What server configuration do I need?
Need a server that will supply a few services to 25 user's. This server will run SBS 2003 R2 standard, it will run Exchange services. Of course be the domaine controler. I also have a need for 2Tb of storage. I think a Proliant ML350 would be ok for the job but many many options are available. I would think that I would need 2 Quad-Core Xeon E5410, 4Gb of RAM, RAID5 configuration with 4x 500Go, redundant Power and fan and a second network card.
Maybe I need a second server for file storing? Should I use 2 drives in RAID 1 for OS and 3 other drives in RAID 5 for DATA? I was thinking of Virtuel servers for redondancy, ether Microsoft virtuel server or VMWare. Budget about 6500$ for this. What do you think?
Maybe I need a second server for file storing? Should I use 2 drives in RAID 1 for OS and 3 other drives in RAID 5 for DATA? I was thinking of Virtuel servers for redondancy, ether Microsoft virtuel server or VMWare. Budget about 6500$ for this. What do you think?
ASKER
First, thanks for the link, I'll look into it. But I don't think you've answered my question very well.
Second, yes I did setup a SBS before. And I find that it utilizes a lot of CPU mostly because of Exchange. I would think that a company that uses SBS needs the server to do everything. File sharing, DC, Exchange maybe Sharepoint, OWA, SQL... etc. Why would Microsoft cram everything into SBS if there's a possibility that you use every service? I know it need's plenty of memory, maybe more then I listed... If so, maybe I need Server 2003 instead if I need more than one server to do the job since you can only have one SBS on a network.
I find your approach interesting when you type "Have you ever setup SBS before? I would tend to doubt it... " AND " because I THOUGHT I knew what I was doing)." . I don't know what you're implementing really and I don't think your reaction is called for. If you really need to share that everyone asking for advise or a question is an idiot than fine.. If I had a master's degree on the subject, I wouldn't have to ask advice now would I? I don't have time to waste on ego trips. If you're not knowledgeable enough to supply expertise that I can count on, then don't.
I am a member that is asking experts for their advice. That's what Expert Exchange is their for ! I would recommend not wasting my time nor Expert Exchanges reputation.
Second, yes I did setup a SBS before. And I find that it utilizes a lot of CPU mostly because of Exchange. I would think that a company that uses SBS needs the server to do everything. File sharing, DC, Exchange maybe Sharepoint, OWA, SQL... etc. Why would Microsoft cram everything into SBS if there's a possibility that you use every service? I know it need's plenty of memory, maybe more then I listed... If so, maybe I need Server 2003 instead if I need more than one server to do the job since you can only have one SBS on a network.
I find your approach interesting when you type "Have you ever setup SBS before? I would tend to doubt it... " AND " because I THOUGHT I knew what I was doing)." . I don't know what you're implementing really and I don't think your reaction is called for. If you really need to share that everyone asking for advise or a question is an idiot than fine.. If I had a master's degree on the subject, I wouldn't have to ask advice now would I? I don't have time to waste on ego trips. If you're not knowledgeable enough to supply expertise that I can count on, then don't.
I am a member that is asking experts for their advice. That's what Expert Exchange is their for ! I would recommend not wasting my time nor Expert Exchanges reputation.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Ok leew, let's forget about how thing were perceives and adress the advice part.
Thank you for all the explanation. It's acurate and of help...
I do know that you cannot use more than 4Go on a SBS 2003 since it's a 32bit OS. When I asked if I needed more mem it did go without saying that I would need a 64 bit OS, like server 2003 64b...
Anyway, thank you for your information, maybe their's a couple of configs I need to tune up on onother sbs2003 that's runnig on a P4 3.0 that I find slow.
For now, I want to replace an old server that has 2 Xeon procc and 512 Mo of RAM. It's running Windows 2000 server and Exchange 2000 server, It's the DC, of corse and has 2 SCSI 7Go drive configured in miror with Windows utility. Yes I know Why? I don't know, it's been their for a least 9 years they tell me. I just wanted some advice on hardware that would handle everything well AND have lot's of storage for DATA. Of course, everything need's to be safe in case of disk fail.
Anyway thanks for the advice.
Thank you for all the explanation. It's acurate and of help...
