50 User SBS2003 Premium Server > Small Business Server Support Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 & 2000 > Get the right hardware...not an easy decision

Subject: 50 User SBS2003 Premium Server

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

Dan Poole

Australia
Member since
5/8/2008

Registered Users
Posts: 21

5/08/2008 01:50 AM
Hi I am deploying a new SBS2003 Server in combination with at dedicated TS server. Total users 20 LAN, 30 Remote, the 30 Remote will be operating on the TS server. The spec's of the machines and their duties are below. Would performance of such be OK? SBS box - Serving - Exchange, SQL, Files to 50 users. 2 x Xeon Quad Cores (though one might be enough) 4GB Ram 2 x 146 15k SAS in Raid 1 for OS/Apps 6 x 300 15k SAS in Raid 10 for data RD 300GB cartridge backup system TermServ - Serving - SQL Frontend app, Outlook, Office 2 x Xeon Quad Cores 4GB of Ram (hopefully enough, else x64 OS needed and 6GB ??) 4 x 146 16k SAS in Raid 10 They have an existing near 4 year old 2.8 Xeon machine with 3 x 74gb 10k SCSI's and 1GB of RAM. But as it is now unsupported and out of warrenty (it is a DELL box) I am reluctant to keep it in use. It currently has 2000 Server on it.

Alan Bailey User is Offline

United Kingdom
Member since
12/8/2007

Registered Users
Posts: 58

5/08/2008 03:11 AM
It looks like what you've spec'd should handle what you're going to throw at it. With the limited information available a few things do spring to mind... You should be able to get away with single quads in both machines. It really depends on how difficult/expensive it'll be to upgrade them to dual processors if it proves to be necessary. The 900GB data array for the SBS box does seem a little large unless you've got a specific use for all that space. The backup system for the SBS box seems a little small if you do need all that space. A full backup would require several cartridge changes which isn't ideal if you're planning for overnight backups. The 292GB array on the terminal server looks like massive overkill. You don't mention a backup system for the terminal server machine. I would have thought you could use the old Xeon machine (preferably with a memory upgrade, and a second processor if it isn't already fitted) for terminal services. I've found old Dell servers to be very reliable and I still provide support for several that much older than the machine you mention. Is this an in house upgrade, or something for an external client?

Kevin Da Silva User is Offline

Mississauga, Canada
Member since
1/12/2008

Registered Users
Posts: 579

5/08/2008 03:25 AM
I think the biggest consideration is also the amount of utilization on the server. If the remote users are only going to be accessing Exchange then the load may be a smaller than if they were on the LAN using files servers, Internet, etc ...

MCSE:Messaging, MCTIP, SBS Specialist

Dan Poole

Australia
Member since
5/8/2008

Registered Users
Posts: 21

5/08/2008 03:57 AM
Hi Alan, Thanks for the reply I was thinking that single Quad's should do, adding a second processor is something quite simple, so you are probably right, same some initial dollars as probably not necessary. 900GB is probably not necessary, however their current server ran out of data space (be it massively less) and with all sites data I thought I would make it quite substantial. I could use maybe 4 x 400gb 10k Raid10 drives instead, definately cheaper, similar storage but a performance hit? Data storage I think will explode with Exchange, given there is 50 users I wanted to allow 250GB just for exchange (currently Outlook is just on local machines). Yes you are correct, the backup is somewhat limited, though can be expanded with 2 x RD drives, so two 300GB cartidges can be loaded as the need arises. I was thinking backing up of the TS to the SBS as it will probably not be very big (only OS and Apps). The current server runs DAT backup tapes for critical data, I use this in the new system for backups on the machine it self. Also yes probably overkill on drives for a new TS. 4 x 74GB would be ample in Raid10 Yeah I also thought of a use for the old machine but figured it wouldn't be enough for 30 users? I could query Dell on continued support of this box (given they now purchase all hardware through Dell they may be accomodating). Definately cheaper though to keep using this box, could perhaps even continue using 2000 server as the TS, though no doubt 2003 has its advantages and is somewhat better to administer/config. It's exact specs are Dell 1600SC 2.8 GHZ Xeon A (Dual Core) 1 GB Ram (2 x 512) 3 x 74GB scsi' in Raid 5 10k (seem a bit sluggish but the machine has been running/loaded for a long time) So 2 x spare RAM slots probably allowing for 3GB for upgrade Spare CPU socket Kevin The TS users will be using Outlook, The SQL Database frontend software, and likely Office to some extent.

