Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

do i need 10 cpu or one big server?

Tags:
  • Computers
  • Servers
  • Business Computing
  • CPUs
Last response: in Business Computing
Share
April 28, 2013 6:20:52 AM

Hi guys,
I got in the business of providing article writing services to my clients. Now, i need 10 computers as i will be employing 10 writers. My question is , do i have to buy 10 computers(i mean full computers, with separate cpu) . I have seen in some IT companies , a big cpu (dont know what it is called), which is connected to like 20 monitors with separate keyboard mouse for every station.

so, tell me, what are my choices in this to keep hardware cost down.

thanks

More about : cpu big server

a c 191 à CPUs
April 28, 2013 6:36:10 AM

Those are called 'thin clients'. Minimal functionality at the desk (mouse, screen keyboard), and most of the processing happens at the server.

But it is not easy or cheap to set up, especially for a novice.
If all your clients are doing is writing documents, you could get away with quite inexpensive individual desktops + MS Office or OpenOffice/LibreOffice.

There are many other things you need to address, but that will get you started in building this.
m
0
l
April 28, 2013 6:36:53 AM

What you are probably thinking of is terminal services or virtual desktop infrastructure. This is where a server runs several individual environments or sessions for client connections, often thin client devices. This can be a good option for businesses to roll out uniform environments for low-demand usage to several people. However, I've found that it's not always the cheapest option!

First, consider the cost of the host server. If you plan on running a remote desktop session host, which generally requires the least resources for this scenario, you'd need probably 2 GB of RAM per concurrent user, plenty of storage, and ideally 1 CPU core per user. That is going to be the ideal workload. A nice server which meets this criteria is going to run you around $4,000 or more. Now, consider the licensing cost. Windows Server 2012 Standard is around $800, and you have to buy per-user or per-device licenses for the remote desktop session host, which is about $150 per user or device. So all said you are spending at least $6,300.

What does this give you? Well first, these are pretty minimal specifications. Every user has access to the same sessions which means the user can't really customize settings, software, etc. Many businesses are adopting virtual desktop infrastructure, which would be similar except that each user has their own virtual computer on the server and requires a little more resources to run meaning more expensive. This is also a pretty minimal computer resource once you compare it to having just a stand-alone desktop workstation. Additionally, while having virtual desktops can be easier to manage for someone with knowledge in virtual infrastructure, it is not easy to jump into without some real training. Finally, but putting all of your computers onto one system, you put all your eggs in one basket. If that server goes down, your entire office is offline. Preventing this requires setting up at minimal a backup server with similar hardware as your original server, or setting up high availability cluster which is unbelievably expensive and complex.

So, what about stand-alone computers? Well, a nice business-class desktop with Windows 7 or Windows 8 Pro can be found for around $600 or $700. A network of this size, though, even if you do get all stand-alone desktops (which for your scenario would be my recommendation) you'd still need a server for centralized management of your whole network, and probably set up a domain to manage user accounts and access as well.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 28, 2013 9:37:00 AM

hmmm, so i guess standalone computer is the way to go. I am also not technical, so, managing these servers will be hard. I also dont have time to learn anything new.
m
0
l
a c 191 à CPUs
April 28, 2013 9:43:35 AM

In either case, you'll still be running a server of some sort. You'll need to provide services such as printing, general internet access, reimaging the individual PCs when (not if) one gets corrupted.
Basically, you're running a small Internet cafe.

So you will have a learning curve no matter what. Or, you have some IT savvy guy on retainer.
m
0
l
April 28, 2013 9:58:53 AM

i seriously need server? First of all, i use dropbos or google drive. secondly, i dont need printing at all. for internet access, i will be using wifi or simple hub.
m
0
l
a c 191 à CPUs
April 28, 2013 10:11:19 AM

Your users will never, ever need to print anything? Never?

You're providing 'article writing services' for up to 10 people. They will want to print something.
Internet access - everything should flow through one server. Antivirus at the boundary, DHCP, etc. WiFi on each workstation still need to connect to something.
Reimaging an individual workstation - one of them will get corrupted. Either someone brings a virused up USB drive from home, or tries to install something they think they really, really need. You need functionality to bring that workstation back to operational status.
Backups - will you be providing any backup service?

