Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Server Advice

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?

Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops

FTP Required also

Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.

Thank you.

More about : server advice

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:04:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in message
news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
> backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
> looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
> FTP Required also
>
> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
possibility), tells me you aren't ready to build or maintain a server.
December 8, 2004 2:04:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

I would just go to Ebay and find a NEW IN BOX server. A dell for instance
will have full factory warranty. I would not cut corners and use XP pro. A
full version of windows 2003 server with an additional 5 CAL's is the way to
go. If you use worksation to serve files you will be limited to a max of 10
users.

I would install a decent raid, minimum of 1 GB for RAM, and a reliable tape
backup or DVD backup. To build a server from scratch will not save you too
much money. A factory server will save you the headaches of finding windows
compatible equipment, installing the equipment, testing the equipment. Not
to mention what to do if you have a hardware problem down the road.


"Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in message
news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
>backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
>looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
> FTP Required also
>
> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
> Thank you.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Peter van der Goes wrote:

> "Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in message
> news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
>>I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
>>backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
>>looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>>
>>Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>>
>>FTP Required also
>>
>>Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>
>
> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
> possibility),

Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?

> tells me you aren't ready to build or maintain a server.
>
>
December 8, 2004 2:04:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> Peter van der Goes wrote:
>
>>
>> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>> possibility),
>
>
> Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?
>

Yes! That's one reason. Another is that a server OS has features in it
specifically designed for the purpose of being a server!
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:17:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in
news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage
> and backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S
> should I be looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
> FTP Required also
>
> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>

Just say "no". Trust me.

Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:26:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in
news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage
> and backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S
> should I be looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
> FTP Required also
>
> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
> Thank you.

A bit more detail ...

The company need to pay for a IT professional and hardware. They also
need to pay for support.

From your post you do not have the skills or long term resources to
undertake this task.
Thats not a criticism of you. I dont have the skills to do many things
:) . I probably could build a reliable PC, but not confident up to
business file standards (depending on how bullet proof they wanted it).

They also have to be prepared to pay the going rate for what they want.

If you build this server and it goes tits up, and they lose all thier
backups and orders , and lose money, its not going to bode well for you
or them.

Point them at Dell, or Compaq websites / sales advisors. Then leave well
alone :) 

Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:36:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Lordy <spam_box@gmx.net> wrote in news:Xns95B97478C3322lordybigfootcom@
130.133.1.4:

> "Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in
> news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
>
>> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage
>> and backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S
>> should I be looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>>
>
> Point them at Dell, or Compaq websites / sales advisors. Then leave well
> alone :) 
>

Last word. An OEM solution from Dell, Compaq, HP etc will likely be cheaper
than anything you or I could build of comparable quality.

Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:42:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Remedy wrote:

> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
> backups.
> What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
> looking to provide the above?

A server is simply a machine which concentrates resources and makes them
accessible to a number of clients.

Most 'server' systems are grossly overspecced for the job at hand,
although if you plan to run server-based software, such as MS SQL
Server, you'll need a grossly overspecced machine.

Also, define 'Backups'. How much data, and do you mean backup as in
'it's on the server and the client', or backup as in 'it's written
nightly to removable media that is stored elsewhere'.

Here I back up about 8Gb each night, which is _WAY_ too much (but you
try and persuade users to tidy up their directories). I used to do this
to OnStream ADR tapes (30Gb capacity), but the drive failed and they
don't make them any more, so I'm now writing to DVD-RAM.

An alternative to nightly removable media backups is to keep the files
on a RAID. You can build cheap SATA raids with many budget
motherboards. However you should still do periodic backups to removable
media, because while a RAID will survive a disc failure, it won't
survive a fire or other disaster.

> Is XP Pro sufficient?

This will provide you with the ability to create shares that up to ten
users can access. No more than ten sessions are possible. With the
server products (Windows 2003 Server, etc.) you have to buy client
access licenses (CALs) for the number of users. Each session is a
single client connecting to the server (to any number of shares)

> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops

If you don't expect that to grow, then XP Pro would suffice, although
personally I'd go with 2000 if I HAD to use windows...

