Server experts please

Hi guys,

I am currently doing some IT work for a business and they want to move their files onto a server so they can all access them and keep the files secure from some people and accessible to others.

Now, I know what to build them hardware wise, but OS-wise, what should I be looking at for stability, options and relatively easy to configure?
I would most likely need a Quad Core, 4GB RAM, RAID1 2x500GB HDD's (they have a total of 100GB data from the past 3 years so 500GB should be plenty) and Gigabit networking.

I have never used any Windows Server's before so I am totally new to this.

What should I be looking at and is it easy to configure everything?

Any possibilities for simultaneous remote desktops on different users? They want to be able to remote desktop at the same time doing different things.

Are the above possible?

Any advice or comments?

Much appreciated,
ps2cho

If this business already uses a Windows network, server 2003 R2 (standard Edition) is what I'd suggest. If they are small then SBS would also be a good choice and cheaper. I would also go RAID 5 over RAID 1.

Raid 5 or better
Server2k3 standard at least.

Its an architecture firm. Family owned and has about 6 computers.

They currently have a basic setup. Everybody has their own computers and does their own backups. They access each other using simple file sharing.

Thanks about RAID5. Could you explain it a little better? I understand it uses 3+ drives, but is backup data stored on (for instance using 4 drives) the 4th drive? Is it reliable? Obviously for a company intending to purchase a server to store ALL their data, reliability of their data is a primary concern.
So RAID5 if using 4x250GB HDD's would be 750GB? Correct me if I am wrong.

What about the remote desktop questions?

Also what about user access limitations? Is it difficult to setup?

I would have the server in my hands for a week before giving to him so I can fiddle and tweak around.

Use 2k3 as suggested above. SBS would be fine if they're under 75 users and don't need to use terminal services, although the licensing can get a little expensive. On the upside it also has exchange and sql(if you get premium) built in.

A raid 1 is fine really unless you're running a large sql or exchange database, and even then, you really have to get some pretty intensive i/o going on before the raid 5 will show a benefit. Otherwise in standard i/o situations it could even be slower, especially when writing large files. That would obviously not be the case if you were running writeback cache, but on a server unless your raid controller has a battery backup module you would NOT want to do that.

Raid 5/6's can be really sweet in terms of expandability though if your controller supports capacity additions. In that type of configuration, you can just hotplug an additional drive and expand your array to it. Then in windows you have some free space that you can add to the volume.

ps2cho said:

So RAID5 if using 4x250GB HDD's would be 750GB?

Click to expand...

Yep

What about the remote desktop questions?

Click to expand...

To the server or to their workstations? If to the server, you'd need 2k3 Standard for terminal services as SBS only has remote desktop.

Also what about user access limitations? Is it difficult to setup?

Click to expand...

Pretty easy, you'll have full file system permissions either by user or group.

About RAID 5 vs. RAID 1

The more drives you have, the more chance of failure. (statistically speaking)

RAID 5 has the advantage of greater storage space and better performance (think of it like a RAID 0 setup with many drives, but without the risk.)

RAID 1 is a little slow, so if they use their files a lot then go RAID 5.

RAID 10 is also an option. Four drives are used, and are setup into two RAID 1 pairs. The two pairs are then put in a RAID 0 setup. In effect the drives have performance almost that of RAID 0, but any one drive may fail.

For simplicity, RAID 1 or RAID 5 are the way to go IMO.

Get RAID 5 if they will utilize the server to any large extent to take advantage of the extra speed.

As you add more drives (four drives are TWICE as likely to fail as two drives), the failure rate increases. Alternatives to counter this are RAID setups like:

RAID 6 - same as RAID 5, but any two drives may fail
RAID 5E - A standard RAID 5, but with a hot spare (a backup drive that automatically takes over when one drive fails)

It comes down to what RAID controller card you can afford ad what performance you require.

On a side note, getting a RAID card instead of using the onboard RAID is generally a good idea, because you can migrate the RAID setup to any system (should hardware fail, like the motherboard)

FROM WIKI:

RAID 1:

Mirrored set without parity. Provides fault tolerance from disk errors and single disk failure. Increased read performance occurs when using a multi-threaded operating system that supports split seeks, very small performance reduction when writing. Array continues to operate so long as at least one drive is functioning.

RAID 5:

Striped set with distributed parity. Distributed parity requires all drives but one to be present to operate; drive failure requires replacement, but the array is not destroyed by a single drive failure. Upon drive failure, any subsequent reads can be calculated from the distributed parity such that the drive failure is masked from the end user. The array will have data loss in the event of a second drive failure and is vulnerable until the data that was on the failed drive is rebuilt onto a replacement drive.

RAID 6:

Striped set with dual parity. Provides fault tolerance from two drive failures; array continues to operate with up to two failed drives. This makes larger RAID groups more practical, especially for high availability systems. This becomes increasingly important because large-capacity drives lengthen the time needed to recover from the failure of a single drive. Single parity RAID levels are vulnerable to data loss until the failed drive is rebuilt: the larger the drive, the longer the rebuild will take. Dual parity gives time to rebuild the array without the data being at risk if one drive, but no more, fails before the rebuild is complete.

Click to expand...

Read more here

Allowing users to RDP into a fileserver is very unsecure.

