Need new server at work

[jimbofoxman]

Little background here; Most of this stuff, other than a few additional PC's, were existing when I started 6+ yrs ago.

We currently have 13 PC's running XP Pro here on a switched network. 1 of the XP machines acts as the file server. We store only files on the server, no applications. We run Quickbooks Premier on 1 machine only, but now are finding the need to run it on maybe 4-5 machines. So we should move the datafile off the PC and onto the server. We also have several small Access databases that are hosted on the server, nothing huge though. We also have a Appointment Scheduling program we run on all our machines, but the data is stored on the server as well, with a max of 5 simultaneous connections allowed (not heavy use though). Most databases have 2-3 at most connected at once.........and most of the time it's just 1 person. When Quickbooks gets up, it will be the most and again maybe 4-5 machines accessing at one time.

I've been outta the Windows Server loop for 7 years and prior to that had minimal exposure on NT Server. So I probably know enough (or not know enough) to get me into trouble.

I am trying to figure out server wise what we need..........and get lost on CAL's and what to get. Do we need things like a Rack Mount Server or a Stand Alone? Quad Core? Dual Core? 1 Processor, 2 Processors? How much RAM? If we aren't hosting applications on the server, just the datafiles..........how many CAL's?

Based on the above..........can anyone give me some guidance? Or is more input needed?

Thanks! GREATLY APPRECIATED!

 

[jimbofoxman]

anyone?

 

[RebateMonger]

Here's a sample Dell PE 840 with 3 GB of ECC memory, two SATA 250 GB hard drives run by a RAID 1 (mirroring) controller for about $850. A Core2Duo processor and 2-4 GB of ECC memory should work fine for your office. RAID 1 drives are cheap and I recommend doing that, but don't rely on it for keeping your data safe. Plan for a backup system for making automated backups of your server and your data.

Microsoft's Windows Small Business Server 2003, Standard Edition, is still available for around $450 with five CALS. Additional CALS have been around $80 apiece, for licenses for the Server and for Exchange 2003. It'll give you full remote access to your office PCs, file sharing, automatic backups and monitoring, and the built-in CompanyWeb site for sharing information and files.

If you are going to set it up youself, I strongly recommend reading a book on the subject. There are a couple of good ones. There's a right way and a wrong way to do this, and without some experience, you'll likely do it the wrong way.

 

[mxnerd]

My personal opinion:

Small Business Server 2008 has been out, and I think you should not buy SBS 2003. It's already outdated and does not support Vista properly if you ever needed to support Vista or Windows 7 in the future.

http://www.google.com/products...07&sa=title#ps-sellers.

SBS 2003 supports 4GB memory max since it's 32-bit, if you use Exchange and has a lot of email with attachment, and have monitor service running, etc, you will soon approaching 4GB limit. (And depending on your chipset, video card, you might have only 3.5GB max left)

SBS 2008 supports up to 32GB and requires a 64-bit processor and most processor are now 64-bit. Just go with 8GB.

Core2 Duo should be sufficient. Yeah, and use RAID 1 with at least 750GB drives (which is a lot faster than 500GB drive) and do the backup.

Upgrade your switch & NICs to gigabit if not yet, it will improve your network speed.

 

[RebateMonger]

I was a Beta tester for SBS 2008. Although I have nothing "against" it, I think it's a bit early to jump on it. There's plenty of life left in SBS 2003.

One concern is that, last I checked, there are only 200 people Microsoft-Certified in SBS 2008. It has some major changes from SBS 2003 and there aren't many folks with an in-depth understanding of what the differences are.

Vista clients work fine under SBS 2003. I'm typing this from a Vista Business client joined to an SBS 2003 domain. It's been working fine for the past year or so.

I don't think I have ANY clients with 4 GB of memory in their servers. Most have 2-3 GB. These are serving up to 25 employees and many are running SQL Server, too. One receives about 1 GB of email each day.

While SBS 2008 has some interesting features, I'd be reluctant to install it for a client who doesn't need the new features. Either SBS 2003 OR SBS 2008 would be a major upgrade for the O.P.

 

[mxnerd]

I don't know why. But one server I monitored it's SQL server service (SBS 2003 standard) alone use more than 800MB (doing nothing but serving CompanyWeb), Exchange store.exe uses more than 500MB.