> FTP Required also

Does this mean it will be internet-facing as well. Welcome to the world
of trying desperately to keep up with the number of exploits out there.

> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.

Then you really ought to explore it. In the non-windows world, the
likes of Samba throw the idea of session limits and client access
licenses out of the window. You can get the same oomph out of older
hardware, and lower cost, or in my case NO cost (recycled hardware, and
free/homebrew software).

As a guide, I have one 'server' here, which is a 300MHz AMD K6/2, with
128Mb of memory, a pile of large discs, and a network card, serving
30-40 users with a couple of dozen file shares via SMB or NFS, has an
FTP server, runs the internal DNS and DHCP. It's been up for 364 days
(which probably means I'm overdue for a long power cut that will
flatline the UPS today), and the load average on it barely registers
(current is 0.00, but I've seen it get to 0.23)
The backup runs automatically each night. No special software is
involved (I wrote the backup script myself, all of 144 lines(bash
script) and 198 lines(in C) including comments). It gathers,
compresses, and sorts backup filesets to make the best use of the media
involved. It's cheap, effective, fast enough, and I reckon I could
squeeze a MySQL server in there too.

---

So, to really offer proper advice, you need to think about volumes of
data, whether any local processing is involved, security of data,
whether you want to offer any other network services, like DNS, DHCP,
IMAP/POP3 Mail, etc.
And do not allow anyone to install MS Office on the server, or anything
else for that matter. The MS Marketing machine likes things like Word
to start 'instantly', so even if you are not using an office
application, all of the DLL's get loaded at startup anyway. Besides, if
you put user applications on the server, it soon becomes someone's
desktop instead.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:42:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

This has been a very interesting discussion even though it off topic.

Questions:

1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?

2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
run effectively.

3) Yes the original posters server requirements looks like could be
handled by a laptop. ;-)).

Thanks for the interesting information on servers.

Alan
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 2:50:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

the only difference between a server and a PC is the OS all the rest of the
hardware can be in both a pc and a server XP pro is not a server OS as such
"Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in message
news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
>backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
>looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
> FTP Required also
>
> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
> Thank you.
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 3:26:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in message
news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
> backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
> looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
> FTP Required also
>
> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
> Thank you.
>
>

A server "serves" files and data to client computers (the 4 laptops + 2
desktops).

That doesn't seem like a big set up, but could it expand quickly? You could
build a very cheap low-spec server (1 GB processor / 60GB drive) and
wireless solution that would accomodate that client base. However, it would
not be ideal (apart from no wires), and would make future exansion
difficult. It would also be slow compared to big networks but then it might
perform the same due to the low amount of users.

Personally though I would point them in the direction of a professional
solution. Dell will provide the server / OS / support apps (backup) / and
support for a competative price (ie negotiable).

Last thing you want is an irate management threatening to take you to court
because the server you built died and took the whole lot with it.

Also don't forget the phone support you'd be obliged to give.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 3:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Kevin R" <dontemailme@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:WTBtd.1805$zR.1318@newsfe4-win.ntli.net:

> the only difference between a server and a PC is the OS all the rest
> of the hardware can be in both a pc and a server XP pro is not a
> server OS as such

A file server can be exactly the same as a home PC of course, but will
often have an emphasis on higher spec hard drives, better / redundant
cooling, hardware monitoring etc. Builtin backup for convenience. CPU power
is not so important.

Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 3:37:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Kav" <not@rrr.net> wrote in
news:5qCtd.32803$up1.24722@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> Personally though I would point them in the direction of a
> professional solution. Dell will provide the server / OS / support
> apps (backup) / and support for a competative price (ie negotiable).
>
> Last thing you want is an irate management threatening to take you to
> court because the server you built died and took the whole lot with
> it.
>

Thank you. I thought I was going mad :) 

Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 3:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

To add to my previous post, and to echo Lordy's comments..

Building and configuring a server yourself without the necessary
knowledge to do so is not something you want to do.

