Server work vs. networking

it_consultant

Novalith478 wrote: »

SO back on topic...I really only asked what either or entails, not which one is better. Anyways, I decided to go with CCNA for now.


Thanks for all the input, even if it started a Network vs. Server war

No matter what you do, you should get your CCNA.

vinbuck

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Let me ask you a question - are you saying that there are absolutely no servers involved in getting first responders or military folk to where they need to be?

Don't believe I ever said that, If you re-read my example, I used voice communications in a firefight, which wouldn't involve a "server" for my specific application nor would it for most comm networks in law enforcement. The military is similar, but military comms are so diversified that they expect to lose a certain percentage and plan for redundancy accordingly.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I realize what your perception is, and perceptions do tend to define our reality, but I'm curious as to whether or not you've actually looked into how it's all put together. Military on the ground is one thing, obviously you're not going to be running lines in the dirt on a combat front.... but I'll bet theres servers in use to support the mission back at the headquarters.

Why wouldn't you run hard lines in combat zone? It's frequently done to minimize the enemy's ability to intercept RF. You're throwing "devil's advocate what-if" scenarios at a situation without understanding the operational needs. There are thousands of servers for support and they all contribute to the mission, some will even carry voice traffic, but as with all critical communications, there are multiple methods for communication which usually revert to simpler more reliable systems that are likely point-to-point or a simple hub/spoke style.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

You mentioned you're part time law enforcement. Go talk to the folks responsible for the setup of your dispatch and 911 call centers. I think you'll find out that there's some software involved that doesn't run on a router or switch that's involved in getting first responders to the right place at the right time.

911 isn't a tactical communication, it is a call center. Do people's lives depend on 911 to route calls? Absolutely, and there are servers involved for efficiency, but they are a convenience and 911's ability to perform that task isn't reliant on a server, there are multiple communications methods available to them for that reason. You're making an assumption that i'm unfamiliar with the communcations systems i'm using and that isn't accurate - i'm aware of their capabilities/drawbacks and overall archetecture. We rely mostly on encrypted trunked RF networks that are capable of interacting with an IP network but can also operate as a self-contained unit if need be. Go browse through Motolorla'a offering for first reponders, and you can get an idea of some of the system architectures.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

And finally, you need to rein it in a bit. Unless your first responders/military folk have their communications running over IP, then it's outside the scope of the argument, as comms over POTS is totally different than battlefield comms, etc.

Who says a network is required to run IP to be a valid network...

Look I get it...you don't like the argument i'm making and that's fine but it seems like you're an argument in search of some relevant facts. You don't seem to have a very solid grasp of Military or First Resonder operations and communication requirements - how do you know that comms over POTS is different from battlefield comms? I think you would be surprised to learn how often POTS or a combination of POTS/VOIP is used in military comms. Are they implemented in the same way that you're doing it? Probably not and you'll most likely need a security clearance if you want the details.

Having said that, I respect your talent and opinions, as you, Turgon and some others are some of the smartest Network Engineers we have on the boards and I'm not trying to sow discontent. I wanted to voice an opinion, which I did, and not everyone agreed with it...such is life. I'm gonna back out of this one now so as not to hijack the OP any further. If nothing else, it was a good debate - my biggest weakness

Forsaken_GA

Who says a network is required to run IP to be a valid network...

I'll get to the rest of this later, but wanted to address a couple things:

Well, the OP of this thread is looking for career advice, and I'm pretty sure he's trying to decide whether to go the network geek route (and most network geeks are IP based, and that's likely what a new entrant into the profession is going to be) or a server monkey. Somehow this turned into an advocation of ideological ideas instead of advice for the poor guy/gal.

Having said that, I respect your talent and opinions, as you, Turgon and some others are some of the smartest Network Engineers we have on the boards and I'm not trying to sow discontent. I wanted to voice an opinion, which I did, and not everyone agreed with it...such is life. I'm gonna back out of this one now so as not to hijack the OP any further. If nothing else, it was a good debate - my biggest weakness

Oh, don't worry about that, I recognize someone who's just engaging in a battle for the fun of the fight I don't seriously think you're as anti-server as you come across. I prefer to play in the flow as well, and have little use for most packet generators and the people who run them, but I acknowledge their necessity as well as their occasional usefulness

vinbuck

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I'll get to the rest of this later, but wanted to address a couple things:

Well, the OP of this thread is looking for career advice, and I'm pretty sure he's trying to decide whether to go the network geek route (and most network geeks are IP based, and that's likely what a new entrant into the profession is going to be) or a server monkey. Somehow this turned into an advocation of ideological ideas instead of advice for the poor guy/gal.

