Network Server for small office Q's...

[justaddboost]

Im going to build a server for an office I'm moving into wtihin the next couple of weeks.

The "server" - or so im calling it, will be used as a whore for file sharing/storage, and the tape drive will be on this box as well. But im not hosting anything off of it such as domains, its just simply a computer on the network that will be used for backup and sharing...

My question begins with, Is there ANY reason why i should be purchasing server grade hardware and components for this build, as well as Xp pro instead of Server 2003? And for the Tape drive (backup) to work, does it need to be more of a "server" rather than a p2p type of network?

-BTW networking has been something im trying to get my hands dirty with more and more in small office networks over the past 6 months, so be kind if you would!

 

[Jgedeon]

The "server" - or so im calling it, will be used as a whore for file sharing/storage, and the tape drive will be on this box as well. But im not hosting anything off of it such as domains, its just simply a computer on the network that will be used for backup and sharing...

My question begins with, Is there ANY reason why i should be purchasing server grade hardware and components for this build, as well as Xp pro instead of Server 2003? And for the Tape drive (backup) to work, does it need to be more of a "server" rather than a p2p type of network?

Server grade hardware will give you redundancy and longer equipment life (normally). Depending on how important your uptime is and if your backups work and are trusted. Tape backups are known to fail without notice till it is too late. P2P or a domain is up to you. If you don't have that many workstations P2P is easier but if you have many then a domain comes into play.

With a File/Print/Backup Server I would look at Hardware Raid, Redundant power supplies at the least.

IMO, as for a File/Print/Backup Server I would look at Samba for file and print sharing, BackupPC for PC backups. I also Rsync my servers at night to off site locations.

 

[justaddboost]

Server grade hardware will give you redundancy and longer equipment life (normally). Depending on how important your uptime is and if your backups work and are trusted. Tape backups are known to fail without notice till it is too late. P2P or a domain is up to you. If you don't have that many workstations P2P is easier but if you have many then a domain comes into play.

With a File/Print/Backup Server I would look at Hardware Raid, Redundant power supplies at the least.

IMO, as for a File/Print/Backup Server I would look at Samba for file and print sharing, BackupPC for PC backups. I also Rsync my servers at night to off site locations.

I was already planning on doing a Raid1 500GB Sata, but SCSI seems to be popular for servers, why is that?

Thats a good point about equipment redundency, something that im sure is present more on server motherboards compared to consumer desktop motherboards.

Down time wont put our office out of commission, but like anyone im shooting for 100% uptime. So you feel redundent power supplies are a must?

How are Samba and BackupPC used to aid file/print/backup features?

Also Xp pro? or Windows Server 2003, and even though p2p is easy and quick i dont understand the benifts of a domain server over p2p at this point unless its needed for network backup? This network will probably never exceed 15 users fyi...

 

[Jgedeon]

I was already planning on doing a Raid1 500GB Sata, but SCSI seems to be popular for servers, why is that?

Thats a good point about equipment redundency, something that im sure is present more on server motherboards compared to consumer desktop motherboards.

Down time wont put our office out of commission, but like anyone im shooting for 100% uptime. So you feel redundent power supplies are a must?

How are Samba and BackupPC used to aid file/print/backup features?

Also Xp pro? or Windows Server 2003, and even though p2p is easy and quick i dont understand the benifts of a domain server over p2p at this point unless its needed for network backup? This network will probably never exceed 15 users fyi...

SATA's are getting more popular, but SCSI's seem to be tried and true. With today's processors SATA's can out perform SCSI, SCSI's use an independent processor on the controller.
Common failures are HDD's, Powersupplies and memory. Redundancy creates a comfort zone to continue working and scheduling the repair when down time can be made. Hotswap can rebuild the array on the fly without the downtime.
Samba for file and print server aid in the pocket book. BackupPC component or feature that I add so that I can backup the PC's.
A windows domains big benefit is Group Policy and Administration. 15 systems or 15 user sharing X amount of systems?

 

[justaddboost]

SATA's are getting more popular, but SCSI's seem to be tried and true. With today's processors SATA's can out perform SCSI, SCSI's use an independent processor on the controller.
Common failures are HDD's, Powersupplies and memory. Redundancy creates a comfort zone to continue working and scheduling the repair when down time can be made. Hotswap can rebuild the array on the fly without the downtime.
Samba for file and print server aid in the pocket book. BackupPC component or feature that I add so that I can backup the PC's.
A windows domains big benefit is Group Policy and Administration. 15 systems or 15 user sharing X amount of systems?

