To RM or not to RM, that is the question...

[Little-Miss]

Had a guy in today from Link2ICT on a consultancy basis. During our conversation one thing he mentioned is to become an RM school and praised CC4 quite highly.

 

Now my previous school was a CC3 school and i quite liked it, we never had any major problems, but as i was the dogsbody there i never got any indepth experience of it, so i may have missed something terrible!

 

Now reading a few posts on here, a lot of you CC3 schools have moved to Vanillia.

 

So can i have some civil suggestions to why i should or shouldn't have an RM network. (we are a primary school)

 

Edited June 9, 2009 by Little-Miss

[Michael]

Someone from Link2ICT recommended an RM CC4 network? That really surprises me. Usually they offer school services themselves to create/migrate networks. Essentially what I do.

 

RM CC3 is ok, but I do prefer a vanilla setup I must admit. I can be far more creative and customise fully to the schools needs. As for RM CC4, if you search this forum the general consensus is it's not recommended.

[PEO]

personally.. not my cup of tea imo - have RM sorted out the management system for cc4? I heard they had issues with it and they were still selling it..

[Richbrown]

Hi there !

 

My personal View Is go vanilla. I have extensively used both and I must say that although CC3 is quite good I would always go vanilla if given the choice.

 

The main reasons for this is that although everything is tightly integrated in CC3 such as the management console and workstation builds I feel that this approach is quite restrictive and can cause issues with deployment of software & security features, to name just two. I know people out there champion RM and for the most part they are right too but I much prefer to do things "my way" not how RM see fit.

 

At the end of the day if you don't have all that many users and aren't into active directory management then CC3 /4 are are good option. Its a personal choice but I feel restricted using cc3 If it were upto me I would opt for 2003 / 2008 server for active directory, shares and printing. Osx server (prob not in a primary but its excellent for media, email and podcast duties) and xp / osx desktops. Use AVG antivirus or similar and ranger for networks for security.

[synaesthesia]

I like it, but that's mainly as it makes my job easy. If you have the expertise of a vanilla network and you're willing to spend the time keeping it running sharp, you'll benefit from greater performance and freedom. If, however time is of the essence CC4 may well be worth a shot - but only if you're waiting a bit. RM have been rolling out the SR1 release this month and as from a few days ago it's been sent out to existing users. I'd give it a couple of months to gauge how those installations go. I'm one of the rare folks on here that actually *likes* CC4. It makes life very easy, it's far more intuitive than CC3 and gives you more easily accessible options than a vanilla network, unless of course you can put the work into it. It does have it's problems currently, many of which SR1 is supposed to fix.

[PEO]

pm sent

[t4ll1f3r]

CC4 nearly killed me and my network. It wasn't ready when they launched it. And it's still not ready with all the patches we have applied.

Microsoft saved our network by managing to limp along whilst CC4 conspired to bring it to it's knees. We were promised SR1 back in November it's now going in in August. I would not recommend it in it's current state to anyone.

[SYNACK]

A lack of serious issues is definitely not limited to RM networks. A reasonably configured vanilla network can be extremely stable, also much cheaper from an ongoing cost point of view.

 

Admittedly there is a little bit of learning involved in managing a vanilla network but it is not overly difficult. From a support point of view going RM would give you a contracted support network but there again you could probably get that kind of support by having your vanilla servers maintained by an external company on a support contract for less than the full RM deal.

 

Going RM may also affect the usable life of your hardware as all of the additional managment stuff that it includes needs RAM space and CPU power which will mean older machines will become too slow quicker than on a vanilla system and new machines whould be speced with a little extra just to deal with the extra overhead (most systems are already speced this way for futureproffing but it rules out budget systems) especially with CC4 (so I hear).

 

Either way is a valid solution but you must assess whether the avalible benifits of a managed system are worth the cost and also make sure that the school is willing and able to spend the money that may be required to make the new system actually work comfortably on the client systems as well.

