• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

to server or not to server

J

JCROCCO

Senior member
We are a small engineering company, with 8 computers and a NAS device running WinXP PRo PTP. I need to upgrade our NAS (it is only a snap server 1000 with 30 gig). Was looking at a snap server 4100 with 320 gig. Other are suggesting we get an actual server. The only program we use that is server based is quickbooks, and we currently run that on the PTP network. It doesnt need to be on an actual server, but could be. Other than that and the possibility of sharing Outlook files, is there any other pros or cons? I am not interested in more security, dont need another station, and dont really see any need for a dedicated "server". We use the NAS just to store data files on so one point of organization, and I back it up remotely on a daily basis.

Looking at a snap server 4100 for about $2000, or a full server for about the same price.

Any ideas, comments, suggestions are welcomed.
 
If you can get an equivelant server with OS for the same price as the snap server then I would say go for it as a server allows you to grow and allows for more options down the road. I think you will be hard pressed to find a server with 320gb of drive space for that price unless its lower end though as that much scsi drive space is gonna cost you some money.
 
Actually, its about $500 more, doesnt include a monitor, includes only two 250Gig HD with raid1 only. Snap4100 has 4 80 gig HD's with Raid5, is rack mountable, doesnt need a monitor, and is plug and play.

Any pros to having an actual PC based server?
 
I would just build a samba server if all you do is share files...

you could build your own "nas" with Debian Stable for fairly cheap. You can run it on an old box without problems, save your money for raid controllers/disks. It will even do a very good s/w raid if you want to forgo the controller. Pro's to this method? Lots of open source s/w you might want to run for things, such as nagios to monitor servers (remote or local), ntop to monitor traffic, MRTG for traffic history, apache, mysql, etc
 
There are pros and cons to both. Do you want the server doing anything but file sharing now or in the future? A NAS will ONLY do file sharing. A NAS is very easy to maintain, you don't need IT to maintain it. A pc based server has almost unlimited capabilities, but also requires more server knowledge in order to maintain. PC based can host email via exchange if you want it to, can be a Domain Controller allowing more centralized network management, etc.
 
i would say that this is going to be a judgment call on your part. I would go with a "regular" server because of the performance. if your not worried about performance than stick with the snap server. If all your looking for is storage you can save $2000.00 by getting a removable usb hard drive and connecting it to an existing workstation and sharing it. you could even take an old pc load windows or Linux and attach the removable drive & share it.
 
If it is $500 more and you don't need it, don't get it. 🙂 The only reason for a server it sounds like would be to future proof yourself in case you needed to do other things like run another app, run your own webserver, Remote access, etc etc. If all you need is file storage and you can get it cheaper than a server go for the snap server. You can always buy a server down the road if you need one. Gluck!
 
PTP limit is only for connections to a computer I thought? Cant I have say 12 or more computers going thru a switch and connecting to a snap server NAS device? I think the limit is if you want more than 10 computers connecting and talking to each other.

Maybe I am wrong, but if I am, you bring up an excellent point. Can this be verified?

Currently, I have 8 computers, a print server, a network printer, a router, and the NAS all on a switch.
 
PTP limit is only for connections to a computer I thought? Cant I have say 12 or more computers going thru a switch and connecting to a snap server NAS device? I think the limit is if you want more than 10 computers connecting and talking to each other.
Click to expand...

No, the 'server' has no idea what workstations are talking to each other and the switch (and all intermediary networking equipment) is irrelevant. Pro will only allow 10 people to connect to it concurrently, they can be connected via a crossover cable or 1000 miles away and they'll each still each count as 1 connection. Also this is per-service, so you can have 10 SMB connections and 10 IIS connections at once.
 
Im sorry, but I dont understand. So if I have 11 computers connected to a switch, one computer wont run on the network?

If I have 11 computers running XP PRo, and a NAS, print server, and netwrk printer, and a router, WILL I have problems? If yes, then what specifically?

Each computer ONLY access the NAS device and uses the internet via the router. No computer talks to another computer.


THEN, even if I get a server running "Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition, Includes 5 CALs (420-5796)" will I still have a problem with 11 computers running XP PRO?
 
Im sorry, but I dont understand. So if I have 11 computers connected to a switch, one computer wont run on the network?
Click to expand...

They'll be able to use the network fine, but if 10 people are currently logged into the file server 1 of them will be screwed until one of the others logs out. The 'server' running Pro is the only thing with limitations because MS designed it that way.

If I have 11 computers running XP PRo, and a NAS, print server, and netwrk printer, and a router, WILL I have problems? If yes, then what specifically?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure if the printer takes up a connection, but I don't think it does. And the router is irrelevant because I really doubt it's doing making client connections to anything on the network.

Each computer ONLY access the NAS device and uses the internet via the router. No computer talks to another computer.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have a problem if you have >10 workstations since Windows only allows 10 concurrent connections unless you buy a Server edition.

THEN, even if I get a server running "Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition, Includes 5 CALs (420-5796)" will I still have a problem with 11 computers running XP PRO?
Click to expand...

Technically no, but legally yes. I think. MS licensing is extremely complicated, it's one of the many reasons that I'm a happy Linux user now. To be legal you need 1 CAL for each machine that will be accessing the server, but I think a XP Pro license comes with 1 CAL for Server 2003 so you would be fine. If that's not true, you could need to buy more CALs to be legal. Your best bet is to call up your reseller or MS themselves.
 