On Windows 2003 Std, RDP allows 2 users plus a console user to log in remotely. Altenatively you can run in TS Application mode and allow as many users as you have TS seats purchased.

Just a reminder, for regular file sharing since they only have 6 computers, wouldn't XP Pro or 2000 Pro be fine? And isn't quad core WAY overkill? EDIT: I guess If you NEED remote desktop terminal services 2003 is the way to go. But XP + VNC is cheap and works good.

Why on earth do they NEED remote desktop anyway?

Ebola made a good point, it is very risky

aja said:

Why on earth do they NEED remote desktop anyway?

Ebola made a good point, it is very risky

Click to expand...

I find myself frequently accessing my MySQL / Web server with remote desktop.

aja said:

Why on earth do they NEED remote desktop anyway?

Ebola made a good point, it is very risky

Click to expand...

They like to do work from home that is the reason why.
All the computers in the network run XP Home/Pro. Is there no alternative to allow more than one person using the computer at once?

Also you must remember these people have no idea about computers. Remote desktop is about as far as they would go.

You guys think Quad core is overkill considering they want to use this more than a file server? They may migrate their surveillance camera data onto it too, maybe stream it. Would a dual core be a better choice?

I guess RAID5 will be the best option for HDD's.

Are there any good websites that I can learn functions of Server 2003 from? I would like to read up how to restrict folder access to certain users on the network.

Keep them off the server. Seriously. If they know nothing about computers, KEEP THEM OFF THE SERVER. I don't care if they own it, keep them off of it LOL. Even my uber-controlling CFO understood that, and called us in if she needed something done or pulled from the server.

-Server 2k3 is the way to go.
-Set up a public share that is not backed up. Make sure they know this.
-Set up an archive folder. Files in this folder are moved to disk or an external drive after some period of time. This will be necessary after a while, trust me
-Backup the array data that needs to be backed up to an external drive, or one in the server that is not on the array controller (say, a 750GB SATA drive that is data only). Back up to it once a week. If this drive dies, it doesn't matter, but if the array dies, you will be everyone's hero when you pull that drive out of your *** and say HEY GUYS LOOKIE WHAT I GOT with a big cheesy grin on your face
-Set up user shares based on account/password. Active directory would be best here, but local accounts will do. It has the drawback of losing access if someone changes their password though. To fix that, the local account on the server must be changed as well.

If they want to remote in, set up VPN on a business-grade router (netgear will do if you are new to this) and have them VPN into the network and RDP their own computers. The server is not involved in this at all. Like I said, keep them off of the server.

-On each machine set up a network drive (I use U: ) for their personal folders, and P: (again your preference) for the public share. Have a 3rd party program back up any folders they want backed up (my docs, Pro Engineer work, etc) to the server, under the U: drive. Use third party that supports to folders they can access, and not windows backup that uses .bkp files (what a pain). I find Handy Backup very useful and cheap (and idiot-resistant), but it's up the you and them. Arcserve is a POS, don't use that.

On a side note, RAID5 with 4x250 will not give you 750GB. Take a 3rd off of each drive, that is your space available. I have 3x400GB on my file server w/ RAID5 and I have 750GB. I have one more as a hot spare. With 3x250 you will have ~500GB available, and ALWAYS have a hot spare. Trust me, I have been down this road more than once, and if you add all drives to the array, you will regret it when your data is there but the server can't boot and use it until you have a replacement drive to rebuild the array with!

^^ no user should access a server directly PERIOD!! EVER they have no need for it

if they want to access a web site for something, make an FTp account to upload / download edit files

for MySQL create secure account and encrypted connections for them to connect to, but only give access to tables needed.

if you start letting people access what ever they "think" they need, you will be re-building the server every other day cause someone accidentally did something, but no one will ever own upto it.

Hell, in my opinion even dual core is overkill. But I guess a conroe or dual Opteron would be a good choice. And I wouldn't let them RDC into the server either.

ok points taken. File server and back ups only.

I guess a dual core will be more appropriate. Something like a 1.6GHz Conroe.

Thank you for your suggestion about a single big drive to house everything. I will definitely do that. Their total data for 3 years is 80GB, so a 500GB RAID5 will be absolutely fine. I will do 4x250GB then ONE single 500GB HDD with weekly backups. Sound good?

Should I be needing a RAID controller or will integrated motherboard ones do? I have never set up an array either.

Like I said, I will tell him to give me a week to tinker around so I am comfortable before handing it over.

Buy a hardware RAID controller, such as a 3ware card. They aren't cheap, but they are the cat's meow when it comes to longevity and stability.

How do they increase longevity?

Arcea / 3ware/ high point all make good controllers, for a decent one your probably looking at the $250 or higher..

also perhaps do the raid system with a hot spare, or make sure you have at least one drive stored away for immediate switch out incase one dies.

normal SATA drives tend to die faster being in raid arrays (experience here) Segates ES2 drives are pretty dam good, vs their standard drives.

ps2cho said:

How do they increase longevity?

Click to expand...

They themselves last longer than, say, onboard controllers. Usually they outlive the motherboard.

This has the advantage of moving an array across to a new platform. If the array is not the boot partition (or if the data and boot are on the array but separate) then you can keep the data despite a new OS install