We are getting close to the 10 connection limit on our xp pro acting as a file & print server in a workgroup environment. I am trying to think of options and came up with these. Can you tell me if they are valid and which is the best:
First, according to this:
http://support.microsoft.c
even if you map to shared drives and shared printers, the 'connection' to the xp pro terminates after 15 min? So you could have 15+ users on the lan, all mapped to the server and if they go to the server infrequently, the connections keep terminating and you are playing the odds that no more than 10 will have connected within the 15 minutes (I'd shorten that to 10?)!
But they do have some accounging packages that people are in most of the day and a bunch in the office use them. so as a file server, they would likely go over 10 at some point... so.....
1) install a snap server for file sharing. Still use the xp pro as a print server? (the chance that 10 people out of 12 - 13 need to print all at the same time, is RARE... that assumes, again, taht they all have the printer mapped, but that 15 min after mapping the printer, the connection times out untill they go to print? is that a valid statement?!).
2) upgrade to 2000 server with 15 CAL?
Surprisingly, both options - the snap and the 2000 server upgrade (is xp pro to 2000 server an upgrade for software purchase purposes?) seem to come in comparably priced... makes the decision harder.
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Save solutions to your questions, answers you’ve discovered through searching plus helpful articles in your personal knowledgebase for easy future access.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.
Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
On the other hand, if you have ample disk space as well as ram, you can also run a virtual PC, such as Connectix (sp) Virtual PC, which runs very well under Windows XP and load up W2K Server that way...
That way, you can preserve your XP settings on the dual Xeon and have a server running as well.
I have experimented w/ VirtualPC and it has worked very well in the test environment, but it was never put into production since the company that I was working with went under before the project completed.
When I've used Google to find answers to questions, very frequently, this website came up in the search and had good answers. So I thought this would be a good place to post a question like this. I am real disappointed - I present the 2 approaches that I know and feel comfortable implimenting. you guys ignore one completely and come up with other options that have probably higher costs (Samba - that's an app you have to buy or is it open source? Linux has a cost in time to understand it to implement it. And Connectix?! Doesn't hit me as being mainstream and what do I gain there - I still have to buy server AND Connectix and maybe some ram too!?).
I feel like I am in a Dilbert cartoon strip - consultants that throw out answers that don't have much applicability to the situation / aren't the most cost effective. Sorry if you are trying to be helpful. I am trying to get an answer. While I am open to other ideas, I don't want to trade dollars for time in having to learn / hire someone just to install a free operating system that winds up costing more in the end. And the Connectix idea?! Server is overkill because of the lack of need for security and being a workgroup using just file sharing. TO layer another app on top of that just boggles my mind.
I'm sorry that you don't think that our ideas are of any use. AS I have pointed out... my solution works great in a TEST environment. I had only posted that to give you a perspective. If you don't like it, so be it. No harm done.
If you have read carefully, I had also mentioned that "If you have ample disk space as well as ram"... In my test environment, I had Connectix running on a WinXP box, with 1 P3 1Ghz CPU and 512 MB of Ram, which is more than sufficient if you want to run only 1 virtual server.
Also, server is NOT overkill especially if you are running into that 10 concurrent user limit. The server issue was only brought up because you mentioned the possibility of upgrading to Win2K Server.
I am trying to be very civil here, but if you want to pick a bone, go pick it somewhere else. On the other hand, if you want good and possibly useful advise, stay.
Have a nice day.
I was looking for a comparison of the pros and cons between these 2 options... Sure, 2K server is an answer. But what's wrong with the snap server - it's easier to maintain, frees up the PC that is now being used as a server and doesn't have the 10 connection limit issue.
I guess I was hoping for someone to address the issue of print mapping counting towards the 10 connections (which it does), but does the connection count drop after 15 minutes of inactivity?:
Still use the xp pro as a print server? (the chance that 10 people out of 12 - 13 need to print all at the same time, is RARE... that assumes, again, taht they all have the printer mapped, but that 15 min after mapping the printer, the connection times out untill they go to print? is that a valid statement?!).
It's a small office and it's a hard sell to the boss to spend loads of money on server because they have a couple people more than the arbitrary limit that Microsoft has on XP pro.
I'm looking at trade prices, I can get 2000 server with 5 CALS for £550 plus £150 for 5 additional CALS so you could have the whole lot for £850 plus VAT. If you're in the States try to find a software supplier and set yourself up with a trade account so that you get the discount, I have actually bought software in the States and had it shipped before as it was cheaper. Try DirectDeals.com, this is where I have bought software and had it imported http://www.directdeals.com
Dave
If you want to add a snap server for file services (good idea in my opinion), you can use an older Win98 box for a print server. No user limits. Or you could use HP JetDirect print servers that plug directly into the lan. Either way, the total cost of ownership is very low compared to installing a Server.
Raid or not to Raid... That's the question isnt it? Well... To answer that question, I would pose to you another question, How important is uptime to you?
With a correctly configured Raid, you can almost guarantee a 99.999% uptime, especially if you have a Raid controller and the software to tell you predictive failure on your drives. Barring other hardware problems like your motherboard getting fried or something like that, you will be up most of the time. Even with nightly full backups, you cannot guarantee that the server will come up after a crash.
I guess, what I'm trying to say is this:
Raid is a very good idea, if you want high uptime. Pair that with a good backup scheme, you will be able to keep your server up almost all the time.
As for rebuilding the server, it all depends on what you mean by rebuilding. If you have a good backup scheme as you have implied, then you will probably be down for the duration of reconfiguring the drives and restoring the data (more than likely a weekend's task).
If you are going to put raid into the server, I would suggest the following setup:
1) 2 Drives (mirrored) for the OS
2) 3 Drives or more (Raid-5) for the Data
This is found to be the best way (according to all the research done by Statefarm) for an enterprise class server. But then, we go into the issue of cost... which I think is one of the higher priorities in your situation.
Setting up a JBOD or Spanned drives is not worth getting a raid controller. Since you can do the same at the OS. These setups are not recommended for mission critical systems as well since if one drive in the set dies, the whole set dies.
In the mirror configuration, if one of the drive dies, you will still have the other to rely on. Same goes with the Raid-5 configuration, if one of the drives dies, you will still have the other 2 to rely on. Granted, performance will take a hit, but the server will stay up until you replace the bad drive, granted that the remaining drives dont die on you.
You can read up a lot more about RAID configurations on the net, but if you need more details here, let me know.
-pat
No comment has been added lately, so it's time to clean up this TA.
I will leave a recommendation in the Cleanup topic area that this question is:
Answered by: netnightmare
Please leave any comments here within the next seven days.
PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS COMMENT AS AN ANSWER!
JulianCrawford
EE Cleanup Volunteer
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: netnightmarePosted on 2003-01-26 at 23:48:28ID: 7819408
I would definatly go for the 2000 server, you can run all your services from it and it will make your administration so much easier. Trying to have 10+ connections to a machine running a desktop operating system isn't really an option. Use this machine for your print server as well as it really isn't going to be under that much load with only 10-15 clients attached to it.
Dave