Need new file server

[Chadder007]

Im going to need a simple file storage server for 20 users to connect to or so. But considering licensing costs, MS Windows 2003 Small Business Server costs to freaking much. OS = $410 + connection licenses for 20 devices $799. Does that sound right, do you have to buy connection licenses for each server that you have for the amount of devices that will connect to it?
Ive tried Linux several times but I just can't get the hang of it as Ive worked with Windows 2003 server before.
Just looking for any other suggestions.

 

[RebateMonger]

SBS comes with licenses for 5 Users or Devices, you'd need 15 additional CALs for 20 Users or Devices. I believe that SBS CAL 5-packs are about $300 nowadays, but don't quote me on that. That includes licenses for all the Server 2000 and Server 2003 servers in your Domain, for Exchange, for Outlook 2003, and for ISA and SQL Servers if you get the Premium Edition of SBS. So, the total cost for 20 licensed Users/Devices would be around $1300. Over the typical 5-year lifetime of a Server, that's about $13 per year for each User. Compared to the other (real) costs of maintaining a Server (either Windows or Linux), it's pretty much peanuts.

SBS licensing works a bit differently than straight Server 2003 licensing, and it's actually enforced by the Server to SOME degree. Each User or Device that authenticates to the SBS Server needs a CAL. Whether you designate your licenses as User or Device licenses depends on whether you have more Users, or have more Devices that connect to the Server.

You can also go with plain Server 2003 Standard Edition, with the software costing about $700 and CALs around $25, giving a total of around $1075. You lose the Remote Access, FAX, Exchange, CompanyWeb, Backup monitoring, and Server monitoring features. If you later decided you need Exchange, though, it'd be about $2500 extra for Exchange+CALs.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Im going to need a simple file storage server for 20 users to connect to or so. But considering licensing costs, MS Windows 2003 Small Business Server costs to freaking much. OS = $410 + connection licenses for 20 devices $799. Does that sound right, do you have to buy connection licenses for each server that you have for the amount of devices that will connect to it?
Ive tried Linux several times but I just can't get the hang of it as Ive worked with Windows 2003 server before.
Just looking for any other suggestions.

If its really just "simple" file storage, do you really need a server product? XP Pro or windows home server (which is Server2k3 underneath) can handle up to 10 simultaneous connections, and WHS could backup all the PCs, secure the data, scale storage space and guard against disk failure, allow remote administration and file access for the users, and its super easy to use. Its only at RC stage right now, but its stable enough to use, and the final product should be very cheap.

You'd only need a real server product if 10+ will be connected simultaneously. What OS are the clients using?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: BD2003
XP Pro or windows home server (which is Server2k3 underneath) can handle up to 10 simultaneous connections, and WHS could backup all the PCs, secure the data, scale storage space and guard against disk failure, allow remote administration and file access for the users, and its super easy to use.

For most 20-person offices, the connection limits of XP and WHS will cost more time and aggravation than the extra cost of the Server licenses. You'll have folks running around the office trying to see who's connected, so they can disconnect them so others can use the "Server". There have been numerous "problem" queries on AnandTech forums from folks trying to use XP as a "Server" with only 11 or 12 client PCs.

If you ONLY need a file server and if you really need "free", then Linux would be the way to go, as long as you don't mind spending the time to learn it and maintain it, which (like Windows) won't be free, unless you work for free.

As you mentioned, WHS isn't released yet. I wouldn't recommend unreleased server software in a production office setting. Too bad Microsoft hasn't incorporated some of the WHS features into its office servers yet. It would be great to have the back/restore features in an office server.

 

[Chadder007]

Well I was going to have them mapped to a drive and have their programs default save locations set to that storage drive on the network. I believe these are all Win2k or XP Pro machines.
Im looking up Server CAL prices here on Newegg.com and they look pretty much the same for 2003 server and 2003
SBS 2003 5 pack is 166.99
Standard 2003 5 pack is 159.99
I don't see why someone would go with Standard 2003 instead of Small Business 2003 of the OS. You get a few more features in the Small Business version and it costs less.

Anyway, im off to mess with Ubuntu 7.04 server for a bit....

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
SBS 2003 5 pack is 166.99

Link?
I think you are looking at Transition Pack CALs (going from SBS 2003 to full Server 2003/Exchange/SQL licenses).

As far as I can tell, SBS CALs are back up to $429/5-pack at Newegg.com. They were down to $300 a few months ago.

Here's a Nextag search for SBS 2003 User CALs. The cheapest is $300 at Atomic Park, which is a legimate reseller.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
I don't see why someone would go with Standard 2003 instead of Small Business 2003 of the OS. You get a few more features in the Small Business version and it costs less.

