Forum Moderators: open
I want to setup a small Network using Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition. The server hardware is going to be based on a one Xeon processor with 1 GB of Ram.
1. Xeon is 64bit processor and so can I run the Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition 32 bit version on the Xeon 64bit processor or do In have to get the 64bit Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition?
2. Will I have any compatibility issues with any applications if I use the Xeon 64bit processor with Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition 64bit?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
EPSRX
2. You're most likely to come across driver issues. You must make sure that your hadware manufacturer has 64bit drivers available. 32bit software will run slower on Server 2003 64-bit than they would do on Server 2003 32-bit
What are the common applications that can run under 64bit?
Cheers,
EPSRX
What are the common applications that can run under 64bit?
Well, the .Net Framework 2.0 has a 64bit edition:
[msdn.microsoft.com...]
It depends what you're doing with your server really.
I am going to run a proxy server and SQL Server Express. I have around 8 users max that need to use SQL Server. Maybe Exchnage Server at a later stage.
The load is minimal. It just I want to organize things in the office and do daily backups of critical data.
Since I will be running the 32bit version of Windows Server 2003, should I consider using a server with an "Intel® Pentium®D Processor 840 at 3.2GHz" instead of using a Xeon processor? Unless The Xeon processor would run the 32bit Windows 2003 server faster than the Pentium.
Appreciate your input.
should I consider using a server with an Intel Pentium Processor 840 at 3.2GHz
I thought you said this was a small network?
Anything above 500Mhz will do for a small network. Spend your excess money elsewhere, like on good quality networking kit and hard drives. It would be better spent there.
What exactly are you using the machine for?
The machine is going to be used by around 8 employees:
- As a File Server (Excel & Word Documents)
- Invoicing system using one SQL Database (I am using SQL Server Express since it is free and I have less than 10 users). SQL Server Express is light and does the work for us.
- Access Control (Centralizing the login through the Windows 2003 Server).
- Exchange Server (later stage)
My MAIN & MOST important feature is to have redundancy in the hard drives. The last thing I want is to loose data and have any downtime. I am considering using RAID 1 but I am confused of what type to use SCSI or SATA Raid? Do you know which the best to use?
I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.
Cheers,
EPSRX
Better hard drives, faster networking components (Gigabit ethernet would be ideal), redudant components (eg. redundant PSU) should be a much higher priority when it comes to deciding where to spend the money.
For RAID, go with SATA, it offers the best price/performance ratio. RAID5 offers the best compromise between redundancy, speed and storage.
Bear in mind that RAID is definitely not an alternative to backups. RAID only protects you against hardware failure. If you get any data corruption it is automatically and immediately mirrored across the drives. You will still need a backup strategy.
You might also want to look at decent automatic defragmenting software. O&O defrag will give you a good perfomance boost for little cost.
As for Exchange server, it depends on what you're using it for. If you're just wanting email, have a look at MailEnable instead. Exchange is non-standard and you'll find yourself locked in to Microsoft by using it. Also, in my experience it can be unreliable.
Thanks again for your reply :)
1. I am in the process of finding a processor that would be good for the server. It is to be P4 since I want something that wouldn’t get outdated very soon. Xeon's are definitely too much for what I am trying to setup.
2. I will be getting a PSU and better hard drives. Will the Gigabit Ethernet make a big difference for a small network like mine? I was planning on 10/100.
3. I have asked for SATA RAID. I have asked for RAID 1. Will see how much the RAID 5 costs.
4. Backup is something I have in mind especially for the SQL Server data & also the documents. This is going to be automated by nightly jobs.
5. I am checking the O&O tools. Thanks for the tip.
6. I will also checkout MailEnable. Exchange is a nice mail server, but a heavy one that & has lots of features that we wouldn't use.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
EPSRX
I will be getting a PSU and better hard drives. Will the Gigabit Ethernet make a big difference for a small network like mine? I was planning on 10/100.
Yes, a Gigabit network will make a much bigger performance difference than a faster CPU. File transfer will be much faster (which can make quite a lot of difference if you're going to be pointing each users My documents folder to the network server which is a perfect place to put it for backup purposes)
Your network speed needs are much more likely to increase than than your CPU needs.
It's harder to upgrade a network infrasturucture than it is a processor or motherboard.
Gigabit networking kit is so cheap nowadays it's better value for money than 100Mb/sec and you're going to be futureproofing your network. I personally wouldn't think about setting up a new network without Gigabit at this point in time.
You're looking at £150 for a 16 port gigabit Netgear switch and £13 for each Netgear NIC so you're looking at roughly £300 for the lot with a couple of spare NICs (I alwways like to buy spares in case they're discontinued, it's easier if all machines need the same drivers). I don't know where you are based, but I expect prices are cheaper in the US.
