Server Advice

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.
108 answers Last reply
More about server advice
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    >
  3. 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.
    >
    >
  4. 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!
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
    >
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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=5736542937

    Lordy
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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=5736542937

    I recall saying earlier today that most servers are overspecced.
  26. 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=5736542937
    >


    Looks like a nice little machine, didn't think much of the graphics card spec though :)
  27. 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.
  28. 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=5736542937
    >
    > 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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).
    >
  41. 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
  42. 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 :)
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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
  48. 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....
  49. 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>
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Servers Systems