I don't understand why, either. It's cheaper for the smaller offices, and even for larger ones, it's far cheaper if they want Exchange, SQL, or ISA Server, which most offices do.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Chadder007
SBS 2003 5 pack is 166.99

Link?
I think you are looking at Transition Pack CALs (going from SBS 2003 to full Server 2003/Exchange/SQL licenses).

As far as I can tell, SBS CALs are back up to $429/5-pack at Newegg.com. They were down to $300 a few months ago.

Here's a Nextag search for SBS 2003 User CALs. The cheapest is $300 at Atomic Park, which is a legimate reseller.

Ok, yeah....its "Upgrade" and for the transition pack for SBS.

I was looking at here for Server 2003 Standard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16837116229
and here for SBS 2003
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16832102516

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: BD2003
XP Pro or windows home server (which is Server2k3 underneath) can handle up to 10 simultaneous connections, and WHS could backup all the PCs, secure the data, scale storage space and guard against disk failure, allow remote administration and file access for the users, and its super easy to use.

For most 20-person offices, the connection limits of XP and WHS will cost more time and aggravation than the extra cost of the Server licenses. You'll have folks running around the office trying to see who's connected, so they can disconnect them so others can use the "Server". There have been numerous "problem" queries on AnandTech forums from folks trying to use XP as a "Server" with only 11 or 12 client PCs.

If you ONLY need a file server and if you really need "free", then Linux would be the way to go, as long as you don't mind spending the time to learn it and maintain it, which (like Windows) won't be free, unless you work for free.

As you mentioned, WHS isn't released yet. I wouldn't recommend unreleased server software in a production office setting. Too bad Microsoft hasn't incorporated some of the WHS features into its office servers yet. It would be great to have the back/restore features in an office server.

Well, he never really specified the environment. If its a work environment where all 20 people can be logged on at once, then clearly pre-release WHS may not be the right way to go.

But SBS seems excessive for just folder shares though...It can't be THAT hard to set up linux to do just that.

What about a NAS device...any connection limit on those?

 

[Nothinman]

Well, he never really specified the environment. If its a work environment where all 20 people can be logged on at once, then clearly pre-release WHS may not be the right way to go.

That and WHS is obviously not meant to eat away at SBS sales so I wouldn't be surprised if the license prohibits commercial use.

But SBS seems excessive for just folder shares though...It can't be THAT hard to set up linux to do just that.

It's not, infact IMO it's simpler than dealing with all of the Windows licensing crap.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Im going to need a simple file storage server for 20 users to connect to or so. But considering licensing costs, MS Windows 2003 Small Business Server costs to freaking much. OS = $410 + connection licenses for 20 devices $799. Does that sound right, do you have to buy connection licenses for each server that you have for the amount of devices that will connect to it?
Ive tried Linux several times but I just can't get the hang of it as Ive worked with Windows 2003 server before.
Just looking for any other suggestions.

Linux + Samba = New Free File server.

PS: I find your logic behind not getting the hang of linux somewhat flawed. You just need more hands on experience. Just like you did with Windows 2003 server.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Im going to need a simple file storage server for 20 users to connect to or so. But considering licensing costs, MS Windows 2003 Small Business Server costs to freaking much. OS = $410 + connection licenses for 20 devices $799. Does that sound right, do you have to buy connection licenses for each server that you have for the amount of devices that will connect to it?
Ive tried Linux several times but I just can't get the hang of it as Ive worked with Windows 2003 server before.
Just looking for any other suggestions.

Linux + Samba = New Free File server.

PS: I find your logic behind not getting the hang of linux somewhat flawed. You just need more hands on experience. Just like you did with Windows 2003 server.

I know....but I like GUI and not having to know syntax.
BTW, it is a small work environment. So 20 people would be connected concurrently. I need to go check out a book or good online tutorial for Samba. Also, will it ask them for their Windows password each time to connect to the Samba share?

 

[Nothinman]

I know....but I like GUI and not having to know syntax.

smb.conf is extremely well documented and IMO easy to understand. Over the years I've probably run into more issues getting NTFS permissions right than I have configuring Samba.

Also, will it ask them for their Windows password each time to connect to the Samba share?

Not if their passwords are the same.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: Chadder007
Im going to need a simple file storage server for 20 users to connect to or so. But considering licensing costs, MS Windows 2003 Small Business Server costs to freaking much. OS = $410 + connection licenses for 20 devices $799. Does that sound right, do you have to buy connection licenses for each server that you have for the amount of devices that will connect to it?
Ive tried Linux several times but I just can't get the hang of it as Ive worked with Windows 2003 server before.
Just looking for any other suggestions.