Building and configuring a server yourself WITH the necessary knowledge
to do so is also not something you want to do unless it is your job to
do so. Servers are machines that organisations depend upon. If they
are expecting you to provide support for it, don't go there unless you
are willing to deal with the one inevitable component of any server.
That component is called a USER

USERS come in many varieties.
Some users are technically minded. These users are dangerous, because
they will mess with the server and you'll have a great time finding out
why something you set up isn't working quite the same way any more.

Most users are highly-skilled, fully-trained, professional idiots.
These users are dangerous, as they will mess with your sanity.

Either way, unless they are paying you to look after it, then you don't
want to do it.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 3:58:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Remedy wrote:

> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
> backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
> looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops

As has been said, a server is usually functionally the same as any other
machine. In a larger organisation you want a machine designed for
reliability and performance: reliable motherboard possible with several
processors, ECC RAM, SCSI RAID hard discs, maybe dual power supplies,
Uninterruptible Power Supply. It would normally run a network operating
system (NOS) such as Novell Netware, Linux, Microsoft Windows Server
version, and would not also be used as someone's workstation. You need a
different level of expertise to maintain a NOS-based system.

Purpose-designed servers can be bought from the companies other posters
have suggested, and from Fujitsu-Siemens and others. They cost a lot
more than ordinary machines.

With a small number of users and no requirement for access control and
security it is possible to set up a peer-to-peer (P2P) network using,
say Microsoft Windows non-server versions. If there is a lot of network
traffic this becomes an increasingly bad idea as network size increases.
If it is just a matter of people doing single-user word processing and
similar, rather than, say, a heavy-duty multiuser database, you could
probably use a P2P network which is essentially a collection of
independent machines with all data files being stored on one machine
(either a user's workstation or a dedicated machine) and backed up
nightly onto a tape. Depending upon the value of the data, you should
have a scheme which keeps a weeks' worth of tapes, with one off-site.

The performance requirements of a file server need not be great. I have
very successfully run about 20 users off a Pentium 75 running Netware
3.12 (old version of this NOS); a 386 would probably have been OK (it's
disc, not CPU, performance which matters). This is less true for a
machine which acts as more than file server (e.g., SQL database server)
and has a graphical user interface. One company recently migrated from
such a system to a state-of-the=art server and NOS, and were very
disappointed to find performance dropped slightly.

HTHm
--
Michael Salem
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 4:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Peter van der Goes" <p_vandergoes@toadstool.u> wrote in message
news:ljDtd.126344$%x.91497@okepread04...
>
> "Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote in message
> news:41b6df9f$0$16575$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
>> backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
>> looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>>
>> Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>>
>> FTP Required also
>>
>> Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
> possibility), tells me you aren't ready to build or maintain a server.
>
Yup, top quality advice, the only rider I'd add is that if you are sure the client is gonna pay you
big, big, big (did I say big) bucks for the installation and support then think about it, otherwise
it's a job for Michael Dell.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 5:47:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Jim Howes wrote:

> don't go there unless you
> are willing to deal with the one inevitable component of any server.
> That component is called a USER
>
> USERS come in many varieties.
> Some users are technically minded. These users are dangerous, because
> they will mess with the server and you'll have a great time finding out
> why something you set up isn't working quite the same way any more.
>
> Most users are highly-skilled, fully-trained, professional idiots.
> These users are dangerous, as they will mess with your sanity.

It would help if you had access to one or more BSI's
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 5:51:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Bob" <Spam@spamyoutohell.com> wrote in
news:10re385pdeo7i86@corp.supernews.com:

> I would just go to Ebay and find a NEW IN BOX server. A dell for
> instance will have full factory warranty. I would not cut corners and
> use XP pro. A full version of windows 2003 server with an additional 5
> CAL's is the way to go. If you use worksation to serve files you will
> be limited to a max of 10 users.

I'm always suspicious of vendors that have Dells cheaper than Dell :) 
My mate bought a HP like this and months later noticed a small nick on the
case that had been painted over. Could be nothing, but ...

