Question: Dedicated "Server" or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mattrixx
  • Start date Start date
M

Mattrixx

Hi,

My wife`s church is ready to replace their ancient hand me down computers
(four, I think), with five (5) new state of the art desktops, and one (1)
laptop.
The question has come up whether or not the church would necessarily need a
*dedicated server*, in addition to the computers already mentioned.

The church is planning on utilizing the hardwire ethernet network (NO
Wireless) they already have in place, to all six "new" computers by
expanding physical connections.
They are also adding SBC DSL for Internet Access. At present, they have just
one computer connected online through a dial-up account and it is NOT
networked with the other
three networked computers.

Looking at some Dell computers, I find that they first of all....recommend
WinXP Pro for each of the computers to be networked (+$60 extra each), and
second, advise a dedicated server (extra $2200) as part of a "total
networking package".

I would really appreciate some opinions on this scenario from people who
dont have any vested interest in the matter.

Thanks in advance

Matt
 
Mattrixx said:
Hi,

My wife`s church is ready to replace their ancient hand me down computers
(four, I think), with five (5) new state of the art desktops, and one (1)
laptop.
The question has come up whether or not the church would necessarily need a
*dedicated server*, in addition to the computers already mentioned.

The church is planning on utilizing the hardwire ethernet network (NO
Wireless) they already have in place, to all six "new" computers by
expanding physical connections.
They are also adding SBC DSL for Internet Access. At present, they have just
one computer connected online through a dial-up account and it is NOT
networked with the other
three networked computers.

Looking at some Dell computers, I find that they first of all....recommend
WinXP Pro for each of the computers to be networked (+$60 extra each), and
second, advise a dedicated server (extra $2200) as part of a "total
networking package".

I would really appreciate some opinions on this scenario from people who
dont have any vested interest in the matter.
Click to expand...

With PC's running Windows XP Pro, you can create a peer-to-peer network
which doesnt need a dedicated server. However, one of the PC's will need to
act like a server, i.e. it can be the location where files are stored etc,
and it
can be the default internet gateway through sharing it's internet
connection.
You just setup each PC to be on the same IP range and subnet mask e.g.
IP range - 192.168.0.xxx Subnet mask - 255.255.255.0 - that way, they
should be able to talk to one another.

Problems with this are that you can only have 10 PC's connected at any one
time
if you are sharing files. Curiously, I found the internet sharing (ICS)
worked
regardless of how many PC's were connected. If you aren't intending to have
more
than one pseudo-server and nine other PC's then a peer-to-peer setup like
this
will do. Obviously, people like Dell will try to persuade you that you need
to
spend lots of money buying from them :)



James H
 
J Houston said:
need

With PC's running Windows XP Pro, you can create a peer-to-peer network
which doesnt need a dedicated server. However, one of the PC's will need to
act like a server, i.e. it can be the location where files are stored etc,
and it
can be the default internet gateway through sharing it's internet
connection.
You just setup each PC to be on the same IP range and subnet mask e.g.
IP range - 192.168.0.xxx Subnet mask - 255.255.255.0 - that way, they
should be able to talk to one another.

Problems with this are that you can only have 10 PC's connected at any one
time
if you are sharing files. Curiously, I found the internet sharing (ICS)
worked
regardless of how many PC's were connected. If you aren't intending to have
more
than one pseudo-server and nine other PC's then a peer-to-peer setup like
this
will do. Obviously, people like Dell will try to persuade you that you need
to
spend lots of money buying from them :)



James H
Click to expand...

Thanks for your kind reply James,

I am aware of Networking without any dedicated server, as this is how the
church is presently setup (minus any Internet sharing).

Would there be *ANY* advantage to going with a dedicated server as Dell
suggests, other than as you point out, the number of PC`s connected?

Would it be worth the additional expense of having this type of Network for
a relatively small number of computers (6 total)?

In your opinion, would this be desirous for a non-business type (church)
environment ?

They (DELL) would probably be involved in first time setting up the Network
as well.

Thanks again for responding to this question.

I would also appreciate any other experienced person`s insight into this
question.


Matt
 
Mattrixx said:
Thanks for your kind reply James,

I am aware of Networking without any dedicated server, as this is how the
church is presently setup (minus any Internet sharing).

Would there be *ANY* advantage to going with a dedicated server as Dell
suggests, other than as you point out, the number of PC`s connected?
Click to expand...