Point taken

Oh, don't worry about that, I recognize someone who's just engaging in a battle for the fun of the fight

Guilty as charged

I don't seriously think you're as anti-server as you come across. I prefer to play in the flow as well, and have little use for most packet generators and the people who run them, but I acknowledge their necessity as well as their occasional usefulness

I'm really not, I worked on them for about ten years and then started working as a Net Engineer for a Telco/ISP and found my true geek calling. Like I said, I still play pretty heavily in the Linux world as we rely on them heavily for network management and support.

vinbuck

Novalith478 wrote: »

SO back on topic...I really only asked what either or entails, not which one is better. Anyways, I decided to go with CCNA for now.


Thanks for all the input, even if it started a Network vs. Server war

Sorry if I hijacked your thread, we all have our soapboxes and I definitely got on mine . Congratulations on your choice to pursue the CCNA. Either career path is full of its own challenges and rewards - pick something you love and are passionate about and you will excel far beyond your peers.

This is kind of like picking teams in dodgeball - we are trying to entice you to join "our" team because it's the best. Why? Because it's MY team of course

Let us know if we can help you in your CCNA pursuit....

Turgon

vinbuck wrote: »

Don't believe I ever said that, If you re-read my example, I used voice communications in a firefight, which wouldn't involve a "server" for my specific application nor would it for most comm networks in law enforcement. The military is similar, but military comms are so diversified that they expect to lose a certain percentage and plan for redundancy accordingly.



Why wouldn't you run hard lines in combat zone? It's frequently done to minimize the enemy's ability to intercept RF. You're throwing "devil's advocate what-if" scenarios at a situation without understanding the operational needs. There are thousands of servers for support and they all contribute to the mission, some will even carry voice traffic, but as with all critical communications, there are multiple methods for communication which usually revert to simpler more reliable systems that are likely point-to-point or a simple hub/spoke style.



911 isn't a tactical communication, it is a call center. Do people's lives depend on 911 to route calls? Absolutely, and there are servers involved for efficiency, but they are a convenience and 911's ability to perform that task isn't reliant on a server, there are multiple communications methods available to them for that reason. You're making an assumption that i'm unfamiliar with the communcations systems i'm using and that isn't accurate - i'm aware of their capabilities/drawbacks and overall archetecture. We rely mostly on encrypted trunked RF networks that are capable of interacting with an IP network but can also operate as a self-contained unit if need be. Go browse through Motolorla'a offering for first reponders, and you can get an idea of some of the system architectures.



Who says a network is required to run IP to be a valid network...

Look I get it...you don't like the argument i'm making and that's fine but it seems like you're an argument in search of some relevant facts. You don't seem to have a very solid grasp of Military or First Resonder operations and communication requirements - how do you know that comms over POTS is different from battlefield comms? I think you would be surprised to learn how often POTS or a combination of POTS/VOIP is used in military comms. Are they implemented in the same way that you're doing it? Probably not and you'll most likely need a security clearance if you want the details.

Having said that, I respect your talent and opinions, as you, Turgon and some others are some of the smartest Network Engineers we have on the boards and I'm not trying to sow discontent. I wanted to voice an opinion, which I did, and not everyone agreed with it...such is life. I'm gonna back out of this one now so as not to hijack the OP any further. If nothing else, it was a good debate - my biggest weakness

I think its been a lively and interesting discussion. I can appreciate the non server reliance in some situations. Hopefully the OP found it an interesting thread!

msteinhilber

Build a good foundation in both and you'll be more successful. Some people end up working positions where you end up dealing with servers and networking, depends on the company and how big they are. My current role I handle most all of the networking dealing with Cisco, Juniper, and HP. I also deal heavily with vSphere5 and manage Server 08 and Linux servers often too. But that's just how our department is, we have two of us in IT and 45 offices so I have to be well rounded - kind of a jack of all trades in a way.

Turgon

Personally I think all IT professionals should do CCNA first, then if boxes is their thing go for MS/Unix/Novell/Linux..whatever. It's a networked world.

