|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
Hey all,
I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will be
requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I was
wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows server
package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use Exchange
and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What are the pros
and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas, suggestions,
guidence apprecisted!
Thanks
-Lumpjaw
|
|
Well, given that you are in the SBS group you will not get a lot of cons. If
you don't see your business going to more than 75 users any time soon, there
isn't IMHO really a better deal than going with SBS and I would suggest the
Premium addition.
Just make sure you give this new server enough power:
4GB RAM
good processor(s) (most of our clients use dual xeons)
good hardware raid with SCSI drives
--
Claus
"Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
news:OMIKjVOsHHA.1476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hey all,
>
> I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will
> be requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I
> was wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows server
> package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use Exchange
> and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What are the pros
> and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas, suggestions,
> guidence apprecisted!
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Lumpjaw
>
|
|
Hi Lumpjaw
Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2
Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2.
www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/evaluation/top.mspx - 13k -
Larry
"Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
news:OMIKjVOsHHA.1476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hey all,
>
> I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will
> be requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I
> was wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows server
> package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use Exchange
> and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What are the pros
> and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas, suggestions,
> guidence apprecisted!
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Lumpjaw
>
|
|
Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives in
lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could mirror
the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a drive and thus
losing the system. Thanks.
-lumpjaw
"Claus" <cjobes[ at ]nova-tech.org> wrote in message
news:eMJu8qOsHHA.404[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Well, given that you are in the SBS group you will not get a lot of cons.
> If you don't see your business going to more than 75 users any time soon,
> there isn't IMHO really a better deal than going with SBS and I would
> suggest the Premium addition.
>
> Just make sure you give this new server enough power:
> 4GB RAM
> good processor(s) (most of our clients use dual xeons)
> good hardware raid with SCSI drives
>
> --
> Claus
> "Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
> news:OMIKjVOsHHA.1476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will
>> be requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I
>> was wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows
>> server package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use
>> Exchange and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What
>> are the pros and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas,
>> suggestions, guidence apprecisted!
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Lumpjaw
>>
>
>
|
|
SAS is fine. Don't use SATA. You will run into performance issues with
SATA - specifically during nightly backups.
As to RAID 10, I'm not a big fan of it. What I normally do for clients is
RAID 1 on the system drive and RAID 5 on that data drive. This gives you the
best of both worlds with good performance. We also don't recommend tapes for
backup any longer. The USB HDs are so inexpensive and much more reliable as
a solution for the offsite backup.
--
Claus
"Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
news:eAPMxTUsHHA.1416[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives in
> lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could
> mirror the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a drive
> and thus losing the system. Thanks.
>
>
> -lumpjaw
>
>
> "Claus" <cjobes[ at ]nova-tech.org> wrote in message
> news:eMJu8qOsHHA.404[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Well, given that you are in the SBS group you will not get a lot of cons.
>> If you don't see your business going to more than 75 users any time soon,
>> there isn't IMHO really a better deal than going with SBS and I would
>> suggest the Premium addition.
>>
>> Just make sure you give this new server enough power:
>> 4GB RAM
>> good processor(s) (most of our clients use dual xeons)
>> good hardware raid with SCSI drives
>>
>> --
>> Claus
>> "Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMIKjVOsHHA.1476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will
>>> be requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I
>>> was wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows
>>> server package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use
>>> Exchange and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What
>>> are the pros and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas,
>>> suggestions, guidence apprecisted!
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -Lumpjaw
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
Disks will fail regardless.
( Google HDDs and Google and see their experience /cost benefit analysis on
SCSI -v- SATA )
RAID 10 is good but not as easily extendable as RAID 5
RAID 6 allows for 2 Disks in the array to fail, but you take the performance
hit.
It's all about needs and compromise.
Personally we use RAID 1 for system stuff with full System backups + Raid 5
for data.
--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
"Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
news:eAPMxTUsHHA.1416[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives in
> lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could
> mirror the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a drive
> and thus losing the system. Thanks.
>
>
> -lumpjaw
|
|
In article <eAPMxTUsHHA.1416[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, onemail[ at ]email.com
says...
[Quoted Text] > Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives in
> lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could mirror
> the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a drive and thus
> losing the system. Thanks.
I have 12 SAS drives setup in 4 RAID Arrays and they are fast,
responsive, and work great - we have lots of servers with SAS drives in
them setup in RAID-5 and RAID-1.