When I look at engineering firms, they usually have a lot of formal documentation and technical data (procedures, standards, bids, data) and have document control and revision history issues. They often have a need for cooperation between groups on projects.

For these purposes, you should take a look at Microsoft's SharePoint Server, a free part of the Windows Server 2003 system. You get easy-to-create internal web sites that give you full version control and document control, shared project sites, as well as shared project calendars and contacts.

As JackMDS mentioned, Microsoft's Small Business Server 2003 (which includes SharePoint) is inexpensive. Dell is selling servers with SBS Standard Edition installed for $600 to $800. And it's easy to manage. It also gives you a full Exchange Server (which works with Outlook to give you a flexible email system with full calendar, task, contact, public folder and email sharing, and access to all this information from anywhere in the world.

You also get complete remote access to your office computers from anywhere, so employees can access your entire network while traveling or at home. Plus fully automated backups of all critical data, along with daily server monitoring reports.

The additional storage for your data is trivial. I'd install a pair of RAID 1 SATA 400 GB hard drives that will give you cheap full redundancy in case of drive failure.

No matter what choice you make, be sure to have some kind of backups in place. For that much storage, I'd recommend a couple of external USB hard drives that you swap, keeping at least one offsite at all times, in case of disaster (fire, theft, flood, malware, or user error).

I'm sure you could find a local Microsoft Small Business Specialist who'd be happy to come to your office and give you a live demonstration of SBS, so you could see how it works. I keep a full running SBS Server and XP client on my laptop PC for demonstrations.
 
As rocco pointed out Winxp concurrent connections has nothing to do with the NAS, they are connecting to the NAS not another workstation.
 
As rocco pointed out Winxp concurrent connections has nothing to do with the NAS, they are connecting to the NAS not another workstation.
Click to expand...

If the NAS runs XP (and some do) then it will matter.
 
Why would you buy a $2000.00 NAS that couldn't support more than 10 concurrent connections? Why would someone sell a NAS that is running a workstation OS? How does something so simple (file sharing) get so complicated so fast?

Microsoft Licensing: (watered down version) You MUST have a license for each workstation. You MUST have a license for Windows Server 2003. Depending on whether you chose Per Seat or Per Server licensing during setup you MUST have the appropriate licenses.

Per Seat: a CAL for each workstation to access the server

Per Server: a CAL for each concurrent connection



 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
As rocco pointed out Winxp concurrent connections has nothing to do with the NAS, they are connecting to the NAS not another workstation.
Click to expand...

If the NAS runs XP (and some do) then it will matter.
Click to expand...

It's a snap 1000, which uses the unix-based snapOS, so the connection limit won't be a problem in this case. Where it might be a problem is when you get more people connecting to quickbooks.

JCROCCO: You should definately get a proper server if you're gonna spend $2000. I'm not sure about American prices but that seems like plenty of cash to get a nice storage server. You could save a bit by going with Linux.

 
Originally posted by: Atheus
JCROCCO: You should definately get a proper server if you're gonna spend $2000. I'm not sure about American prices but that seems like plenty of cash to get a nice storage server. You could save a bit by going with Linux.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I just can't see the $2000 investment for a drive array. You could get a Dell Server with SBS on sale, get five extra User CALS, put in two large SATA drives in a RAID 1 array, and install SBS on the new RAID 1 array. All for about $2000, more or less.

Unless the company has an IT expert, they'd probably want a consultant to configure it, but we're still not talking about a very large amount of money. Jeepers, some of the folks around here spend that much money on their gaming PCs. 😉
 
Well, I have a quote from dell for over 2000 for just a storage server, and a full server with 2 250 disks raid1 for 2500. I can actually get the NAS with 480 gig for $1600.
 
Dell will try to get as much money from you as they can by adding as much high-profit stuff as they can. That's where they make their profit. I have clients who come to me AFTER they've purchased their server, and they've been sold, for instance, separate $700 tape backup software that they really didn't need. For their use, the built-in SBS backup application would have been fine.

Dell also overcharges for their add-on hard drives. You'll normally save money by building your own RAID array with your own drives.
 
If your needs are like mine, you need more and more storage every year, while you may eventually need a server - I dont see an immediate need. The concurrent user limit applies to many computers trying to access data/executables on one computer - the server. If its more than 10 you will need a server OS. So unless all of you need to run Quickbooks at the same time, you dont need a server yet - but you want to - thats a separate issue.

If you need additional storage, more NASs is what you need, and Buffalo technology's 1 TB version costs about 800$ at Amazon. Similarly a Dell SC430 wth 2 x250 GB hds but no os will cost $700 (but you will need a monitor/ups...). You can try Linux (Suse/Ubuntu/Fedora - work fine I have tried them out) - but why waste time/effort.

The most important point is to have more than one server - spead your risks, and not go in for huge drives - if they die they take a lot of data with them.
 
build a linux based samba server

even if you dont know linux, its easy to learn from google and such and will save you big money
 
Originally posted by: Slowlearner
The most important point is to have more than one server - spead your risks, and not go in for huge drives - if they die they take a lot of data with them.
Click to expand...
I'd argue for ONE reliable server, with RAID drive redundancy and error correcting memory, and good backups.

The more servers you have, the more complicated life becomes. Adding a second server, for instance, doubles the odds of having a server hardware failure. Plus, if you have unique data on the second server, you have to back IT up, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top