Server Advice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Remedy
  • Start date Start date
In <[email protected]>, on 12/08/04
2) Should there be a difference between servers used for different
purposes? Some servers actually would require some real hardware to
run effectively.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware? 8-)))


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago <[email protected]>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Wed Dec 08, 2004.

As of 8:40pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 8 hours, and
42 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.
 
Yes. What Dee said.

Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.

Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
limit you to 10 connections.

Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.

Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.

Think about your client and their ability to expand.

Also if you do go for Win2003, don't go for the Web edition, it really
is XPee dressed up (10 user limit for file sharing connections, etc
although I can't comment on it's performance in relation to using XPee
as a file server, which is shite).
Click to expand...


Now back up a bit and note that NONE of what you mention has
been listed as a requirement. So far there's only two
things for certain: 1) It will serve files for 2 fixed and
4 in/out mobile (Laptops) 2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.
 
In <[email protected]>, on 12/08/04



Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware? 8-)))
Click to expand...

One of mine does, it lives in a VMware container for resilience
purposes (ie if the host hardware blows up, I run the latest backup of
the server on another machine).

Cheers - Jaimie
 
Michael said:
But be careful. This is just the time to come on-site. In one case
(many years ago) the support people came quickly on-site, then went
away for a full week waiting for a part -- but they had kept their
contract. The machines I buy have several options; as far as I
remember:

- next business day on-site response. Free for 3 years (warranty).
- 8-hour response, during business days. Cheapest paid option
- 4-hour response, any time. Higher cost
- 8-hour guaranteed time to repair, highest cost.

Best wishes,
Click to expand...

this is what's known as an "appeasance engineer" or "SLA engineer"...it's
cheaper to send a teaboy out in 4 hours, then a real engineer in a day or
so....
 
Nelson said:
In <[email protected]>, on 12/08/04



Sorry, but: are there servers that require *virtual* hardware?
8-)))


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago <[email protected]>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Wed Dec 08, 2004.

As of 8:40pm this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 8 hours,
and 42 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.
Click to expand...

anything installed in a vmware session? <duck>
 
Dee said:
Yes! That's one reason.
Click to expand...

But not a very good one.
Another is that a server OS has features in it
specifically designed for the purpose of being a server!
Click to expand...

Yes, it has various 'server features'. That doesn't mean you need those,
depending on what you want the 'server' to do.
 
Jaimie said:
Yes. Why would you not? It's not too much of a worry if someone's
Excel crashes due to a memory glitch, but if the corporate database
corrupts or goes down you're in trouble.




Oh yes indeed. Form follows function.

File servers: Not much CPU, some memory, lots of disks on clever
controllers. Large backup devices.

Mail servers: Some CPU, some memory, some disk. More of each if you're
running content analysis.

DNS/firewall/other net services: Very little hardware required (unless
you're running a really large network).

Application servers: Entirely application dependant. Probably lots of
CPU, lots of memory, some disk, and most importantly OS dependant on
the application. Indeed, hardware type - AIX server? HPUX? Solaris?
Not everything runs on Windows or Linux.




Hard to tell, from the details given, but since it would be their
first server it's probably just a dedicated small fileserver.
Click to expand...

This is actually the 'problem'. The 'spec' looks like little more than a
general 'idea' with the word 'server' thrown in because, well, that's what
'servers' do, isn't it?

The real work is in specifying the operational needs with deciding what
will accomplish it being the last thing.
 
2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point.
 
Trevor said:
Yes. What Dee said.

Also because the machine won't grind to a halt when you copy files
to/from it like the current workstation flavors of Windows do.

Also it will allow expansion of your network, a workstation OS will
limit you to 10 connections.

Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users centrally.

Also it allows bigger versions of certain server software to run, e.g.
SQL Server Standard edition as opposed to Personal edition, which would
limit you to 5 concurrent query threads and no replication publishing or
worse, MSDE that will limit you to 2GB databases.

Think about your client and their ability to expand.
Click to expand...