[synaesthesia]

Ah yes, sorry I did forget to add (forgetting what I want to type in a post before I'm half way done - I'm getting old!)

CC4 *needs* a bare min of 512mb on workstations. I'd recommend a gig, and thats even when powered by a decent processor (non Celeron/Sempron type). It's hungry, so very, very hungry.

 

Saying that, had a nice one today. CC4 network that people were complaining was a little slow. Found the server's HDD's at 35% fragmentation and most workstations with 45% fragmented drives! The difference after a defrag was just astonishing!

[PiqueABoo]

CC4 SR1 is the current state for new systems, but as noted above it's early days and regardless of what that consultant said the verdict isn't in yet - perhaps by the end of this term.

 

CC3 I can live with, but bugs aside I personally don't like CC4 because it seems bloated (all that code eating all that memory on stations is necessary to provide what?), a lot more proprietory (location is a DB field not an AD OU and so on) and one way or another has taken much more effort to administer (fun things like having to run that Package Update Utility).

 

Meanwhile what makes this thread impossible: We know what CC4 is, but haven't got a clue what "vanilla" means. My vanilla is quite different from anyone else's. Some vanillas might be good, but some are complete disasters. We can't say whether CC4 will be the best choice unless we know about the alternative(s).

[Michael]

We know what CC4 is, but haven't got a clue what "vanilla" means. My vanilla is quite different from anyone else's.

 

The general definition is a native Active Directory domain configuration to manage users and computers, along with fully configurable Group Policy Objects. You can do this with Windows 2000/2003/2008 Server and is straight forward. How you set/configure this is really upto you. And I think you've hit the nail on the head. My vanilla setup will be different to yours and demonstrates your true skills as a computer professional to create and customise your network to the max

You may also wish to purchase applications which add functionality and a good example of this is Print Manager Plus. It pulls usernames down from Active Directory and allows you to specify printer restrictions or credit limits.

[Little-Miss]

Eugh, i think my head is going to explode!

[PiqueABoo]

demonstrates your true skills as a computer professional to create and customise your network to the max

 

Importantly: Without producing a pile of junk because you didn't have all the skills necessary for that process.

 

There is a lot of credible work/detail in CCx and speaking as a bit of a rocket scientist, I am 100% certain it would take someone months of wall-to-wall work to reinvent and debug the useful bits **from scratch** on a vanilla. And you'd still need to add 3rd party print management, tutors, better s/w deployment if required.

[synaesthesia]

I think the general thoughts are, if you are paying someone to maintain the network, a "vanilla" install will be your best bet. Otherwise, an RM system would probably be wise as long as you have the infrastructure, as you'll have the wealth of knowledge and support they can provide under their contract terms.

[t4ll1f3r]

They need all that support because the product is so poor.

Everytime you try to do anything that involves RMMC you are in for trouble.

DON'T DO IT!!!

[rh91uk]

I would personally go to a Vanilla Network with using abTutor for general monitoring.

[Tallwood_6]

CC4 in its current form is pretty flaky still, CC4 with SR1 looks better but still suffers from many problems, Long Logons/Startup times to name but a few. Min station spec as commented is quite high 512mb is not really enough, your machines will need 1gb as a minimum and a decent processor. Builds are still not great in comparison to CC3 and much of the functionality and development work promised is still not there, i.e still know XP SP3 Vista SP1 to come with SR1 but things are slow comming.

[Quackers]

Also look at the costs. RM Connect is not a cheap product, and depending on how many stations you have Vanilla could be a lot cheaper. Also when you add on the fact Vanilla will run better on the lower end machines savings could also come from not having to spend money on hardware upgrades.

[Oops_my_bad]

If you are wondering what the "RM Support Contract" consists of, it is merely a first line helpdesk monkey who refers you to technotes on the RM website.

