Windows Server 2008 vs Windows 7 for small office server?

[jrichrds]

I'm currently using Windows XP Pro as the "server" in a small office with 15 computers. I run 2 programs that have gone from flat file databases to SQL databases with the new version. I want to put in a new server with 12GB RAM, and am wondering if Windows Server 2008 would be worth the added expense compared to just running Windows 7? (The software doesn't support Windows Server 2012 or Windows 8 yet.) Would any performance difference with networked programs accessing SQL database on the server be only for heavy usage scenarios?

 

[Chiefcrowe]

For performance and SQL, I would definitely go with Server OS. You probably will run into some limitations for network connections, etc. anyway using Win7.

 

[saratoga172]

I would throw on Server 2008 R2 Standard. It'll give you much more overhead than Windows 7 and it sounds like the need may grow a bit from the initial description you gave. The server OS seems to be a bit more lightweight and mange it's memory better than Windows 7 does, especially for server class software.

What type of hardware are you going to use?

 

[Netopia]

Networking is limited to 10 concurrent connections on Win7/Vista/XP/NT Workstation 4.0

It's what Microsoft had to do after NT 3.51, where people were simply buying workstation and using it as a server. The 10 connection limit is still more than generous for any normal desktop usage, but will only work for all but the smallest of server roles.

You also lose many, many features that are nice to have in a central server, such as AD.

 

[jrichrds]

Networking is limited to 10 concurrent connections on Win7/Vista/XP/NT Workstation 4.0

It's what Microsoft had to do after NT 3.51, where people were simply buying workstation and using it as a server. The 10 connection limit is still more than generous for any normal desktop usage, but will only work for all but the smallest of server roles.

You also lose many, many features that are nice to have in a central server, such as AD.

It was 10 in the XP era, but is now 20 concurrent connections with Win7. The thing is, I wouldn't know what to do with all the management features of real server OS. I know enough to set up an AD and have computers set up to log into domain, but other than that, realize no benefit from it (besides it being a pain when the server is not running to login an still be able to use workstations). So I'd be going with Server OS for performance advantage alone, if there is one.

 

[jrichrds]

I would throw on Server 2008 R2 Standard. It'll give you much more overhead than Windows 7 and it sounds like the need may grow a bit from the initial description you gave. The server OS seems to be a bit more lightweight and mange it's memory better than Windows 7 does, especially for server class software.

What type of hardware are you going to use?

Either Core i3-4130 or Xeon E3-1225V3 (Haswell) with 12GB DDR3L ECC unbuffered and SSD. AFAIK, server OS is not cheap and I may be wrong, but I would think taking the server OS cost to buy better hardware would be of more benefit. But I'd have to check how much Server 2008 R2 Standard actually costs.

From a server OS newbie, what do you mean by overhead? Would software using sql database not be able to take advantage of 12GB memory in Win7 while Server 2008 R2 would? Or would there simply be less memory available in Win7 because the OS uses more resources? (in which case, can just put in more memory to compensate? An extra 8GB DDR3 would still be a lot cheaper than server OS).

I guess I just don't grasp how server OS gives the actual performance advantage. I know you can set up a "file server role" in Windows Server too...is that what increases it's performance with networked programs?

 

[xSauronx]

i worked with a consulting firm until recently. what we'd usually do in your case is a server with a 2012 license, which gives you 2x2008 or 2x2012 VMs [with vmware esxi, but you can use 2012 hyper-v and still do 2x server vms] and run an AD/virus manager/wsus/file and print share vm and then run an SQL vm.

centrally managing logins and group policies for some basic tasks are very useful, redirecting my documents/desktop/favorites for all users so that a server backup [to a small NAS] will backup all user and server data in one shot, managing WSUS and local antivirus [for timely updates and efficient bandwidth usage] can be helpful as well as centralized printer management and file share management.

it also gives you room for growth, if you anticipate such a thing, since you can add an extra cpu and some ram/storage to a server to take advantage of down the road.

of course, thats a bit more expensive than buying a beefy windows 7 pc and just running SQL on it, but a consulting firm should be able to help get you set up, teach you a few basics [checking backups, managing users, groups and permissions]

keep in mind that the software company recommending one level of hardware for a setup will typically just suggest enough to get their software working, not enough to do much else.

 

[jrichrds]

i worked with a consulting firm until recently. what we'd usually do in your case is a server with a 2012 license, which gives you 2x2008 or 2x2012 VMs [with vmware esxi, but you can use 2012 hyper-v and still do 2x server vms] and run an AD/virus manager/wsus/file and print share vm and then run an SQL vm.

centrally managing logins and group policies for some basic tasks are very useful, redirecting my documents/desktop/favorites for all users so that a server backup [to a small NAS] will backup all user and server data in one shot, managing WSUS and local antivirus [for timely updates and efficient bandwidth usage] can be helpful as well as centralized printer management and file share management.

it also gives you room for growth, if you anticipate such a thing, since you can add an extra cpu and some ram/storage to a server to take advantage of down the road.

of course, thats a bit more expensive than buying a beefy windows 7 pc and just running SQL on it, but a consulting firm should be able to help get you set up, teach you a few basics [checking backups, managing users, groups and permissions]

keep in mind that the software company recommending one level of hardware for a setup will typically just suggest enough to get their software working, not enough to do much else.

