|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring.... |
| Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
07-17-2006, 05:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Any Network Administrators/IT Techs out there? Need advise...
Background: We are a small business, have a server and 4 workstations, and mostly use Microsoft Office programs, including a large Microsoft Access database. Our email & website are hosted elsewhere. I know what I need as far as workstations. Where I need help is the server. I am looking at Dell's low end servers, and while I understand the various options, I'm not sure what is actually necessary and what would be overkill. So I have some questions: 1) Processor: My options are (from cheapest to most expensive): Pentium 4 Dual Core Pentium D Xeon Dual Core Xeon The Dual Core Pentium D, and the regular Xeon both will cost around the same. The Dual Core Xeon is quite a bit more expensive. I really have no idea what the differences are between these. They all seem to have similar clock speeds. I do see that the Xeons have faster FSB speeds. I also see that the FSB speed various within each processor type and you can spend a few hundred extra just on getting a faster FSB speed. Any recommendations? 2) RAM: The Dell salesperson is recommending 2 GB RAM. Is that overkill and would we really notice a difference over 1 GB considering we only have 4 workstations? 3) Hard Drive Array: I want to get a RAID 1 system, as I like the security of knowing that a hard drive failure will not cause us any headaches. Last time around we got a SCSI RAID system, but now I see that they also have a SATA system RAID 1 system. Again, considering the size of our network, will we notice any real speed difference between the two? The cost to go with the SCSI system is about $600 additional, so unless the difference will be very noticeable, I'd rather not spend the money. Also, if we go for the SCSI, there is a more expensive controller that has "hardware RAID" as opposed to "software RAID" on the cheaper controller. On a system this small, will there be any difference between those two? Thanks for any advise. 
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
|
|
|
#2
07-17-2006, 05:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What do you need the server for? - Are you looking to use it for your database? / file sharing? / web site? - depending on what you want to use the server for and what operating system you intend to run on it as I'm sure you know makes a huge difference when it comes to deciding on the type of hardware.
Personally, I use Windows XP for my workstations and Fedora (Linux) for my servers - we use the servers for SQL and web servers - I find that Linux utilizes hardware more effectivly than a windows server. Just mu 5c worth
__________________
Ian Florida, U.S.A 
|
|
#3
07-17-2006, 06:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Eric,
It is really funny that I am setting up a new Windows 2003 SBS Server and 5 XP Pro Workstations (also clients) for a medical practice right at this moment. Mostly to run Practice Management Software that runs on SQL and interface equipments. I am not a full time Sys Admin but in my days in school/work I have set up and worked on Servers on various systems. So I will be a consultant/admin for this project. I am also looking at Dell Blank Servers to install Win2003 servers on it. I ran a test workstation, also Dell, with 2 SATA raid I had a hell of time troubleshooting it with a support guy on the phone. First funny things started happening, I was sure boot files were corrupted since the OS won't be found during the boot up even though SATA HDD checked out fine with the utility. It turned out the cables got loose. After putting it all back on. It works like a magic. I think I will give it a try on Dell. Backup scheme; someone might say otherwise I'll stick with SATA RAID and one offsite/onsite tape backup. As far as the Server OS concerned, I don't have a choice since the SW requires to run Windows Severs. I personally hate MS and will do anything to do away with it. From my experience Unix-based systems are lot more scalable, yes also more pain in the ass ‘to set up right’. I read many reviews and spoke with friends of mine who are sys admins. They all say Windows 2003 has come a long way. Pricing is more competitive with Linux servers. Since you run Access you probably don't have choice either. (I personally will not run Access based database unless it is a school project.) However, I am kind of excited to tinker with MS toys especially with MS Mobile connectivity thingies. Plus it helps that I get MS Alumni Discounts  Eric, good luck and keep me posted with your progress.
|
|
#4
07-17-2006, 06:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok, DO NOT USE SOFTWARE RAID. Completely Lame and takes a big hit on proc performance. As for the server what do you plan to use it for? That should be part of the primary driver for spec'ing it out. RAID 1 is nice but your lose that second drive. I would recommend getting an adaptec RAID Card as you can add additional drives to your RAID 5 array on the fly and w/o rebuilding your array.
I'm a consultant in Microsoft technologies so I should be able to answer your most technical question so PM me if you have more. Cheers.
__________________
11 X5d JB/Cinnamon w/Bamboo/Premium/Tech/Cold/Rear Ent/Rear Climate/iPod/Roof Rails/Running Boards
|
|
#5
07-17-2006, 06:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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?
|
|
#6
07-17-2006, 07:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You can never have enough RAM. Like Rick P said, software RAID is a no no. If you got a big access DB, go RAID 5 for best performance and make sure when you format it the have the correct offset when running diskpar.
Quote:
Last edited by SANguru; 07-17-2006 at 07:26 PM.
|
|
#10
07-17-2006, 11:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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:
__________________
11 X5d JB/Cinnamon w/Bamboo/Premium/Tech/Cold/Rear Ent/Rear Climate/iPod/Roof Rails/Running Boards
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
