Designing a small network (30 users)

Hello,

I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4 years but
it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for different
functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, however, when
looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually assumes
that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are nowhere
near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5 right across
the street.

I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find anything there
that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction we want to
go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage all I'm
looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.

Thanks very much for your help
Tam

Hi Tam,

If you have only 30 users then I would recommend that you reconsider the SBS
2003 route. You will get far more functionality than from a Standard server.
You will pay far more for separate exchange etc. SBS really is the product
you should consider.

If the network is running slow, then I would look at the Spec of the
server/hubs/infrastructure.

I have networks running SBS2003 with far more users than this with no
problems regarding speed at all.

HTH

Terry


"IT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OBH%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4 years but
> it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for different
> functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, however, when
> looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually assumes
> that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are nowhere
> near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5 right
across
> the street.
>
> I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find anything
there
> that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction we want
to
> go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage all I'm
> looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.
>
> Thanks very much for your help
> Tam
>
>

Hi Terry, thanks for the quick reply, I was given lots of thought about SBS
2003, to us it would be a natural progression but I'm just have so much pain
when the server is down, it practically brings the entire network down, also
we have quite a few databases, some with over million records, so when some
big queries run, it almost stops the server, as planning for disaster
recovery, may be I don't know enough but SBS doesn't seem to be well
prepared in this area....so those are few reasons why I did not want to
continue with SBS 2003 but thanks very much for the suggestion
and quick one too!

Tam

"Terry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Tam,
>
> If you have only 30 users then I would recommend that you reconsider the
SBS
> 2003 route. You will get far more functionality than from a Standard
server.
> You will pay far more for separate exchange etc. SBS really is the product
> you should consider.
>
> If the network is running slow, then I would look at the Spec of the
> server/hubs/infrastructure.
>
> I have networks running SBS2003 with far more users than this with no
> problems regarding speed at all.
>
> HTH
>
> Terry
>
>
> "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:OBH%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4 years
but
> > it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for different
> > functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, however,
when
> > looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually assumes
> > that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are
nowhere
> > near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5 right
> across
> > the street.
> >
> > I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find anything
> there
> > that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction we
want
> to
> > go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage all
I'm
> > looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.
> >
> > Thanks very much for your help
> > Tam
> >
> >
>
>

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:14:20 -0500, "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4 years but
>it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for different
>functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, however, when
>looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually assumes
>that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are nowhere
>near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5 right across
>the street.

First, Standard is fine, you won't need Enterprise. You could also
look into SBS again, which has it's own advantages and liabilities.
Besides, is your network slow beacsue you need separate apps on
separate servers, because you need to upgrade the infrastructure,
because you need a faster server or because you need to defrag your
drives?

>I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find anything there
>that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction we want to
>go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage all I'm
>looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.

SBS still holds a lot of value for your described setup, but Server
2003 Standard will do as well. You'll need to pick up ISA, SQL,
Exchange and so on extra of course.

Jeff

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:26:28 -0500, "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hi Terry, thanks for the quick reply, I was given lots of thought about SBS
>2003, to us it would be a natural progression but I'm just have so much pain
>when the server is down, it practically brings the entire network down, also
>we have quite a few databases, some with over million records, so when some
>big queries run, it almost stops the server, as planning for disaster
>recovery, may be I don't know enough but SBS doesn't seem to be well
>prepared in this area....so those are few reasons why I did not want to
>continue with SBS 2003 but thanks very much for the suggestion
>and quick one too!

Then you need four (or more) Server 2003 systems. One is a dual Xeon
unit with 4 GB of RAM and a fast disk subsystem, preferably two
separate subsystems. This runs SQL. The second is a similar system,
running as a DC, DNS, DHCP and File/Print. The third is a replication
system of the second for redundancy. better would be each system
being duplicated and running 2003 Enterprise in clusters. Oh, and the
fourth is an Exchange server. If you use/need ISA that's a fifth (or
seventh if you're clustering) server.

