"Server" Question...

[LIVAN]

hypothetically,

Is a AMD 1800+ on a ASUS a7v 266e with 3 GB of DDR ram enough to be a "Server " in a small office with say 5 computers? And the computers will be running a software networked to each other.

 

[Migroo]

It always depends what the machine will be doing... but with only 5 requests max. at any one time:

Simple answer : YES that is OVERKILL!! 🙂

 

[MrHappyMonkey]

geez... 3 gigs of ram will tame even the hungriest of applications. This should be MORE than enough power for a small office with only 5 computers. What will be the main use for the server?

 

[neuralfx]

well, yes it depends on what exactly you are doing, i dont know if you are having i/o intensive stuff .. but if its basically an app server .. this is what i run at one of my jobs ( a school)


Win2000 domain, 1 Server, 10 clients,
Server= Dell Poweredge 1300, p3 600 (smp capable but not enabled), 640mb
this server is pretty slow (stress *slow*), and it serves the network fine (whence we got the 100mbit switch), and it serves all the courseware software from the server ..

well hope this helps ..
-neural

 

[LIVAN]

Thanks. Actually I am helping set things up for a Medical office. NOw the question of networking. Any wireless access points that can do the job RELIABLY? (Prefer not to drill holes for old school networking.

 

[bozo1]

3 GB of RAM is overkill. I have Exchange servers with 800+ users on them running happily with 1GB. If you are just doing simple file/print, 256 is adequate.

 

[mattbta]

I agree with all comments here. I run a PII 350 w/384 RAM and it is the primary DC, with around 5 users, runs IIS and exchange with 20 users, ftp and IRC. My website isn't a huge traffic one, but it does the job just fine.

Spend the ram money elsewhere, maybe on some scsi HDD's.

 

[thorin]

It completely depends what the server will be doing?

1) Providing NT/2k/Xp Authentication, Print serving, and a little file serving. (System above is overkill)
2) Hosting a webapplication and simple database. (System above is overkill)
3) Hosting a few webapps and a large complicated database. (System above MAY be sufficient).
4) Hosting a DB on it's own. (System above is likely sufficient to sustain high DB traffic to a large DB...you may want to consider SCSI drives)
5) Serving images/video clips for multiple video editing stations and network rendering of animation/video (System above MAY be sufficient).
7) I could go on for ever it really depends. (If you're specific about what you're doing with it we will be better able to answer you question). ie: Provide more details on the use of the server and/or what it's purpose is in the Medical center you're setting up.

Thorin

 

[BreakApart]

<< hypothetically,

Is a AMD 1800+ on a ASUS a7v 266e with 3 GB of DDR ram enough to be a "Server " in a small office with say 5 computers? And the computers will be running a software networked to each other. >>




Holy Geez! That's so over-kill it's not even funny....
Even the most demanding apps won't even wake that server up with only 5 people on it...

However, could you tell us more about what this "servers" role is going to be? Perhaps we can help you streamline it a bit...
-File sharing?
-Actually running apps ON the server, or just FROM the server?
-Large database use? SQL, etc?
-Mail Server?
-The client machines, are they dumb terminals or will they do their own processing?


"hypothetically" as you put it... 5 people could run almost any network app from a P2-400, 512mb server without stressing it at all. The only exception would be if you they did HEAVY database searches, or they used dumb terminals so they would use the server for processing.

 

[LIVAN]

Guys, thanks for all teh responses. I realize its a bit of an overkill but I just want everything to run Smoothly. He will be serving alot f Digitized Xrays of about 5 or 6 megs each maybe. He wants to use a Wireless network. I read some of these 802b.11 Wireless access points actually reaches 5mps in Thorughput/s , so I am thinking that is ok? OR should I advise him to go with standard cat5 network?

 

[Muadib]

If you really want to go wireless, go with the one of the new specs. Get either 802.11g which does 20Mbps, or 802.11a which does 54 Mbps. When it comes to business systems, always give yourself room to grow. If you want to go with AMD, you should think smp and go with 2 AMD 1800+ MP, and cut down on your ram by at least a gig. Overkill? Sure, but at least it will be useable.

 

[Scooter]

It's waaaaaay overkill, but if that's what you want....

You can get 40bit encryption on an 802.11b so security shouldn't be that big of a problem. But,.. in my experience, the Linksys wireless network I put in our office wouldn't do better than 2Mbit due to the walls and electrical interference. If I were you I think I would go the more cost effective and proven method of running CAT5. The only reason I see for a wireless network is for maybe laptops and/or PDA's. I think that permanent computers (ie workstations) should be hardwired.


Best of luck whatever you decide to do!

 

[thorin]

"He will be serving alot f Digitized Xrays of about 5 or 6 megs each maybe."

If you're serving a large number of large files you'll need good memory performance and good bandwidth and data integrity (perhaps more then wireless currently offers).

Thorin