domain or workgroup, which is faster...

[MightyJD]

I am setting up a business to run their accounting software and documents off a file server. There will be 10 computers on the network. Would I be better off running a workgroup (all Windows XP Pro) and use one system as the file server or should I setup a domain controller (Windows 2003 server, Windows XP Pro clients)... I just want to have a very reliable and fast network for them to work off of.

TIA
-Jeff

 

[mboy]

Is the file server just holding the data/documents or are u going to try to run apps off of it.

No offense, nut if u are trying to run apps off of it and are asking this question, you really dont have any business setting this up without professional assistance.

 

[MightyJD]

It is only sharing the data files. Each client machine each runs the app and goes to a network drive for the data. I have had them on a workgroup style network in the past. I have been the System Admin for this company for 7 years now. I was just wondering since the company is growing and with the release of Windows 2003 server if there would be any benifit of setting up a domain controller.

TIA
-Jeff

 

[mboy]

Depends on how you view security, which is primarily what domains are for. Speed would be determined more by the class of the server, ie processor speed and most importantly drive speed (15kscsi ultar wides) for example. Then you have your physical network, like 100mb switched over 10mb hubs would be a LOT faster.

 

[MightyJD]

The server box has 2 Western Digital Serial-ATA 10k rpm Hard Drives in RAID-0 CPU is 2.5GHz w/ 1GB of RAM. I'm not concerned at all about security. I have all the machines going into a 100mbps hub.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[eklass]

if you're just sharing data, i would just use a workgroup and create a share on the server. where i used to work, there were 4 of us using 1 server as a webserver/fileserver. twas an old, slow p2 500 with 256 ram, but more thn fast enough for our internal development server. the big difference was having the whole office 100Mbps fully switched

i would replace the hub with a switch if i were you... hubs == ewwww...

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: eklass
if you're just sharing data, i would just use a workgroup and create a share on the server. where i used to work, there were 4 of us using 1 server as a webserver/fileserver. twas an old, slow p2 500 with 256 ram, but more thn fast enough for our internal development server. the big difference was having the whole office 100Mbps fully switched

i would replace the hub with a switch if i were you... hubs == ewwww...

Yup, I would also make sure I have real good backups every nite if running the drives in Raid -0

 

[Nothinman]

Glad I don't work at your company. An admin that doesn't care about security or data integrity shouldn't be an admin IMHO.

 

[err]

I would highly suggest setting up Windows domain w/ windows 2003 as the server and winxp as client (if you haven't already own any other server / desktop OS).

You can assign excellent security permissions with domain, setup restriction with group policies, easily manage users and centralize file share. You can even use the new shadow copy feature to safeguard your data. There are tons of other feature in Win2k3 that you can use even for a small departmental purpose: DFS, DNS, DHCP, IIS, Print server, VPN and tons more.

eRr

 

[owensdj]

MightyJD, having a Domain with a dedicated Windows 200X Server acting as a Domain Controller and the file server will give you a faster and more reliable network than using a one of the workstations as a file server in a Workgroup. Windows 200X Server is performance tuned for server duty but Windows 2000/XP is tuned for workstation duty. If you only had 3-5 workstations, I'd say just use one as file server in a Workgroup, but for 10 you'll definately want a server.

A Windows 200X Server can do other useful things for your network like acting as DHCP Server to automatically configure TCP/IP on the workstations.

 

[Shide1]

I have to concur with owensdj and err, setting up a domain controller will give you a much safer and more reliable network. During March, I setup a business to do exactly as you describe. They now have 10 workstations on three servers and run their accounting software, documents, and backup off of the servers. Two are domain controllers and are running web and email (exchange). The other is a member server and is running accounting. In my opinion, when running mission critical data/network applications (such as accounting that needs to be backed up reliably), then running Windows 2000 server is a must. There are also many features embedded windows 2000/2003 server that are worth having when setting up a good network.

 

[Nothinman]

I personally wouldn't want to spend the cash on win2k(3) server for 10 people who just want a file server, I'd drop Linux on there since it can do everything they'd need and then spend the saved money on networking equipment or something. But if you don't know Linux it's probably not a good idea to learn on someone's corporate network.

 

[mechBgon]

RAID0 + 100Mbit hub = Ferrari + icy street. Fantastic performance, in theory, but fatally bottlenecked by a slow connection/lack of traction. Might as well switch to RAID1 and gain reduncancy against drive failure, if you want a "reliable" network. Tape drive would be smart too (what if the building burns down, or someone breaks in and steals the server?).

As for speed, again, if speed matters then upgrade to at least switches, or maybe gigabit if your people move large files across the network a lot. A dual-port Intel gigabit server NIC, some gigabit desktop NICs and a 16-port Netgear gigabit switch would probably light a fire under it.

If you're not concerned about security, then that's kind of scary. Think over the ramifications of that for the company, if your data got out.

 

[MightyJD]

Thanks for all your help!

I am not very concern because those that work there are very trustworthy (family business) and the data has no way of getting out! I am going to replace the hub with a switch and I think I will stick to the workgroup, I may play around with Windows 2003 server and see how that will benefits us.

 

[amdskip]

Is the network hooked up to the internet at all?

 

[MightyJD]

yes it is... But it is passing through a nice router/firewall first!

 

[psteng19]

From your posts, internal security doesn't sound like an issue here.
With such a small network, it makes more sense to just set it up as a workgroup.
Seeing that you're behind a router, I'm guessing that takes care of IP assigning so you don't need Windows Server DHCP services.
Obviously as the size of the network grows, having a DC will give you less headaches in the long run.

Without knowing what software you're running, your hardware seems well suited to take on 10 workstations.
Upgrading to a 10/100 switch is your next best move.

A company I worked for had a similar setup except with 25 workstations on a 10/100 hub.
Everything was running fine... the biggest bottleneck was bandwidth.
I was begging them to upgrade to switches.

Oh, and obviously use NFTS as your file system for security purposes (don't rely on share permissions only) and make backups regularly.

Also, to answer your question, I don't think there's going to be a noticeable speed difference between domain or workgroup. For your purposes, speed will be dependent on your hardware.

 

[mboy]

What kind of router/firewall are you behind. Please dont tell me you are behind a a SOHO like a dlink,linksys or smc NAT router only.

 

[Genx87]

Ill admit I havent really looked up why a Domain would make it more secure except if somebody was trying to get on the network with an unregistered computer. But in this case I would suggest just making a workgroup and using NTFS permissions on the fileserver to secure the folders.

Now a domain would make it much easier to manage the clients. But if you dont want to shell out the cash for server license. I would just use a workgroup.