Day 1 ( * Waiting (anticipation) for Fedex delivery
* Installation is a breeze (File Sharing, Address Book, iCal, iChat, Mail, Web, Podcast, Wikis and Blogs) and all user accounts setup, VPN currently disabled
* Server runs headless (No keyboard, Mouse, Monitor plugged into server) when install completed (Use share screen utility)
* No disruption to any user throughout entire processDay-2 (2 hours)
* Desktops receive invitation to Login to Server, first time
* Changes in router: DHCP server PDNS changed to router's IP, enabled Proxy DNS Server and added private domain and IP address (I called ADTRAN support because I missed a step)
* Tested file shares on LAN
* Copied & installed Server Status Widget to my desktop
* Tested backup (Time Machine) and disabled
* Tested [email protected] to see each user's MyPage, Wikis & Blogs
My Mac Mini Server experience was very good. For a newbie, I feared the worst, and yet another good experience is attributed to Apple. While I sputtered over semantics--"Enter Server Serial Number," once I figured out "keycode," I was on my way to deploying my first Mac server in under 20 minutes. The reason for deployment wasn't just to do things in my office differently.
Here's what I learned:
The Mac Mini Server is not good for full back up of Mac desktops unless you opt for a decent set of server drives such as the Promise SmartStor DS4600 4x1TB RAID System for $799. Before you backup (create more storage demand) you really need to answer questions--what to backup, where to backup and why. Then you may change your process as I did to address where files and databases are best stored. I redirected them on the server and then enabled the desktops to also retain backup to the cloud using individual (Apple Mobile Me) accounts under our master account.
An important discovery I made before any trial or purchase of IP-PBX software to run on the new server was from calling and emailing other Mac VoIP/IP-PBX users--"use one Mac Mini Server just for the IP-PBX and run nothing else on that server." Because of the low entry cost and because of the high price of Apple's Xserve, buying a second Mac Mini Server is reasonable especially because of the small footprint and low power consumption. Virtualization does not fit for the Mac Mini Server and because of the 5400-rpm drives and limited 4GB memory. When you consider the virtualization software from Parallels with a price tag of $1280 it just doesn't make sense for us -just buy another Mac Mini Server. The collaboration features in the Apple OS X make getting some of the same features in an IP-PBX redundant so deciding which features to use and from where may be preventing some customers from moving forward.
During the second day after installing the Mac Mini Server the user introduction was another fear but it was painless. Each user received a one-time invitation to login and that was pretty much it--within a few seconds their accounts were set up and completed and no complaints or interruptions to service.
The reality that my server buddy reminds me about is that while I accomplished a mission that is out of the norm for me (installing a server), I still have the road of support facing me. Of course I purchased the extended warranty with call in support but now I face a long list of Apple OS X Server (advanced) online classes. I watched most of the 33 basic podcasts on Leopard Server while waiting for the shipment to arrive. My server buddy is right that "geeky stuff still resides in the best technology and someone still has to figure it all out." I quickly figured out how to get remote notifications via email when the server needs patching. How many times in the past I've said, "I'm not a server guy." Whether or not the Mac Mini Server will put a dent in what Dell or any other manufacturer sells, I don't know. In all the years I've resisted buying a server for the business I am still glad, very glad that I did wait because Apple has made the initial process real easy and kept the entry costs low.
Notable about this cigar box are the collaboration tools deployed so easily that I think they could fit nicely in K-12 schools. There are other good matches too but that was my first impression because of the shared calendaring and Wikis. The Mac Mini server doesn't have to run all that I've selected, because it can run just one application, meaning a customer could conceivably stack or shelve numerous Mac Mini servers. Virtualization is not necessary since the under 30-watt box isn't eating power as conventional servers do. It's been over five months since install and no calls to me for help yet. Still, reality dictates that I've got to learn more about what those server guys deal with. For a detailed review on the Mac Mini Server read the Macintouch report here.
