Server Advice

Trevor Best wrote:

Lordy wrote:

Remember the great NT Workstation vs Server debate - effectively
the same OS.


Yes, two reg keys was the difference.

I wish it was that easy with Win2K so I could install all this software
that won't work on Server :-/

--
Preston.

In , on 12/08/04
at 11:42 AM, Alan Walpool said:


2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
run effectively.


Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware? 8-)))


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Wed Dec 08, 2004.

As of 8:40pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 8 hours, and
42 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:25:11 +0000, Trevor Best
wrote:

David Maynard wrote:
Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
possibility),


Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?

Yes. What Dee said.

Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.

Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
limit you to 10 connections.

Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.

Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.

Think about your client and their ability to expand.

Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
as a file server, which is ****e).


Now back up a bit and note that NONE of what you mention has
been listed as a requirement. So far there's only two
things for certain: 1) It will serve files for 2 fixed and
4 in/out mobile (Laptops) 2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:40:17 -0300, "Nelson M. G. Santiago"
wrote:
In , on 12/08/04
at 11:42 AM, Alan Walpool said:


2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
run effectively.


Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware? 8-)))

One of mine does, it lives in a VMware container for resilience
purposes (ie if the host hardware blows up, I run the latest backup of
the server on another machine).

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition,
half of 'em are dumber than THAT." - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Michael Salem wrote:
Lordy wrote:

office
hours onsite support with say 4 hour response ??? is a must

But be careful. This is just the time to come on-site. In one case
(many years ago) the support people came quickly on-site, then went
away for a full week waiting for a part -- but they had kept their
contract. The machines I buy have several options; as far as I
remember:

- next business day on-site response. Free for 3 years (warranty).
- 8-hour response, during business days. Cheapest paid option
- 4-hour response, any time. Higher cost
- 8-hour guaranteed time to repair, highest cost.

Best wishes,

this is what's known as an "appeasance engineer" or "SLA engineer"...it's
cheaper to send a teaboy out in 4 hours, then a real engineer in a day or
so....

Nelson M. G. Santiago wrote:
In , on 12/08/04
at 11:42 AM, Alan Walpool said:


2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
run effectively.


Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware?
8-)))


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Wed Dec 08, 2004.

As of 8:40pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 8 hours,
and 42 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

anything installed in a vmware session? duck

Dee wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Peter van der Goes wrote:


Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
possibility),



Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?


Yes! That's one reason.

But not a very good one.

Another is that a server OS has features in it
specifically designed for the purpose of being a server!

Yes, it has various 'server features'. That doesn't mean you need those,
depending on what you want the 'server' to do.

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:42:48 -0600, Alan Walpool
wrote:


1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?


Yes. Why would you not? It's not too much of a worry if someone's
Excel crashes due to a memory glitch, but if the corporate database
corrupts or goes down you're in trouble.


2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
run effectively.


Oh yes indeed. Form follows function.

File servers: Not much CPU, some memory, lots of disks on clever
controllers. Large backup devices.

Mail servers: Some CPU, some memory, some disk. More of each if you're
running content analysis.

DNS/firewall/other net services: Very little hardware required (unless
you're running a really large network).

Application servers: Entirely application dependant. Probably lots of
CPU, lots of memory, some disk, and most importantly OS dependant on
the application. Indeed, hardware type - AIX server? HPUX? Solaris?
Not everything runs on Windows or Linux.


3) Yes the original posters server requirements looks like could be
handled by a laptop. ;-)).


Hard to tell, from the details given, but since it would be their
first server it's probably just a dedicated small fileserver.

This is actually the 'problem'. The 'spec' looks like little more than a
general 'idea' with the word 'server' thrown in because, well, that's what
'servers' do, isn't it?

The real work is in specifying the operational needs with deciding what
will accomplish it being the last thing.


Cheers - Jaimie

kony wrote in news:u24fr0li794b9eb75bothc38ia5tju6ovq@
4ax.com:

2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.


I think you've missed the point.

--
Lordy

Trevor Best wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
possibility),



Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?


Yes. What Dee said.

Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.

Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
limit you to 10 connections.

Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.

Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.

Think about your client and their ability to expand.

None of which matters for simply saving some files to a common machine and
doing backups for 2 computers and 4 laptops on a peer to peer network.


Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
as a file server, which is ****e).