Setting up a 'server' PC

[ghosthunter]

NAS really isn't an option. The data file need a host PC for it to be accessed. I already have a Western Digital NAS and I really can't use it for this purpose.

Are there Atom motherboards with RAID capability?

Not sure. But the ones I have used didn't have RAID capability.

Our office server has a native SATA RAID on the motherboard but it's a typical ATX type Pentium4 Dual Core motherboard. I was specific in requiring SATA RAID capable motherboard when setting it up.

HDD mirroring is done as a backup but primary back up is still done by copying the data to USB flash drives everyday.

[badsekktor]

It might have been many years since I have been a computer network tech but I think I am not suggesting a battleship to patrol a small river.

it seems that you have acquired a habit of giving snide remarks... tsk.....

i think there is a term for that... flaming?

[ghosthunter]

it seems that you have acquired a habit of giving snide remarks... tsk.....

i think there is a term for that... flaming?

Come on, it doesn't take much to know that what you were suggesting was overkill from the start. You already read the initial post YET you would go suggesting an enterprise level server where a simple file server built on an ordinary PC would be more than sufficient?

I might make side comments but based on what was already posted in this thread, your "suggested" setup is still an overkill. Maybe you should have known better even before suggesting it at all.

If you are offended by my comment, send it to boybi to see what he thinks.

[ghosthunter]

http://askville.amazon.com/hardware-...estId=12870452

Recommended System Configuration:
========================
QuickBooks Pro/Premier on XP:
-------------------------------------
- At least 1.8GHz processor, 2.0GHz recommended
- At least 256MB (512MB recommended) of RAM for a single user
- At least 512MB of RAM for multiple, concurrent users
- 1 GB of disk space (additional space required for data files)

QuickBooks Pro/Premier on Vista:
---------------------------------------
- At least 2.0GHz processor
- At least 512MB of RAM (1GB recommended)
- 1 GB of disk space (additional space required for data files)

Disk Space requirements for additional software:
=====================================
- 50MB for Microsoft .NET 2.0 Runtime, provided on the QuickBooks CD
- Google Desktop Search (in-product search) space requirements are determined by the size of the company file and the nature of usage. It is not unusual for indices to be as large as 1GB

Additional Hardware and Software:
========================
Operating Systems supported:
------------------------------------
- Windows XP (SP2 or later strongly recommended), all editions
- Windows 2003 Server
- Windows Vista, all editions
- Windows Longhorn Server (database only, not client)

- 4x CD-ROM drive
- Optimized for 1024x768 screen resolution or higher, supports 800x600 using "Small fontsÓ setting in your Windows control panel display settings

Database Server requirements:
=======================
- Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later strongly recommended), Windows 2003 Server, Windows Vista, or Windows Longhorn Server operating systems
- Linux is supported for Enterprise Solutions only (SUSE 10.2, fedora 6)

File Server requirements:
=====================
- Novell Netware server or Linux/Samba file servers can be used with advanced configuration; performance will be impacted on networks running less than 100Mbps

Integration/compatibility requirements:
===========================
- QuickBooks is capable of integrating with hundreds of 3rd party applications (see http://www.marketplace.intuit.com for the most up-to-date list) in addition to the following standard integrations provided with QuickBooks, additional RAM will enhance the use of these features:
- Preparing letters requires Microsoft Word 2000, 2002, 2003 or 2007
- Exporting reports requires Microsoft Excel 2000, 2002, 2003 or 2007
- Contact Synchronization with Microsoft Outlook requires Outlook 2000, 2002, 2003 or 2007
- Synchronization with Outlook requires QuickBooks Contact Sync for Outlook (downloadable for free here: http://www.quickbooks.com/contact_sync)
- Compatible with QuickBooks Customer Manager V2.0 and later, and QuickBooks -Client Manager v2.0 and later
- Compatible with QuickBooks Point of Sale v4.0 and later
- Business Planner functionality requires Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 and later
- Payroll and other online features and services require internet access with at least a 56Kbps connection speed (DSL or cable modem recommended)

[ghosthunter]

Based on the posted requirements, anything powerful enough to run Windows XP or Vista quickly should be good enough.

[badsekktor]

Come on, it doesn't take much to know that what you were suggesting was overkill from the start. You already read the initial post YET you would go suggesting an enterprise level server where a simple file server built on an ordinary PC would be more than sufficient?

I might make side comments but based on what was already posted in this thread, your "suggested" setup is still an overkill. Maybe you should have known better even before suggesting it at all.

Wow! in the first place, i asked clarificatory questions so that i would know what type of server is needed. I have read the posts and I believe that it is quite incomplete that is why i asked follow up questions.

Second, a file server is very much different from a database server. you could ask around tsikot and we have lots of SAP consultants here that would confirm this. I know M2 is a SAP consultant and he would also tell you that a simple file server is quite different from a database server.

Now it all boils down to affordability and importance of your system. are you going to invest or not? that is why IT is being referred to as a cost center of a company since it entails huge investments.

anyway the topic has nothing to do with you giving snide remarks. you give uneccessary impolite remarks not only to me but to others who think differently or have suggested other options. I dont know if you have some issues in your head but i do think that your flaming attitude should be controlled.

It seems that you have problems boosting your ego that is why you create threads that are, should i say "ego boosters" and you tend to flame members that gives other options other than the one you are suggesting. You could disagree with another poster but you should do it in a nice way. Maybe you just need to learn how.

[badsekktor]

http://askville.amazon.com/hardware-...estId=12870452

if this is the case then boybi doesnt need to get a new system. I believe he already have a core 2 duo which freezes from time to time. You see there is a difference between running a program and running a system smoothly.

[ghosthunter]

Wow! in the first place, i asked clarificatory questions so that i would know what type of server is needed. I have read the posts and I believe that it is quite incomplete that is why i asked follow up questions.

