What type of hardware specs should I be looking for to setting up Windows server 2012 with the following requirements?
We are upgrading server from SBS 2003 to Windows Server 2012 and I find the hardware requirements for Server 2012 to be very misleading. It seems to be extremely low.
We are looking at purchasing an HP Proliant ML350p Gen 8 server and I am wondering what type of hardware specs I should be looking for so the following would run smoothly without any problem.
- 20 to 25 networked computers with access to shared folders.
- Approx 60 users connecting by remote desktop
- Backup approximately 500 gigs of information per night
- Setup Exchange for close to 60 active users
We are looking at purchasing an HP Proliant ML350p Gen 8 server and I am wondering what type of hardware specs I should be looking for so the following would run smoothly without any problem.
- 20 to 25 networked computers with access to shared folders.
- Approx 60 users connecting by remote desktop
- Backup approximately 500 gigs of information per night
- Setup Exchange for close to 60 active users
Will all this be running on one server?
ASKER
Nothing has been decided yet. We are only at the extremely early stages.
I don't know if this is going to be 1 server running Hyper-V or if it's going to be 2.
Again, I'm simply looking for what people's recommendations are.
I don't know if this is going to be 1 server running Hyper-V or if it's going to be 2.
Again, I'm simply looking for what people's recommendations are.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
It's easier to offer recommendations if we know what the requirements will be.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I understand there is a world of a difference between "requirement" and "recommended". I'm looking at a starting point. I want this process to go as smoothly as possible and the insanely low hardware requirements for Windows Server 2012 confuses me.
As of now, Here is what is required:
- 20 to 25 networked computers with access to shared folders.
- Approx 60 users connecting by remote desktop
- Backup approximately 500 gigs of information per night
- Setup Exchange for close to 60 active users
If you have any questions on what "other requirements" could be, please let me know and I'll tell you.
We currently have a simple raid setup where 2 drives clone each other and every week I replace one of the hard drives and take it off site.
If we were to change this raid setup to be different, is there a way for me to accomplish the same thing as what I'm currently doing?
One of our bigger nuisances with the current setup is that if people decide to copy files from the network drive to local or local to network, they slow the entire network down and I get plenty of phone calls telling me it's slow.
As of now, Here is what is required:
- 20 to 25 networked computers with access to shared folders.
- Approx 60 users connecting by remote desktop
- Backup approximately 500 gigs of information per night
- Setup Exchange for close to 60 active users
If you have any questions on what "other requirements" could be, please let me know and I'll tell you.
We currently have a simple raid setup where 2 drives clone each other and every week I replace one of the hard drives and take it off site.
If we were to change this raid setup to be different, is there a way for me to accomplish the same thing as what I'm currently doing?
One of our bigger nuisances with the current setup is that if people decide to copy files from the network drive to local or local to network, they slow the entire network down and I get plenty of phone calls telling me it's slow.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
MySQL will be used for a number of programs I've created.
Remote users will need to print from this server. Local users will print locally and not through the server.
It will also be a Fax Server as well, I completely forgot that!!
My boss was looking at getting 7200 SAS drives. I know there is a benefit of getting the 10k or 15k SAS drives but I don't know enough to say "We need 10k/15k sas drives because of reasons 1...2...3... etc"
We currently use Sata drives and the OS and storage is on the same drive.
Remote users will need to print from this server. Local users will print locally and not through the server.
It will also be a Fax Server as well, I completely forgot that!!
My boss was looking at getting 7200 SAS drives. I know there is a benefit of getting the 10k or 15k SAS drives but I don't know enough to say "We need 10k/15k sas drives because of reasons 1...2...3... etc"
We currently use Sata drives and the OS and storage is on the same drive.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I found this simple diagram that explains RAID 0, 1, 5, and 10.
http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/08/raid-levels-tutorial/
You might already know this but it explains it very well.
http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/08/raid-levels-tutorial/
You might already know this but it explains it very well.
ASKER
It's easy to say 'have the OS and Storage on separate drives' but it's harder to explain the performance increase of it. It's not like I can say "If we do this, our speed is 20 but if we set it up this way, our speed will be 80, what do you prefer?".
Our 2003 TS has 32 gigs of ram right now. Unfortunately the SBS only has 4 gigs as it's 32 bit.