Alan Bailey User is Offline

United Kingdom
Member since
12/8/2007

Registered Users
Posts: 58

5/08/2008 04:56 AM
Dan, The old machine first If it's a PE1600SC then it isn't dual core, you'll see two processors in task manager but this is just hyper threading in action. Finding a second processor shouldn't be a problem (ebay), but the heatsink might be. The fans Dell uses on the PE1600SC have none standard plugs and also have the wires swapped. For some reason rewiring a standard fan doesn't work; the fan will run but the machine will halt at boot and ask you to hit F1 to continue. This isn't a problem if you’re standing in front on the machine, but a pain if you reboot from a remote location. From the memory point of view I'd pull one of the 512MB sticks and install 3 x 1GB to give you 3.5GB. These machines don't run dual channel memory so you don't need to worry about having matched pairs of memory. You could give the drive array a boost by reconfiguring it as RAID1 and leaving the other drive as a hotspare. This should still leave adequate capacity. If you did decide to reuse the machine then get a retail version of Windows 2003 server rather than an OEM version. You've then got the option of transferring the license if you do find that new hardware is required. Whether the hardware will handle the load or not will depend on how many of you 30 users you expect to have connected at any one time, and what they're actually doing. Whether you can live without warranty support will depend on your situation. If there’s the budget available to splash out on new hardware then go for it. The SBS data array If you can live with the drop in capacity I’d suggest that you go with 6 x 146GB 15K SAS drives in RAID 10, or consider going with RAID 5. This would standardize the drives on the machine and make having a hotspare a viable option. If you’re looking at something like a PE2900 then you can spec it to support 10 SAS drives. The terminal server array (assuming you buy a new machine) I don’t think you’ll need the performance of a RAID 10 array. I’d personally go for a pair of 146GB 15K SAS drives in RAID 1. If the drives are physically compatible between the two new machines you’ve then got the option of borrowing the hotspare from the SBS machine if necessary. The other option is to have a coldspare that will fit either machine. The backup Even with two RD drives you’re going to fall short of the machines capacity. If they’re the drives I’m thinking of then the 300GB is a compressed figure rather than native. Have you considered going for a tape based system? LTO-3 offers 400GB native capacity (800GB compressed). If you can drop the size of the arrays then you’ve got a fair guarantee that everything would fit on a single tape.

Dan Poole

Australia
Member since
5/8/2008

Registered Users
Posts: 21

5/08/2008 05:24 AM
Great bit of info/advice there Alan. You've steered me away from using the 1600SC as a TS box. Personally I would rather just implement a solution that will work and be supported, I don't think I will have a problem getting the initial $'s from the client, its ongoings (ie connectivity etc) they object to paying more for. The 30 users would be on all day everyday, while the case is likely they wont always be at the machine working, it definately will occur at times during the day. I guess the other issue here is now well the RWW & TS connections stay up, I can see annoyed users if they have to reconnect every 30min or something. Yep the SBS box proposed is a 2900, so has good Drive support. The OS was going to be on 2 x 146 15k's Raid 1, so with the 6 data drives leaves 2 bays free for expansion, though 146 offered in the case of the 146gb drives used may not be enough in time (they seem to be accerating their data usage of late). 4 x 300 15k's I think will give adequate performance with the option to upgrade 300gb with another two added to the RAID10 later if required with space to space, thats given there is no issue adding drives to a RAID10 array. Though I totally understand what you are saying about have a standard drive type across the servers. Though with Dell 4 hr service, not a big deal, one faulted on the existing server years ago and they were out in a few hours, swaped and all sorted. Raid5 is an option, but from what I've been researching Raid10 should offer better performance and redundancy, especially if a drive goes down and the system is continued to be in use until it is replaced. The drive is an RD1000, I'm quite sure the stated capacities of these are native, so 300GB native as they are just an enclosed 2.5in drive. I would also expect newer higher capacity ones to be available as drive techonology improves. So likely in a year pehaps 400 or 500GB would be available? Not sure which is quicker, I'd image HD to HD of the RD would be a quicker backup/restore solution.

Alan Bailey User is Offline

United Kingdom
Member since
12/8/2007

Registered Users
Posts: 58

5/08/2008 06:07 AM
Dan, I've got a client's PE2900 sat in my office that I'm currently setting up. It's a nice machine, and luckily it isn’t as loud as I thought it might be (6 fans excluding the power supplies). I still wouldn’t like to have to sit too close to it on a long term basis. You're correct about the capacity of the RD1000, it is now 300GB/600GB. When I last checked the biggest version available was 160GB/320GB. As you say they should hopefully continue to grow in capacity as drives increase in size. If the larger capacity had been available when I ordered the current server I would have been tempted to go down this route. The only thing that puts me off is the cost of the cartridges as they’re over 10x the cost of an LTO tape; they should however last a lot longer. RAID 10 should certainly offer better performance than RAID 5, but the redundancy will be basically the same. You can in theory loose more than one drive from a RAID 10 array and have it keep working, but you have to be very lucky about which drives fail. One thing to be aware of with the PERC5 and PERC6 RAID adapters is the lack of a warning buzzer. With the PERC3 and PERC4 you new immediately when a drive had failed due to the very annoying beeping generated by the RAID adapter (clients tend to ring you up and moan about the noise). With the later cards there doesn’t seem to be any obvious way of getting a drive failure notification except for the LCD panel on the machine turning orange which could easily be missed. I spec’d the PE2900 I’m working on with common drives and hotspare, and then went for basic next business day support. As the machine is going into an environment where a single day’s downtime wouldn’t be catastrophic I couldn’t justify the significant extra cost that 4 hour support inflicts.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 & 2000 > Get the right hardware...not an easy decision > 50 User SBS2003 Premium Server

ActiveForums 3.7