Re: Windows 2003 Standard, Exchange 2003, Terminal Services

They have a dual core 2.0 gig processor with a slot to add
another if
needed.  4 GB of RAM is what they started out with but that
can be
expanded easily and it is understood that it might need to
be depending
on performance.

Currently they're running a RAID 5 with 3 146 GB 10K hard
drives.  This
was because they needed the redundancy and size of storage,
not
necessarily the speed.

They will have about 25-30 in-office users (email, print,
files) and
only 2-3 regular Terminal Server users (most likely it will
only be 1
or 2 remotely on a regular basis).

They originally looked at SBS and that is what I
recommended, but SBS
does not allow TS licenses to be installed.  They decided to
go with
2003 Standard and purchase the additional licenses for the
other
products instead of purchasing a second box for the TS,
which is what I
would have preferred they do.

Thanks,

Josh


Justin Brown - SYNACS wrote:
> That sounds like a lot of load on one server? How many
users will be
> accessing this server, either locally or via Terminal
Services? Do they
> have an appropriate grade processor, lots of Gigs of
memory, and a RAID
> 1 or 0+1 array?
>
> Another question that comes to mind is that if they are
on a budget,
> why didn't they choose Small Business Server 2003 R2?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Windows 2003" group.
To post to this group, send email to Windows2003googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Windows2003-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Windows2003?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I would install Exchange before TS as Exchange adds alot of
new
information to the AD schema.

You should be ok with all that on one box., but it will run
like
molasses.  I would add another processor and another 4 gigs
of memory
to be on the safe side.

--sean

On Jan 20, 9:36 am, "Josh Mikow" <jmi...gmail.com> wrote:
> They have a dual core 2.0 gig processor with a slot to
add another if
> needed.  4 GB of RAM is what they started out with but
that can be
> expanded easily and it is understood that it might need
to be depending
> on performance.
>
> Currently they're running a RAID 5 with 3 146 GB 10K
hard drives.  This
> was because they needed the redundancy and size of
storage, not
> necessarily the speed.
>
> They will have about 25-30 in-office users (email,
print, files) and
> only 2-3 regular Terminal Server users (most likely it
will only be 1
> or 2 remotely on a regular basis).
>
> They originally looked at SBS and that is what I
recommended, but SBS
> does not allow TS licenses to be installed.  They
decided to go with
> 2003 Standard and purchase the additional licenses for
the other
> products instead of purchasing a second box for the TS,
which is what I
> would have preferred they do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Josh
>
> Justin Brown - SYNACS wrote:
>
> > That sounds like a lot of load on one server? How
many users will be
> > accessing this server, either locally or via
Terminal Services? Do they
> > have an appropriate grade processor, lots of Gigs
of memory, and a RAID
> > 1 or 0+1 array?
>
> > Another question that comes to mind is that if
they are on a budget,
> > why didn't they choose Small Business Server 2003
R2?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Windows 2003" group.
To post to this group, send email to Windows2003googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Windows2003-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Windows2003?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---