Novalith478

vinbuck wrote: »

Sorry if I hijacked your thread, we all have our soapboxes and I definitely got on mine . Congratulations on your choice to pursue the CCNA. Either career path is full of its own challenges and rewards - pick something you love and are passionate about and you will excel far beyond your peers.

This is kind of like picking teams in dodgeball - we are trying to entice you to join "our" team because it's the best. Why? Because it's MY team of course

Let us know if we can help you in your CCNA pursuit....

Don't worry about ti everyone likes a good debate about their career choice. Plus I learned a lot and the input was much appreciated. If I need any help I'll let you folks know in the CCNA forums. I bought all the required literature yesterday and thus far am really enjoying reading it.

Turgon wrote: »

Personally I think all IT professionals should do CCNA first, then if boxes is their thing go for MS/Unix/Novell/Linux..whatever. It's a networked world.

I cam to this realisation while reading all your responses :P

it_consultant

Turgon wrote: »

Personally I think all IT professionals should do CCNA first, then if boxes is their thing go for MS/Unix/Novell/Linux..whatever. It's a networked world.

This is really it. I really like mixing it up with people on "whose job is harder" discussions, the reality is none of our jobs are really easy. I have such little patience for server/windows admins who don't have at least CCNA knowledge. You should really be able to hit the low and mid hanging fruit before you have to hand it off to someone who specializes in the network. They are busy enough doing important stuff already.

thedrama

ptilsen wrote: »

I would say "systems" is a more accurate term than servers. Basically, you have broad fields:
Networking
Configuring switches, routers, and firewalls -- usually Cisco, Juniper, Adtran, HP
Designing, managing, maintaining service provider networks and/or networking equipment
Designing, managing, maintaining large enterprise networks and/or networking equipment

The networking field largely sits in OSI layers 1-4, mostly in 2 and 3 specifically. There is some crossover into working with servers, and in many cases you certainly have have a high-level understanding of common server technologies and implementations.

Systems
Supporting software, hardware, and end-users' use thereof
Installing, configuring, managing, and maintaining laptops, desktops, thin clients, and servers
Designing and implementing server systems
Designing and implementing workstation and software deployment systems

Systems administrators and engineers typically need at least a high-level understanding of networking, but often need a bit more depth to that understanding.

There are generalist roles that will involve crossover, and certainly anyone competent in either career track is at least somewhat aware of the other field's technologies. In the small business world, there is a lot of crossover, but not a lot of need for deep networking knowledge as most SMBs use fairly small switched networks and simple WAN architectures, in the case of multi-site SMBs.

Conversely, large managed service providers and larger organizations tend to have separate networking and systems departments. Systems are often split into desktop support, helpdesk, and server teams, and sometimes even those teams can be split further into supporting different products or areas of the business.

Generalists, generally working for SMBs or for MSPs support SMBs, will usually lean much heavier towards the systems side, but often need up to a CCNA-level knowledge of networking in order to design networks and occasionally configure switches, routers, and firewalls. That said, Cisco is not as common in the SMB sector, and extensive switching and routing configurations are also uncommon. A general knowledge of how networks work and how to configure ACLs, NAT, etc is required.

Both networking and systems have many sub-fields, such as virtualization, Windows, Exchange, Linux, UNIX, ERP systems, voice, firewalls, storage and so on. Job roles in both career tracks can vary greatly based on how specialized a given job is in a given organization. I tend to think systems is a bit broader in this sense, with more opportunities for both generalization and specialization, but I might not have the experience to make that claim.

All that said, your options in IT are not limited to systems or networking. You can also work in security, which can be focused on systems, networking, both, or neither, as it is a very broad field itself. You can work to get into IT management or project management, which can require a wide variety of technology understanding.

Wow, a very good approach to the separation of these two.

Legacy User

Becoming a Network Engineer: Network Engineers usually have a Bachelors degree or higher. They may have had internships or specialty projects within the Network Design and Engineering field. There are often entry level positions to start out in, with increasing responsibility and specialization as you acquire years of experience and specialty certifications
Career Paths for Network Engineers: Network Engineers are typically promoted to senior level engineers and may focus extensively on specialty areas such as design, performance optimization or network security...

Legacy User

System Administrator - Career Path: System Administrators often promote to a more senior administrator role and then into a project management role. Strategic roles involving long term planning and company technology strategy, such MIS Manager or CIO (Chief Information Officer), may be a fit for those with the appropriate education and experience. Some System Administrators specialize in a certain area, such as security, and become experts in that particular area.