Kyle, thanks for your response.
Not a good reason and it will sound stupid, but I was at an accounting
technology conference and one of the speakers (very knowledgeable) said I
needed a server after I had briefly described my system; in his defense, my
comment was made from the floor without a detailed discussion between the
two of us.
We do have a small office network and it works for us. All data is on the
one machine and I backup daily to an external HD via USB. I don't plan to
host my own mail server. I want to move to digital records management and
have looked at several applications. A support person for one vendor said
their product would work with a peer to peer, but was designed for and works
better with a server. He said I would notice a performance hit when using
OCR. Their system requirements strongly suggest Windows Server 2003. In
moving towards digital records management, I am considering RAID.
I have no experience nor much knowledge with networks other than my peer to
peer. Based on what you've said and a local consultant they sound more
involved than I want to delve into myself.
I do enjoy "making things work" but I might have to defer or forego any
enjoyment from setting up and maintaining a network.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Personal Computer Hardware discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kyle Elmblade
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCBUILD] Networking
Hi Jeff,
What is your purpose for going server based? Do you desire to host your own
mail server or create a shared database? Do you need a file share in a
central location for backup purposes? Is there some other reason you believe
you need a server?
It sounds like what you have is a small office network. Going to a server
based network is a significant increase in cost, both for the hardware and
the operating system. Printer and scanner sharing is not a significant
enough motivation for moving to a server based network in my opinion (I'm
sure other opinions will vary). If you had 15 or 20 nodes I would reconsider
as administration can start becoming a real headache at that point. With
less than 10 systems, though, you would need a significant reason for
needing a server.
If you are not familiar with server/client administration, you need to take
into account the learning curve as well. Will you use a workgroup? Or will
you create a domain? Are you familiar with Active Directory? Will you want
to use Windows Small Business Server? Is the expense worth it for
administrating users on such a small scale?
The question of ongoing maintenance is along the same lines of "how long is
a string?" If you are creating a simple file server for a central backup
location, user administration, and printers, it shouldn't be that bad. If
you are building an Exchange or SQL server, maintenance will be more
constant. It really depends on what all you plan on doing.
We can probably provide much more comprehensive assistance if we know
exactly what your aim is in having a server.
Regards,
Kyle Elmblade
[log in to unmask]
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Jeff Long <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am looking for opinions on the benefits and costs of a server vs peer to
> peer.
>
> We currently have a peer to peer network with 4 computers: 3 machines
> running XP Home, 1 box I built running Win2K, and 3 printers. I will
> eventually add a scanner. 2 computers have printers attached directly.
>
> I had some help setting up the network, but maintain it myself.
>
> How much ongoing maintenance is involved in a small server-based network?
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> Jeff
>
> Do you want to signoff PCBUILD or just change to
> Digest mode - visit our web site:
> http://freepctech.com/pcbuild.shtml
>
The NOSPIN Group is now offering Free PC Tech
support at our newest website:
http://freepctech.com
PCBUILD maintains hundreds of useful files for download
visit our download web page at:
http://freepctech.com/downloads.shtml
|