In any case, unless they have the staff permanently on site, I think office
hours onsite support with say 4 hour response ??? is a must for most
business.
Whether they have permanent staff, or outsource support per incident or per
annum is a business decision.

If they just have one person, are they allowed on vacations :) 

Lordy
December 8, 2004 5:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

I purchased an HP and a Dell server. These were both new unopened servers in
perfect condition. They have the full factory warranty and come with onsite
(24 hour) service. I opted to pruchase an extended 4 hour response service
contract from HP and Dell. This is worth the extra money. One thing I have
setup as a failsafe, was a machine with a large drive which is mirroring the
servers. If anything goes wrong with the server I can have a working server
up and running in a matter of minutes.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 6:25:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Salem wrote:
> It would help if you had access to one or more BSI's

British Standard Idiots?
Broken System Interfaces?
Banana Skin Instances?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 6:52:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Bob" <Spam@spamyoutohell.com> wrote in news:10re385pdeo7i86
@corp.supernews.com:

> I would just go to Ebay and find a NEW IN BOX server.

Sorted :) :) 

Looks like some company overspent on hardware a tad :) 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=57...

Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 7:07:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Lordy wrote:

> office
> hours onsite support with say 4 hour response ??? is a must

But be careful. This is just the time to come on-site. In one case (many
years ago) the support people came quickly on-site, then went away for a
full week waiting for a part -- but they had kept their contract. The
machines I buy have several options; as far as I remember:

- next business day on-site response. Free for 3 years (warranty).
- 8-hour response, during business days. Cheapest paid option
- 4-hour response, any time. Higher cost
- 8-hour guaranteed time to repair, highest cost.

Best wishes,
--
Michael Salem
December 8, 2004 7:07:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

These machines have support from the manufacturer (HP or Dell). HP has very
good support. I would not consider going with a private third party for
support. The manufacturer will have parts for all the machines, a third
party will not.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 7:08:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Jim Howes wrote:
> Michael Salem wrote:
> > It would help if you had access to one or more BSI's
>
British Standard Idiots
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 7:45:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Lordy wrote:

> Sorted :) :) 
>
> Looks like some company overspent on hardware a tad :) 
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=57...

I recall saying earlier today that most servers are overspecced.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 8:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> wrote in message news:Xns95B9A182467F2lordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...
> "Bob" <Spam@spamyoutohell.com> wrote in news:10re385pdeo7i86
> @corp.supernews.com:
>
>> I would just go to Ebay and find a NEW IN BOX server.
>
> Sorted :) :) 
>
> Looks like some company overspent on hardware a tad :) 
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=57...
>


Looks like a nice little machine, didn't think much of the graphics card spec though :) 
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 8:16:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Lordy" <spam_box@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B9803D1DFAlordybigfootcom@130.133.1.4...
> "Kevin R" <dontemailme@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:WTBtd.1805$zR.1318@newsfe4-win.ntli.net:
>
> > the only difference between a server and a PC is the OS all the rest
> > of the hardware can be in both a pc and a server XP pro is not a
> > server OS as such
>
> A file server can be exactly the same as a home PC of course, but will
> often have an emphasis on higher spec hard drives, better / redundant
> cooling, hardware monitoring etc. Builtin backup for convenience. CPU
power
> is not so important.
>
> Lordy

We've only just made an NT4 server redundant after shifting its work to a
2000 server.

The NT4 server was a P3 400 with a drive array amounting to 40GB (heh how
quant!)

It was perfectly capeable of doing the job of domain server / dhcp / dns /
file serving and 4 SQL databases. We just got rid because of the imminent
lack of support from MS for NT4.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 8:23:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Jim Howes" <sewoh.mij@moc.gisorp.backwards.invalid> wrote in message
news:cp7b59$s3a$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Lordy wrote:
>
> > Sorted :) :) 
> >
> > Looks like some company overspent on hardware a tad :) 
> > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=57...
>
> I recall saying earlier today that most servers are overspecced.

Well they probably are but then thats usually a requirement.