[Edu-IT]

If you are wondering what the "RM Support Contract" consists of, it is merely a first line helpdesk monkey who refers you to technotes on the RM website.

I was also under the illusion that they dialed in for remote support and stuff where necessary?

[russdev]

RM Support is very good and first line is just that they take your call log it and put you straight on to next line.

 

As for CC4 my advice I have given is this general rule new CC4 sites aka ones that are not cc3 upgrades work well.

 

So even if cc3 network I suggest it is done as part of a new server aka run two side by side. The point was made comparing with a vanilla is good one as everybody home grown solution will be different. As for if should go for RM or not well enough threads on that subject to last a life time. I would just say the same point I made in the pass it is "what is good for the school".

 

So what is good for my school is not good for your school etc.

 

Also please note I said school and not me whatever our own views of the software and the conceived lack of flexibility is irrelevant.

 

It is what is best for the school.

 

Russ

[garethEds]

Lasy July we went from an RMCC3 network back into the bosom of the LEA. Was it a good move? At the time I didn't think so - we were comfortable with our RM network, we were on the CC4 field trial (glad it didn't go through for us) and then the school took the decision to go back into the LEA for various reasons.

 

Will they regret that decision? I don't think so. Do I regret the decision? Not at all. I embraced the change and realised it was the best thing for the school to do.

 

We are now on the LEA WIndows 2003 network. The main thing was that the LEA had configured the AD over the previous three years so we just dropped in on the work they had done. They configured it all and we look after our OU. There are 15 seperate OUs (each for a comp school). We look after ours.

 

As others have pointed out you then have to look for tools that RM provide. Print management? Set it all up yourself - purchase your own print monitoring software. We bought PCounter. Monitoring pupils? We purchased Impero this year after using RM Tutor.

 

MSI and software deployment is a problem. Using pre-made MSIs is easy but learning to do your own is something I still have not gotten around to do. I'm finding a lot of tools out there. We are looking wt WPKG at the moment. It looks great.

 

We created a RIS server to mimic the RM setup as closely as possible.

 

I think it's great.

 

GJE

[t4ll1f3r]

I think it's a bit harsh to say they only provide first line. They have some very good second and third line support people. Also their developers dial in frequently to edit the postgress db.

[Michael]

Importantly: Without producing a pile of junk because you didn't have all the skills necessary for that process.

 

There is a lot of credible work/detail in CCx and speaking as a bit of a rocket scientist, I am 100% certain it would take someone months of wall-to-wall work to reinvent and debug the useful bits **from scratch** on a vanilla. And you'd still need to add 3rd party print management, tutors, better s/w deployment if required.

 

I wouldn't expect any IT Professional who had reservations about creating a network or performing a network migration on their own that they'd seek the advice elsewhere. Little-Miss contacted her LA, now she's asking on this wonderful forum. I respect individuals like her as she's asking for advice and we're all voicing our opinions and experiences managing networks.

 

I have managed networks for quite a number of years. I know a lot, but I don't claim to know everything and I never will know everything. However, clearly I have enough knowledge and the expertise to deliver quality, reliable networks to schools because they look to me to resolve problems and support users accordingly.

 

I am not knocking the efforts RM have gone to with their product. It does have some advantages over a vanilla setup, but it is of my opinion that a vanilla setup outweighs what an RM setup can deliver. My solutions are always in the schools best interests as I always listen to their individual requirements and 'tweak' accordingly. The cost of going vanilla longterm without a doubt is cheaper. I have heard of some schools that are so tight with budgets that they've been unable to renew RM contract agreements. Not exactly a position I would like to be stuck in myself.

[SteveMC]

It's also worth finding out what setups other schools are running - especially if they have close links to your establishment generally. That way, you may well be able to exchange assistance without having to call on RM Support / other-external agencies. Great as this place is, sometimes it's just good to be able to commiserate face-to-face with someone else that has first-hand knowledge of the particular issues you have!

 

Stephen