Linux + Samba = New Free File server.

PS: I find your logic behind not getting the hang of linux somewhat flawed. You just need more hands on experience. Just like you did with Windows 2003 server.

I know....but I like GUI and not having to know syntax.
BTW, it is a small work environment. So 20 people would be connected concurrently. I need to go check out a book or good online tutorial for Samba. Also, will it ask them for their Windows password each time to connect to the Samba share?

Would it suprise you to know that there is a gui available for samba? It's called swat. It's an online web based gui configuration system. Very easy to setup.

PS: Just because a lot of us linux users love using the command line and using syntax to get things done, doesn't mean there aren't lot of guis available for doing the exact same things. Why do we choose the command line instead? (personally) I just find it easier and quicker. Imagine a tool can that do everything you need inside. you don't need to click on any other tool, this tool can do everything for you. that's how I view the command line. Plus, I don't want to lose the Linux knowledge that I've gained over the past 11 years. That's why I have so many issues with the GUIs, they make you incredibly lazy and allow you to forget knowledge. Plus, they are restrictive.

 

[RebateMonger]

Good luck, whatever you chose.

If you decide to go with Windows, I do recommend SBS 2003. If you have 20 Users with 20 PCs, then you'll be wanting 15 extra SBS 2003 USER CALs. That way, the Users can "legally" connect from home, from out-of-town, from their cell phones, etc. Since everyone will be using Active Directory, they'll have a single password that works on all devices from anywhere. That'll automatically determine their rights on all of the computers and on the various Server shared folders.

If you go with SBS, I recommend reading a good book on SBS setup and management before you do the actual install. The "standard" is Harry Brelsford's, SBS 2003 Best Practices, available for about $35 at Amazon.com. Do NOT get the "Advanced" book. That's full of advanced topics that won't help with the Server and network design and setup.

And, no matter what you choose, don't forget to buy a backup system that wll give you a way to keep offsite backups. For most offices your size, I recommend removable SATA drives (500GB nowadays). Start with three drives, so that at least one is ALWAYS offsite. The built-in SBS automated backup utility works fine as long as you don't have more than about 150GB of data to back up. The backup success/failure will be mailed to you daily, along with the other Server Performance checks.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'd recommend Linux + Samba, any distribution should work. Samba is pretty easy to set up.

If you don't want to deal with doing it manually, you can use "SWAT" (samba web admin tool.)
It may be a little bit confusing/overwhelming at first, but in the long run, aside from a slight learning curve, the TCO will be MUCH lower as the maintenance required will be a lot less than a Windows based option.

 

[Madwand1]

You might look into the OEM version of 2003 called "Storage Server 2003".

http://www.microsoft.com/windo...m/wss2003/default.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windo...ation/FAQ/default.mspx

Being an OEM OS, you'd have to dig through HW vendors' offerings to find them.

Here's an example:

http://configure.us.dell.com/d...&l=en&oc=bvcwdw1&s=bsd

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I'd recommend Linux + Samba, any distribution should work. Samba is pretty easy to set up.

If you don't want to deal with doing it manually, you can use "SWAT" (samba web admin tool.)
It may be a little bit confusing/overwhelming at first, but in the long run, aside from a slight learning curve, the TCO will be MUCH lower as the maintenance required will be a lot less than a Windows based option.

Im still hating on it so far. Have run into this bug.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubu...ource/samba/+bug/32067
You have to have security set to Share and not by User for GUI to work.

 

[Chadder007]

I just found something that looks just like what I need possibly. Its to be released with the newer version of Ubuntu and is called EBOX.
http://ebox-platform.com/features
Going to try it out for a bit and report back....

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
...the TCO will be MUCH lower as the maintenance required will be a lot less than a Windows based option.

I disagree with that statement. Server 2003 and SBS 2003 are quite reliable and quite low maintenance. I maintain a LOT of servers/offices, using automated monitoring tools, and find server maintenance pretty simple. The most time consuming thing is testing backups and going over the Event logs. But you'd have to do those things whether you are using Linux or Windows. I spend about two hours a month per server doing updates, monitoring, and testing. That includes SBS 2003 with Exchange and ISA Server installed.

Windows Server Updates can be done automatically if you wish. Yeah, there are lots of both Linux and Windows Servers out there where folks don't do updates. THOSE are low cost, until they get hacked. Running upatched OSes or applications is dangerous nowdays, with both Linux and Windows.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
I just found something that looks just like what I need possibly. Its to be released with the newer version of Ubuntu and is called EBOX.
http://ebox-platform.com/features
Going to try it out for a bit and report back....

