Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of WORKS2011
WORKS2011Flag for United States of America

asked on

Server upgrade options, windows server 2019 with or without NAS.

Ready to replace a SBS server looking at 2 options.

1. Windows 2019 Server Standard, RAID5, 1VM (PDC), 2VM (Exchange)
2. Windows 2019 Server Standard, ISCSI NAS device (Synologyw/RAID5). email in the cloud (365).

Security always a concern, speed/performance, redundancy, remote accessibility, approximately 25-30 users. Users are mainly using MS Office, Adobe, Remote access a big part as they continue to expand and work from home.

Feedback on which platform is better (in your professional opinions) is much appreciated. Looking more for the pros and cons of each.
Avatar of Cliff Galiher
Cliff Galiher
Flag of United States of America image

The two seem unrelated.   Not sure how you came to those two, but any comparison is apples and oranges so I doubt anybody can really accurately answer this to your satisfaction.

For example:

Why not go with #1 *and* a NAS?

Or why not go with #2 *without* the NAS?    With the 1+2 VM licensing that has been a part of standard since 2012, it can't be cost.  It is just a strange split and while there may certainly be reasons for only considering the two considerations you've outlined, without understanding the logic behind them it'd be impossible to properly give feedback as to what'd be appropriate for you or what you may have missed.
Avatar of WORKS2011

ASKER

I'm open to more options and appreciate the feedback. Have always installed SBS from 2008 to 2011 for this client. They are considering hosting exchange and eventually their data. My thinking is if exchange is hosted this is the easy part as they would move to 365. Eventually data may be hosted. However they like the idea of data being on-premise and appear hosted. Eventually Box, Dropbox, Synology, play into this phase and where the NAS device comes in. I'm not a fan of Sharepoint, VPN is secure and works well, guess to narrow down this question
remote access to data, what are the pros and cons of a server vs a NAS device
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Cliff Galiher
Cliff Galiher
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
If the client will already be paying for O365 then SharePoint really should be considered.  The OneDrive sync client really changes the game there and old experiences with SharePoint really are that...old knowledge.
I've used OneDrive/Sync allot and maybe it's changed but the reason I moved to Box was files ended up getting locked in OneDrive/SharePoint. I have to admit I was on an old OneDrive account and they migrated the two so maybe this has stabilized. Issue I had was I worked with staff and deleted a file, I went to create another file with the same name and it would give a lock error. After the meeting I took the data and moved to different folders and would get a sharing or lock error. I had to email everyone to make sure they're out of the document(s). It was a huge pain. If this wasn't the case I would consider OneDrive/Sharepoint. As well to be fair I haven't used it in a year or so and I loved how chat opened up in documents and staff and myself easily collaborated. I would prefer not to sync to each device, by this I mean data is on the NAS and accessible but not on everyone's computers.

VPNs are only arguably more secure.  Box, DropBox, SharePoint with 2FA and active monitoring by a major vendor for anomalous activity is probably *more* secure than a VPN where the password is taped under someone's keyboard where the teenage son, janitor, etc can find it and access isn't monitored at all.
Ha ha...agree.

Regardless of which route you choose, I despise RAID5.  There was a time when it was a cost-conscious choice and had a place.  Spindles are cheap nowadays.  I'd rather have spindles in RAID10 before I did SSD's in RAID5, despite the performance benefit of SSDs.  I just can't justify RAID5 in any environment anymore.
Good points and I may change this up as well. I've mainly used RAID5 but configured all different levels.
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
kevinhsieh, approximately 600G.

I personally don't use HDD in general purpose servers anymore.
you mean you don't use mechanical drives? HDD is hard drive and SSD's are hard drives. Just making sure I'm not missing something.
Cliff
Why not go with #1 *and* a NAS?
which one will perform better?
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
A regular server, with appropriate disks will perform better than a low end NAS.

Scaling back the server because exchange will be hosted. Downgraded the PERC Controller, removed the second CPU, and don't need as many drives now. Probably do RAID, maybe RAID5. Decent processor with 32G memory running Server 2016 Standard.

Looking at the Synology 8 Bay NAS Diskstation (Diskless) (DS1819+ with Wester Digital Red Drives.

Looking to increase the RAM as well. Your thoughts, worth it for file sharing only?

Debating on the Synology M2D18 to increase performance. Know anything about it?

Question is how well the beefed up server with the higher-end PERC controller and second processor will process file sharing on the server VS the lower server model connected to the beefed up Synology NAS.  

On the Synology NAS how much increase in performance do you believe users will experience with the options mentioned above.  

With exchange licensing costs and Poweredge drives being more expensive if the NAS performs better even better reason to go the NAS route.

Performance is important here.
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
I meant WD Red Pro which are 7200RPM, still not SSD though. I agree 100% regarding the server and my first choice is the server route. I'm doing my due diligence researching the NAS option to present back to my client the pros and cons.

I specced out on the server 1.2T 10K SAS 12GBps drives, it's the best option before going to SSD. They're twice the size of SSD and half the price. Also went with the higher-end PERC controller.
How many 10K drives are you planning? RAID 10 is the only reasonable option on HDD if performance is important when using HDD.
Obviously at least 4. Is losing half the disk space worth it? They have a five year old server now and don't really see any performance issues opening and closing their files. Currently on 15K SAS drives in RAID5.

My goal is not to go down in performance. Because they have a server now and the new server is more powerful they will be fine. The NAS I'm not confident they won't see a performance hit.
Looking at four 600GB 15K RPM SAS 12Gbps 512n 2.5in Hot-plug Hard Drive in RAID5. I've never had issues with RAID5. I don't want to lose the drive space with RAID10. The 5 year old server has 15k SAS drives and they don't have any performance issues so in this case they'll be fine.
Thanks Guys, I'm closing this because it's getting off the main subject but I appreciate your input. I also opened a specific question regarding NAS drives compatible with 600GB 15K RPM SAS 12Gbps 512n 2.5in Hot-plug Hard Drive if you want to participate since you're already aware of the reasons behind the question.