Server Sizing Question

[DarkTXKnight]

A company that a friend of mine works for has had this server for 4 months operating with no complaints. They have a consultant who has come in and said that this configuration is not good enough to run Windows 2003, SQL server and maybe an instance of Exchange 2003 . Here are the clients:

1 domain
15 workstations
15 users
SQL is for running several small (~2MB no more than 10 MB) databases that are currently running in access but will be migrated later.

Here is the server they have :
1 221-2740 PowerEdge 2600 3.06GHz/512K 533MHz FSB Xeon

1 311-2823 2nd Processor 3.06GHz/512K 533MHz FSB Xeon, PowerEdge 2600

1 311-2733 2GB DDR SDRAM 266MHZ (4X512) PowerEdge

1 310-1676 Standard Windows Keyboard,Gray

1 320-2907 Dell E773S Monitor, 17 inch (16.0 Inch Viewable), Gray PE/ PESC

1 463-2436 73GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive

1 340-6467 PERC4/Di 128MB (2 Internal Channels)

1 340-3640 Floppy Drive,1.44M,F3,NBZL TEAC2

1 420-2965 W2K3 Server Standard Edition 32-bit

1 310-4405 Logitech PS/2 2-button Mouse with Scroll, PowerEdge

1 341-0069 PowerVault 110T,DLTVS160 TBU, 80/160GB,Full Height, w/Controller,Intern

1 313-1281 24X IDE CD-ROM

1 311-1839 1X6 Backplane,PE2600

1 310-0839 Internal to External SCSI Cable for Dell PowerEdge

1 310-0438 Electronic Documentation on CD

1 340-6864 73GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive

1 340-2191 Controller Card,SCSI,39160, Internal/External,U3,Low Voltage Differential

1 420-2833 Veritas Server,Power Suite

1 340-6472 MR5/N, Drives attached to PERC4/Di

1 310-1720 Tower Chassis Orientation,P260

1 310-1726 Redundant Power Supply, 125V with Y-cord for PE2600


1 420-4024 Intel Pro 1000MT Copper Gigabit Network Adapter

1 340-6864 73GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive

1 340-6864 73GB 10K RPM Ultra 320 SCSI Hard Drive

1 341-0116 Tape, Media, VS160, 5Pk

What I would like to know is why for the light amount of use they present, that this would be so "woefully" underpowered. For those of you that agree with the consultant Id like a constructive answer please as I just don't see how this is so, but noone knows eveything
Thanks So much in advance.

 

[randal]

Exchange + SQL is some heavy stuff; throw in a domain and it gets a little worse. If you're not moving tons of email/groupware, don't have a large domain config, and if you don't have a couple large, heavily/complex queried db, you should be fine, as that is a monstrous box. Do keep in mind that your expansion options on just that one server are slim to none. $.02

 

[spidey07]

hell, exchange and sql on the same box is just a recipie for disaster.

 

[DarkTXKnight]

Ok the thing is that they will not be moving tons of anything. They do not generate lots of mail at all. They will not be getting significantly larger than 20 users anytime soon and the SQL stuff is for very simple databases. I wouldnt think that 15 - 20 workstations would be anywhere near being considered a large domain. I thought that was indeed a monstrous box and it just drives me nuts when someone is coming in and saying that "well this just isn't enough" without giving her anything substancial as to why.

Thanks for the input so far

 

[Fardringle]

Just as a reference point, I work with an office that runs the domain server, Exchange server, and a MySQL server (tracks and retrieves info for their automated fax system) on the same box. The server also acts as a file/database server for their agency management system and feeds two network printers. The office currently has 16 client PCs that don't generate a large amount of email or SQL activity but are constantly reading and writing to the agency management system files and print very frequently to both of the printers. The server is a single CPU P3-933 with 768MB of RAM and they NEVER have any issues of any kind with performance on the machine.


Unless you are serving some serious volume on the Exchange and/or SQL systems, I highly doubt that they would see any issues at all with that server if it is operating properly.


edit: fixed some typos

 

[networkman]

Based on my own (admittedly rather limited) experience with the subject, I'd want to have Exchange and SQL on seperate boxes. Aside from that the specs look good to me.

 

[MulLa]

From a pure performance perspective I see no problems for that server to perform its task. The one reason why i think this consultant might want to say that it's not up to scratch is that he wants to sell them a new server? I see this happen all the time!!

 

[DarkTXKnight]

Thats exactly what I told her Multa. I do realise that even though for better performance of a big database and Exchange setup they should be on sepearte boxes, but I also realise that for their uses this should be more than enough. Afterall even MS sells SBS with Win2k3, Exchange 2k3 and SQL all on the same box and designed to run very well that way. Few small businesses have the capital for multiple servers just to take care of 20 people. I think the consultant is full of it really....

 

[n0cmonkey]

Put Exhance and SQL on different boxes. Every service should have its own box. Do that, it's over powered for the size of the shop.

 

[alent1234]

Unless they are running some huge database that serves thousands of requests daily over the internet it should be enough. I would put exchange and sql on different boxes. Restoring SQL is easy. Restoring Exchange is a lot harder.

I would buy up some more HD's to split up the databases though.


The big question is why are they running a domain, MS Exchange and SQL if there are only 15 users. Sounds like overkill and a waste of money at least for the email part. Most likely for SQL too unless this is a consultant shop and works with huge customer databases.

 

[MulLa]

DarkTXKnight: Did your friend buy into what the consultant says? I suppose you're her friend so you should have more influence and more independent. I've seen a similar setup for a W2K + Exchange 2K only setup for 15people with a Dual P3 1.1G + 1.5GB ram which runs perfectly.

 

[alent1234]

my company has around 800 people on 3 exchange servers

one is dual 700 MHz P3 and 3GB of RAM

one is dual 1GHz and 3.5GB RAM

and the other one is dual 2.5GHz and 4GB RAM

with exchange I/O is the biggie and you need to put the databases on separate volumes to split the I/O

 

[DarkTXKnight]

I actually had been telling her that she shouldn't get exchange. To me Exchange is overkill for their shop. They are happy with pop mail form their provider and Ive been looking around for a solution to their calendar sharing. They are a shop without a regular IT person and since Ive been an Exchange admin since '96 (msmail)I just don't feel like Exchange is something that you just set up and it works... it always needs some maintenance and tweaking darn near daily of some sort. That says to me that this is really a SQL box and domaina controller which should handle them nicely for a very long time. Even the SQL dataebases are not huge at all. The Access DB's they are currently working with are plentiful (100) but very very small(5MB or less, not a whole lot of records) So however the do their SQL architechture this will be fine for them. She has been asking me a lot of questions with this stuff since I have been pretty objective in my answers in the past and I don't want them being taken for a ride. Im actually working on a set of questions for her to ask this guy when he come in tomorrow to pitch his quote ( supposedly around 15K) to her and the president of the company. I just don't see what he could be proposing to do and he had never even sat down with anyone from the company to discuss their problems or needs beforehand.
I really do appreciate everyone's feedback on this as it's simply given me more support along the lines I was thinking