Re: Hardware Requirement
From: Chad A. Gross [SBS MVP] (chad.gross_at_laytonflower.nospam.com)
Date: 04/26/04
- Next message: Chad A. Gross [SBS MVP]: "Re: Partitions/Drives for SBS2003??"
- Previous message: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]: "Re: Change user CAL to device CAL"
- In reply to: root: "Re: Hardware Requirement"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: Hardware Requirement"
- Reply: root: "Re: Hardware Requirement"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:28:35 -0500
You have a valid point - and I agree that performance should be a primary
consideration. However, I also believe that it is important to ensure that
a proper backup solution is provided with the server, and I personally
believe it is irresponsible to provide a backup solution that cannot
realistically backup the drive space available on the server. In that
sense, it is important to factor in how that extra HD space is going to
relate to backup costs. And unfortunately, we don't have clients like Susan
who are willing to purchase an autochanger tape backup system with 200 GB
native capacity . . . :^)
-- Chad A. Gross - SBS MVP SBS ROCKS! root wrote: > "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" > <sbradcpa@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:OVvkbNxKEHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> You may think they are 2 to 3 times what is needed but I'm poster >> child that they are not. > > Eventually that's often true but I was responding to the suggestion > that one shouldn't get HDs that are bigger than what's needed. I say > buy them for speed and other criteria and ignore how big they are if > the size is sufficient.. > >> root wrote: >> >>> "Jim Behning SBS MVP" <jimbehingmvp@mindspring.com> wrote in message >>> news:dcvn80pnmlen72btem01n9bblf001d65ve@4ax.com... >>> >>>> I have 25-30 user accounts running on a gig of ram just fine. I >>>> have 15 users using Exchange and SQL with 2 gigs of ram that the >>>> server >>>> feels slow to me but fine for the users. You can go overboard on >>>> stuff. Diminishing returns, utils and all that economics stuff. >>>> That $600-1000 for an extra 2 gigs of ram might buy one or two >>>> workstations. Some motherboards only have 2 slots for ram anyway >>>> like the low end Dells so 4 gigs is sort of moot if you price huge >>>> modules >>>> of ram, or for the 400SC you can only get 1 gig times 2. >>>> >>>> I am working on some servers that have 200 gigs of hard drive. >>> >>> >>> >>> HD size being too big should be completely ignored as a design >>> criteria. HD speed and sufficient size is the appropriate criteria. >>> Today's high performance HDs only come in certain sizes. Buy them >>> for performance and ignore the fact that they may be 2 or 3 times >>> bigger than needed. A good example of this would be a RAID 5 array >>> where 4 drives offers the desired performance level(more drives is >>> faster). Let's say the nice fast HDs are 74GB. Then for RAID 5 >>> that gives 3 x 74GB = 222 GB array size. If the user needs 4 drive >>> RAID 5 performance level but only 60GB of space then ignore the >>> other 160GB. >>> >>> >>>> Maybe >>>> the company will grow into it but I did not order or set up the >>>> servers, just doing cleanup. Looks like a crazy big size for where >>>> they are now and where they might go in 3 years. >>>> >>>> "Frank McCallister" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Susan >>>>> >>>>> "IMHO get the 2 gig on the ram." I really respect your >>>>> opinions so I wonder why with RAM prices being such a >>>>> small percentage of Server cost why you wouldn't go with 4 >>>>> Gig? Is the other 2 Gig pretty much wasted? He is running >>>>> the whole world on that server with 25 users so I thought >>>>> maximum useable RAM would be prudent. >>>>> >>>>> Appreciate your thoughts on this. >>>>> >>>>> Frank McCallister >>>>> COMPUMAC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> Yup I'll be taking my existing server and putting Windows >>>>> >>>>> 2003 on it. >>>>> >>>>>> I have raid 1 for the os [mirrored] and raid 5 [3 drives >>>>> >>>>> on a hardware >>>>> >>>>>> controller card] for the data. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO get the 2 gig on the ram. >>>>>> >>>>>> And like Jim said....where's your backup? >>>>>> >>>>>> steven wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> for susan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> when you say adding a second server, will this be a >>>>>>> windows 2003 server? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> also, >>>>>>> we are setting up a sbs2003 server for: >>>>>>> 22 users >>>>>>> hardware is HP >>>>>>> intel P4 2.6 >>>>>>> 1GB Ram >>>>>>> 2 x 80GB HDD >>>>>>> and will have a broadband connection >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the other requirements is that users will be accessing >>>>>>> the internet alot as they use a web base system from a >>>>>>> provider for their customers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> do u think the above spec is ok for this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 more question: >>>>>>> is it possible to setup a installation process for say >>>>>>> office 2003 from the server(sbs) so when a new user is >>>>>>> added, office 2003 is installed on the clients computer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> IMHO no less than 1 gig RAM, 2 gig ram is best. >>>>>>>> as fast of CPU as you can afford >>>>>>>> As big of harddrives as you can afford. >>>>>>>> two processors if SQL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bottom line... how much can you afford? IMHO always >>>>>>> >>>>>>> overspec just a bit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> as you'll have a nice comfort zone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm already outgrowing my 90 gig server at the office >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and will be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> getting bigger harddrives and adding a second server as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a result. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hei wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i'm planning deploy SBS2003, but i don't know how to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> measure about the how >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> many CPU speed, RAM, Hard Disk Space i will be need. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> either Standard and Premium Edition i will consider, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and NAV Enterprise >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edition will install on same machine. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thx. >>>>>>>>> Hei >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Jim B. SBS MVP >>>> remove the mvp to send email >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
- Next message: Chad A. Gross [SBS MVP]: "Re: Partitions/Drives for SBS2003??"
- Previous message: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]: "Re: Change user CAL to device CAL"
- In reply to: root: "Re: Hardware Requirement"
- Next in thread: root: "Re: Hardware Requirement"
- Reply: root: "Re: Hardware Requirement"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
