That's it? Is the server also going to be a domain controller or a stand-alone server?
Sounds like all you need is the 850. Since i'm not sure of the capacity of either drive configuration for the servers, I'll assume they are the same. If so, I would use the extra $500 and get a larger capacity.
Sidenote: If the MS Access database is used by more than one person at the same time, I would consider upsizing it to SQL and having Access as a front-end.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
The server will be used for file sharing of MS Office documents and a MS Access database.
As far as RAID 5, we spent the extra money on that with our last server, and we never needed any additional space, so I'll take the route of saving the money this time and going with RAID 1.
And yes, I'm going to run Windows 2003 Server. Our current (old) server runs Windows NT 4.0 and I know that inside and out, so I'm guessing it should not be hard to adapt to Windows 2003.
The 2 servers I am considering are the Dell PowerEdge 850 and the PowerEdge 1950.
Priced out with the options I want, the 1950 is about $500 more. The differences are:
PowerEdge 850 has a Dual Core Pentium D 3.0 GHz processor with 800 MHz FSB
PowerEdge 1950 has a Dual Core Xeon 2.0 GHz processor with 1333 MHz FSB
PowerEdge 850 has SATA RAID with 7,200 rpm hard drives
PowerEdge 1950 has SCSI RAID with 10,000 rpm hard drives
Power1950 is also more upgradable, but I doubt we will ever need to upgrade except for adding some more RAM at some point.
Is it worth spending an extra $500 on the 1950?
|
07-17-2006, 11:29 PM
Threaded Mode