You wouldn't want to have to upgrade your servers after a couple of years.
In fact I don't want to have to do *anything* to my servers for 5 years at
least.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 9:07:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Dee wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Peter van der Goes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>>> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>>> possibility),
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?
>>
>
> Yes! That's one reason.

But not a very good one.

> Another is that a server OS has features in it
> specifically designed for the purpose of being a server!

Yes, it has various 'server features'. That doesn't mean you need those,
depending on what you want the 'server' to do.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 10:26:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Alan Walpool" <awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote in message
news:87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net...
>
> This has been a very interesting discussion even though it off topic.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?

Maybe not, if you have six feet of lead shielding handy.
Personally, I prefer ECC plus Chipkill plus -x4 device
memory.

-- Bob Day
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 10:34:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Thanks that is what I wanted to know.


>>>>> "Jaimie" == Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> writes:

Jaimie> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:42:48 -0600, Alan Walpool
Jaimie> <awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote:

>> 1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?

Jaimie> Yes. Why would you not? It's not too much of a worry if
Jaimie> someone's Excel crashes due to a memory glitch, but if the
Jaimie> corporate database corrupts or goes down you're in trouble.

>> 2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
>> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware
>> to run effectively.

Jaimie> Oh yes indeed. Form follows function.

Jaimie> File servers: Not much CPU, some memory, lots of disks on
Jaimie> clever controllers. Large backup devices.

Jaimie> Mail servers: Some CPU, some memory, some disk. More of each
Jaimie> if you're running content analysis.

Jaimie> DNS/firewall/other net services: Very little hardware
Jaimie> required (unless you're running a really large network).

Jaimie> Application servers: Entirely application dependant. Probably
Jaimie> lots of CPU, lots of memory, some disk, and most importantly
Jaimie> OS dependant on the application. Indeed, hardware type - AIX
Jaimie> server? HPUX? Solaris? Not everything runs on Windows or
Jaimie> Linux.

>> 3) Yes the original posters server requirements looks like could
>> be handled by a laptop. ;-)).

Jaimie> Hard to tell, from the details given, but since it would be
Jaimie> their first server it's probably just a dedicated small
Jaimie> fileserver.

Jaimie> Cheers - Jaimie -- "Prediction is very difficult,
Jaimie> especially about the future" - Niels Bohr
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 10:36:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Well that is what I suspected. Thanks for the information.

Hard to find such information on the net.

>>>>> "Lordy" == Lordy <spam_box@gmx.co.uk> writes:

Lordy> Alan Walpool <awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote in
Lordy> news:87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net:

>> 2) Should there be a difference between servers used for
>> different purposes? Some servers actually would require some real
>> hardware to run effectively.
>>

Lordy> Certainly.

Lordy> Print Servers dont need much of anything and can often be the
Lordy> spare laptop. Good printers often have print servers built-in
Lordy> these days.

Lordy> Firewalls need 2 NICS and thats about it :)  Add CPU for
Lordy> stateful packet inspection. Add discs if you want log files :) 

Lordy> File servers dont need much CPU power. Money better spent on
Lordy> better/more storage.

Lordy> Web servers need good CPU and networking capabilities. Lots of
Lordy> memory to manage user sessions etc.

Lordy> Database servers need most of everything :) 

Lordy> Then you got SSL Accelerators and the like!

Lordy> The problem is often unscrupulous salesmen may use the word
Lordy> "server" to sell you a machine with lots of everything even
Lordy> though you may not need it.

Lordy> This is also what you get with Microsoft "Server" products.
Lordy> Lots of stuff you probably dont want to use. (and until
Lordy> recently switched on by default).

Lordy> Remember the great NT Workstation vs Server debate -
Lordy> effectively the same OS.

Lordy> -- Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 10:41:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Bob Day" <xxxxxxx@yyyyyyy.com> wrote in message news:FzItd.11$P14.3@trndny05...
>
> "Alan Walpool" <awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote in message
> news:87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net...
> >
> > This has been a very interesting discussion even though it off topic.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?
>
> Maybe not, if you have six feet of lead shielding handy.
> Personally, I prefer ECC plus Chipkill plus -x4 device
> memory.
>
> -- Bob Day

And, of course, registered!