None of which matters for simply saving some files to a common machine and
doing backups for 2 computers and 4 laptops on a peer to peer network.
 
kony said:
Now back up a bit and note that NONE of what you mention has
been listed as a requirement. So far there's only two
things for certain: 1) It will serve files for 2 fixed and
4 in/out mobile (Laptops) 2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.
Click to expand...

Hehe. Yes. That was the point of my question. Everyone is all fired up to
create a massive corporate IS department and all the folks asked for is
some file storage and backup.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, for 'free' anyway, because I don't
think they've thought out what they need, file sharing, security, document
control, backup schedule, maintenance, up time, who runs it, or anything
else, but that's another matter.

My 'guess', since I've seen small groups do this, is they simply want a
central file store with a regular backup schedule and nothing more than a
caveat to the users "if you don't save your stuff here then it don't get
backed up."

Btw, you can now fish fully operational P233MX machines out of the
dumpsters ;) I got one.
 
I think you've missed the point.
Click to expand...

That being ... the issues here are not technical but business and
"human nature" related.

If a business asks someone to build a file server who does not know what
a server is (again no criticism of OP, we were all born naked), then
there are a number of issues that will bite someone in the arse at some
point.
Human nature suggests the blame is always dumped on the little guy where
possible! Esp if said person is not experienced enough to defend
themselves.

OP could very likely roll out a file server on a spare box with or
without assistance. What happens when things go wrong or OP is on
vacation or both.
How much would it cost the business (esp the they migrate important
files to the file server - and why shouldn't they!). Is there enough
information to handover? Will OPs neck be on the line?

Many times (when inexperienced) I did some free work for clients on top
of paid work. Heck it only took half an hour to add some much
appreciated whizz bang feature that was not specced. Of course if said
whizz-bang feature breaks during the next upgrade and my free gratis
work now cost me money or is embarassing. If something appears easy from
a personal or technical context this does not always translate simply to
a business context.
 
Hehe. Yes. That was the point of my question. Everyone is all fired up
to create a massive corporate IS department and all the folks asked
for is some file storage and backup.
Click to expand...

I think it was just a question on ensuring support.
Unfortunately it wasnt clear whether OP worked for the company or if
maintenance was to be owned by him etc.
I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, for 'free' anyway, because I
don't think they've thought out what they need, file sharing,
security, document control, backup schedule, maintenance, up time, who
runs it, or anything else, but that's another matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thats the problem. From the Original post and making assumptions
about the business *in this instance* etc my advice is for the OP to
suggest they buy a cheap box with support. However if OP works for the
company and is expected to have these skills then they need to come back
with more information. Also strongly suggest messing around with setting up
Samba shares on Fedora Core 3 or something!
 
Thanks that is what I wanted to know.


Jaimie> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:42:48 -0600, Alan Walpool

Jaimie> Yes. Why would you not? It's not too much of a worry if
Jaimie> someone's Excel crashes due to a memory glitch, but if the
Jaimie> corporate database corrupts or goes down you're in trouble.

Jaimie> Oh yes indeed. Form follows function.

Jaimie> File servers: Not much CPU, some memory, lots of disks on
Jaimie> clever controllers. Large backup devices.

Jaimie> Mail servers: Some CPU, some memory, some disk. More of each
Jaimie> if you're running content analysis.

Jaimie> DNS/firewall/other net services: Very little hardware
Jaimie> required (unless you're running a really large network).

Jaimie> Application servers: Entirely application dependant. Probably
Jaimie> lots of CPU, lots of memory, some disk, and most importantly
Jaimie> OS dependant on the application. Indeed, hardware type - AIX
Jaimie> server? HPUX? Solaris? Not everything runs on Windows or
Jaimie> Linux.

Jaimie> Hard to tell, from the details given, but since it would be
Jaimie> their first server it's probably just a dedicated small
Jaimie> fileserver.

Jaimie> Cheers - Jaimie -- "Prediction is very difficult,
Jaimie> especially about the future" - Niels Bohr
 
Well that is what I suspected. Thanks for the information.

