Network admin v Sys admin difficulty & salary

wweman121

Hi guys I am curious for your opinion.

What is job in general is more difficult (day-to-day tasks and responsibility) someone that does only a systems admin (Microsoft) role or someone that does a pure network admin role (Cisco).

In terms of salary which type of admin earns more.

In 'general' I know many factors come into play

Many thanks in advance.

ChickenNuggetz

Difficulty levels are entirely subjective. Each role presents their own challenges. Sys admin roles seem to me to have more "moving parts" so to speak as it can encompass a lot of different things in an environment; everything including servers, databases, networking, storage, backups etc. Pure network admin roles on the other hand, although more focused on a single area, can also present challenges with routing, switching, spanning-tree, access points, firewalls, riverbeds, phones, etc; basically anything and everything that allows connectivity and communication in an organization.

In my opinion, their "difficulty" in tasks and responsibilities are about the same. I'd also like to think that both make about the same in terms of salary. Although each role can be interpreted in many ways with regards to duties, for example, I've heard of network admins responsible for servers and SANs in addition to network infrastructure. So its tough to say which would definitively be harder and which would definitively make more.

pert

Network admin, as in dude who supports a Small to medium business is one of the easiest jobs out there. Network Engineer, as in guy who works for MSP/ISP/Reseller/Tech services company who designs/builds/troubleshoots multiple separate networks is incredibly challenging.

ptilsen

Totally subjective. I've done almost entirely hybrid/generalist roles, and I wouldn't say one is harder. I guess I might say systems is harder at the smaller org level because the correlation between system complexity and org level is not as strong, while network complexity generally scales up with org size. And with that being said, which is "harder" can obviously vary based on organization size, complexity, and needs.

I haven't seen any conclusive evidence one career path earns more than another. At most, there is a small gap and even that could be more reflective of hours/working conditions than one type being "worth" more.

blargoe

Yes, it is totally subjective.

Another way to look at it: a sysadmin can make one mistake, and generally impact one system or application. A network admin can make one mistake, and may impact the entire infrastructure.

dmoore44

As has been said before - it's very subjective. The way you'll arrive at your answer though is to ask yourself this question: which set of tasks do you like better? You're inclined to think of tasks that you like/enjoy as less difficult than the tasks you dislike/hate. So, if you prefer configuring servers, AD, and making disparate applications play nicely together - then you should choose sysadmin OTOH, if you prefer configuring switches, routers, and ensuring network connectivity across disparate networks - then it sounds like netadmin is the right role for you.

As far as money goes, don't sweat it. Work hard, learn as much as you can - then the money will come (as long as you're located in a market that can afford your skills...)

MiikeB

Subjective, I think Net Admins have a higher earning potential and much clearer education paths but I think there are more Sys Admin jobs available. I also think Sys Admin stuff is easier but I have been doing it for 8 years so that probably affects my viewpoint. I also think Sys Admins get to a comfortable middle class income ($55k-$70k) quicker than most Net Admins but that is just from my limited perspective.