Will this configuration support a networked file server?

[Kremerica]

I am buying a new computer to throw in our server room. I intentionally don't want a rack mounted server b/c after our project we are going to hand it over to the client.
But I wanted to hook this up behind a cicso VPN to allow the client to access files from their office. There might be 3 users working off the fileserver just to open word and excel docs here locally in our office and there might be up to 5 other people who want to access it remotely, but probably wont be at the same time.

Do you think the below configuration is plenty for this operation?


PowerEdge 1900

Dual Quad Core Intel® Xeon® E5310, 2x4MB Cache, 1.60GHz, 1066MHz FSB

Windows Server® 2003 R2, Small Business Server, Includes 5 CALs

Memory 4GB 667MHz (4x1GB), Dual Ranked Fully Buffered DIMMs

Primary Controller PERC 5/i,Integrated Controller Card

Integrated SAS/SATA RAID 5, PERC 5/i Integrated

Primary Hard Drive 160GB 7.2K RPM Serial ATA 3Gbps
2nd Hard Drive 160GB 7.2K RPM Serial ATA 3Gbps 3.5-in Cabled Hard Drive
3rd Hard Drive 160GB 7.2K RPM Serial ATA 3Gbps 3.5-in Cabled Hard Drive
4th Hard Drive 160GB 7.2K RPM Serial ATA 3Gbps 3.5-in Cabled Hard Drive

Network Card Intel® PRO 1000PT Dual Port Server Adapter, Gb NIC, Cu, PCIe x4
Removable Disk and Tape Drives

CD/DVD Drive 48X IDE CD-RW/DVD ROM Drive

OS Partitions 20GB Microsoft OS Partition Override

TOTAL:$2,315.00

Thanks,

 

[JackMDS]

It is a nice build, but it seems a little over power for the needs that you described above.

In addition Windows 2003 SBS might provide a much better "Bang for the Buck" when a server is used with less then 75 users, and there is No special Multi Domains needs.

 

[Kremerica]

Right, Thanks for that,

It's actually cheaper on this setup to go 2x quad core than 2x dual core.

I guess I don't know enough of the differences between the OS options with 2003 and I have 2003 std on another server so thats what I selected.

I scaled it back to small business and it saved $300.

 

[MarcVenice]

Nah, he's saying that for those few people that will be making use of it, you could buy something FAR less powerfull, that would still be up to the ask even if you doubled the workload. But, if your 'client' intends of having more people acces the server then those 8 some people you are talking about, then it might in fact be a worthwile investment.

 

[Kremerica]

Can you give me a basic suggestion, lower price is always better for the client.

The parameters are basically that I need to buy it outright without hardware modification needed, preferably from Dell...
Yes I know its much easier to just "pop in" a pcix network card, but I need 2 from the factory... its just the way it is...

should I go with a 1x dual core chip? or maybe 2GB of memory?

I think the 480GB of storage is going to stay static, so I am just looking at processor and ram modifications...

 

[MarcVenice]

Well, you'd have to wait for someone better at servers then me. All I can tell from the above that it's a buttloud of processing power for something that simply doesn't require that much. I bet you could go with a single CPU for example, and perhaps 2gb of ram as well. But wait for an 'expert' to be sure, or to tell me I'm an idiot, but some more advice sure can't hurt.

 

[JackMDS]

Unless a server is bound into heavy SQL and exchange usage, then even 50 people can use significantly less powerful server.

Interview the client ask him about is most his most demanding scenario in the near future.

Also consider to save on components that can be easily upgraded later (memory, CPU) and go higher with hard to upgrade components like HD.

Explain to the client immediate saving vs. cost of later upgrade.