Server Advice

[Nelson M. G. Santiago]

anything installed in a vmware session? <duck>

That isn't the same as a server requiring "real hardware"...

Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

[Odie Ferrous]

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

Who on earth would set up a domain for so few users?

domain = highly complex = serious support needed


Odie

 

[Nelson M. G. Santiago]

In <[email protected]>, on 12/09/04

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

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. ))

Nelson

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

Today is Thu Dec 09, 2004.

As of 0:55am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 12 hours, and
57 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

 

[David Maynard]

I think it was just a question on ensuring support.

Well, my 'question' was to the post saying he needed something with
'server' in the name.

Unfortunately it wasnt clear whether OP worked for the company or if
maintenance was to be owned by him etc.




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!

Yes, 'if he works for them' could be a sticky wicket.

 

[Last Boy Scout]

I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?

Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops

FTP Required also

Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.

Thank you.

Open up the phonebook and find someone that does this sort of thing for
businesses and you will find what you want is expensive. You have to
have some good networking for the server to be supported. We dont even
know what your network is like. MS2003 Server is probably a fine
operating system.

However, any server you set up has to be patched and looked after for
every security problem that crops up. Then you need to back up the
server to keep from losing the data. Server operating systems are
expensive for the license. It is not cheap. You can spend as much on
the licenses as the actual server hardware.

I personally think you could install Suse Linux with Samba and it would
work just fine.

I recommend you go find someone who does this and get an estimate on a
box/system.

 

[Trevor Best]

kony wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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.

Ah yes, because naive customers who don't know what they want will have
spec'd out all the requirements of course >-)

The point I didn't snip would be a requirement that goes without saying.

Of course you could build a 486 machine with Novell 3.11 on it would do
better than an old MS products you mention but would you want to install
and support an unsupported OS that you've probably forgotten more about
than you'd care to realise?

 

[Trevor Best]

Trevor Best wrote:



Who on earth would set up a domain for so few users?

domain = highly complex = serious support needed

I would, I do in fact have a domain set up and we have 6 people in our
company, and it's not that complex to do. We started out just wanting a
file server for simple file sharing and backup (does that sound
familiar?). When said server fills up and had no more room for expansion
a second one is required, etc. Then along comes the requirement for
company email. It's called expansion, we might not have expanded the
number of people in our company but we have expanded our requirements on
servers.

 

[Trevor Best]

Trevor Best wrote:




I wish it was that easy with Win2K so I could install all this software
that won't work on Server :-/

Yes, they will want to rape you for the server version

 

[Paul Andrews]

I have been approached to build a server, to be used for file storage and
backups. What is a server by definition and what specs and O/S should I be
looking to provide the above? Is XP Pro sufficient?

Current IT infrastructure comprises of 4 laptops + 2 desktops

FTP Required also

Please do not advise linux has I am not converse with it.

Thank you.

There's been a lot of good advice already about the technical side of your
rather vague question.

Some things that are equally important:

If you build it and it goes wrong, the company will blame you even if it's
not your fault.

Companies don't really want a server, they just want a solution to a problem
and that is almost certainly going to go beyond hardware and software.

What companies ask for is rarely what they actually want. If it doesn't do
what they want (even if they didn't realise they wanted it when they made
the original request), they will blame you for providing a substandard
solution even though you might have done as they originally asked.

If there's a problem on a client PC, or the network, etc. after the new
server goes live, chances are that it'll be your fault, even if you aren't
to blame.

There's a danger (depending on your relationship with the company), that
providing a server that may introduce problems (either real or perceived)
may harm your existing releationship, though saying 'no' might also be
problematic.

There's no harm in buying 'off the shelf' server hardware and support
contracts. This would leave you with less to worry about.

Nail down your responsibilities in terms of Hardware supply and maintenance,
software supply and maintenance and operational requirements. Make it
abundantly clear what your responsible for and *not* responsible for and
make this part of the contract for supply.

Safeguard your reputation and legal liability.

Good luck.

Paul

 

[Nelson M. G. Santiago]

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.

I understood exactly that! And with all the bells and whistles that
you could afford! But I couldn't resist to joke! )

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.

I am (normally) 3 hours from you in UK. But since we are here in
Brazilian Savings Time I had to "advance" the clock 1 hour, and that puts
me in Middle Atlantic timezone.

I have to edit the signature "generator" in order to include the
timezone.

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.

My first backup procedure is to have an additional hard disk
installed, and copy periodically to it whatever was modified. I replaced
it yesterday and, similar to your christmas wish, hot-swapping would be a
must! ))


Nelson

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

Today is Thu Dec 09, 2004.

As of 7:42am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 19 hours, and
44 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

 

[Nelson M. G. Santiago]

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

Sure it is. And in a little while we'll both be flamed for straying
too much off-topic! ;-))

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

That doesn't work. It's real hardware!

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

Bingo! I'll have to go stand in the corner! <8-(


Nelson

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

Today is Thu Dec 09, 2004.

As of 8:12am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 20 hours, and
14 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

 

[Tiny Tim]

I would, I do in fact have a domain set up and we have 6 people in our
company, and it's not that complex to do. We started out just wanting
a file server for simple file sharing and backup (does that sound
familiar?). When said server fills up and had no more room for
expansion a second one is required, etc. Then along comes the
requirement for company email. It's called expansion, we might not
have expanded the number of people in our company but we have
expanded our requirements on servers.

Bargain here - new Dell server for £99+VAT and P&P

http://configure.euro.dell.com/dell...pe1220&rbc=pe1218&s=bsd&sbc=ukbsdftdppserver1

 

[kony]

I think you've missed the point.

I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance. Taking an extreme for
simplicities' sake, lets suppose the thing runs from a 32MB
write-protected thumbdrive, loads a minimal version of linux
plus a 3Com NIC driver.... you could waltz over to any
system with 3Com NIC in it and boot to the thumb and presto,
you have yet another fileserver.

There really isn't any need to complicate a fileserver. You
might like to think there is, but truth be told even one of
the two desktops already running could be the fileserver
for the (up to 5 other) systems if it's not bogged down with
work already.

Granted, we dont' know the specific needs, it could easily
be important to have redundant PSU, ECC memory, mirroring
and a tape drive, etc... but the OP is certainly free to
spec these things and so far, hasn't.

 

[Lordy]

I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance.

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Lordy

 

[recursor]

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Ask Amazon, they've been having mega problems lately, how stressed must their support guys be?

 

[kony]

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Lordy

Vague references to "things go wrong" is not an arguement to
increase the complexity of the system except to combat those
"things". Heaping on dozens of times more potential for
things to go wrong is what should be avoided, not advised at
a significant cost overhead.

 

[kony]

Ask Amazon, they've been having mega problems lately, how stressed must their support guys be?

What does that have to do with 6 client filesharing?
Perhaps Amazon has fallen into the same trap, being deluded
into a config so excessive that it's now unmanageable.

 

[recursor]

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.

Gasp indeed.....You just qualified for the "silly post of the week" award.

 

[Bob]

I agree, but in most cases the problem is relatively minor and can be
repaired by the technician. Our first compaq server required an onsite
technician. He replaced the motherboard and raid controller, we were up and
running in a matter of hours. So I have no complaints about the quality of
service.

 

[kony]

Gasp indeed.....You just qualified for the "silly post of the week" award.

I'm sorry, I forgot that nobody knows how to do anything
besides click a mouse anymore.