Considering what Eric discovered in his post ShoreTel's IBM Integration "that each year, 300,000 businesses in the U.S. buy their first servers ever. Given the opportunity, will these businesses piggyback communications onto the new platform?" I've noted in the past that Apple appears to have everything in the basket except the voice egg and that having a VoIP/IPT solution of its own or available would certainly receive a warm welcoming. Even bundling vendors code into the application folder for try-before-you-buy would seem prudent. I've thought long and hard about dumping our IP-PBX to save a few more watts of energy and to push into the Apple world deeper than before. It's not fear so much as it is (comfort) how embedded our Panasonic NCP-1000 is in our network and then how or can I replicate everything we have now? Do I need to replicate everything or replace old methods with new processes? I can definitely save a few watts of energy, have less hardware/software to manage and then get bragging rights that we've converged to the server. The SNOM phones that run on the Apple OS X solutions are very cool looking too.
For now I can rest knowing that everything works but pressure is definitely on to converge everything to one box, eliminating the need for any IP-PBX. Business in a box is not a new concept and today the boxes have gotten notably smaller, faster, better and cheaper. Soon enough more market share will elude the PBX sales and more servers will undoubtedly take over old roles. The other reason I'm not running to move my "PBX" over to a server is simple--it's paid for. Since I do get what I call "patch and repair notices" or alerts via email to update the server, I'm also keenly sensitive that some of these updates do require a server reboot. Now that's where I decide to stop and think about what the other bloggers and readers of No Jitter have either praised or ranted about IPT. This remains a tradeoff for SMB's that don't have dual data centers backing one another up during upgrades, patching and disasters. Notably, this should be a key argument for hosted IPT solutions if they can make the argument and stand behind it.
Either way, I'm faced with the same challenge that dates back to the early days when I decided to jump into IPT. The 3Com experience made us a lot of money but we also spent a lot of money and invested tremendous amounts of time and energy to get rewarded with sweat equity. That experience also curtailed any IPT deployments from my company for a long time and instead we implemented the Panasonic hybrid solution I wrote about. Those hybrids are so easily converted to IP with just the loss of one card while preserving most of the customer's initial investment. The Panasonic NCP box that I wrote, "I just had to have"--well, I really like it because it too preserves older investments (phones) and meshes nicely with 2500 sets and analog devices. From the early days to present, IPT has come a long way but don't read into this that more improvement isn't needed because it is. My thinking isn't that IPT isn't better than TDM, it's that IPT must move beyond where TDM leaves off and still be able to provide better service and user experience than before without making significant tradeoffs. Without constant improvements to IPT we'd all still be rebooting and wishing that we'd never started the journey. The rebooting in every solution is what customers want to avoid.
The Parallels Open Platform is very interesting in that I think it does mean that I can have my choice of OS when and where I want them being no longer constrained to the desktop, but moving to the server onsite, to the cloud or both.
The appeal for me today mirrors what you IT devils have been selling your bosses about--taking over telecom and making the telecommunications world a better place. My thinking is for every PC that we displace with a Mac desktop then wouldn't it make sense to move voice to the Apple server and make the customer overall experience even better? Maybe you're not amused but you can bet that Microsoft isn't either now that Apple has put a +10% dent in their share of the prize. I really do want to run the software but I've got reservations about being the anointed rookie server guy. Of course the IT gods are laughing. Then, because "Hosted Apple" sounds so wickedly cool no matter which direction I turn, I know I'm getting morphed into one of those rascals taking over the world.
Seriously speaking, this adventure has given me more hands on insight into choices and this is something that everyone should be thankful for with IPT. There are remaining pros and cons to each element in the network, ranging from the LAN to storage, backup and SIP trunks. Voice was erector-set before IPT, only it was more limited by proprietary solutions and those solutions had some interoperability to preferred vendors. IPT punches through these barriers, but make no mistake--proprietary doesn't disappear and even so the choices are still exciting.