While I have used SATA in a number of small servers, that is my last
option and I always use a dedicated controller, not the crappy
motherboard RAID controller.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
In article <e1PXepUsHHA.1184[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, cjobes[ at ]nova-tech.org
says...
[Quoted Text] > SAS is fine. Don't use SATA. You will run into performance issues with
> SATA - specifically during nightly backups.
This is true when you have a motherboard RAID controller, if you
purchase a dedicated RAID card with cache (memory), you don't see any
performance hit.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
If I may Step in..
SAS as you know is supposed to be a Replacement for SCSI
(I'm not sure on the pricing but I'd imagine they are expensive??) Just a
guess.
I know we are talking Religion when it comes to SATA vs SCSI
My concern is what does your SBS box DO?
Is it heavy SQL Database access or do you have just 20 users that basically
use email and basic needs..
If you have applications that are major IO/RW HD issues than SCSI or SAS is
a better choice
but IMO for most Small Businesses SATA Drives work Fine and SPACE is more of
a Concern that SPEED
and the Price of SATA Drives are VERY Attractive (500GB for under $140) vs
the SCSI drive price.
You need to evaluate the Need of your Business on What is more important a
little more Speed vs HD Space.
(Most of my clients are SATA)
As far as RAID 10 it almost sounds like you really want FAST IO on HD's
To be Honest a Basic SBS server with Dual Xeons and 4GB Ram just sits there
and handles everything that is put on it.
Now if you have a VERY Active SQL Database or a lot of users on the SBS box
with ISA running then a Fast HD System is a good idea.
For most of my installs RAID1 for OS and RAID 5 for Data with a Hot swap is
fine.
I know a lot of people say SCSI or DIE, I'm of a new breed that has embraced
SATA and Love it for speed and size.
(I've even read on large SCSI partitions vs same size SATA partitions, the
SATA drives are actually Faster.)
Again this IMO is a Religious Question SCSI and others will say Go SCSI or
die,
IMO it's Go BIG and go SATA :)
If nothing else, install everything that SBS has to Offer, even if you don't
plan to use it, When you finally realize how wonderful it is, the service
will be there and all patched and ready go go........ go....
Russ
--
Russell Grover
SBITS.Biz
Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist.
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, (MCP-SBS)
support [ at ] SBITS.Biz
Remote SBS2003 Support
http://www.SBITS.Biz
"Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
news:eAPMxTUsHHA.1416[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives in
> lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could
> mirror the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a drive
> and thus losing the system. Thanks.
>
>
> -lumpjaw
>
>
> "Claus" <cjobes[ at ]nova-tech.org> wrote in message
> news:eMJu8qOsHHA.404[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Well, given that you are in the SBS group you will not get a lot of cons.
>> If you don't see your business going to more than 75 users any time soon,
>> there isn't IMHO really a better deal than going with SBS and I would
>> suggest the Premium addition.
>>
>> Just make sure you give this new server enough power:
>> 4GB RAM
>> good processor(s) (most of our clients use dual xeons)
>> good hardware raid with SCSI drives
>>
>> --
>> Claus
>> "Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMIKjVOsHHA.1476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will
>>> be requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I
>>> was wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows
>>> server package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use
>>> Exchange and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What
>>> are the pros and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas,
>>> suggestions, guidence apprecisted!
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -Lumpjaw
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
I was wondering the same thing, When is there a Performance issue with SATA?
(Again like Leythos Said a RAID card NEVER on board Motherboard.)
Anyway as you can see the SCSI vs SATA wars has begun. LOL
Russ
--
Russell Grover
SBITS.Biz
Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist.
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, (MCP-SBS)
support [ at ] SBITS.Biz
Remote SBS2003 Support
http://www.SBITS.Biz
"Leythos" <void[ at ]nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.20dfb357e31495bf989737[ at ]adfree.Usenet.com...
[Quoted Text] > In article <e1PXepUsHHA.1184[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, cjobes[ at ]nova-tech.org
> says...
>> SAS is fine. Don't use SATA. You will run into performance issues with
>> SATA - specifically during nightly backups.
>
> This is true when you have a motherboard RAID controller, if you
> purchase a dedicated RAID card with cache (memory), you don't see any
> performance hit.
>
> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
I ditto Henry's config,
I personally like the OS on RAID 1 and the rest on RAID 5
Russ
--
Russell Grover
SBITS.Biz
Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist.
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, (MCP-SBS)
support [ at ] SBITS.Biz
Remote SBS2003 Support
http://www.SBITS.Biz
"Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}" <sme[ at ]nevernever.lan> wrote in message
news:7EADF34B-D001-442A-B8BF-3DDA4287E02F[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Disks will fail regardless.
