[OPLINTECH] Computer Replacement Schedule

[Paris Robertson]

Thank you all for the responses, much appreciated...

Paris Robertson
Technology Coordinator
Upper Sandusky Community Library
TEL 419-294-1345
FAX 419.294.4499
EMAIL robertpa at oplin.org
WEB http://www.upper-sandusky.lib.oh.us/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: oplintech-bounces at lists.oplin.org
[mailto:oplintech-bounces at lists.oplin.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Eady
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:48 AM
To: oplintech at lists.oplin.org
Subject: Re: [OPLINTECH] Computer Replacement Schedule

"Paris Robertson" <robertpa at oplin.org> writes:

> My Board is looking into adopting a computer replacement schedule, and 
> I was wondering if any of you had some sample policies out there.
> They are looking at roughly a 5 year rotation period.  Any information 
> you can give would be helpful.

If you're getting a new policy drafted, try to get it in writing that no new
non-replacement equipment can ever be added (either via purchase OR via
donation) unless the ongoing budget is augmented to allow for replacing it
as it ages.  Otherwise, they'll keep trying to add nice shiny NEW computers
you previously didn't have, without increasing the budget for replacements.
At least, they keep trying to do that to me.

Also, I have our different stations divided into "tiers".  I've found this
categorization a useful mechanism to track how replacements are handled.

The first tier consists of systems that have substantial performance
requirements, so they are replaced only with new systems.  This is,
unfortunately, the largest category.  If you find that that's the case for
you as well, you may wish to get the policy written mainly around the
first-tier systems.

The second tier consists of systems whose performance does theoretically
matter, but in practice it doesn't matter as much, e.g., because nothing
they do really exercises the capabilities of a modern computer.  Also, some
systems are in tier two rather than tier three to avoid the worst
reliability problems, even though performance is unlikely to be a big issue
(e.g., the mail server and the firewall are in tier 2).  Tier 2 also
includes ready "loaner" spares for a couple of the tier-one categories
(e.g., a spare patron internet station, a spare staff ILS workstation).  I
used to put systems mainly used for browsing the web in the second tier.
Unfortunately, with the recent proliferation of absolutely ridiculous
quantities of gratuitous client-side scripting in the last handful of years,
it has now become necessary to place most web browsing stations in tier 1.
This has roughly doubled our number of tier-one systems and almost makes me
want to add a "tier zero" for things that _really_ need to perform, but I
digress.  In any event tier two gets hand-me-downs from tier one, so even
the _newest_ tier-two system is older than any of the tier-one systems.

The third tier gets whatever is left when the second tier is done.  Most of
our tier-three systems are dedicated web-catalog kiosks, running Debian
stable with a custom X session that makes sure there's always a browser
window open.  (Our web catalog doesn't seem to require much performance on
the client side, so it does okay even with quite old hardware.  YMMV.)  If
you still have dedicated word-processing stations, they can go in tier 3.
Certain kinds of low-impact servers (e.g., print
servers) can be tier 3.  That legacy system you keep around for testing
stuff like how your website looks in ancient web browsers from the days of
yore (*cough* IE6) can be tier 3.

I try very hard not to let first-tier systems be much more than five years
old.  Second-tier systems cat get to be seven or eight years old.
(Third-tier systems can be older; we currently have one vintage 2002 HP
Pavilion that is still in service.  Use 'em till they're dead.)

Getting timely upgrades to happen here has entailed creating a special
presentation for the board featuring a color-coded graph, with the oldest
systems in the most alarming colors, showing a side-by-side comparison of
what the future will look like if we replace 2 computers per year versus
what it will look like if we alternate 3/4/3/4.  (When the bright red edges
over into neon magenta, people are starting to pace the room while waiting
for the computer to do something.)  Geek that I am, I sort of thought it
would be rather obvious that the number of systems you replace per year
multiplied by the age you are willing to let systems get to before you
replace them cannot ever be less than the total number of systems you have
in service, but apparently this is too much math for some people.  Hence,
color-coded visual aids, and hence my suggestion about getting mandatory
ongoing replacement funding for all new systems written into policy.  The
need for up-to-date computer equipment is never so dire that it can't be
made worse by increasing the number of systems that need replaced without
increasing the ability to replace them.

If wishes were horses, I'd consider trying to ensure that all first-tier
systems are still within three-year warranty range (because systems in that
age range are significantly less prone to failure, not because the
warranties themselves are particularly valuable).  Realistically, however,
our budget isn't going to go the distance for that.  YMMV.

--
Nathan Eady
Galion Public Library
_______________________________________________
OPLINTECH mailing list
OPLINTECH at lists.oplin.org
http://lists.oplin.org/mailman/listinfo/oplintech
Search: http://oplin.org/techsearch