Small Business Server Advice

[lfc123]

Hello everyone,

I'm going to be building and setting up a small business server for my business and would like some help/recommendations. The business itself currently has 5 computers and may expand to a maximum of 8/9 in the future. The files that will be stored on the server will all be small word documents so a large amount of space is not required. Although the documents are small word documents, they are important and reliability is needed. Therefore, I have gone for two small hard drives in RAID 1.

Ideally, the server should be able to:
-Run a file share system with restricted access by user account.
-Be a domain controller (So that it stores all the user accounts on the server, and any user account can be accessed on any PC that is connected to the server).
-Run a print server.

This is what I’ve decided on so far:
Case: Zalman - ZM-T1 PLUS (£19.99 @ Overclockers UK)
CPU: Intel Celeron G1610 2.6GHz Dual-Core
Motherboard: Asus P8H61-M LX3 PLUS R2.0 (Already bought it a few months ago for use as a backup)
Memory: Kingston Value 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 Memory (£24.00 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: 2x Western Digital AV 160GB 3.5" 7200RPM (WD1600AVJS) in RAID 1.
RAID controller: StarTech 4 Port PCI SATA RAID Controller Adapter Card (Amazon UK)

I’ve got a list of 3 PSU’s, and can’t decide which one to go with:

1) Corsair VS450 (450W)
2) Be Quiet! BN220 (300W)
3) Zalman ZM450-GS (450W)

Any suggested improvements/corrections on the above hardware?

The main issue that I have is software; Windows Server 2012 or Windows Server Essentials 2012. Which is easier to setup, use and maintain? I am very experienced with Windows 7 but have never used a server OS before. Would Server Essentials be easier to setup and use?
I've heard that Windows Server 2012 Essentials is MUCH harder to use than Windows Small Business Server 2011 for newbies. From the videos and screenshots that I've seen Windows SBS 2011 seems much better suited to my use than Server 2012 Essentials.
From what you guys have seen, do you think that its true?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jaydee]

Personally, I would just get a SFF pre-built, this HP Proliant for $400 actually has the exact CPU you picked out, RAID card, correctly sized PSU. Plus you'd have HP's support for one year. You'd have to add the hard drives you want.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16859108028

Can't really help you with the OS, I run WHS 2011, which was pretty simple to set up for file share and print server, but it can't be a domain controller.

 

[Dahak]

Personally I would go with the hp microserver that jaydee pointed out was well. I prefer not to build a machine that is going to be used as a server, just from the point of view of how much will downtime cost you. With prebuilds from hp or dell, they usually have 24/7 next business day for parts.
There is Pentium version of it as well that will give you a bit more oomph.

The one thing I would do as well is go to a minium of 8GB for ram either in prebuild or white box

If you are not going to grow over 25 users for the next few years(3-4) I would go with S2012 Essentials as that will allow up to 25 users.
If you never have used / setup a server before, I would say essentials would be easier for someone starting out.

the biggest thing between server 2008/11 to 2012 is the main shift of the interface, like the change between 7 and 8. once you get by that its not all that bad. They focus you into using the dashboard more, but you still can do everything from the normal tools

 

[smitbret]

Personally, if your livelihood depends on it and you're not IT certified then I would recommend having a professional set it up. You very well could be able to set it up yourself, but can you afford to maintain and take time away from the business if you have problems?

5 workstations isn't a lot

 

[lfc123]

I'm in the UK, and the cheapest that the HP is available for is £330 ($550) and does not include any hard drives or OS. If I were to add two very cheap hard drives and Windows Server Essentials 2012, the total cost would be £650 (approx $1100). My budget is £170 for hardware and whatever is needed for the software. If I were to build it myself the total cost inc. Server 2012 would be £390 ($650).Therefore the HP route would not be possible for me.

Downtime would not be a huge problem, as the business is small, and there are only 5 PC's. The important data will be stored on the PC's and backed up onto the server. I'm fairly confident I can manage it, as I have experience in building PC's.

I've decided to go for the software RAID route instead of the hardware route, as I am only going to be using 2 hard drives in RAID 1.

I've tried Windows 8 and hate it :$ However, I am very experienced in Windows 7. Would I be better off going with SBS 2011?

Thanks in advance.

 

[mfenn]

I fourth the recommendation of not building your own in this situation. You can get the previous gen of that HP server for £155. Look at the Amazon comments for the types of setups people are running on it, it is quite capable.

 

[Cerb]

I'm in the UK, and the cheapest that the HP is available for is £330 ($550) and does not include any hard drives or OS.

I see £155 as the lowest, with a quick Amazon search. Then £100 for 2 1TBs in RAID 1, and up to £100 for RAM (it needs more RAM for Windows Server to be happy...but if you want to be cheap, and don't run any software that it doesn't come with on it, 2GB will probably work), that's as much as £350, or maybe as little as £260. For a file/print/DC, a Turion II is bordering on overkill.

My budget is £170 for hardware and whatever is needed for the software.

Ridiculous. Your budget is your budget for the whole thing. If you can spend whatever is needed on software, you can do the same for hardware, up to some amount for the combination of the two. You're trying to build a server for the cost of a low-end desktop, then trying to save money on top of that. Well, of course it's tough to do. Even used servers typically aren't as cheap as you're looking for, at least most worth buying.

Even if you never have to call up Dell/HP/Lenovo for anything, ever, there are design, testing, and support costs involved that don't exist for home PCs, sometimes that don't exist for business desktops.

I've tried Windows 8 and hate it :$ However, I am very experienced in Windows 7. Would I be better off going with SBS 2011?

2012. SBS has no upgrade path, and migration is not only a pain now, but might be more of a pain to future Server versions (not merely doing it, but paying for all the extra licenses). It sucks, there's been much moaning and groaning, and it is absolutely a case of MS trying to squeeze more money out of depenent customers, but...oh well. Unless you have technical or software requirements reasons not get WSE 2012, get WSE 2012. If you're going to stick to MS now, plan to grow with MS in the future.

Windows 7 v. 8 is a special case, because (a) you use the GUI every day, (b) the productivity and morale loss is a real issue, and many business do not have very trainable users, something a lot of IT writers are insulated from, I think (getting some users using Windows 7 is hard enough...), (c) 8.1 shows MS is serious about making it work at least adequately, plus the CEO is being changed out, so we have some hope for future versions improving the UI in versions to be released long before 7's EOL, and (e) building on the previous points, current hardware will be phased out already by the time 7 goes EOL.

Well, you don't use the server's GUI every day. Then, when you do, you're using the Metroified interface, it's just to get the same old tools that work about the same way they always have. 2012 offers an upgrade path, and is already typically well-supported by software you might be likely to buy. Also, servers have a tendency to either grow and become more, or hang around forever, largely untouched, without much in the middle of that spectrum. If you know you'll be in the "doing nothing more in the future," camp, SBS would work as well, but all it will take will be some software deals, growth, needs to tie into services through your server, use proprietary VPNs, etc. etc., to dive headlong into the other.

I'm not going to defend MS' licensing choices, nor anti-focus on SMBs, which lately seems to be growing towards SMEs. But, if you need a DC and NTFS ACLs, Samba simply will not do the job well enough, without being a *n*x geek--and I would then still steer clear of NTFS ACL support. Those features basically necessitate paying Microsoft.