Client workstations? 2 XP and 1 Vista business.

Yes, actually SBS 2003 supports Vista just fine. But if you ever needs remote assistance from server to a Vista machine, then you are in trouble. You can't do remote assistance for Vista machine from server 2003.

VNC is one alternative for remote support, but it's painfully slow sometimes.


*EDIT*

I now remember that they also has UPS (shipping) server installed on that machine, so UPS install its own SQL server instance .

And they also run QuickBooks server on that machine.

 

[stlcardinals]

If you really want it done right, I would find the nearest Microsoft Small Business Gold Partner and ask them for at least a quote. Get it done right, plus you will not be overwhelmed and will have somebody to turn to for help.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: mxnerd
Yes, actually SBS 2003 supports Vista just fine. But if you ever needs remote assistance from server to a Vista machine, then you are in trouble. You can't do remote assistance for Vista machine from server 2003.

That one I haven't tried on SBS/Vista. I haven't used Remote Assitance from the SBS Server very often (maybe twice in several years), since it's as slow as molasses.

 

[JackMDS]

If SBS 2003 features would do what system need to do it is just a matter of what deal can be found and choose 2003 or 2008 accordingly.

I.e. current cost of each and pathway to upgrade when needed.

We tend to get involved too much with the computing minusia but the overall financial business is equally important.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: mxnerd
I don't know why. But one server I monitored it's SQL server service (SBS 2003 standard) alone use more than 800MB (doing nothing but serving CompanyWeb), Exchange store.exe uses more than 500MB.

Client workstations? 2 XP and 1 Vista business.

Yes, actually SBS 2003 supports Vista just fine. But if you ever needs remote assistance from server to a Vista machine, then you are in trouble. You can't do remote assistance for Vista machine from server 2003.

VNC is one alternative for remote support, but it's painfully slow sometimes.


*EDIT*

I now remember that they also has UPS (shipping) server installed on that machine, so UPS install its own SQL server instance .

And they also run QuickBooks server on that machine.

i run sbs 2k3 as well, serve out to 12 workstations and 9 laptops. we have 5 QB installs and the server controls the files for that, our construction software as well as all of our drafting/ programming files. my sql service can get as high as 1.8g at times, but it doesnt really seem to affect the rest of the system. there is a great series of deployment books i got when i took on the task of learning this stuff (not formally trained in server admin), i went to a bookstore and got all kinds of stuff relating to server building. about 1/3 of it was useful. the windows server deployment set was pretty much invaluable, however. as for CALs, you get 5 with any server purchase. it sounds like you're a smaller company with lower needs, so exchange may be a bit much for yall. if you already have emails controlled thru your ISP, keep that and get a good AV scanner that supports POP and webmail scanning. and always keep in mind that if you buy a server, that company will be your support line for when you break stuff (and you will while learning). i got a dell 2950 with all the extra gravy, it serves both all my company needs as well as our internet. rack mount is up to you, there are fully capable table top models out there as well.

 

[mxnerd]

Actually if the OP can avoid using Exchange, then I'll encourage him to. Administering an Exchange server and keep it healthy, virus & spam free is a daunting job for a small company. And it's resource hungry.

Without Exchange running, the whole machine will be a lot faster, and has a lot of memory left for other services.

Microsoft really make Exchange server administrator's life miserable.

So if OP want to save money and avoid administering headaches, then buy the cheaper SBS 2003 and use ISP service's email service. Life will be much easier.

 

[jimbofoxman]

Thanks for the input so far.......good stuff. MXNERD.......no exchange server here.

 

[Czar]

Try to put VMware ESXi on the server when you get it first, that way you can use it for so much more with that awsome free hypervisor from vmware.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: Czar
Try to put VMware ESXi on the server when you get it first, that way you can use it for so much more with that awsome free hypervisor from vmware.

Why someone that has No server and needs to move to One simple server need to put VMware ESXi on his server?

 

[mxnerd]

Try to put VMware ESXi on the server when you get it first, that way you can use it for so much more with that awsome free hypervisor from vmware.

Yes, ESXi is free, but to run ESXi, you need supported SCSI controller & SCSI drive, or supported SAS controller plus SAS/SATA drive, Intel Matrix Storage controller or most cheap controllers won't work, why make it so complex and very expensive?