New Server

Matthew · 22-10-2004, 11:31

I have some spare money and wish to setup a wireless network in my house and add a server. What is the best specificiation to have just for a general server. All it will really be used for is a file and print server as well as user store and a roaming profile store.

I was thinking of a 2.00Ghz system, 256/512Mb memory, 80Gb and a DVD-RW for backup. All I will be running is Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Windows 2003 Enterprise.

What do you think?

Bifta · 22-10-2004, 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by leggom

I have some spare money and wish to setup a wireless network in my house and add a server. What is the best specificiation to have just for a general server. All it will really be used for is a file and print server as well as user store and a roaming profile store.

I was thinking of a 2.00Ghz system, 256/512Mb memory, 80Gb and a DVD-RW for backup. All I will be running is Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Windows 2003 Enterprise.

What do you think?

I'd personally go for at least a gig of memory and possibly a larger HDD, other than that you don't really need anything too fancy, and I wouldn't go for Win2K AS, it's an enterprise server, just stick with the normal Win2K server.

bopdude · 22-10-2004, 11:36

Hi leggom, you could start by looking at Stu's posts / thread here

HTH

Stuart · 22-10-2004, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

I'd personally go for at least a gig of memory and possibly a larger HDD, other than that you don't really need anything too fancy, and I wouldn't go for Win2K AS, it's an enterprise server, just stick with the normal Win2K server.

Agreed. Win2K AS is really designed for large domains with clusters of servers..

altis · 22-10-2004, 12:35

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/storage.php

danielf · 22-10-2004, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by altis

http://www.buffalotech.com/products/storage.php

Cool

SOSAGES · 22-10-2004, 13:14

u wouldnt really need a server as such anything with a good hard drive and plenty of ram willdo ur not running exchange or anything so it will be fine id put it all in a shuttle

**Paul** · 22-10-2004, 14:33

Unless you plan to have more than 10 people connect at a time then Windows 2000 Pro or XP Pro should be fine for a home "server".

MovedGoalPosts · 22-10-2004, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

Unless you plan to have more than 10 people connect at a time then Windows 2000 Pro or XP Pro should be fine for a home "server".

But those OSs don't offer a roaming profile store, stated as one of the requirements (although why you need roaming profiles for a home network I'm not sure).

Millay · 22-10-2004, 14:43

Roaming profile stores and VSC that comes with 2003 server, is crackin even in a home network.. IMHO..

My biggest suggestion is get a 40gb or bigger harddrive for the OS, you'll apreciate the size should you wish to play with ISA Server, exchange etc.. and then have a huge (as big a possible) second hardrive for storing user data, stores shares etc....

Richard M · 22-10-2004, 15:02

AFAIK, profile information only uses about 64k of RAM for each user...

Stuart W · 22-10-2004, 15:40

I'm still running a dual CPU Pentium200Pro with 64M of EDO RAM as my domain controler / file server.

You realy don't need some high spec monster if you are only accessing from a few PC's over your LAN, unless you need realy high speed data transfer (like maybee running gigabit round the house!)

Oh, and the roaming profiles overhead is too small to be worth considering

SOSAGES · 22-10-2004, 15:49

my main server runs sbs2003 so its got sql and exchange its a dual p3 633 with gig of ram nothing special its old but it does the job its way to much effort to swap to new hardware until bill tells me an easy way to export and import AD easily

Stuart · 22-10-2004, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart W

I'm still running a dual CPU Pentium200Pro with 64M of EDO RAM as my domain controler / file server.

You realy don't need some high spec monster if you are only accessing from a few PC's over your LAN, unless you need realy high speed data transfer (like maybee running gigabit round the house!)

Oh, and the roaming profiles overhead is too small to be worth considering

At work, a while back, I set up perfomance counters to monitor the CPU usage of each of our domain controllers. I found that the Backup DCs got hit a lot more often than the PDC, but obviously, if we only had a PDC, then that would get hit more.

In all cases, the processor was used so little that I would say it doesn't really matter what spec processor is installed. As you said, Data Transfer rate, and as other people have said, amount of memory (2K3 server disk caching is efficient, but does require a lot of memory) is more important.

SMHarman · 22-10-2004, 16:31

I've got the least server like server of the lot of you then.
Its a Celeron 333, the original 6Gb HDD has W98SE on it, a second 120Gb HDD has been installed and is set up for file and printer sharing partitioned off into a 40Gb iTuned drive and a 80Gb Data drive.

Outlook PST files are all on this machine and the paths of the desktop and laptop point to it so both access the same mail folders (one at a time).

'coz it's so old, the CPU is cooled by the PSU fan only and the whole box only has a 250 PSU in it, it runs virtually silently. It has a DJ1220C and a LJ1150 connected to it and is plugged into my ISDN fax line as the fax machine.

It might get an upgrade next year, but only because if the wireless network drops, file locks remain, these cannot easily be dropped on W98, but can on a more advanced OS.