I do know that you cannot use more than 4Go on a SBS 2003 since it's a 32bit OS. When I asked if I needed more mem it did go without saying that I would need a 64 bit OS, like server 2003 64b...
Anyway, thank you for your information, maybe their's a couple of configs I need to tune up on onother sbs2003 that's runnig on a P4 3.0 that I find slow.
For now, I want to replace an old server that has 2 Xeon procc and 512 Mo of RAM. It's running Windows 2000 server and Exchange 2000 server, It's the DC, of corse and has 2 SCSI 7Go drive configured in miror with Windows utility. Yes I know Why? I don't know, it's been their for a least 9 years they tell me. I just wanted some advice on hardware that would handle everything well AND have lot's of storage for DATA. Of course, everything need's to be safe in case of disk fail.
Anyway thanks for the advice.
SBS 2008 can be expected to arrive in less than a year and that will be both a mess and a godsend... mess because you will have no direct upgrade from SBS 2003 because (and this is the godsend) it will be 64bit only.
Some 32bit systems CAN provide access to more than 4 GB of RAM when using certain server class hardware. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x86 version can support 64 GB of RAM. It would have been nice if, among the tweaks to disable things in SBS, they also gave a tweak or two to ENABLE things like access to, say 16 GB of RAM. Alas, they didn't...
Again, I think the rest of your plan was very appropriate for the intended use. As I said, the only thing I might change is the RAID 5 to a RAID 10 if you really want to spend the money on an extra disk. But even that's not vital, just a thought. The one thing I find with my SBS P4 3.0 that tends to happen is when a volume Shadow copy hits, it does suck up CPU and disk cycles... but usually for just a minute or so. But that's in part because they have the system on a single RAID 5 - if I had room for another disk in the box, I'd put volume shadow copy on some unRAIDed drive with some otherwise unimportant (easily recoverable and not too frequently used) data. That would significantly improve performance.
Best of luck to you
Some 32bit systems CAN provide access to more than 4 GB of RAM when using certain server class hardware. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition x86 version can support 64 GB of RAM. It would have been nice if, among the tweaks to disable things in SBS, they also gave a tweak or two to ENABLE things like access to, say 16 GB of RAM. Alas, they didn't...
Again, I think the rest of your plan was very appropriate for the intended use. As I said, the only thing I might change is the RAID 5 to a RAID 10 if you really want to spend the money on an extra disk. But even that's not vital, just a thought. The one thing I find with my SBS P4 3.0 that tends to happen is when a volume Shadow copy hits, it does suck up CPU and disk cycles... but usually for just a minute or so. But that's in part because they have the system on a single RAID 5 - if I had room for another disk in the box, I'd put volume shadow copy on some unRAIDed drive with some otherwise unimportant (easily recoverable and not too frequently used) data. That would significantly improve performance.
Best of luck to you
Mostly in the area of the processors. Dual Quad Core? WHY? What do you think is going to utilize the CPU so much. SBS came out 5 years ago -- before Quad Core processors were available - or dual core for that matter. And it worked fine for most businesses back then.
I've got servers running SINGLE core processors in Small Business Environments and the SINGLE core is IDLE 90% of the time - with 15-20 users. A dual core would be enough... if you REALLY want to spend the money, then get ONE Quad Core ... and if you REALLY think CPU is going to be your performance bottleneck, then get a system EXPANDABLE to TWO CPUs, but START with one.
Have you ever setup SBS before? I would tend to doubt it... in which case, I would STRONGLY recommend you familiarize yourself with the product - ESPECIALLY if you already know how to manage a Windows Server... because if you already know how to manage a Windows server, you WILL mess this up severely if you don't learn the differences and how it should be managed (I know from experience - my first SBS install was a mess because I THOUGHT I knew what I was doing).
Redundant power isn't a bad idea and if it's in your budget, by all means, do it. Second NIC would not be absolutely necessary, but a good idea if you intend to setup SBS in the preferred configuration.
A virtual system wouldn't be a bad idea... but considering such a system would rely on the physical server, it wouldn't make much really redundant...
The RAID config you describe would probably be best - 2 Mirrored, 3 RAID 5. Then you can split Exchange databases and log files on different disks and put the Volume Shadow Copy data on a different set of spindles as well.
Strongly recommend you review my SBS page - http://www.lwcomputing.com/tips/static/sbs.asp