Need Question Answered Quick!

**Rumble** · 10-05-07, 08:25 AM

I need some informed advice asap. Thanks in advance guys and gals...

The problem: I have a client with a 6 computer networked office and a 3 computer office on the other side of town. All the computers run Windows XP Pro.

They would like to get a file server for the main office so they can put all their documents and images in a central spot so everyone can access them without hurting one person's performance.

Eventualy they would like to hook up the 2nd office to the file server also.

Looking at solutions for them I was struck by the ludacris price of Server 2003 because of the CAL costs when more than 5 computers need to use the server. I am wondering if they need an actual Server with Windows 2003 Server or if they could do the same job with a similarly decked out workstation with Windows XP Pro on it?

Both the workstation and server would be Dual Core Xeons with 2GB RAM, dual 250GB hard drives in RAID0 and gigabit ethernet, so neither system would have a hardware advantage.

Thanks again.

**Mcstrange** · 10-05-07, 08:28 AM

For nothing but a file server? XP is more than you need.
There are other considerations, like uptime and the extra management stuff you get with a server OS, but for a file server you dont need much of anything.

**laggyNgroovy** · 10-05-07, 08:41 AM

Raid 0

?

They care enough about the data to put it on a server with more access to it, but they don't care about saving the data if a HD were to go south?

Personally, I say take the opportunity now to get server installed. Try looking at this
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...s/default.mspx

It's much easier to get everything setup right when putting in something new. The company always says "we can do that later" but when later gets here, they keep paying for you to fix screwups when after your 2nd visit, small business server would have more than paid for itself.

**Rumble** · 10-05-07, 08:48 AM

laggyNgroovy, I just don't see what Server 2003 is offering that makes it file serve better than XP. Am I missing something?

**laggyNgroovy** · 10-05-07, 09:01 AM

There are lots of reasons..... standardization, security, interoperability, stability, logging, etc, etc, etc.

But as I re-read your original post, I think Sharepoint may be something that would be a big benefit to your place.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sh...px?ofcresset=1

**~~Cecil900~~** · 10-05-07, 09:04 AM

Or you can go with FreeBSD:

http://www.freebsd.org/

It's a Linux OS for server's, and free.

**a weakling spaz** · 10-05-07, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Rumble

laggyNgroovy, I just don't see what Server 2003 is offering that makes it file serve better than XP. Am I missing something?

Really the biggest reason is licensing.

Rumble I don't know if you have any linux experience but if so check out Samba. We've been deploying it on new file servers to save money on licensing costs here.

**nmeboat** · 10-05-07, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cecil900

Or you can go with FreeBSD:

http://www.freebsd.org/

It'ws a Linux OS for server's, and free.

freebsd is a unix-like os for everything from embedded devices, to desktops and servers...and it's free...

if you're looking for pure file storage, then a NAS (network attached storage) might be a viable solution as well. they're often expandable, redundant and support just about any/all of the latest and greatest protocols and security measures.

then when you are ready to connect the offices from across town, then look into some VPN solutions to help keep things secure.

**SapiensErus** · 10-05-07, 01:53 PM

Any of the sfotware suggestions are good. I personally just use windows for everything because I do nothing large scale (our home network is 9 computers). I have little experience outside of hoe networking though.

but do not, I repeat DO NOT use RAID0 for anything other than a system drive. RAID0 is for gamers who want to cut their load times down (and it works). At work, and ESPECIALLY on a file server, you want redundancy if using RAID.

Think about it: two disks act as one with half the data on one and half on the other (RAID0), if one fails, the data on both is lost. That is a huge risk. Do not use RAID0 on a file server, period.

If you want to protect your documents there are many raid settings that reduce your drive space to below the total combined space of all the drives but have error correction and/or redundancy (RAID1, RAID5).

2 cents

**Rumble** · 10-05-07, 02:17 PM

They ordered a 5k dollar PowerEdge server with Server 2003 in it on my recommendation. Since I have to administer it I picked the 2003 server. They changed their minds about migrating their web server and so now only 2003 would have worked.

I also talked them out of RAID0 for a server. Raid1 is the way to go.