> ( Google HDDs and Google and see their experience /cost benefit analysis
> on SCSI -v- SATA )
>
> RAID 10 is good but not as easily extendable as RAID 5
> RAID 6 allows for 2 Disks in the array to fail, but you take the
> performance hit.
>
> It's all about needs and compromise.
> Personally we use RAID 1 for system stuff with full System backups + Raid
> 5 for data.
> --
> Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
>
> "Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message
> news:eAPMxTUsHHA.1416[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives
>> in lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could
>> mirror the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a
>> drive and thus losing the system. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> -lumpjaw
>
|
|
In article <OvPGX4UsHHA.3468[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
support[ at ]REMOVETHIS.SBITS.Biz says...
[Quoted Text] > (I've even read on large SCSI partitions vs same size SATA partitions, the
> SATA drives are actually Faster.)
Yep, seen the same thing. We had a customer with a dedicated SQL Server
using 6 x SCSI RAID 5 for a single array, two partitions, C/D, OS on C,
SQL on D - yea, bad design, we didn't make it.
We setup a Dual Xeon, using a 6xSATA on a Promise SX6000 controller with
128MB RAM, the queries, same number of users, both servers defraged,
both servers optimized etc... The Promise SX6000 was about 20% faster in
reads than the SCSI on a Compaq server with the same CPU's. Oh, the
SX6000 is IDE, not even SATA, and it supports Hot Swap of IDE. Been a
few years since we last saw that server :)
I see this a lot, but, it most always depends on the RAID controller
card you use with the SATA. I've got a few 1TB and 2TB database servers
running on SATA Arrays, but the controllers are what I think makes the
difference.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
On the other hand>>>>>
Not every company needs Dual Xeon's, 4 GB RAM, and 7 hard drives.
We just replaced a 10 year old Windows NT Server, running on a workstation
quality box P3 with 256 MB RAM and 2 9 GB HD in NT software RAID1.
There are a total of 5 users on this system. Not likely to ever be any
more.
The new box is Xeon 3000, (one dual core processor) 2 GB RAM, and INTEL on
board SATA with 2 80 GB in RAID 1.
We also replaced their 10Mbs hub with a 10/100 Mbs switch.
The only thing this company has ever done with their server is hold their
accounting files. That's it
Now, their AR report is on screen in 12 seconds instead of 1 minute. They
are so happy.
They are a bit concerned that the hard drives are "too big".
They make a DVD of their accounting files every day.
They now backup their entire system to external HD daily.
They were shocked! Why do we need to backup the entire system, we have a
backup of the data!
There is an image of their system on a separate external hd in my office.
When they learn to use email, RWW, SharePoint and the rest of the great
features of SBS, they will be even happier.
BTW, 30 minutes to copy the data files over the 10 Mbs network to a external
USB flash drive on a workstation, vs 3 minutes to do the same thing directly
out of the server to the same USB external flash drive.
Larry
"Leythos" <void[ at ]nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.20dfb80ef30dcc5d989739[ at ]adfree.Usenet.com...
[Quoted Text] > In article <OvPGX4UsHHA.3468[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> support[ at ]REMOVETHIS.SBITS.Biz says...
>> (I've even read on large SCSI partitions vs same size SATA partitions,
>> the
>> SATA drives are actually Faster.)
>
> Yep, seen the same thing. We had a customer with a dedicated SQL Server
> using 6 x SCSI RAID 5 for a single array, two partitions, C/D, OS on C,
> SQL on D - yea, bad design, we didn't make it.
>
> We setup a Dual Xeon, using a 6xSATA on a Promise SX6000 controller with
> 128MB RAM, the queries, same number of users, both servers defraged,
> both servers optimized etc... The Promise SX6000 was about 20% faster in
> reads than the SCSI on a Compaq server with the same CPU's. Oh, the
> SX6000 is IDE, not even SATA, and it supports Hot Swap of IDE. Been a
> few years since we last saw that server :)
>
> I see this a lot, but, it most always depends on the RAID controller
> card you use with the SATA. I've got a few 1TB and 2TB database servers
> running on SATA Arrays, but the controllers are what I think makes the
> difference.
>
> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
In article <#harYTVsHHA.3400[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Larry Struckmeyer"
<lstruckmeyer(at)mis-wizards(dot)com> says...
[Quoted Text] > On the other hand>>>>>
>
> Not every company needs Dual Xeon's, 4 GB RAM, and 7 hard drives.
