I have ~15 clients in a peer to peer all with 2K. They want to go to a central server for file sharing, ease of backup, and license serving on some apps. The last real server network I did was an NT4.0 when it was "new" so I thought I'd pick the collective VMF consciousness on Server 2003 or ? No Unix based answers please. TIA!
Way O/T Preferred Server for a Win2k workgroup?
ylexot
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Joined
·
5,638 Posts
I have ~15 clients in a peer to peer all with 2K. They want to go to a central server for file sharing, ease of backup, and license serving on some apps. The last real server network I did was an NT4.0 when it was "new" so I thought I'd pick the collective VMF consciousness on Server 2003 or ? No Unix based answers please. TIA!
Joined
·
6,700 Posts
If you've got 15 users with 2k each, you should be able to purchase a sh$t hot server for way less than 30k!
Seriously, I have no idea, but I HAD to reply....
Seriously, I have no idea, but I HAD to reply....
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
Step out of the box. Do the right thing. Novell Small Business Suite. Competitively priced with Bill Gate$' solutions, easier to learn management concepts, less upkeep. Don't believe all the hype about Micro$oft's solutions. Have you ever seen a Micro$oft server that has been up and running for over a year? Common with a Novell server.
Would have to concur with Fastlane. We have a mixed environment of Windoze and Novell. Many of the Novell servers are at 1 yr plus uptime, in comparison we do "maintenace" reboots on the MS servers once a month. I know you said no Unix comments, but Red Hat Linux is worth considering. With Samba it can emulate a Windows Domain Controller so it is transparent to the end user, very reliable, more secure, and actually pretty simple to learn and administor.
fastlane has an idea but I would never use Novell on a small network. We have it here but we are global. Stick with 2003 server (my .02) Dell has a really nice poweredge for a good price, I like 03's abilities and information stuff, can't even down it without a reason tracks itself nicly
and as a file server they run so much better the NT 4 or even 2000. I have 5 here and we are move 12 more by this summer, and I have one at home running that.
and as a file server they run so much better the NT 4 or even 2000. I have 5 here and we are move 12 more by this summer, and I have one at home running that.
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
OH MY! Someone from Utah saying "Don't use Novell." ???? Won't they run you out of the state for that?
I agree - full fledged Netware is not for a small business, but the Small Business Suite is a wonderful and often overlooked product. I bothers me that people think Micro$oft is the only vendor in the marketplace, and I just wanted to offer a valid option.
I agree - full fledged Netware is not for a small business, but the Small Business Suite is a wonderful and often overlooked product. I bothers me that people think Micro$oft is the only vendor in the marketplace, and I just wanted to offer a valid option.
I know I know you said no Unix answers. But man I gotta say on the server side I would stick with Unix. It is so much cheaper than anything else out there. You can get free backup software for one server www.arkeia.com and as said before you are going to have much more reliable and more secure server. Bundles of info on it too. When you run into a problem and need help.
Linux is easy to learn. Start playing now and within 3 - 6 months you will have it down....
Linux is easy to learn. Start playing now and within 3 - 6 months you will have it down....
1966 'A' code GT fastback. Ivy Green Metallic. 327ci. Not terribly stock anymore.
Joined
·
11,380 Posts
I have many MS servers that have been up for better than a year and I don't have to worry about MS folding any time soon.
Novell has made some really boneheaded decisions that have put it's longevity in serious jeapordy. This said, I would be really leary of advising anybody to use their stuff this season.
Novell has made some really boneheaded decisions that have put it's longevity in serious jeapordy. This said, I would be really leary of advising anybody to use their stuff this season.
1966 'A' code GT fastback. Ivy Green Metallic. 327ci. Not terribly stock anymore.
Joined
·
11,380 Posts
You will love 2003 Server. It's fast, stable and fairly easy to manage.
The real issue is that you should not have just one server in a network, particularly not a MS network. If you are going to do it right you should have two servers and run DFS to make sure you don't lose anything if one of the two goes down.
If you are asking for a hardware recommendation, I'd suggest looking at the HP/Compaq stuff. Dell is ok, but Compaq has much better support for things MS.
The real issue is that you should not have just one server in a network, particularly not a MS network. If you are going to do it right you should have two servers and run DFS to make sure you don't lose anything if one of the two goes down.
If you are asking for a hardware recommendation, I'd suggest looking at the HP/Compaq stuff. Dell is ok, but Compaq has much better support for things MS.
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
I would go with either Windows 2003 Server or 2000 Server. Get the base package for the server. You do not need Advance Server or dataserver. Also make sure you get at least 20 client access licences to allow the clients to access the server.
Setting up a 2003 or 2000 Windows server is very much the same as NT 4.0 except a lot more friendly. One of the biggest differences is the Active Directory part while setting up a domain.
If you need farther information PM me and I will try in help in anyway I can. I set networks up like this all the time.
Hope I helped a little.
Setting up a 2003 or 2000 Windows server is very much the same as NT 4.0 except a lot more friendly. One of the biggest differences is the Active Directory part while setting up a domain.
If you need farther information PM me and I will try in help in anyway I can. I set networks up like this all the time.
Hope I helped a little.
Joined
·
526 Posts
I sell off-lease (used) servers all over the world and cheap too. I get alot of feedback from my clients so take this for what it's worth: Most of my clients use Wndows 2000 or 2003. They would not use anything else. We have about twenty servers going at work and they all have 2000 and 2003 on them. Windows 2003 is really user-friendly too. Let me know if you need a server
Joined
·
2,988 Posts
If your servers have been up that long then you haven't applied the latest service packs to plug the myriad of security holes. Maybe you shouldn't be bragging about this - never know who might be looking for their next hack!