-- Bob Day
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 11:08:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Just to go against the current a bit, I'd amplify what I said before:

While in all but the smallest multi-user environment a capable server
running a Network Operating System, with all the complexity and expert
man-hours, is essential, a handful of people essentially each working on
their own thing with programs loaded on each machine, loading files from
a server and saving them back occasionally, will work perfectly well in
a peer-to-peer network, which may use an active workstation as file
server. This can be maintained quite satisfactorily by someone with
moderate knowledge.

This does need a little organising, with all files that must be
available to several users or/and backed up kept in a central place with
a sensible directory structure. Security is essentially non-existent
(although Win XP Pro is better than earlier versions).

Networked email on a small or large network is well handled by running a
mail distribution program with storage on the file server, and an email
program run from each workstation. I install the Mercury mail
distribution system and Pegasus mail on the file server, and run Mercury
from the file server, and Pegasus from each individual machine. Others
prefer Microsoft Exchange Server and Outlook.

The one essential thing is a well-thought-out backup system to protect
against hardware failure, file corruption which may not be discovered
immediately, and catastrophe (fire, flood, theft). An automatic nightly
backup of the entire server onto tapes for Mon Tue Wed Thu & 1st 2nd 3rd
4th 5th Friday, with the latest Friday tape stored off-site will serve.
See http://www.taobackup.com/

To minimise down-time a true (not zero) RAID array with facilities to
rebuild any drive including a system drive is useful.

Best wishes,
--
Michael Salem
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 11:35:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:42:48 -0600, Alan Walpool
<awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote:

>1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?

Yes. Why would you not? It's not too much of a worry if someone's
Excel crashes due to a memory glitch, but if the corporate database
corrupts or goes down you're in trouble.

>2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
> run effectively.

Oh yes indeed. Form follows function.

File servers: Not much CPU, some memory, lots of disks on clever
controllers. Large backup devices.

Mail servers: Some CPU, some memory, some disk. More of each if you're
running content analysis.

DNS/firewall/other net services: Very little hardware required (unless
you're running a really large network).

Application servers: Entirely application dependant. Probably lots of
CPU, lots of memory, some disk, and most importantly OS dependant on
the application. Indeed, hardware type - AIX server? HPUX? Solaris?
Not everything runs on Windows or Linux.

>3) Yes the original posters server requirements looks like could be
> handled by a laptop. ;-)).

Hard to tell, from the details given, but since it would be their
first server it's probably just a dedicated small fileserver.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future"
- Niels Bohr
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 11:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:42:48 -0600, Alan Walpool
> <awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote:
>
>
>>1) Do you really need ECC memory for a server anymore?
>
>
> Yes. Why would you not? It's not too much of a worry if someone's
> Excel crashes due to a memory glitch, but if the corporate database
> corrupts or goes down you're in trouble.
>
>
>>2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
>> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
>> run effectively.
>
>
> Oh yes indeed. Form follows function.
>
> File servers: Not much CPU, some memory, lots of disks on clever
> controllers. Large backup devices.
>
> Mail servers: Some CPU, some memory, some disk. More of each if you're
> running content analysis.
>
> DNS/firewall/other net services: Very little hardware required (unless
> you're running a really large network).
>
> Application servers: Entirely application dependant. Probably lots of
> CPU, lots of memory, some disk, and most importantly OS dependant on
> the application. Indeed, hardware type - AIX server? HPUX? Solaris?
> Not everything runs on Windows or Linux.
>
>
>>3) Yes the original posters server requirements looks like could be
>> handled by a laptop. ;-)).
>
>
> Hard to tell, from the details given, but since it would be their
> first server it's probably just a dedicated small fileserver.

This is actually the 'problem'. The 'spec' looks like little more than a
general 'idea' with the word 'server' thrown in because, well, that's what
'servers' do, isn't it?

The real work is in specifying the operational needs with deciding what
will accomplish it being the last thing.


