should I get windows server 2008?

K

kezs

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
66
hello everyone.

I run a small 3D presentation firm. right now we have 7 workstations, plus a server and a couple of render farm computers. that means we have 10 computers connected in our network right now. so far I've been running vista 64 on our server, and we hadn't had trouble with it... till recently. lately I've been getting error messages (one about the server hard drive being full, which should have been solved with the IRPStackSize thing... we'll see); sometimes, when I'm moving large amounts of data to the server, it stops responding other computers for a while, and so forth. but mostly, we're expanding, and we're gonna break the 10 computer barrier in the next few weeks. I've read everywhere that vista ultimate is limited to 10 connections, which is what we should have considering every computer frequently communicates with the server. our server is used for storage and for running a rendering distribution software, pretty much.

so, am I advised to use server 2008, am I obliged to, or none of the above? I've downloaded and installed a trial version (enterprise) which I'm running on a different partition on a workstation just for tests. is that the way to go? get server, install it over my current server, and I'm good for life? :)

thanks for your input.
 
Um, buy a server OS (cd and license) and install it on server grade hardware (ie faster hard disks than a normal PC usually has) and then you have to buy client licenses for the workstations to access the server.
Thats if you want to be legit
"get server, install it over my current server, " doesnt really apply here since you are using a desktop OS
 
thanks for your reply.

as you can see, I'm completely clueless when it comes to IT. 3D is my thing. I guess I just need some sort of guidance as to what to do to keep my network from giving me headaches everyday when its complexity grows. do I hire someone? set up a unix storage server? I'm guessing just using the windows server edition on my file server would be the simplest choice, as it would probably get me rid of the 10 connections limit. I'm guessing that's not quite the case, so...?

thanks again.
 
kezs said:
thanks for your reply.

as you can see, I'm completely clueless when it comes to IT. 3D is my thing. I guess I just need some sort of guidance as to what to do to keep my network from giving me headaches everyday when its complexity grows. do I hire someone? set up a unix storage server? I'm guessing just using the windows server edition on my file server would be the simplest choice, as it would probably get me rid of the 10 connections limit. I'm guessing that's not quite the case, so...?

thanks again.
Click to expand...

Personaly I would say you want a windows domain which gives you central authentication and user rights. It also will give you an internal dns server which can help speed up requests for websites on the internet. You could do a fileserver with unix/linux but a windows domain gives you a lot of extra features and options.

Get a consultant in to give you your options. Hell get more then one in and see which one you want to go with.

First question is do you want your email hosted onsite? Running exchange gives you shared calendars, webmail, wireless sync to windows mobile phones etc.

Next is are your workstations running business grade operating systems. IE xp pro, tablet, vista business, ultimate, enterprise etc. XP home and vista home do not work in windows domains. They would need to be moved to the business versions.

If you were interested in internal email then your best bet is sbs which is not yet out for 08 server. You would either have to wait or go with 03 server. Sbs03 is cheaper then 03/08 std untill you get to 15 users where with the more expensive user licenes it starts to cost more. Even so you are getting exchange which is expensive by itself. For just file and print services std 08 is fine. You also would want to look at upgrading your antivirus to a managed version. Pretty much you control it on all of the machines from the server. Makes checking in on systems quicker. With WSUS(which is free for both 03 and 08) you can just aprove windows updates once and have it download them to the server and install them on all of the workstations. Makes managing the systems go faster.

Also I agree that with the statment that it goes on server grade hardware. I'd go with a dell server personaly but any of the big vendors(hp servers rock) will do. Get a server with dual power suppiles and a good raid controller in it. Best option would be to run a raid 1 for the os and a raid 5 for the data. Going with the server hardware wouldn't be as cheap as reusing your old box but it is a much better choice in the end.
 
kezs said:
. I've read everywhere that vista ultimate is limited to 10 connections,
Click to expand...

This was true waaaay before Vista. Desktop Operating Systems are designed to be efficient with "up to 10 connections". In the real world.."workgroup" networks can start to get flakey even lower than that...8...7...6 computers connecting to it. Depending on how you're using it. Desktops just aren't designed to share.

Server operating systems are designed to be efficient in sharing..even as usage goes up.

This is also true for hardware..there is a difference between desktop computer hardware...and server grade hardware. The harder you use the system..the more this becomes apparent.

