| Author |
Message |
Kenneth
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 5:00 am Post subject:
True "server" or "P to P server"...? |
|
|
Howdy,
We currently have 5 systems in our small office.
They are all Win 2000 Pro boxes.
Our data access needs are extremely modest. We never have
more than two people accessing data at a given time.
We store data on one of the systems, and that system is also
used as a workstation (yes I know it is considered bad
practice).
We are now considering alternatives:
We could add another system (peer to peer), and use it
exclusively as a repository for our data.
Or, we could put in a true server.
I know that the purchase of even a very modest server would
cost approximately three times as much as the peer to peer
approach. In addition, it would require the time to set it
up, which, because of its unfamiliar software, would be far
more complicated than setting up another system like those
we now have.
I am told that a server "would be better" but am having
trouble learning just how that would be true.
Can you provide some further information, or perhaps point
me to other resources that would help me to sort this out?
Very sincere thanks,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Herb Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 8:05 am Post subject:
Re: True "server" or "P to P server"...? |
|
|
Before we begin: Recognize that these terms
have lost much of their original distinctions and
that almost all machines today are "servers for
some services", "clients for others", and sometimes
both.
Although we really cannot speak precisely about
"server" and "client" unless we specify the particular
service (and more), generally the distinction you
suggest is between a machine that primary provides
resources and is not used as a personal workstation
and one which is primary used by a user but also
provides some resources as a secondary function.
"Kenneth" <usenet@SPAMLESSsoleassociates.com> wrote in message
news:eprrs0todr7q27ln2jedplnmkc4t37t260@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
We currently have 5 systems in our small office.
They are all Win 2000 Pro boxes.
Our data access needs are extremely modest. We never have
more than two people accessing data at a given time.
We store data on one of the systems, and that system is also
used as a workstation (yes I know it is considered bad
practice).
|
Not necessarily. This is part of the reason that
Microsoft systems offer this flexibility.
| Quote: | We are now considering alternatives:
We could add another system (peer to peer), and use it
exclusively as a repository for our data.
Or, we could put in a true server.
|
"True server"? Remember that all Windowws machines
are both servers and clients for many built in services,
especially file, print, and web.
Microsoft sells "Server products" and "Workstation
products" but much of the distinction is cost and licensing
(number of connections.)
The issue may be as simple as licensing (cost) and which
product.
Workstation class products allow up to 10 simutaneous
connections and you are not even approaching this
threshold.
| Quote: | I know that the purchase of even a very modest server would
cost approximately three times as much as the peer to peer
approach. In addition, it would require the time to set it
|
Not really. The hardware costs could be exactly the same
and the software would cost something like $300-700 more
so at worst the difference would likely be only double,
maybe much less.
| Quote: | up, which, because of its unfamiliar software, would be far
more complicated than setting up another system like those
we now have.
|
No, that isn't true either. The server product is roughly
the same as the workstation product UNTIL you add services
not supported by the workstation.
| Quote: | I am told that a server "would be better" but am having
trouble learning just how that would be true.
|
Who told you this? And what were there reasons?
You have offered nothing that suggests this is (automatically)
true.
| Quote: | Can you provide some further information, or perhaps point
me to other resources that would help me to sort this out?
|
Up to about 5-10 users you MIGHT be better off with
the workstation product.
| Quote: | Very sincere thanks,
|
--
Herb Martin
| Quote: |
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kenneth
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:20 pm Post subject:
Re: True "server" or "P to P server"...? |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:05:00 -0600, "Herb Martin"
<news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Before we begin: Recognize that these terms
have lost much of their original distinctions and
that almost all machines today are "servers for
some services", "clients for others", and sometimes
both.
Although we really cannot speak precisely about
"server" and "client" unless we specify the particular
service (and more), generally the distinction you
suggest is between a machine that primary provides
resources and is not used as a personal workstation
and one which is primary used by a user but also
provides some resources as a secondary function.
"Kenneth" <usenet@SPAMLESSsoleassociates.com> wrote in message
news:eprrs0todr7q27ln2jedplnmkc4t37t260@4ax.com...
We currently have 5 systems in our small office.
They are all Win 2000 Pro boxes.
Our data access needs are extremely modest. We never have
more than two people accessing data at a given time.
We store data on one of the systems, and that system is also
used as a workstation (yes I know it is considered bad
practice).
Not necessarily. This is part of the reason that
Microsoft systems offer this flexibility.
We are now considering alternatives:
We could add another system (peer to peer), and use it
exclusively as a repository for our data.
Or, we could put in a true server.
"True server"? Remember that all Windowws machines
are both servers and clients for many built in services,
especially file, print, and web.
Microsoft sells "Server products" and "Workstation
products" but much of the distinction is cost and licensing
(number of connections.)
The issue may be as simple as licensing (cost) and which
product.
Workstation class products allow up to 10 simutaneous
connections and you are not even approaching this
threshold.
I know that the purchase of even a very modest server would
cost approximately three times as much as the peer to peer
approach. In addition, it would require the time to set it
Not really. The hardware costs could be exactly the same
and the software would cost something like $300-700 more
so at worst the difference would likely be only double,
maybe much less.
up, which, because of its unfamiliar software, would be far
more complicated than setting up another system like those
we now have.
No, that isn't true either. The server product is roughly
the same as the workstation product UNTIL you add services
not supported by the workstation.
I am told that a server "would be better" but am having
trouble learning just how that would be true.
Who told you this? And what were there reasons?
You have offered nothing that suggests this is (automatically)
true.
Can you provide some further information, or perhaps point
me to other resources that would help me to sort this out?
Up to about 5-10 users you MIGHT be better off with
the workstation product.
Very sincere thanks,
|
Hi Herb,
Please accept my thanks...
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in