All of which is overkill for 30 clients and a database. SBS 2003 on a
properly sized piece of hardware will handle your needs. As for the
server being down being a problem, make sure the server isn't down.
If a server with that minimal load is down any significant amount of
time, no operating system change will cure the issues you face.

Jeff

>"Terry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi Tam,
>>
>> If you have only 30 users then I would recommend that you reconsider the
>SBS
>> 2003 route. You will get far more functionality than from a Standard
>server.
>> You will pay far more for separate exchange etc. SBS really is the product
>> you should consider.
>>
>> If the network is running slow, then I would look at the Spec of the
>> server/hubs/infrastructure.
>>
>> I have networks running SBS2003 with far more users than this with no
>> problems regarding speed at all.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>> "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:OBH%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4 years
>but
>> > it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for different
>> > functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, however,
>when
>> > looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually assumes
>> > that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are
>nowhere
>> > near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5 right
>> across
>> > the street.
>> >
>> > I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find anything
>> there
>> > that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction we
>want
>> to
>> > go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage all
>I'm
>> > looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.
>> >
>> > Thanks very much for your help
>> > Tam
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Hello, thanks for the input, yeah I'm painfully aware of the potential costs
that might involve by switching to straight Windows 2003 be it Standard or
Enterprise, and to be honest, SBS 2003 does look good when you look from
that perspective, but somehow I'm still a little worried about the fact that
having only 1 machine for our network, perhaps there might be some other way
without going overboard with 7 servers for 30 users, and I totally agree
with you it's way overkill!
Thanks again Tam

"Jeff Cochran" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:26:28 -0500, "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Terry, thanks for the quick reply, I was given lots of thought about
SBS
> >2003, to us it would be a natural progression but I'm just have so much
pain
> >when the server is down, it practically brings the entire network down,
also
> >we have quite a few databases, some with over million records, so when
some
> >big queries run, it almost stops the server, as planning for disaster
> >recovery, may be I don't know enough but SBS doesn't seem to be well
> >prepared in this area....so those are few reasons why I did not want to
> >continue with SBS 2003 but thanks very much for the suggestion
> >and quick one too!
>
> Then you need four (or more) Server 2003 systems. One is a dual Xeon
> unit with 4 GB of RAM and a fast disk subsystem, preferably two
> separate subsystems. This runs SQL. The second is a similar system,
> running as a DC, DNS, DHCP and File/Print. The third is a replication
> system of the second for redundancy. better would be each system
> being duplicated and running 2003 Enterprise in clusters. Oh, and the
> fourth is an Exchange server. If you use/need ISA that's a fifth (or
> seventh if you're clustering) server.
>
> All of which is overkill for 30 clients and a database. SBS 2003 on a
> properly sized piece of hardware will handle your needs. As for the
> server being down being a problem, make sure the server isn't down.
> If a server with that minimal load is down any significant amount of
> time, no operating system change will cure the issues you face.
>
> Jeff
>
> >"Terry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Hi Tam,
> >>
> >> If you have only 30 users then I would recommend that you reconsider
the
> >SBS
> >> 2003 route. You will get far more functionality than from a Standard
> >server.
> >> You will pay far more for separate exchange etc. SBS really is the
product
> >> you should consider.
> >>
> >> If the network is running slow, then I would look at the Spec of the
> >> server/hubs/infrastructure.
> >>
> >> I have networks running SBS2003 with far more users than this with no
> >> problems regarding speed at all.
> >>
> >> HTH
> >>
> >> Terry
> >>
> >>
> >> "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:OBH%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4
years
> >but
> >> > it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for different
> >> > functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, however,
> >when
> >> > looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually
assumes
> >> > that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are
> >nowhere
> >> > near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5 right
> >> across
> >> > the street.
> >> >
> >> > I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find
anything
> >> there
> >> > that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction we
> >want
> >> to
> >> > go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage all
> >I'm
> >> > looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks very much for your help
> >> > Tam
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>

I agree with the other comments, SBS is the best bet for your needs you
discribed. However, if you are worried about a single point of failure and
since you were commenting that SQL was troublesome, you might consider
splitting off only that one function on a seperate server.