For your environment...I'd look at a high performance NAS box...or a high performance small office file storage server.
 
thanks for the input, everyone. I'm leaning towards the linux storage server in the long run, pretty much because it's apparently the cheapest way to get the job done. in the meantime - it's more a question of curiosity than a practical one - would using "windows server 2008" on my current server, while keeping the whole user per workstation infrastructure, solve or at least help with access limitations (like the 10 connection limit)? or is using "server" without a complete server structure/license/user database/etc just a waste of time and money?

thanks again.
 
What kind of a network are you running 100mb or 1gb? If you are going to moving large files I would recommended upgrade to cat6, 1gb NICs and a centralized 1gb switch for faster movement of files.

And Windows Server 2008 is great, you could turn it into a DFS Distributed Files server. With its new features you allow user to access the files that need, by accessing the server to open them, then they work on the file offline when they save changes or updates it causes the workstation to reconnect to the server and only the changes made to file are carried over. It will allows maximum network and bandwidth efficiency.

Just a thought. Linux is great and cheap alternative, if you go that route then I recommend upgrading you network if you already haven't.
 
From skimming over this thread, I would suggest you contact a local support company to help you out with this. You may pay a little more to get the job done up front, but you will probably have less headaches in the long run.

PS: With 7 workstations, you might want to check out Small Business Server. There is a lot packed into it and it is geared for small networks. It's very easy to manage and you don't have to be a pro to get it working.

PSS: Shameless plug: I have a copy that I received as a promotional item from MS that I am trying to sell. I will let it go for cheap because it's just collecting dust on my shelf.
 
hey morfius, thanks. I'll look into that and I'll let you know. do you know if it'll work ok with vista 64 workstations?
 
kezs said:
hey morfius, thanks. I'll look into that and I'll let you know. do you know if it'll work ok with vista 64 workstations?
Click to expand...

Yes, it will. You won't get all of the new fangled features of Server 2008, but with a 7 clients, it's probably not that big of deal.
 
Linux may be cheaper at first but you never know what it will cost over a few years with the support or the chance that you might need windows server for something elce. I'm not saying it is a bad choice but the idea of saving a grand in software without really weighing the costs is not a good choice either.

With windows server you can hand out rights via a windows domain which works a lot better then the linux versions. Things like file and print sharring are less hassel as well. You also have more options for some central management systems like for av(central av is so much better then each machine having its own license), license servers for various 3d and cad apps(not sure if this would apply to you), wsus which is pretty much where you select the updates from the server that you want all of the desktops to have for windows, etc.

SBS is a good choice but if you don't need exchange you might just want to go with windows std. At the 15 user mark std will be cheaper then sbs if exchange is not being used. SBS does have some nice wizards for setting stuff up though as well as a pretty good fax client.
 
core 2 duo e6300, 2gb ram (2x1gb corsair value select), vista 64 ultimate, onboard gigabit lan... what else?

edit: oh, and a 500gb / 7200rpm / 32mb cache seagate barracuda - plus a WD 400gb for backup (norton ghost, yeah - I don't like raid cause if you delete something by accident you instantly lose you backup as well...)
 
if you can get sbs for cheap, i'd go that route. if you'r not confortable with *nix, i'd advise against going with a linux server.

like others said, it might be best to get a consultant (or if u have an IT friend who'd do it for cheap) go that route.
 
kezs said:
edit: oh, and a 500gb / 7200rpm / 32mb cache seagate barracuda - plus a WD 400gb for backup (norton ghost, yeah - I don't like raid cause if you delete something by accident you instantly lose you backup as well...)
Click to expand...

RAID is not a backup strategy.
 
MorfiusX said:
RAID is not a backup strategy.
Click to expand...

Nope its a Redundant Strategy.

Take a serious look at SBS 2003. If you have 7 workstations I have a feeling your IT budget isn't going to be 5-6k just to drop on a server with an OS. Sbs2003 will allow you to run up to 50 CAL's (client access licenses) while not stepping into the new convoluted licensing scheme that windows server 2008 features.

Also with Small Business server you get many of the most popular Microsoft Applications built in: Terminal services, Exchange, and a small suite of back up tools(not to mention dns, Active directory and print server)

I would still recommend you get an outside consultant to come in and take a look for you. But your first quest on the road to IT glory should be to establish a budget(which you will still need a consultant to help you out with)
 
Actually Terminal services is NOT included in SBS 2003. Only the Terminal Services license server is, not the actual Terminal server "application".
 
in the end, just installing windows server 2008 on my server solved all my problems. no need to update every other license or see an IT consultant to solve these one glitch...

how I love it when it's kept simple. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top