Hard to find such information on the net.

Lordy> Certainly.

Lordy> Print Servers dont need much of anything and can often be the
Lordy> spare laptop. Good printers often have print servers built-in
Lordy> these days.

Lordy> Firewalls need 2 NICS and thats about it :) Add CPU for
Lordy> stateful packet inspection. Add discs if you want log files :)

Lordy> File servers dont need much CPU power. Money better spent on
Lordy> better/more storage.

Lordy> Web servers need good CPU and networking capabilities. Lots of
Lordy> memory to manage user sessions etc.

Lordy> Database servers need most of everything :)

Lordy> Then you got SSL Accelerators and the like!

Lordy> The problem is often unscrupulous salesmen may use the word
Lordy> "server" to sell you a machine with lots of everything even
Lordy> though you may not need it.

Lordy> This is also what you get with Microsoft "Server" products.
Lordy> Lots of stuff you probably dont want to use. (and until
Lordy> recently switched on by default).

Lordy> Remember the great NT Workstation vs Server debate -
Lordy> effectively the same OS.

Lordy> -- Lordy
 
Thanks that is what I wanted to know.
Click to expand...

No problem. Speccing servers is a reasonably exacting task, with
"reliability" as your primary feature. Hopefully. Sometimes the
bean-counters tell you that "value for money" is your primary goal, in
which case you should ignore them, for they have no brains.

Bizarre quoting style you have though, took me three tries to find
your actual comment...

Cheers - Jaimie

--
As a sysadmin, I suppose you're familiar with something called a
'worst-case scenario'?
Click to expand...

Yah. Isn't that what we call "having a good day for a change"?
 
Granted, but that isn't a server requirement, as originally posted:
"Some servers actually would require some real hardware to run
effectively." It was a decision you made "for resilience purposes".
Click to expand...

Oh, now you're just being serious. Where's the fun in that?

Cheers - Jaimie
 
That isn't the same as a server requiring "real hardware"...
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think you weren't actually joking when you wrote your
original comment about "virtual hardware", so I'll explain. When Alan
said "real hardware" he meant it like "Real MAN's Hardware, fast and
biiiig and shiny and hot and loud, taking up a WHOLE RACK!!!!!". Maybe
with more exclamation marks, and probably redundant power supplies
too.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago <[email protected]>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Thu Dec 09, 2004.

As of 0:49am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 12 hours, and
51 minutes. It's running 32 processes with 134 threads.
Click to expand...

And I think your clock or timezone is wrong, by the way - you should
be 3 hours away from me in .uk, two would put you in the ocean
somewhere? Your posts are coming up dated an hour in the future.

Uptime tells me that this WinXP box has been up for 4 days, 1h 24
minutes. 51 processes, 623 threads. That would be since I replaced a
bunch of leaky capacitors on the motherboard... this would _not_ be
counted as Real Hardware! Must get myself a nice dual Opteron rig for
christmas, I don't like these wussy little single cpu machines.

Cheers - Jaimie
 
In <[email protected]>, on 12/09/04


No, I'm not. I'm just backing my comment: " are there servers that
require *virtual* hardware? "

For me it's a bit difficult to imagine any equipment requiring virtual
*hardware* ! It's a contradiction of terms. 8-)))
Click to expand...

That's clear, but it's also why it's fun to try and work within the
meaning of the words...

What about Virtual Reality hardware? Mmm, that doesn't really work,
and it'd probably be connected to a workstation class machine anyway.

Oh, wait! Virtual Memory! Got it. All servers need some of _that_!

Cheers - Jaimie
 
on 12/08/04 said:
One of mine does, it lives in a VMware container for resilience purposes
(ie if the host hardware blows up, I run the latest backup of the server
on another machine).
Click to expand...


Granted, but that isn't a server requirement, as originally posted:
"Some servers actually would require some real hardware to run
effectively." It was a decision you made "for resilience purposes".


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago <[email protected]>
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Thu Dec 09, 2004.

As of 0:35am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 12 hours, and
37 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.
 
Back
Top