You might also try out the NAS-specific linux distros (maybe that is what EBOX is?). I had tried out a couple just for the heck of it. IIRC, OpenFiler ended up being the one I preferred; and FreeNAS would probably be worth checking out. They are incredibly simple to use and come with great web-based guis. I strongly believe that either one of these would give you everything you need and actually be easier to configure and maintain than a Windows 2003 server as a file server.

edit: just checked out that eBox and it looks pretty cool. SME Server is pretty similar to that and might be worth checking out.

edit2: more looking at eBox and it looks like it is more of a re-invention of Webmin, but maybe with a simpler layout and much less functionality (which can be a good thing when you are aiming for ease-of-use).

 

[Chadder007]

OMG!!
Been playing with it for a while here. eBOX is uber easy. It has limited documentation but it works very well and I can find my way around it easily.

 

[redbeard1]

If they do not plan on implementing Exchange avoid SBS. It is a resource hog for one. It does a lot of things that most small offices do not use. Most small companies start to whine when you tell them that they now need a static IP to use Exchange, which cost more money than the dynamic connection they have been used to, and that they need the static to send email these days with out triggering spam filters. Then they throw a fit when they find that the Exchange backup agent for Backup Exec or Arcserve costs a fortune.

You can choose to not install Exchange during the setup, but MS highly recommends against it as SBS is a customized mish mash and they will not speak for the systems stability without it.

I have had a few customers feel a small bit of remorse because they went with SBS. They did not expect to become like an ISP dealing with their new email problems, which in the end they call me, and I get to charge them to sort it out.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: redbeard1
If they do not plan on implementing Exchange avoid SBS.

For sure! The biggest advantage of SBS is that, when installed using Microsoft's recommendaitons, it's TOTALLY STANDARDIZED. I can walk into a new client's properly-installed SBS network and understand EXACTLY how it works. No need to figure out some weird DNS implementation or other nonsense. They are all the same. It makes for easy troubleshooting and fast, low-cost installations.

Most small companies start to whine when you tell them that they now need a static IP to use Exchange, which cost more money than the dynamic connection they have been used to, and that they need the static to send email these days with out triggering spam filters.

I've had nobody complain about the need for a business-level Internet connection for their business. Nowadays it really doesn't cost much more than home connections (I pay $100 a month for 1Mbps/6Mbps Cox Business Cable). And if you have any expectation of doing things like Remote Access or VPN or such, a static IP is a lot easier to deal with and a lot more reliable.

Then they throw a fit when they find that the Exchange backup agent for Backup Exec or Arcserve costs a fortune.

Most Backup software makers have special lower-cost SBS versions that include the agents for Exchange and SQL. But I have yet to install either Backup Exec or Arcserve. Most small companies do fine with the built-in SBS Backup. Folks who only paid $400 for their Server OS aren't excited about paying $600 for backup software. And there's really no need to do so. If they have more than about 150GB or data we install one of the modern high-speed Server imaging prgrams, like ShadowProtect Server.

They did not expect to become like an ISP dealing with their new email problems, which in the end they call me, and I get to charge them to sort it out.

My experience is that clients have fewer problems with their own email server than they do with most ISP mailservers. Not to mention all the amazing features of Exchange. Many of their problems, like not being able to get email from certain clients, go away as soon as we put them on Exchange Server. Not to mention that an SBS Exchange Server is a LOT more reliable than most ISP's email systems.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Good luck, whatever you chose.

If you decide to go with Windows, I do recommend SBS 2003. If you have 20 Users with 20 PCs, then you'll be wanting 15 extra SBS 2003 USER CALs. That way, the Users can "legally" connect from home, from out-of-town, from their cell phones, etc. Since everyone will be using Active Directory, they'll have a single password that works on all devices from anywhere. That'll automatically determine their rights on all of the computers and on the various Server shared folders.

If you go with SBS, I recommend reading a good book on SBS setup and management before you do the actual install. The "standard" is Harry Brelsford's, SBS 2003 Best Practices, available for about $35 at Amazon.com. Do NOT get the "Advanced" book. That's full of advanced topics that won't help with the Server and network design and setup.

And, no matter what you choose, don't forget to buy a backup system that wll give you a way to keep offsite backups. For most offices your size, I recommend removable SATA drives (500GB nowadays). Start with three drives, so that at least one is ALWAYS offsite. The built-in SBS automated backup utility works fine as long as you don't have more than about 150GB of data to back up. The backup success/failure will be mailed to you daily, along with the other Server Performance checks.

I always thought offsite backups meant the data went somewhere in a different building. From reading your post it seems I was wrong. What exactly is the definition of offsite backups?