1 user per system. But there are only 3 of us in the office starting up on this network.

How would i configure a domain server, compared to the server (or so i call it) on a p2p network?

Group policy and Administration examples please? I could understand these features being usefull on a terminal server config, but how or what would i impliment as far as policies and admining when we are talking about the type of network im describing?

I really appreciate your help thus far Jd, sorry if im asking noobish questions, i try to be as thorough as possible before moving on...even if i risk sounded like a completely inexpereinced tech.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I was already planning on doing a Raid1 500GB Sata, but SCSI seems to be popular for servers, why is that?

Performance...and life expectancy/reliability.

While SATA has caught up to SCSI drives are far as performance on paper...it still cannot get near the performance of SCSI/SAS drives when it comes to dealing with many concurrent users, concurrent loads. Also..SCSI/SAS actually maintains performance due to the rpm....with entry level drives at 10,000rpm...and the better drives at 15,000rpm. RAID controllers with 128, 256, 512 megs of RAM also.

Lifespan...SCSI/SAS drives are generally enterprise grade....with well over 1 million hours MTBF. SATA desktop drives....on average far less.

 

[justaddboost]

Performance...and life expectancy/reliability.

While SATA has caught up to SCSI drives are far as performance on paper...it still cannot get near the performance of SCSI/SAS drives when it comes to dealing with many concurrent users, concurrent loads. Also..SCSI/SAS actually maintains performance due to the rpm....with entry level drives at 10,000rpm...and the better drives at 15,000rpm. RAID controllers with 128, 256, 512 megs of RAM also.

Lifespan...SCSI/SAS drives are generally enterprise grade....with well over 1 million hours MTBF. SATA desktop drives....on average far less.

But is it s stretch to say that i should be fine with Sata drivers for the type of network im using, by that i mean the volume of systems/users. It seems that with terminal servers SCSI is a no brainer, but is sounds as though i can get away with it so i dont have to spend 10x the money on a good pair of drivers + a raid controller (vs. an intergrated one).

 

[justaddboost]

****note****

still trying to understand the benifits and reason for deploying a domain type server over a p2p <=== even HOW to do it..

As well as Winserver2k3 over Xp pro?!?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

"A stretch to say SATA will be fine for you"...that's your call. Depends on what sort of response time you want, how snappy you want your files to rip across the network, and how well it runs when many people have lots of big files open at the same time. Might not even be a concern for you...if you just have occasional small MS office file work. But if your office does lots of files at the same time...large files....you'll not have as snappy of a network.

Wether or not to have a real server...or a desktop running the role as a file storage box..."ghetto server" if you want to call it that (in my mind..a desktop operating system is never a "server"). That's also up to you.

Reasons to run a true server over a desktop?
*Can control usage of folders/users easier.
*As your network grows...you're over the hump NOW in implementing a server...much easier than trying to install a server down the road more when you've outgrown a peer to peer.
*Some software...their support won't "support it" on a desktop OS....they want a true dedicated server
*You don't have the 10x concurrent connection limits of a desktop OS
*Better performing hardware, warranty, if you're running on server hardware

If there's not budget....why go for a desktop OS? How about some of the NAS storage boxes out there? Smaller....you get some user control,

Or built a box using open source FreeNAS.

 

[justaddboost]

What this FreeNAS you speak of?

There is a $ budget so to speak of, Infact we are hiring a networking specialist to deploy the Watchgaurd x550e for our network which some may consider overkill for 3 people right now...

But startup cost is something everyone is trying to minimize.

So WindowsServer2k3 requires licenses per system/user? Isnt this the same software i would use if i wanted to create a Terminal Server?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...tion=windows+server+2003&name=Server+Software

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

http://www.freenas.org/
It's a linux distro customized to be a NAS box. For a very small peer to peer network....NAS boxes are a good option for file storage...when a big server is out of the budget.

But if you're spending the money for a Watchguard box for just 3 users...I'm guessing $ isn't an issue.

If you do look at a true server...I strongly recommend you look at Microsoft Small Business Server 2003.

Yes standard server is what you build Terminal Server on..but you want a terminal server to be on a separate box that is NOT your domain controller.

 

[marley1]

only 3 people in office?

pick up a dell with raid1 and xp on it, share out a few folders, share out some printers, throw mozy home on it for backup.

all you need, dont need a domain for 3 people.

run client based antivirus.

sata will be fast enough for 3 people.

run hamachi if people need access from home.

only benefit a server 03 will give is file permisions and expandability.