1966 'A' code GT fastback. Ivy Green Metallic. 327ci. Not terribly stock anymore.
Joined
·
11,380 Posts
Funny guy...
They had been up for that long before patching
Even unix systems have to be brought down frequently if you want to keep them up-to-date. I manage lots of unix boxes and am looking to bump them all up to the latest flavor of the O/S shortly, but some of them have been up for pushing two years now.
It's impossible to get long uptime and stay current. We all understand that much, I think.
They had been up for that long before patching
Even unix systems have to be brought down frequently if you want to keep them up-to-date. I manage lots of unix boxes and am looking to bump them all up to the latest flavor of the O/S shortly, but some of them have been up for pushing two years now.
It's impossible to get long uptime and stay current. We all understand that much, I think.
Windows vs Novell vs Unix. The Holy war of IT people :: FWIW the network that I support has all three. Each has it's strong points and each has it's weak points. Bottom line, for the small shop that may not have alot of expertise, Windows 200X is probably a good idea since it is the most familiar. My point was that Linux is a good alternative for the person that is willing to put in a little bit of time to learn it.
Well, I read all the replies and agree with each and every one of them except Novell. I'm not against novell but I just don't trust them anymore. They're still faster than windows for a network file system.
Here's some options I'd propose for such a general request. If money is a factor please say so.
Option1: Redundancy, throughput and recovery. I'd put a pair of Win2003 servers together on an inexpensive desktop platform with mirrored IDE drives. These are strictly directory servers (Domain Controllers) for the AD domain. These servers will manage your users, permissions and I'd throw in redundant print serving because it has such low overhead. These will also provide DNS and DHCP service if you need them. Use software RAID1 and mirror the drives. Next I'd add in a smaller NAS unit, probably HP which you can grow as you need to. NAS will provide the disk space and you can separate the function of file storage away from domain administration. You can probably license this solution, with hardware, for under 10-15K with name brand hardware (Dell or HP.)
Option2: All in one ADS/storage server. You can put together a decent sized file and domain server using a single box from Dell or HP. I'd look towards the HP ML350 or DL380 for a fixed-growth solution. Using 173 gig drives you can put a lof of space for a minimum price (RAID5 of course.) Cost would be around $10K with the windows licensing. (2003 server)
Option3: Don't use windows or linux Please put aside your bias and spend a moment checking out the new Apple X-Serves. I've been working with one as a demo for about 6 months now and let me say that if it ever catches on I won't be surprised. Take the buggeries of linux and put a usable graphical front end on it, provide security and support and ta-da, you have a server. I'd only *look* at this if you have nothing in place for a domain already. I wouldn't migrate to it from a working system with an investment in staff and talent. Biggest gotcha? Cost. hardware is apple and software is apple and it won't work on intel.
Lastly, put 2003 server on a desktop you have laying around and play with it. Going from NT4 to Active Directory is a big difference. You'll find yourself wondering why, when you already have a dns server, you need to create the same one again
Lastly, a minor note on terminal services. If you have any need of terminal services under win2x, I'd point you towards running win2k vs. win2003. Under win2k, any XP Pro or 2000 pro desktop is considered a licensed client and you don't have to purchase additional TS licenses. Under 2003 it is separately licensed. If this means nothing, just ignore it.
D
Here's some options I'd propose for such a general request. If money is a factor please say so.
Option1: Redundancy, throughput and recovery. I'd put a pair of Win2003 servers together on an inexpensive desktop platform with mirrored IDE drives. These are strictly directory servers (Domain Controllers) for the AD domain. These servers will manage your users, permissions and I'd throw in redundant print serving because it has such low overhead. These will also provide DNS and DHCP service if you need them. Use software RAID1 and mirror the drives. Next I'd add in a smaller NAS unit, probably HP which you can grow as you need to. NAS will provide the disk space and you can separate the function of file storage away from domain administration. You can probably license this solution, with hardware, for under 10-15K with name brand hardware (Dell or HP.)
Option2: All in one ADS/storage server. You can put together a decent sized file and domain server using a single box from Dell or HP. I'd look towards the HP ML350 or DL380 for a fixed-growth solution. Using 173 gig drives you can put a lof of space for a minimum price (RAID5 of course.) Cost would be around $10K with the windows licensing. (2003 server)
Option3: Don't use windows or linux
Please put aside your bias and spend a moment checking out the new Apple X-Serves. I've been working with one as a demo for about 6 months now and let me say that if it ever catches on I won't be surprised. Take the buggeries of linux and put a usable graphical front end on it, provide security and support and ta-da, you have a server. I'd only *look* at this if you have nothing in place for a domain already. I wouldn't migrate to it from a working system with an investment in staff and talent. Biggest gotcha? Cost. hardware is apple and software is apple and it won't work on intel.Lastly, put 2003 server on a desktop you have laying around and play with it. Going from NT4 to Active Directory is a big difference. You'll find yourself wondering why, when you already have a dns server, you need to create the same one again
Lastly, a minor note on terminal services. If you have any need of terminal services under win2x, I'd point you towards running win2k vs. win2003. Under win2k, any XP Pro or 2000 pro desktop is considered a licensed client and you don't have to purchase additional TS licenses. Under 2003 it is separately licensed. If this means nothing, just ignore it.
D
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