Would you be able to give me a ballpark figure on what it'd cost to have a consulting firm set something like that up for a 15 computer small office?

And what would the server vms do for a small office setup? Should I be running into a limitation with a single instance of Windows OS before VMs will be of benefit?

I have a friend with a 5 year old server which isn't that fast anymore and he paid so much for it he's unwilling to replace it. He's also dependant on an IT consulting company because he can't configure anything himself. So my choice is to use a fast workstation-class computer with consumer OS as a server and be able to manage it myself and replace it at will with a faster computer down the road since it's inexpensive and I'm building it myself. Or bite the bullet and go with server-class PC with server OS, think long term as far as how long I want the server to last, and rely on an IT consulting firm since i'll have no clue about VMs, group policies, WSUS, centralized management, etc.

But I guess my original question was if I were to buy server OS instead of Windows 7 and just throw it on there, whether I'd realize performance benefits from that alone with applications that use SQL backend?

 

[Lorne]

My opinion since running a converted Win7 to a 2K8 of course.
2K8 Runs faster since its clear of all the MultiMedia BS. (So much faster)
2K8 also is more compatible with older programs installed and connecting older OS systems.
2K8 doesn't have the notorious thumbnail or file already open issue that Win7 has.
2K8 supports domains, Win7 does not.

My only complaint of 2K8 is drivers in some cases and having to play with allowance or permission control.

 

[DrGreen2007]

Your probably looking at 1500-2000 for a server/hardware, then there is your cost/time (or the IT consultant) to convert all the office PC's from workgroup to domain, teach each user how to press c/a/d and logon (Im guessing they just turn on the PC and it goes to the desktop now) and copy all there files from the old profile (workgroup) to the new one (domain).
Consulting time will cost $$
(are you able to move the SQL dbase from the Win7 machine to another one successfully?)

 

[jrichrds]

Your probably looking at 1500-2000 for a server/hardware, then there is your cost/time (or the IT consultant) to convert all the office PC's from workgroup to domain, teach each user how to press c/a/d and logon (Im guessing they just turn on the PC and it goes to the desktop now) and copy all there files from the old profile (workgroup) to the new one (domain).
Consulting time will cost $$
(are you able to move the SQL dbase from the Win7 machine to another one successfully?)

Assuming I'm running Windows Server 2008 R2 in both situations, what do I gain from switching everything from workgroup to domain login instead of just keeping workgroup login? And if I went to domain login, can I keep the same user account on the Windows client machines and simply attach that to the domain?

I'd be able to do everything on my own except for all the extra management stuff in Windows Server 2008 R2 that i have no clue how to utilize (and am not sure I'd want to anyways, as it adds complexity). My main reason for switching to server OS is the perceived performance advantage for running network applications using SQL database. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't wasting money on server OS that could be better utilized elsewhere (e.g. getting more RAM, upgrading client computers to SSD, etc.)

 

[jrichrds]

My opinion since running a converted Win7 to a 2K8 of course.
2K8 Runs faster since its clear of all the MultiMedia BS. (So much faster)
2K8 also is more compatible with older programs installed and connecting older OS systems.
2K8 doesn't have the notorious thumbnail or file already open issue that Win7 has.
2K8 supports domains, Win7 does not.

My only complaint of 2K8 is drivers in some cases and having to play with allowance or permission control.

Thanks for that real-world report. Do you have networked applications that run faster due to OS switch too? And what are you gaining with domains?

 

[Lorne]

We have older production software that will only alow clients to connect over a domain, Other then that it may just be 1 more lock for system protection.

The only speed up is a better latency and refresh.
2K8 is just a better workhorse with program-drive-network server, And you dont want to use it as a workstation as it will nag you to death asking if you are sure you want to run programs or if your sure you want to visit each webpage change to protect itself.

 

[DrGreen2007]

You could setup the server with a domain, then add the workstations, you could have the users use the local logon account (the one they use now)..youd just have to show them how to logon now since there will be a Ctrl-Alt-Del prompt when the PC turns on (unless you enable auto logon in the registry for each machine)
If you use local accounts on the computers that are part of the domain, they wont be able to connect to the shared resources on the server (printers, folders) without entering the domain username, not sure if that would also include SQL on the server as I don't setup SQL myself. (theres 2 ways to get around that, but it requires you touching each machine to setup/maintain)