 

[justaddboost]

http://www.freenas.org/
It's a linux distro customized to be a NAS box. For a very small peer to peer network....NAS boxes are a good option for file storage...when a big server is out of the budget.

But if you're spending the money for a Watchguard box for just 3 users...I'm guessing $ isn't an issue.

If you do look at a true server...I strongly recommend you look at Microsoft Small Business Server 2003.

Well see one of my coworkers has a "one touch backup drive" which i think maxtor makes, that he wants me to put to use on the network. Is this just a watered-down version of the NAS box? I'll check out the link just in a little bit and read through it...

We are anticipating expansion to ~15 people in the next 5 years, If that is the case given the nature of the box and how its being used, does 15 users justify a Small Business server build and components, vs the advice about tossing a Dell Xp pro p2p solution?

haha, and yes i'd LIKE to think money isnt an issue, but one of our associates has a very lagit reasons to spend the money on security, as well as anticipating expansion.

 

[justaddboost]

run hamachi if people need access from home.

whats the difference between this and tightvnc? the ability to create a VPN?

 

[marley1]

If you plan to go to 15 users, get a server now and then you dont have to spend the time and money down the road.

SBS or regular Server 03 on a OEM(Dell, HP,etc) machine would be good.

Usually Dell throws free uprades to a 2nd cpu or some kind of freebie.

Single Xeon and SATA Raid 5 would be good, dual psu if you can afford, backup device of your choice (either online or tape setup).

Have the server run AD, DNS, DHCP and File.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Single Xeon and SATA Raid 5 would be good, dual psu if you can afford, backup device of your choice (either online or tape setup). .

Booo....IMO SATA has no place running on a server that runs a major role, especially SBS. I've done 2x servers on SATA drives...1x standard, 1x SBS...and based on the crappy performance of those...I'll never...ever...install a SATA server for a client again. The SBS box was just for a 3 workstation electrical contractor. The performance hit is painful....SCSI/SAS...or no server...or get someone else to install it and deal with the clients whining of "why such a slow server".

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Well see one of my coworkers has a "one touch backup drive" which i think maxtor makes, that he wants me to put to use on the network. Is this just a watered-down version of the NAS box? I'll check out the link just in a little bit and read through it...

We are anticipating expansion to ~15 people in the next 5 years, If that is the case given the nature of the box and how its being used, does 15 users justify a Small Business server build and components, vs the advice about tossing a Dell Xp pro p2p solution?

No an external USB hard drive is not a NAS box. A NAS box is a freestanding "computer"...hard drives, network interface..and a small often proprietary operating system.

Going to grow that fast? 15 users in a handful of years? Yes...without question...get a server now.

 

[marley1]

Well we don't know what application is being handled by the server. For all we know its just Word, Excel type stuff.

Going from SATA to SAS/SCSI is a huge budget jump. For a 15 person office if its just Office stuff I would be happy to recommend SATA on Raid5

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Well we don't know what application is being handled by the server. For all we know its just Word, Excel type stuff.

Going from SATA to SAS/SCSI is a huge budget jump. For a 15 person office if its just Office stuff I would be happy to recommend SATA on Raid5

Growing to that many people in a handful of years...it's easy to see that it will become more and more important..which is why, IMO, it's important to build a good foundation now....build the infrastructure to be able to match the growing demands. History has shown me over and over..those who skimp up front...feel the pain down the road by not having the right gear in place that matches their growth. I see it too many times..those who skimp early..end up paying more and not getting full life from their product..because they have to replace the "cheap initial product" with a better product before the "life" of the first product is over.

The price from SATA to SAS...isn't that much of a jump when you consider the price of the entire scope of the server. What people commonly forget is...paying the consultants time. If it takes the consultant an extra 1/2 hour or extra hour to do something on the server...because it's so slow on SATA drives...with most of us billing at least 100 dollars an hour...POOF...there go those savings in a matter of a few months. Heck...if someone begs and begs for me to build a cheapo SBS box for them on SATA drives...I'd charge the an extra 500 bucks for my extra 5 hours that it now takes me to build that box due to those slugs.

 

[justaddboost]

The price from SATA to SAS...isn't that much of a jump when you consider the price of the entire scope of the server.

So I'm getting the feeling that should go SBS on a server build. Are there RAID SCSI contollers you recommend?

Also, SAS is a seperate stand alone box with built in firmware OS correct? This is a box to supplement network storage and has no hand in actually administering a network, which is actually left up to the server itself correct?