5 ms·

I'm more interested in hearing why these Sys Admins haven't switched over to O365 yet?

by frays 5y ago

analog31 5y ago
Are they actually different, as in the nuts and bolts, or just different shells on top of the same infrastructure?
- lillecarl 5y ago
  You pay very little for these things to be someone else's problem.
bluedino 5y ago
Cost. Especially if you have a large amount of users, and you already have the IT staff and servers to run it on (you can try to justify it with less admin costs and less server costs but the numbers don't add up for some orgs) As an example, I worked at a healthcare org and it would have been $70,000 a year for hosted Outlook, but only $110,000 to buy the software outright and run it for ten years (700,000 - 110,000 is a big savings)
- robjan 5y ago
  You also have to run a datacentre or server room with the on-prem version
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    And meat terraform/ansible to run those.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >and you already have the IT staff and servers to run it on (you can try to justify it with less admin costs and less server costs but the numbers don't add up for some orgs)
  - bluedino 5y ago
    If you limit mailbox sizes you can run 500 users on a pretty modest VM
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- iso1210 5y ago
  HN wisdom is that it's impossible to run a single raspberry pi with less than $2m/year spend on IT staff alone
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
A local Exchange server has vastly better uptime than Office 365, works when cloud services and the ISP is down, and costs drastically less. Hilariously, the standing advice has usually been for Exchange Online customers to still install and operate a local Exchange server too, which means switching to the cloud didn't even reduce your management or hosting burden at all. Sure, you get the occasional bug like this, but it's less often than Microsoft screwing up the entire cloud.
- easton 5y ago
  > Hilariously, the standing advice has usually been for Exchange Online customers to still install and operate a local Exchange server too Only if you have a large tenant (> 2000 mailboxes) at the time of transition, and even then there’s ways around it. I think if you were getting advice today, it would be to avoid hybrid as much as possible and find any other way to move over because of this stupid requirement.
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    As of the last time I checked (6 mos. ago) there is still no supported managemenrt solution for Exchange Online without local Exchange if you migrated to Exchange Online via a hybrid migration. Some people just modify AD attributes directly to get around having an on-prem Exchange install but that's not officially supported.
  - technion 5y ago
    You could have 15 people in an org and it's entirely unsupported to drop the Exchange server if you wish to have AD synced users regrettably. MS are very clear that "ways around it" go against their recommendations, even if I don't like it myself.

I'm more interested in hearing why these Sys Admins haven't switched over to O365 yet?

by frays 5y ago

I'm more interested in hearing why these Sys Admins haven't switched over to O365 yet?

analog31 5y ago

Are they actually different, as in the nuts and bolts, or just different shells on top of the same infrastructure?

lillecarl 5y ago
You pay very little for these things to be someone else's problem.

bluedino 5y ago

Cost. Especially if you have a large amount of users, and you already have the IT staff and servers to run it on (you can try to justify it with less admin costs and less server costs but the numbers don't add up for some orgs) As an example, I worked at a healthcare org and it would have been $70,000 a year for hosted Outlook, but only $110,000 to buy the software outright and run it for ten years (700,000 - 110,000 is a big savings)

robjan 5y ago
You also have to run a datacentre or server room with the on-prem version
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  And meat terraform/ansible to run those.
- gruez 5y ago
  >and you already have the IT staff and servers to run it on (you can try to justify it with less admin costs and less server costs but the numbers don't add up for some orgs)
- bluedino 5y ago
  If you limit mailbox sizes you can run 500 users on a pretty modest VM
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iso1210 5y ago
HN wisdom is that it's impossible to run a single raspberry pi with less than $2m/year spend on IT staff alone

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

A local Exchange server has vastly better uptime than Office 365, works when cloud services and the ISP is down, and costs drastically less. Hilariously, the standing advice has usually been for Exchange Online customers to still install and operate a local Exchange server too, which means switching to the cloud didn't even reduce your management or hosting burden at all. Sure, you get the occasional bug like this, but it's less often than Microsoft screwing up the entire cloud.

easton 5y ago
> Hilariously, the standing advice has usually been for Exchange Online customers to still install and operate a local Exchange server too Only if you have a large tenant (> 2000 mailboxes) at the time of transition, and even then there’s ways around it. I think if you were getting advice today, it would be to avoid hybrid as much as possible and find any other way to move over because of this stupid requirement.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  As of the last time I checked (6 mos. ago) there is still no supported managemenrt solution for Exchange Online without local Exchange if you migrated to Exchange Online via a hybrid migration. Some people just modify AD attributes directly to get around having an on-prem Exchange install but that's not officially supported.
- technion 5y ago
  You could have 15 people in an org and it's entirely unsupported to drop the Exchange server if you wish to have AD synced users regrettably. MS are very clear that "ways around it" go against their recommendations, even if I don't like it myself.