* Installation is a breeze (File Sharing, Address Book, iCal, iChat, Mail, Web, Podcast, Wikis and Blogs) and all user accounts setup, VPN currently disabled
* Server runs headless (No keyboard, Mouse, Monitor plugged into server) when install completed (Use share screen utility)
* No disruption to any user throughout entire processDay-2 (2 hours)
* Desktops receive invitation to Login to Server, first time
* Changes in router: DHCP server PDNS changed to router's IP, enabled Proxy DNS Server and added private domain and IP address (I called ADTRAN support because I missed a step)
* Tested file shares on LAN
* Copied & installed Server Status Widget to my desktop
* Tested backup (Time Machine) and disabled
* Tested [email protected] to see each user's MyPage, Wikis & Blogs
My Mac Mini Server experience was very good. For a newbie, I feared the worst, and yet another good experience is attributed to Apple. While I sputtered over semantics--"Enter Server Serial Number," once I figured out "keycode," I was on my way to deploying my first Mac server in under 20 minutes. The reason for deployment wasn't just to do things in my office differently.
Here's what I learned:
The Mac Mini Server is not good for full back up of Mac desktops unless you opt for a decent set of server drives such as the Promise SmartStor DS4600 4x1TB RAID System for $799. Before you backup (create more storage demand) you really need to answer questions--what to backup, where to backup and why. Then you may change your process as I did to address where files and databases are best stored. I redirected them on the server and then enabled the desktops to also retain backup to the cloud using individual (Apple Mobile Me) accounts under our master account.
An important discovery I made before any trial or purchase of IP-PBX software to run on the new server was from calling and emailing other Mac VoIP/IP-PBX users--"use one Mac Mini Server just for the IP-PBX and run nothing else on that server." Because of the low entry cost and because of the high price of Apple's Xserve, buying a second Mac Mini Server is reasonable especially because of the small footprint and low power consumption. Virtualization does not fit for the Mac Mini Server and because of the 5400-rpm drives and limited 4GB memory. When you consider the virtualization software from Parallels with a price tag of $1280 it just doesn't make sense for us -just buy another Mac Mini Server. The collaboration features in the Apple OS X make getting some of the same features in an IP-PBX redundant so deciding which features to use and from where may be preventing some customers from moving forward.
During the second day after installing the Mac Mini Server the user introduction was another fear but it was painless. Each user received a one-time invitation to login and that was pretty much it--within a few seconds their accounts were set up and completed and no complaints or interruptions to service.
The reality that my server buddy reminds me about is that while I accomplished a mission that is out of the norm for me (installing a server), I still have the road of support facing me. Of course I purchased the extended warranty with call in support but now I face a long list of Apple OS X Server (advanced) online classes. I watched most of the 33 basic podcasts on Leopard Server while waiting for the shipment to arrive. My server buddy is right that "geeky stuff still resides in the best technology and someone still has to figure it all out." I quickly figured out how to get remote notifications via email when the server needs patching. How many times in the past I've said, "I'm not a server guy." Whether or not the Mac Mini Server will put a dent in what Dell or any other manufacturer sells, I don't know. In all the years I've resisted buying a server for the business I am still glad, very glad that I did wait because Apple has made the initial process real easy and kept the entry costs low.
Notable about this cigar box are the collaboration tools deployed so easily that I think they could fit nicely in K-12 schools. There are other good matches too but that was my first impression because of the shared calendaring and Wikis. The Mac Mini server doesn't have to run all that I've selected, because it can run just one application, meaning a customer could conceivably stack or shelve numerous Mac Mini servers. Virtualization is not necessary since the under 30-watt box isn't eating power as conventional servers do. It's been over five months since install and no calls to me for help yet. Still, reality dictates that I've got to learn more about what those server guys deal with. For a detailed review on the Mac Mini Server read the Macintouch report here.