>
> We just replaced a 10 year old Windows NT Server, running on a workstation
> quality box P3 with 256 MB RAM and 2 9 GB HD in NT software RAID1.
>
> There are a total of 5 users on this system. Not likely to ever be any
> more.
>
> The new box is Xeon 3000, (one dual core processor) 2 GB RAM, and INTEL on
> board SATA with 2 80 GB in RAID 1.
>
> We also replaced their 10Mbs hub with a 10/100 Mbs switch.
>
> The only thing this company has ever done with their server is hold their
> accounting files. That's it
>
> Now, their AR report is on screen in 12 seconds instead of 1 minute. They
> are so happy.
>
> They are a bit concerned that the hard drives are "too big".
>
> They make a DVD of their accounting files every day.
>
> They now backup their entire system to external HD daily.
>
> They were shocked! Why do we need to backup the entire system, we have a
> backup of the data!
>
> There is an image of their system on a separate external hd in my office.
>
> When they learn to use email, RWW, SharePoint and the rest of the great
> features of SBS, they will be even happier.
>
> BTW, 30 minutes to copy the data files over the 10 Mbs network to a external
> USB flash drive on a workstation, vs 3 minutes to do the same thing directly
> out of the server to the same USB external flash drive.
And as you've mentioned, they now have SBS, Exchange, etc... So, while
they only had a file server before, they now have a File server, email
server, web server, system with automated maintenance, and an entirely
new OS (2 versions removed from their last).
Yea, 80GB would work until they really start using it and start learning
all they can share/do with it. They could also just use it the same as
the old NT4 box and never need any of those features.
As for some of the performance you are seeing on the USB - that's a
benefit of moving from USB 1 to USB 1.1 or 2. We had a customer that
took 22 hours to backup 60GB to a USB External drive, we added a USB 2
card and moved the device to that card, backup now takes about 4 hours
and the only change was the USB 1 to USB 2.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
I'm with Henry and Russ on this one. Can't really comment on SAS over SCSI
but can comment on trying not to use SATA drives. I've always favored RAID1
on the OS and RAID5 on the Data simply becuase you can get away more cost
effective with having to only use 2 36GB drives on the RAID1. As far as RAID
controllers being inbededded over RAID cards I really do not see a
performance difference. I use DELL server and they come with integrated dual
channel RAID controllers and am quite satisfied with the performance. I use
6 72GB 15K RPM in my RAID5 config with a global hot spare. I have had a HDD
gone bad on my RAID1 and can simply remove to old one and insert the new one
to rebuild without any interruption on the network. And because it is on a
different channel performance wise it does not effect the network speed.
"Russ Grover (SBITS.Biz)" <support[ at ]REMOVETHIS.SBITS.Biz> wrote in message
news:OiPzL%23UsHHA.536[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >I ditto Henry's config, > I personally like the OS on RAID 1 and the rest on RAID 5 > Russ > > -- > > Russell Grover > SBITS.Biz > Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist. > MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, (MCP-SBS) > support [ at ] SBITS.Biz > Remote SBS2003 Support > http://www.SBITS.Biz> > > "Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}" <sme[ at ]nevernever.lan> wrote in message > news:7EADF34B-D001-442A-B8BF-3DDA4287E02F[ at ]microsoft.com... >> Disks will fail regardless. >> ( Google HDDs and Google and see their experience /cost benefit analysis >> on SCSI -v- SATA ) >> >> RAID 10 is good but not as easily extendable as RAID 5 >> RAID 6 allows for 2 Disks in the array to fail, but you take the >> performance hit. >> >> It's all about needs and compromise. >> Personally we use RAID 1 for system stuff with full System backups + Raid >> 5 for data. >> -- >> Henry Craven {SBS-MVP} >> >> "Lumpjaw" <onemail[ at ]email.com> wrote in message >> news:eAPMxTUsHHA.1416[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Hey Claus, thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on SATA or SAS drives >>> in lieu of SCSI? I think I would like to have amybe RAID 10 so i could >>> mirror the first set of drives, I am a little worried about losing a >>> drive and thus losing the system. Thanks. >>> >>> >>> -lumpjaw >> > >
|
|
Since Hardware is Cheap IMO (Compared to moving to hardware.)
there's no need to under build servers.
I always watch DELL Deals and Get the "FREE Extra Processor," Even if it's
just 3 people on the server.
Sure they will never need it today but with the Dual 64 Proc they will
probably be able to still load SBS2012 when it comes out.