Unless you're planning to add in more than 10 PC's at a later date, IMHO no.



Would it be worth the additional expense of having this type of Network for
a relatively small number of computers (6 total)?
Click to expand...

No, because it's quite a difference in price between 6 PC's and 6 PC's
and a dedicated server.




James H
 
Hi,

My wife`s church is ready to replace their ancient hand me down computers
(four, I think), with five (5) new state of the art desktops, and one (1)
laptop.
The question has come up whether or not the church would necessarily need a
*dedicated server*, in addition to the computers already mentioned.

The church is planning on utilizing the hardwire ethernet network (NO
Wireless) they already have in place, to all six "new" computers by
expanding physical connections.
They are also adding SBC DSL for Internet Access. At present, they have just
one computer connected online through a dial-up account and it is NOT
networked with the other
three networked computers.

Looking at some Dell computers, I find that they first of all....recommend
WinXP Pro for each of the computers to be networked (+$60 extra each), and
second, advise a dedicated server (extra $2200) as part of a "total
networking package".

I would really appreciate some opinions on this scenario from people who
dont have any vested interest in the matter.

Thanks in advance

Matt
Click to expand...

Matt,

A "server" can perform any of several functions. Depending upon how
the computers are used, it may make sense to centralise any or all of
them.

A church is a business. Based upon the fact that most churches are
recognised non-profit organisations, the fiduciary responsibilities
probably exceed those of most small businesses.

Having a centralised computer for all critical data, with regular
backups, is essential. A church depends upon its records, and backing
up those records has to be a routine duty.

Putting centralised data on a desktop system is not a good idea.
Personal use of any computer creates risk. What happens if the
secretary is running software that makes the system crash, while the
treasurer is updating records, and the shared data is on the
secretary's computer? Or the secretary goes home for the day, and
turns his (her) system off?

Do the staff use each other's computer at any time? The ability to
protect personal data (specific to one's job) is essential in a church
staff. If anybody expects to use a computer "owned" by another staff
member, in a workgroup environment, keeping user accounts and
passwords synchronised is a constant headache. Any network with over
say 4 or 5 computers should be a domain, which requires a domain
server for storage of network accounts and passwords.

If the staff will be accessing the internet, this should only be done
from a LAN protected by a firewall appliance. Don't make any one
computer an internet sharing server.

IMHO, if you have more than 3 or 4 computers, adding a designated
server (with good redundancy and backup) is affordable and makes good
business sense.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
The backup should be done by cloning the drive. The reasons are-quick
restore-is still good and bootable if system fails (slap in new system and
go.) if drive crashes change drive from D: to C: and go.--
John Popp
Deltona Fl.
 
Chuck makes some great points...
Any network with over say 4 or 5 computers should be a domain, which
requires a domain server for storage of network accounts and
passwords.
Click to expand...

Do note, that the central server machine does not necessisarily have
to be a Windows Box. Look into a box running some version of free OS
(*bsd or some linux variant) and SAMBA for a lower cost
alternative. It can still serve as a domain controler/file
server/etc... but you'll save on the OS cost, and the network will be
a little more robust as a single virus is likely not going to take out
the whole network.
 
Chuck makes some great points...


Do note, that the central server machine does not necessisarily have
to be a Windows Box. Look into a box running some version of free OS
(*bsd or some linux variant) and SAMBA for a lower cost
alternative. It can still serve as a domain controler/file
server/etc... but you'll save on the OS cost, and the network will be
a little more robust as a single virus is likely not going to take out
the whole network.
Click to expand...

Philip,

Please some more information about using a non-M$ box as a domain
controller? Minimum hardware requirements?

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Chuck said:
Please some more information about using a non-M$ box as a domain
controller?
Click to expand...

I'm no expert...I just know it can/has been done.
I've only used SAMBA for file/print sharing.

http://www.samba.org/ has more info than is appropriate to talk about
here...

http://www.samba.org/samba/ftp/docs/htmldocs/Samba-PDC-HOWTO.html
is what you are looing for.
Minimum hardware requirements?
Click to expand...
I believe anything that will run modern linux/netBSD etc is
appropriate. The minimum *I* (I'm *sure* you could run it on less)
would want to run it would be a pentium II-200 with 64 megs RAM, a
good network card, and 4 gigs hard drive.

Put another network card in it (broadband) or a modem (dialup) and you
can have it be your firewall, internal DNS, DHCP, NAT server, etc...

good luck!
 
Back
Top