That is just a start...
m
0
l
April 28, 2013 12:22:00 PM

A network of ten computers CAN exist in a workgroup environment where all the computers just connect directly with one another without centralized management. However, there are so many things wrong with this design. First is management. To configure user accounts, and set up access for shared files, printers, internet settings, software settings, etc. you are going to have to do it manually on each and every computer. That's a lot of keeping things straight on a lot of computers and thus a lot of time. The other problem here is security. If you aren't managing user access to data, then you could have people accessing confidential employment records or customer information. Not only is this a very bad thing, but it can end up costing you a LOT of money! Data should be accessed only by those who should have access to it, and this is very hard to maintain in a workgroup environment.

At ten computers, you should be in a domain. This is where a centralized computer manages your user accounts and who has access to what data. You can also oversee a great number of aspects about your computers and network from one location. Setting up a domain computer still requires some know-how, but it doesn't have to be very costly. You will need to purchase a server, but what to get is greatly going to depend upon your specific business needs. For instance, how much data storage do you need? 500 GB? 1 TB? 10 TB? And what other servers do you need or foresee needing in the near future? Besides domain and storage, how about printer sharing, or web server? Perhaps remote access for your employees or clients? If you are just needing a basic domain controller, then you can purchase a decent computer to do the task for as little as $600 or $700, though again if its a business environment I HIGHLY recommend investing in a good, true, server system closer to the $2,000 price range. Then you have licensing costs. Windows Server 2012 Essentials is less than $500 and can run a domain for up to 25 users. It's kind of limiting, however, that you cannot do any virtualizing within it, so often I recommend stepping up to Windows Server 2012 Standard.

One thing I just recently was thinking about, but I'm honestly not sure if it would work, would be to use Windows 8 Professional (with the Hyper-V role installed) which can be purchased for $140, and then purchase a license of Windows Server 2012 Essentials to run within a virtual machine in Windows 8. I know that in an enterprise scenario this is rather silly, but I wonder if it's even possible. Anyone else out there have thoughts on this?
m
0
l
a c 191 à CPUs
April 28, 2013 12:53:38 PM

choucove said:

One thing I just recently was thinking about, but I'm honestly not sure if it would work, would be to use Windows 8 Professional (with the Hyper-V role installed) which can be purchased for $140, and then purchase a license of Windows Server 2012 Essentials to run within a virtual machine in Windows 8. I know that in an enterprise scenario this is rather silly, but I wonder if it's even possible. Anyone else out there have thoughts on this?


That concept should work.

Currently (at home - 6 PCs on a shared Workgroup, not a domain, but could be domained if I wanted to) I'm running Win8 Pro, with a virtualized Server2012 Essentials instance. One annoying thing I've found is Hyper-V does not pass audio from the guest to the host system.
So I'm using VirtualBox instead of Hyper-V. Pretty seamless.

But again, there is a learning curve.

The OP could hire a local college kid to set things up if trying to be really cheap. Being as he states "I am also not technical, so, managing these servers will be hard. I also dont have time to learn anything new. "
Server2012, virtualized, client, host, backups, etc, etc, etc....I fear we are talking over his head.

A badly managed server/network is worse than no network at all. And no network can't work in this situation.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 7:28:46 AM

chakrabinoy said:
i seriously need server? First of all, i use dropbos or google drive. secondly, i dont need printing at all. for internet access, i will be using wifi or simple hub.


To me it sounds like you're an ideal candidate for Chromebooks. If they're just writing and you're using GDrive anyway, this will end up being a lot simpler, cheaper, and more secure than a poorly managed setup with a full OS. You could even consider paying for a google business account. If you occasionally need programs that aren't available for Chrome OS, you could always just have one full PC that everyone can use.

Of course, if you constantly need Windows/Mac OS programs for these writers disregard the above.
m
0
l
!