I don't believe in Extreme builds but I agree with Leythos IMO 80 GB is a
little low.
Assuming the server is fully installed, they will eventually figure out the
Cool things you can do with SBS.
Unless of course you are trying to make sure you want to rebuild the server
in 1 year to new hardware.
In addition to USB 2.0 (A MUST)
SATA External USB Drives are faster.
Russ
--
Russell Grover
SBITS.Biz
Microsoft Certified Small Business Specialist.
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, (MCP-SBS)
support [ at ] SBITS.Biz
Remote SBS2003 Support
http://www.SBITS.Biz
"Leythos" <void[ at ]nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.20e02e449441404398973c[ at ]adfree.Usenet.com...
[Quoted Text] > In article <#harYTVsHHA.3400[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, "Larry Struckmeyer"
> <lstruckmeyer(at)mis-wizards(dot)com> says...
>> On the other hand>>>>>
>>
>> Not every company needs Dual Xeon's, 4 GB RAM, and 7 hard drives.
>>
>> We just replaced a 10 year old Windows NT Server, running on a
>> workstation
>> quality box P3 with 256 MB RAM and 2 9 GB HD in NT software RAID1.
>>
>> There are a total of 5 users on this system. Not likely to ever be any
>> more.
>>
>> The new box is Xeon 3000, (one dual core processor) 2 GB RAM, and INTEL
>> on
>> board SATA with 2 80 GB in RAID 1.
>>
>> We also replaced their 10Mbs hub with a 10/100 Mbs switch.
>>
>> The only thing this company has ever done with their server is hold their
>> accounting files. That's it
>>
>> Now, their AR report is on screen in 12 seconds instead of 1 minute.
>> They
>> are so happy.
>>
>> They are a bit concerned that the hard drives are "too big".
>>
>> They make a DVD of their accounting files every day.
>>
>> They now backup their entire system to external HD daily.
>>
>> They were shocked! Why do we need to backup the entire system, we have a
>> backup of the data!
>>
>> There is an image of their system on a separate external hd in my office.
>>
>> When they learn to use email, RWW, SharePoint and the rest of the great
>> features of SBS, they will be even happier.
>>
>> BTW, 30 minutes to copy the data files over the 10 Mbs network to a
>> external
>> USB flash drive on a workstation, vs 3 minutes to do the same thing
>> directly
>> out of the server to the same USB external flash drive.
>
> And as you've mentioned, they now have SBS, Exchange, etc... So, while
> they only had a file server before, they now have a File server, email
> server, web server, system with automated maintenance, and an entirely
> new OS (2 versions removed from their last).
>
> Yea, 80GB would work until they really start using it and start learning
> all they can share/do with it. They could also just use it the same as
> the old NT4 box and never need any of those features.
>
> As for some of the performance you are seeing on the USB - that's a
> benefit of moving from USB 1 to USB 1.1 or 2. We had a customer that
> took 22 hours to backup 60GB to a USB External drive, we added a USB 2
> card and moved the device to that card, backup now takes about 4 hours
> and the only change was the USB 1 to USB 2.
>
> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free[ at ]rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
|
|
SBS Server 2003 R2 Premium and get it with Software Assurance.
I have 15 of these installs out there ranging with 5 to 40 users and they
love it.
The reasons to go this way are uncountable:
1. Price.
2. Managability
3. Ease of Administration
4. Out of the Box Mobile Connectivity with any Mobile 5 or later Smartphone
5. Outlook access with no VPN (RPC over HTTPS)
6. Outlook Web Access
7. Sharepoint integration already set and ready to run
8. Access to the desktops via RDP via a web Interface (Remote Web Workplace)
9. SQL if you need at a ridiculously chaep price
10. Integrated Inernet Proxy/Firewall with user level reporting on usage.
Need I go on.
The server hardware should be fast and redundant. With the eggs in a single
basket make sure the hardware is STRONG. We build out own.
I hope my humble opinion helps.
Mark S. Moreno
"Lumpjaw" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Hey all,
>
> I am in the need of setting up a new server (harware & software), I will be
> requiring it in a small business environment with about 20 users. I was
> wondering if I could solicit opinions on which the best windows server
> package is to use, there are so many. I know I would like to use Exchange
> and that it comes with SBS, is this the best way to go? What are the pros
> and cons to this vs. a straight Windows server. Ideas, suggestions,
> guidence apprecisted!
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Lumpjaw
>
>
>
|
|
|