Considering what Eric discovered in his post ShoreTel's IBM Integration "that each year, 300,000 businesses in the U.S. buy their first servers ever. Given the opportunity, will these businesses piggyback communications onto the new platform?" I've noted in the past that Apple appears to have everything in the basket except the voice egg and that having a VoIP/IPT solution of its own or available would certainly receive a warm welcoming. Even bundling vendors code into the application folder for try-before-you-buy would seem prudent. I've thought long and hard about dumping our IP-PBX to save a few more watts of energy and to push into the Apple world deeper than before. It's not fear so much as it is (comfort) how embedded our Panasonic NCP-1000 is in our network and then how or can I replicate everything we have now? Do I need to replicate everything or replace old methods with new processes? I can definitely save a few watts of energy, have less hardware/software to manage and then get bragging rights that we've converged to the server. The SNOM phones that run on the Apple OS X solutions are very cool looking too.
For now I can rest knowing that everything works but pressure is definitely on to converge everything to one box, eliminating the need for any IP-PBX. Business in a box is not a new concept and today the boxes have gotten notably smaller, faster, better and cheaper. Soon enough more market share will elude the PBX sales and more servers will undoubtedly take over old roles. The other reason I'm not running to move my "PBX" over to a server is simple--it's paid for. Since I do get what I call "patch and repair notices" or alerts via email to update the server, I'm also keenly sensitive that some of these updates do require a server reboot. Now that's where I decide to stop and think about what the other bloggers and readers of No Jitter have either praised or ranted about IPT. This remains a tradeoff for SMB's that don't have dual data centers backing one another up during upgrades, patching and disasters. Notably, this should be a key argument for hosted IPT solutions if they can make the argument and stand behind it.
Either way, I'm faced with the same challenge that dates back to the early days when I decided to jump into IPT. The 3Com experience made us a lot of money but we also spent a lot of money and invested tremendous amounts of time and energy to get rewarded with sweat equity. That experience also curtailed any IPT deployments from my company for a long time and instead we implemented the Panasonic hybrid solution I wrote about. Those hybrids are so easily converted to IP with just the loss of one card while preserving most of the customer's initial investment. The Panasonic NCP box that I wrote, "I just had to have"--well, I really like it because it too preserves older investments (phones) and meshes nicely with 2500 sets and analog devices. From the early days to present, IPT has come a long way but don't read into this that more improvement isn't needed because it is. My thinking isn't that IPT isn't better than TDM, it's that IPT must move beyond where TDM leaves off and still be able to provide better service and user experience than before without making significant tradeoffs. Without constant improvements to IPT we'd all still be rebooting and wishing that we'd never started the journey. The rebooting in every solution is what customers want to avoid.
The Parallels Open Platform is very interesting in that I think it does mean that I can have my choice of OS when and where I want them being no longer constrained to the desktop, but moving to the server onsite, to the cloud or both.
The appeal for me today mirrors what you IT devils have been selling your bosses about--taking over telecom and making the telecommunications world a better place. My thinking is for every PC that we displace with a Mac desktop then wouldn't it make sense to move voice to the Apple server and make the customer overall experience even better? Maybe you're not amused but you can bet that Microsoft isn't either now that Apple has put a +10% dent in their share of the prize. I really do want to run the software but I've got reservations about being the anointed rookie server guy. Of course the IT gods are laughing. Then, because "Hosted Apple" sounds so wickedly cool no matter which direction I turn, I know I'm getting morphed into one of those rascals taking over the world.
Seriously speaking, this adventure has given me more hands on insight into choices and this is something that everyone should be thankful for with IPT. There are remaining pros and cons to each element in the network, ranging from the LAN to storage, backup and SIP trunks. Voice was erector-set before IPT, only it was more limited by proprietary solutions and those solutions had some interoperability to preferred vendors. IPT punches through these barriers, but make no mistake--proprietary doesn't disappear and even so the choices are still exciting.