> Cheers - Jaimie
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 11:40:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

In <87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net>, on 12/08/04
at 11:42 AM, Alan Walpool <awalpool@onzedge.net> said:


>2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
> run effectively.


Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware? 8-)))


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago <triffid@tutopia.com.br>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Wed Dec 08, 2004.

As of 8:40pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 8 hours, and
42 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 8, 2004 11:47:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Alan Walpool <awalpool@onzedge.net> wrote in
news:87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net:

>
> 2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
> run effectively.
>

Certainly.

Print Servers dont need much of anything and can often be the spare
laptop.
Good printers often have print servers built-in these days.

Firewalls need 2 NICS and thats about it :)  Add CPU for stateful packet
inspection. Add discs if you want log files :) 

File servers dont need much CPU power. Money better spent on better/more
storage.

Web servers need good CPU and networking capabilities. Lots of memory to
manage user sessions etc.

Database servers need most of everything :) 

Then you got SSL Accelerators and the like!

The problem is often unscrupulous salesmen may use the word "server" to
sell you a machine with lots of everything even though you may not need
it.

This is also what you get with Microsoft "Server" products. Lots of
stuff you probably dont want to use. (and until recently switched on by
default).

Remember the great NT Workstation vs Server debate - effectively the
same OS.

--
Lordy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 1:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
>> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>> possibility),
>
>
> Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?

Yes. What Dee said.

Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.

Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
limit you to 10 connections.

Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.

Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.

Think about your client and their ability to expand.

Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
as a file server, which is shite).

--
This sig left intentionally blank
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 1:25:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Trevor Best wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>>> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>>> possibility),
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?
>
>
> Yes. What Dee said.
>
> Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
> to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.
>
> Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
> limit you to 10 connections.
>
> Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.
>
> Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
> SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
> limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
> worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.
>
> Think about your client and their ability to expand.

None of which matters for simply saving some files to a common machine and
doing backups for 2 computers and 4 laptops on a peer to peer network.

>
> Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
> is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
> although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
> as a file server, which is shite).
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 1:35:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Lordy wrote:
> Database servers need most of everything :) 

I'd second that :-)

> Then you got SSL Accelerators and the like!
>
> The problem is often unscrupulous salesmen may use the word "server" to
> sell you a machine with lots of everything even though you may not need
> it.

Yes, I once had a salesman try to convince me I needed the 486DX/33 and
not the 486SX/25 I wanted for my Novell server as the former has a maths
co-pro. Yeah, like Novell runs on top of MathCad doesn't it?

> This is also what you get with Microsoft "Server" products. Lots of
> stuff you probably dont want to use. (and until recently switched on by
> default).
>
> Remember the great NT Workstation vs Server debate - effectively the
> same OS.
>

Yes, two reg keys was the difference.

--
This sig left intentionally blank
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 1:51:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

"Trevor Best" <nospam@besty.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b77f28$0$1069$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> David Maynard wrote:
>>> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>>> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>>> possibility),
>>
>>
>> Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?
>
> Yes. What Dee said.
>
> Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files to/from it like the current
> workstation flavors of Windows do.
>
Yeah, lol, and they call it a multitasking environment :) 
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 2:04:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Trevor Best wrote:

> Lordy wrote:
> >
> > Remember the great NT Workstation vs Server debate - effectively
> > the same OS.
> >
>
> Yes, two reg keys was the difference.

I wish it was that easy with Win2K so I could install all this software
that won't work on Server :-/

--
Preston.
December 9, 2004 2:41:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:04:09 -0000, "Remedy" <r@r.et> wrote:

>I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
>backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
>looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?
>
>Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops
>
>FTP Required also
>
>Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.
>
>Thank you.
>

The word "server" is somewhat a loose term. Basically it is the
opposite of "client." A machine can be both server and client. A
server provides services to clients. A server may provide an Internet
connection, database, file storage, printing, etc. For your server
you'll want a fast LAN and a switch rather than a hub connection for
fast data transfer. Linux is probably faster (and certainly more
secure) than Windows, although any O/S will work.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 2:41:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:25:11 +0000, Trevor Best
<nospam@besty.org.uk> wrote:

>David Maynard wrote:
>>> Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>>> The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>>> possibility),
>>
>>
>> Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?
>
>Yes. What Dee said.
>
>Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
>to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.
>
>Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
>limit you to 10 connections.
>
>Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.
>
>Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
>SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
>limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
>worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.
>
>Think about your client and their ability to expand.
>
>Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
>is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
>although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
>as a file server, which is shite).