I understand why you would want to do it. I guess the problem is that it exponentially gets more expensive. For example, I wouldn't be able to take 1 hard drive home a week, it would be a minimum of 2 (OS and Storage). If I setup as you're suggesting, I'd need even more drives than that.
So is 7200 Sata Drives the same in performance as 7200 SAS? Everywhere I've seen online suggested SAS but the majority of them compare different hard drive speeds. Clearly a 15K drive is going to be a faster speed than 7200.
I do understand Raids and the differences between them. I guess coming up with the pros on why this would be better than what we currently have is the problem I'm facing.
Our 2003 TS has 32 gigs of ram right now. Unfortunately the SBS only has 4 gigs as it's 32 bit.
I understand why you would want to do it. I guess the problem is that it exponentially gets more expensive. For example, I wouldn't be able to take 1 hard drive home a week, it would be a minimum of 2 (OS and Storage). If I setup as you're suggesting, I'd need even more drives than that.
So is 7200 Sata Drives the same in performance as 7200 SAS? Everywhere I've seen online suggested SAS but the majority of them compare different hard drive speeds. Clearly a 15K drive is going to be a faster speed than 7200.
I do understand Raids and the differences between them. I guess coming up with the pros on why this would be better than what we currently have is the problem I'm facing.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I know you're right about the bottleneck being the IO. Too bad there isn't a way that I can show him other than to clone the current drive to a 10k or 15k drive and let him copy a file and see the difference. We're also not at our peak season yet either.
I agree with your point of view on the OS and data being on separate drives. I just don't think he'd be a fan of me bringing a half dozen hard drives home weekly. Not a trust issue, but a cost issue.
"If it does what we want it to do and it works, leave it alone. We're not changing it."
I agree with your point of view on the OS and data being on separate drives. I just don't think he'd be a fan of me bringing a half dozen hard drives home weekly. Not a trust issue, but a cost issue.
"If it does what we want it to do and it works, leave it alone. We're not changing it."
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
I'll inform my boss your suggestions and I'll get back to this tomorrow with any replies.
Thank you very much!!
Thank you very much!!
ASKER
I was in contact with a Microsoft/HP Server rep and he agreed with what you guys are saying as well.
2 processors with 6 cores (15 MB cache) would be plenty.
16 to 32 GB of Ram.
OS on Raid 1
Data on Raid 10
2 GB Raid Controller.
He prefers SAS over Sata for a number of reasons. The 3 year hard drive warranty, the 10k-15k option and SAS has a static controller built into the drive as well.
You really shouldn't be pulling a hard drive as your backup solution. Pulling the drive and breaking redundancy means that when you reinsert the drive, the server has to rebuild the drive which is a huge burden on the server. Instead you can buy a cheap NAS like a buffalo link station for less than $200 and perform backup jobs.
Pulling the hard drive is how we get the data physically out of the building.
Our backups include the following:
Shadow Copies at 7 AM, 12 PM.
Differential backup Sunday - Friday with a full backup done Saturday.
and of course we have a Raid setup.
2 processors with 6 cores (15 MB cache) would be plenty.
16 to 32 GB of Ram.
OS on Raid 1
Data on Raid 10
2 GB Raid Controller.
He prefers SAS over Sata for a number of reasons. The 3 year hard drive warranty, the 10k-15k option and SAS has a static controller built into the drive as well.
You really shouldn't be pulling a hard drive as your backup solution. Pulling the drive and breaking redundancy means that when you reinsert the drive, the server has to rebuild the drive which is a huge burden on the server. Instead you can buy a cheap NAS like a buffalo link station for less than $200 and perform backup jobs.
Pulling the hard drive is how we get the data physically out of the building.
Our backups include the following:
Shadow Copies at 7 AM, 12 PM.
Differential backup Sunday - Friday with a full backup done Saturday.
and of course we have a Raid setup.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Ok, so you're saying taking a backup onto an external drive and taking that external drive home would be better than breaking the raid at the end of the day and letting it build over night? A full system backup onto an external drive takes about 12 hours to complete.
The ability to plug the raided drive back in and be exactly where you were to when the drive got pulled isn't as sufficient as having to re-setup the OS and than do a system restore on an external drive? I'm just trying to make sure I understand you properly.
The ability to plug the raided drive back in and be exactly where you were to when the drive got pulled isn't as sufficient as having to re-setup the OS and than do a system restore on an external drive? I'm just trying to make sure I understand you properly.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thank you very much for your help!