Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Any thoughts on a big network server?

Options
  • 11-07-2008 12:53pm
    #1
    shayser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭


    I need a server (and a BDC) for the following:

    PDC / Active Directory.
    50 users.
    Running in Terminal Server mode.
    About a dozen applications one of which is heavy on resources.

    Was thinking:

    2 x Quad Core.
    20GB - 32GB+ memory.
    4 x 450GB SAS in Raid 5.
    Dual NIC.

    Does this look OK? We're talking huge money here considering 2 x Price to include a BDC and then there's the TS licencing.

    Any alternatives to Dell?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    shayser wrote: »
    I need a server (and a BDC) for the following:

    PDC / Active Directory.
    50 users.
    Running in Terminal Server mode.
    About a dozen applications one of which is heavy on resources.

    Was thinking:

    2 x Quad Core.
    20GB - 32GB+ memory.
    4 x 450GB SAS in Raid 5.
    Dual NIC.

    Does this look OK? We're talking huge money here considering 2 x Price to include a BDC and then there's the TS licencing.

    Any alternatives to Dell?

    A BDC? still on NT4??

    it's impossible for us to say

    there's a calculator on ms's site that will give you rough guess's of what you will require but it will always be a rough guess

    there's no PDC's/BDC's since windows 2000


  • Options
    #3
    shayser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭shayser


    It's replacing a Windows 2000 Server machine. I've been told to include a BDC as there was a number of occasions over the life of the 2k machine that we regretted not having one. Is there any kind of fallover/redundacy with Server 2003/2008. 2 x PDC?


  • Options
    #4
    ntlbell
    Registered Users Posts: 16,288 ✭✭✭✭ntlbell


    shayser wrote: »
    It's replacing a Windows 2000 Server machine. I've been told to include a BDC as there was a number of occasions over the life of the 2k machine that we regretted not having one. Is there any kind of fallover/redundacy with Server 2003/2008. 2 x PDC?

    I think you're not getting me here...

    there is no such thing as a BDC in windows 2000 it was an NT 4 "feature" "nightmare"

    All DC's in a win2k/2k3/2k8 domain are DC's there's no PDC or BDC

    Maybe some light reading is needed before you do anymore :D


  • Options
    #5
    CraggyIslander
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭CraggyIslander


    they're all DC's now, no PDC or BDC. However there are operations master roles that can only be assigned to 1 DC at any time (they can be transferred if needed tho). The first DC you install initially takes on all these roles.

    Transfer of a role when the master is unavailable is still a major pain in the rear tho (granted, not as bad as in the NT4 days)


  • Options
    #6
    ob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭ob


    Would make much more sense to use more than two servers here.

    Seperate you DCs from your application server, two 'smaller' servers for the DCs, and one or two higher spec ones for the application server.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    azzeretti
    Registered Users Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭azzeretti


    I just hate spec'ing up multiple machines now if you can get away with it. With that spec you might think of one box and either ESX server (which I recommend) or Windows 2008 with just Core installation (Virtual Server only just released to support this) If you go for this you will have one box (with the spec you mention) capable of another couple of instances in the future.

    e.g I just finished a site install with a similar spec to yours (only 16GB RAM) and left it with 2 x Windows 2003 installs, One 2008 install and 2 Debian installs. Running various things from AD, Large scale MSSQL database, web serving and file serving and a good bit of room for expansion.


  • Options
    #8
    ravydavygravy
    Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭ravydavygravy


    shayser wrote: »
    I need a server (and a BDC) for the following:

    PDC / Active Directory.
    50 users.
    Running in Terminal Server mode.
    About a dozen applications one of which is heavy on resources.

    Was thinking:

    2 x Quad Core.
    20GB - 32GB+ memory.
    4 x 450GB SAS in Raid 5.
    Dual NIC.

    Does this look OK? We're talking huge money here considering 2 x Price to include a BDC and then there's the TS licencing.

    Any alternatives to Dell?

    I'd seperate out the server roles here - two low spec servers for DC's, and a high spec server for the TS running all the apps.

    Personally:

    DC:
    1 CPU (Dual Core is fine, no big CPU overhead here...)
    2 GB RAM
    2 x small disks in RAID 1 (36GB probably the smallest you can get)
    Dual NICs, teamed
    Dual PSU (if you have dual power feeds)

    App Server:
    2 x Quad Core CPU
    at least 16GB ram (remember thats only 2 GB per core)
    2 x small disks in RAID 1 (for the OS)
    As much disk as you need in RAID 5 for main storage
    Dual NICs, teamed
    Dual PSU (if you have dual power feeds)

    As an alternative to Dell, I'd suggest HP - i like their hardware, and find it reliable.My main experience would be with DL range (360,380). IBM are good too - x3550,x3650. But these recomendations are for racked servers - I have no idea if you have rackspace or if these are towers you are looking for...

    Also, as mentioned, these could all be housed in a VM infrastructure if you want, but that'll be very expensive for just 3 servers (you'll still need to buy a backup physical VM server for example, and then VMWare licencing...)


Advertisement