Now back up a bit and note that NONE of what you mention has
been listed as a requirement. So far there's only two
things for certain: 1) It will serve files for 2 fixed and
4 in/out mobile (Laptops) 2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 2:41:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:25:11 +0000, Trevor Best
> <nospam@besty.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>>>Please! Listen to all the advice you've been given in the other replies!
>>>>The fact that you even ask about Win XP (Windows Server 2003 would be a
>>>>possibility),
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? Because it has 'server' in the name?
>>
>>Yes. What Dee said.
>>
>>Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
>>to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.
>>
>>Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
>>limit you to 10 connections.
>>
>>Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.
>>
>>Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
>>SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
>>limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
>>worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.
>>
>>Think about your client and their ability to expand.
>>
>>Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
>>is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
>>although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
>>as a file server, which is shite).
>
>
>
> Now back up a bit and note that NONE of what you mention has
> been listed as a requirement. So far there's only two
> things for certain: 1) It will serve files for 2 fixed and
> 4 in/out mobile (Laptops) 2) Everyone seems relatively
> clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
> 2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
> all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
> fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.

Hehe. Yes. That was the point of my question. Everyone is all fired up to
create a massive corporate IS department and all the folks asked for is
some file storage and backup.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, for 'free' anyway, because I don't
think they've thought out what they need, file sharing, security, document
control, backup schedule, maintenance, up time, who runs it, or anything
else, but that's another matter.

My 'guess', since I've seen small groups do this, is they simply want a
central file store with a regular backup schedule and nothing more than a
caveat to the users "if you don't save your stuff here then it don't get
backed up."

Btw, you can now fish fully operational P233MX machines out of the
dumpsters ;)  I got one.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 2:43:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:40:17 -0300, "Nelson M. G. Santiago"
<triffid@tutopia.com.br> wrote:
>In <87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net>, on 12/08/04
> at 11:42 AM, Alan Walpool <awalpool@onzedge.net> said:
>
>
>>2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
>> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
>> run effectively.
>
>
> Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware? 8-)))

One of mine does, it lives in a VMware container for resilience
purposes (ie if the host hardware blows up, I run the latest backup of
the server on another machine).

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition,
half of 'em are dumber than THAT." - J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 2:52:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Salem wrote:
> Lordy wrote:
>
>> office
>> hours onsite support with say 4 hour response ??? is a must
>
> But be careful. This is just the time to come on-site. In one case
> (many years ago) the support people came quickly on-site, then went
> away for a full week waiting for a part -- but they had kept their
> contract. The machines I buy have several options; as far as I
> remember:
>
> - next business day on-site response. Free for 3 years (warranty).
> - 8-hour response, during business days. Cheapest paid option
> - 4-hour response, any time. Higher cost
> - 8-hour guaranteed time to repair, highest cost.
>
> Best wishes,

this is what's known as an "appeasance engineer" or "SLA engineer"...it's
cheaper to send a teaboy out in 4 hours, then a real engineer in a day or
so....
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
December 9, 2004 2:52:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

Nelson M. G. Santiago wrote:
> In <87zn0o6607.fsf@spamme.onzedge.net>, on 12/08/04
> at 11:42 AM, Alan Walpool <awalpool@onzedge.net> said:
>
>
>> 2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
>> purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
>> run effectively.
>
>
> Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware?
> 8-)))
>
>
> Nelson
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Nelson M. G. Santiago <triffid@tutopia.com.br>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Today is Wed Dec 08, 2004.
>
> As of 8:40pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 8 hours,
> and 42 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

anything installed in a vmware session? <duck>
!