1 / 8

Finding the Balance: Centralized and Distributed IT Models

Finding the Balance: Centralized and Distributed IT Models. Case Study: Princeton University IMAP and Exchange Mail Services. Dan Oberst CSG 01.08.04. IMAP Mail Services. Situation circa 1996: IBM Mainframe Mail (PUCC/RICEMAIL) Unix-based: Terminal (ucb mail/pine/elm/mush)

verdi
Download Presentation

Finding the Balance: Centralized and Distributed IT Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Finding the Balance: Centralized and Distributed IT Models Case Study: Princeton University IMAP and Exchange Mail Services Dan Oberst CSG 01.08.04

  2. IMAP Mail Services • Situation circa 1996: • IBM Mainframe Mail (PUCC/RICEMAIL) • Unix-based: • Terminal (ucb mail/pine/elm/mush) • POP Service (Eudora) • Novell-based Pegasus Mail • Departmental and Personal Mail Servers: • Unix - POP/ucb mail • NeXTs, Macs, etc. • Central support service for sendmail configs

  3. IMAP • 1997 Testing, IMAP/LDAP implementation • 1998 July 14th Production rollout • IMAP-enabled the campus • Huge data integration & implementation issues • Lesson: Avoid Bastille Day! • Ultimate Success • 1999 Pegasus, IBM Mail phased out • End of sendmail config support • Departments encouraged to use central service

  4. Move to Central IMAP • Uphill struggle: • Email as O2 (prolonged outages not healthy) • Software issues delayed server upgrade • Ultimate success: • Features worth it (attachments, lookups) • Ongoing communications efforts essential • SPAM blacklist, disasters brought in holdouts • Dept. conversions STILL happening • Electrical Engineering - 2003 • Molecular Biology - ?2004 • CS – Never?

  5. Central IMAP Success • “No longer interesting” to depts. • Software matures • Economies of scale: • Servers • Redundant/failover • Lower support/user costs • Software updates: Virus/SPAM filtering • Staffing depth • Vendor support

  6. Central Exchange Service • There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader. -- M. Ghandi • In August 2001, 5 departments request that OIT run a centralized Exchange Server • Windows 2000 conversion was being planned • Combined W2K/AD/Exchange Project launched • OIT agreed to fund initial hardware • Funding model to recover staff costs • “Value Added Service” @ $7.50/mailbox/month • Ongoing hardware covered through migration

  7. Exchange • HUGE success: • OIT gained credibility • Broader support for W2K/AD conversion • Few domains, separate forests (e.g. CS) • Fees seen as reasonable • Users get integrated calendar features • Support costs are higher than IMAP • Current usage ~700 mailboxes • Hired Exchange admin (staff are happy) • New services (e.g. Blackberry @$10/mo.) • Issues – outages; MS Support costs

  8. Exchange • WIN-WIN • Departments didn’t want to roll their own • OIT didn’t want to have to bail them out • Funding model was viewed as equitable • Hard to justify with central IT dollars • Depts. covered marginal cost of service • Overall cost to university was less • Depts. perceive improved productivity • Central IT viewed as supportive and flexible

More Related