Building Server for Small Business LAN

[wils0431]

I am building a server for 3-10 people to access in a small office. I will be running Windows 2003 Server, Exchange, SQL Server, and the computer will be used for internal purposes only (LAN only, no web hosting). The main use will be file sharing/storage (might also use MS SharePoint). I will have 2 300GB Raid 1 SATA/150 drives. I am also set on 32-bit processing.

What are your suggestions for motherboard, FSB, RAM, Processor Speed/Type, FSB, L2 Cache, etc.

What are the trade offs and limiting factors for fast file sharing over networks. Whats a must have vs. nice to have for this application. I want to build it as inexpensivly as possible (don't need a cadillac).

[doctorgonzo]

How much will this server be used for database tasks in SQL Server? Is that going to be a big role? What is your current network setup? The bottleneck in file sharing is network speed in general, so if you have a 10 Mbps Ethernet network even the most expensive Cadillac of servers isn't going to be able to share files any faster.

[arix]

For a server go with an opteron or xeon procesor since they where designed for those tasks and for the mobo check the MSI boards they seem to be good for small servers go here u will catch good prices www.pricewatch.com

[wils0431]

Each computer will have a 10/100mps card and be within close proximity to the server and hub (less than 100 feet).

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by wils0431 Each computer will have a 10/100mps card and be within close proximity to the server and hub (less than 100 feet).

What about the rest of the network? Are you using switches or hubs? What speed are they running at? What's the topology?

[arix]

a 100mbps seems to be ok

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by wils0431 I will be running Windows 2003 Server, Exchange, SQL Server, and the computer will be used for internal purposes only (LAN only, no web hosting). The main use will be file sharing/storage (might also use MS SharePoint).

Nothing you explained here is overly resource (CPU) intensive. Unless you plan on extremely heavy use of SQL based apps (I take it as no since SharePoint is a maybe) or are considering running a terminal server, you will be fine using a P4 or even a Celeron processor. Exchange will use about 500-600MB of RAM constantly, so you want a minimum of 2GB in the server.

[wils0431]

using a 10/100 8-port hub - should I consider a switch instead? what is the incremental value? Assuming, I can get the network up to 100mps, what are the best componted otherwise?

[doctorgonzo]

Yes, you should definitely consider a switch instead, one that can run at 100 Mbps. With a hub, you are not using as much bandwidth as you could be.

As faulkner pointed out, you are going to want as much RAM as possible. If you aren't going to be doing much database stuff, then processor speed really isn't a huge issue. File serving is not processor-intensive.

[piasabird]

Would be just as easy to install Novell SUSE on a box and use Samba to share the files. File sharing is pretty easy you dont really need a server for that. An XP Box can do the same thing. An SQL SERVER and a database system really needs a good server.

Whatever you do have a backup device. Something always goes wrong sooner or later. If you put everones files on a server eventually the server quits and everyone will want their data right now.

My Linksys workgroup switch supports duplex mode with a theoretical speed of 200mbps. Probably most switches do the same thing. Ideally I would suggest Gigabit over copper between the switch and the server if you can afford it. That would mean a gigabit server card and a switch with one gigabit port for higher throughput. 3-10 is not that large of a number unless huge amounts of data or datamining is going on.

We have several MS servers on our Lan at work. They can be a hassle to set up for some applications. Of course so would a Linux server. We had an outfit from Chicago set up our servers and they installed one of them wrong. You have to indicate domain setup or some other type. Anyway one server was set up as a domain which we dont have, and the other was set up differently and it caused so many conflicts nothing wanted to work right. It is always better to set it up right the first time.