...
      (AIX-L)
    • Re: Bug/Gross InEfficiency in HeathFields fgetline program
      ... er: "You failed the interview. ... You didn't consider the risk ... "That's not a proper use of the box! ... For instance if the boxes look exactly like orgage boxes, which are typically stacked ten high, then the fact that they will topple over if stacked more than five is an obvious danger. ...
      (comp.lang.c)
    • Re: OT : HTML editors?
      ... >> If you want to risk your hair, ... > boxes are about 2.5 x as wide as they should be. ... horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk ...
      (uk.rec.motorcycles)
    • Re: Windows Virus using group posters
      ... Your email address absolutely does put you at risk - a mope can't send you ... the history of the internet was propagated on Unix boxes. ... > that currently 60% of spam comes from MS Windows machines that have ... > risk' of spam attacks. ...
      (comp.lang.cobol)