Also make sure your SQL tables are properly indexed an optimized. That will
make a big difference on performance. If you are running big queries for
reports and such, you might consider scheduling them to run over night when
there is less demand on the server.

-Mark

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


"IT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:em$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello, thanks for the input, yeah I'm painfully aware of the potential
costs
> that might involve by switching to straight Windows 2003 be it Standard or
> Enterprise, and to be honest, SBS 2003 does look good when you look from
> that perspective, but somehow I'm still a little worried about the fact
that
> having only 1 machine for our network, perhaps there might be some other
way
> without going overboard with 7 servers for 30 users, and I totally agree
> with you it's way overkill!
> Thanks again Tam
>
> "Jeff Cochran" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:26:28 -0500, "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Terry, thanks for the quick reply, I was given lots of thought about
> SBS
> > >2003, to us it would be a natural progression but I'm just have so much
> pain
> > >when the server is down, it practically brings the entire network down,
> also
> > >we have quite a few databases, some with over million records, so when
> some
> > >big queries run, it almost stops the server, as planning for disaster
> > >recovery, may be I don't know enough but SBS doesn't seem to be well
> > >prepared in this area....so those are few reasons why I did not want to
> > >continue with SBS 2003 but thanks very much for the suggestion
> > >and quick one too!
> >
> > Then you need four (or more) Server 2003 systems. One is a dual Xeon
> > unit with 4 GB of RAM and a fast disk subsystem, preferably two
> > separate subsystems. This runs SQL. The second is a similar system,
> > running as a DC, DNS, DHCP and File/Print. The third is a replication
> > system of the second for redundancy. better would be each system
> > being duplicated and running 2003 Enterprise in clusters. Oh, and the
> > fourth is an Exchange server. If you use/need ISA that's a fifth (or
> > seventh if you're clustering) server.
> >
> > All of which is overkill for 30 clients and a database. SBS 2003 on a
> > properly sized piece of hardware will handle your needs. As for the
> > server being down being a problem, make sure the server isn't down.
> > If a server with that minimal load is down any significant amount of
> > time, no operating system change will cure the issues you face.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > >"Terry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >> Hi Tam,
> > >>
> > >> If you have only 30 users then I would recommend that you reconsider
> the
> > >SBS
> > >> 2003 route. You will get far more functionality than from a Standard
> > >server.
> > >> You will pay far more for separate exchange etc. SBS really is the
> product
> > >> you should consider.
> > >>
> > >> If the network is running slow, then I would look at the Spec of the
> > >> server/hubs/infrastructure.
> > >>
> > >> I have networks running SBS2003 with far more users than this with no
> > >> problems regarding speed at all.
> > >>
> > >> HTH
> > >>
> > >> Terry
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "IT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >> news:OBH%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >> > Hello,
> > >> >
> > >> > I need to redesign our little network, it was SBS 4.5 for over 4
> years
> > >but
> > >> > it's now too slow, and we need to have separate servers for
different
> > >> > functions. I'm thinking of Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition,
however,
> > >when
> > >> > looking at some of the materials out there for W2003, it usually
> assumes
> > >> > that you have over 50 users, with multiple locations...and we are
> > >nowhere
> > >> > near that, only 20 users in 1 location and possibly another 5
right
> > >> across
> > >> > the street.
> > >> >
> > >> > I did look at Microsoft website and so far, can't really find
> anything
> > >> there
> > >> > that can help, unless I go to SBS2003, and it's not the direction
we
> > >want
> > >> to
> > >> > go. So any suggestions will be greatly appreciated, at this stage
all
> > >I'm
> > >> > looking for is basic network design with Internet connection.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks very much for your help
> > >> > Tam
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>