|
|
|
| |
Water Resources Discipline |
From: |
Eric E Eskam 04/04/2005 02:24 PM |
To: |
Paul E Exter/GIO/USGS/DOI@USGS |
cc: | Garry E Neverdon/GIO/USGS/DOI@USGS, GS-I-HQ ITO Senior Staff, GS-W ITAC, GS-W RCS, GS-W SUN TAC, GS BWTST, GS Regional CTO, Lyndon R Oleson/NMD/USGS/DOI@USGS, William J Davies/WRD/USGS/DOI@USGS, Mark G Negri/GIO/USGS/DOI@USGS |
Subject: |
Re: Fw: Message 1 of 3 Desktops and Fileservers |
My comments -
For all Systems:
Language about prepaid recycling program for end of life disposal?
Recommend new Systems Management section for all hardware:
Systems Management
For the Desktop Office Automation:
Item 27 - recommend appending "in Digital mode" to "The graphics interface shall support 32 bit color with a resolution of 1280 x 1024 pixels." We have run into graphics cards and monitors that support different resolutions in analog vs. digital.
Item 32: recommend appending more Microsoft terminology: System shall support
Pre-Boot eXecution Environment (PXE) DHCP-based boot ROM version 1.00 or greater
with RIS compatible network adaptor.
Reference:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/sag_RIS_SystemRequirements.asp
Item 44 - Recommend appending "in Digital mode" to the end of the statement. We have run into graphics cards and monitors that support different resolutions in analog vs. digital (one time, the digital resolution was less than the analog resolution supported).
Item 47 - Recommend appending "in Digital mode" to the end of the statement. We have run into graphics cards and monitors that support different resolutions in analog vs. digital (one time, the digital resolution was less than the analog resolution supported).
For the Desktop Power User/Basic GIS:
Item 6 - justification for "onboard"?? SCSI is a (rightfully) dying standard - I would much rather see an optional card rather than yet another thing on the motherboard we have to figure out how to disable/prevent a driver from loading.
Item 9 - append "with USB 1.1" to the "and fully backwards compatible" statement.
Item 20 - ECC memory should be spelled out as a requirement (if it is one) separately from performance requirements. Suggest new item 21 "System unit shall support Registered Error Correcting Code (ECC) memory.
Item 23 - suggest adding minimum: "with a minimum 8MB Databurst cache." If the vendor wants to provide a larger cache, we should let them.
Item 25 - require Serial ATA command queuing as part of the SATA specification. Could negate the need for SCSI (SATA w/command queuing is just as fast, or faster).
Item 29 - recommend appending "in Digital mode" to "The graphics interface shall support 32 bit color with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels." We have run into graphics cards and monitors that support different resolutions in analog vs. digital.
Item 34 - recommend appending more Microsoft terminology: System shall support
Pre-Boot eXecution Environment (PXE) DHCP-based boot ROM version 1.00 or greater
with RIS compatible network adaptor.
Reference:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/sag_RIS_SystemRequirements.asp
Item 45 - Recommend appending "in Digital mode" to the end of the statement. We have run into graphics cards and monitors that support different resolutions in analog vs. digital (one time, the digital resolution was less than the analog resolution supported).
Item 48 - Recommend appending "in Digital mode" to the end of the statement. We have run into graphics cards and monitors that support different resolutions in analog vs. digital (one time, the digital resolution was less than the analog resolution supported).
For Servers in General:
I didn't have time to review all of them separately.
1. Dropping the requirement for a tower configuration for the Midrange and Large server, or at a minimum the Large server specification. This will lock us out of rack-mount only larger servers that are offered by many vendors. Very rarely are large enterprise class servers offered in a tower configuration since such servers almost always end up in a rack in a datacenter. And even if it's a field office, you can get a half rack for under $2K for most vendors. These are servers after all, not desktop computers....
2. Recommend the Management section from the beginning of my email.
3. Requirement for PCI Express on at least the Midrange and Large Windows Server?
4. In the Environmental Section - recommend new item, again at a minimum for the midrange and large Windows servers - "The system shall support redundant power sources, a separate "A" and a "B" input voltage source. In case of power failure of either the "A" input voltage source or the "B" input voltage source, the system shall be able to operate, fully loaded, from a single source - i.e. either from the "A" input voltage source or the "B" input voltage source singularly.
Rational: We had servers in the past that came with three power supplies, but required two of the power supplies for the system to be fully functional (it couldn't run on just one of the power supplies). This made it impossible to have a truly fault tolerant system. In a datacenter environment, you will have an "A" feed power and a "B" feed power from your UPS system. In properly designed datacenter UPS systems there is redundancy from the batteries, to the inverters, to the power transfer switches/distribution units themselves. However, the servers have to be capable of truly supporting two feeds to take advantage of that expensive UPS system (learned that lesson the hard way when the servers went down during scheduled UPS maintenance). Certain manufactures used to run with two or four power supplies, and could run on half of the remaining so this level of power redundancy was easy to achieve. When there is an odd number of power supplies and it takes a majority of them to operate the server, it is almost impossible to get true power redundancy.
5. In the Backup server it's item 9 - recommend appending more Microsoft terminology:
System shall support Pre-Boot eXecution Environment (PXE) DHCP-based boot ROM
version 1.00 or greater with RIS compatible network adaptor.
Reference:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/sag_RIS_SystemRequirements.asp
6. In the Backup server it's item 10 - recommend specifying Industry standard (reference?) 19" 4 Post equipment rack with minimum/maximum dimensions or we will end up with some proprietary rack that only works with the vendors equipment. Statement to convert rack to support other vendors equipment (thinking of the Dell square hole vs. round threaded hole of standard racks).
7. Large server item 9 - does there really need to be a height restriction? i.e. the 5U? Might restrict us from another option.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eric Eskam
National Center Active Directory Project Lead
United States Geological Survey
703-648-6817, FAX 703-648-6821
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"
This is like deja vu all over again." - Yogi Berra
From: |
Paul E Exter/GIO/USGS/DOI 03/28/2005 10:41 PM |
To: |
Paul E Exter/GIO/USGS/DOI@USGS, GS Regional CTO |
cc: |
GS BWTST, GS-W SUN TAC, GS-I-HQ ITO Senior Staff, GS-W ITAC, William J Davies/WRD/USGS/DOI@USGS, Lyndon R Oleson/NMD/USGS/DOI@USGS, Garry E Neverdon/GIO/USGS/DOI@USGS, GS-W RCS |
Subject: |
Fw: Message 1 of 3 Desktops and Fileservers |
All,
The Department of the Interior (DOI) previously negotiated enterprise contracts with equipment providers to take advantage of volume discounts. Three contracts were awarded:
Desktops - Contract was awarded to Dell.
Laptops - The contract for Ultra light Laptops was awarded to NCS Technologies, and the contract for the Traveler and Telecommuter Laptops was awarded to IBM.
Servers - Contract was awarded to Dell.
It is expected that all three contracts will be re-competed by September 2005. At this time, the DOI cannot determine if some categories may change in vendor configuration. Below are the specifications the vendors will need to meet. Please distribute as appropriate for comment to trusted individuals in your areas. This is out time to make the contracts work for us. If you see a problem with any of these specs let me know. If you feel they do not serve USGS, let me know. Please have all comments back to me by April 4, 2005.
Thanks, Paul
Paul E. Exter
Lead IT Specialist
Office of Information Technology
U.S. Geological Survey
(410) 238 - 4234 Work
(410) 375 - 0120 Cell
Address questions or comments to |
|