Re: SBS 2000 to SBS 2003 on same Hardware
- From: "Larry Struckmeyer" <lstruckmeyer(at)mis-wizards(dot)com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:34:18 -0500
One further suggestion:
I would add two more drives and RAID1 the OS on the drives you have, and
RAID1 the next two for the data.
I am thinking two additional 72 GB for data.
Or, you could add one more and RAID5, but that is my second choice.
SBS 2003 plus all the updates, plus WSUS, can easily approach 20GB plus, not
leaving much for your users data.
If the servers is as you say, it should be good for SBS 2003 and "maybe" SBS
Next. You will want a significant amount more of RAM, so that will have to
be verified if and when the time comes.
--
Larry
<rminnis82@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7e6f65ca-43ec-46f1-8666-65953211c167@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am looking into Open Licence and Software Assurance as I type.
The server is an IBM x225 that is already 64 bit compatible (I always
use and recommend IBM servers which have been 64 bit compatible since
at least 2003/2004) - the machine seems to have come wih standard with
a 36GB SCSI disk installed. The disks spin at 10000RPM on U320 SCSI
controllers, has 2.5GB of RAM and a 3.06Ghz Xeon processor so this
should be perfectly adequate to run SBS 2003 and possibly the future
version. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I never like to upgrade to an OS asap, especially server versions, not
until I at least have a full grasp of how to configure and use it
myself before passing onto clients so with a minimum year gap before
the next version of SBS and a minimum year gap before considering a
SBS 2008 upgrade, I think that the SBS 2003 upgrade now is
justifiable.
Would be interested in your responses.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Slow Client Logon Nightmare - HELP!
- Next by Date: Re: Trend Micro Folder/File Exclusions (SBS2003 R2)
- Previous by thread: Re: Slow Client Logon Nightmare - HELP!
- Next by thread: Re: SBS 2000 to SBS 2003 on same Hardware
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|