Second, a file server is very much different from a database server. you could ask around tsikot and we have lots of SAP consultants here that would confirm this. I know M2 is a SAP consultant and he would also tell you that a simple file server is quite different from a database server.

Now it all boils down to affordability and importance of your system. are you going to invest or not? that is why IT is being referred to as a cost center of a company since it entails huge investments.

anyway the topic has nothing to do with you giving snide remarks. you give uneccessary impolite remarks not only to me but to others who think differently or have suggested other options. I dont know if you have some issues in your head but i do think that your flaming attitude should be controlled.

It seems that you have problems boosting your ego that is why you create threads that are, should i say "ego boosters" and you tend to flame members that gives other options other than the one you are suggesting. You could disagree with another poster but you should do it in a nice way. Maybe you just need to learn how.

I believe you are only angry because I was against your recommendation. I made a simple analogy with my battleship remark and here you go saying I am having an ego trip.

Maybe you should try to sit down and take a deep breath before anything else.

If I intended to flame you, it would have been much clearer than that. I think you have seen examples in the past.

Anyway, back to the item on hand....

[ghosthunter]

if this is the case then boybi doesnt need to get a new system. I believe he already have a core 2 duo which freezes from time to time. You see there is a difference between running a program and running a system smoothly.

Actually that is true. All he needs is another PC to play his games and other stuff with so he doesn't need to use the current PC used for the database.

As he mentioned, it only slows or freezes when he is playing games, etc on it.

[Jun aka Pekto]

I have setup a home/office network with the PCs in my house and the office. My problem now is which computer should I put the company data file.

1. The computer in my bedroom is ON 24/7, which I think is the best candidate to host the company file. But whenever I'll go on a trip, I always turn OFF this PC and I lock the door of the room.

2. The office have 2 PCs, one is used by my wife but is seldomly turned ON, so this PC can't be used to host the file.

3. The other computer is for the secretary. This computer is turned ON when the secretary arrives and turned OFF when she leaves. This is a very old computer that I used for more than 6yrs already before I transferred it to the office. So I'm not sure if the file will be safe in this computer.

4. Should I add another computer to the office to act as a dedicated server to host the file?

I want the PC hosting the file to be ON 24/7 so I can access it anytime, even at home in my room. So which PC should host the company file?

A new pc obviously. For me, I keep critical work/finance related stuff separate from my regular computers at home. The more self-contained,the better.

As what others have suggested, I'd go for a relatively low-end pc, preferably the low power draw, Intel Atom-based ones as GH has suggested.

The only exception from the low-end specs may be to get an SSD hard drive which should serve well for continuous 24-hour ops.

[ghosthunter]

The only exception from the low-end specs may be to get an SSD hard drive which should serve well for continuous 24-hour ops.

I feel the cost of the typical SSD drive is too expensive. The price of a 64gig SSD would be enough to buy a Seagate 3.5in 1tb HDD.

The premium of a SDD would be best in a mobile PC (netbook, notebook). Given the computer would not be moved from place to place, I would rather have a standard HDD or two.

Maybe spend a little more on a premium power supply which would minimize it's potential to fail (or redundant PS system).

[Jun aka Pekto]

I feel the cost of the typical SSD drive is too expensive. The price of a 64gig SSD would be enough to buy a Seagate 3.5in 1tb HDD.

The premium of a SDD would be best in a mobile PC (netbook, notebook). Given the computer would not be moved from place to place, I would rather have a standard HDD or two.

Maybe spend a little more on a premium power supply which would minimize it's potential to fail (or redundant PS system).

The Seagate is a good suggestion. If it's not mission-critical, I'd go with the Seagate myself.

But, we just recently had a hard drive crash (dead, kaput) on a 24/7 pc used for realtime weather data at work.

I figured an SSD drive will pay for itself through its longevity. No moving parts mean less wear and tear. For a drive that will be frequently accessed 24/7, to me it's a worthwhile investment (and which I'm trying to get funds for at work).

Whether an SSD drive is worth it will depend on Boybi himself since only he knows how important his requirements are. He's going to have to list the pros and cons of each and decide which one fits his needs the most.

Me, if there were SSD's earlier, I'd definitely have them.

[ghosthunter]

But SDDs themselves are subject to wear & tear. Each memory location has a limited number of read/write cycles that can be done. So even if a SSD might seem to be more long lasting & durable, it is only against mechanical damage. Too many read/write cycles will cause failure of a memory location. Not sure if the current SDD drives have built in controllers/software to distribute the read/write cycles over the entire storage media.

Hmmm, maybe another brand would be better than Seagate? WD perhaps?

[Jun aka Pekto]

But SDDs themselves are subject to wear & tear. Each memory location has a limited number of read/write cycles that can be done. So even if a SSD might seem to be more long lasting & durable, it is only against mechanical damage. Too many read/write cycles will cause failure of a memory location. Not sure if the current SDD drives have built in controllers/software to distribute the read/write cycles over the entire storage media.

Hmmm, maybe another brand would be better than Seagate? WD perhaps?

Hmmm. I thought it was only the write cycles that affected the lifespan of SSD drives. I was assuming Boybi intended the server for read access only versus writing to the drive.

Well, if it's read and write that affects the lifespan of SSD drives, might as well stick with a regular hard drive then.

In my scenario with the weather pc, an SSD would've worked great.

[boybi]

Cool lang kayo mga tech gurus, baka mas uminit pa kayo kesa sa PC system ko dito

badsekktor, hindi po kami malaking company that would require that much powerful server. As I've posted, in the 7 months that we've been using QB, the data file now is just less than 40mb. My QB license is just for 3 simultaneous users. If we'll ever expand, baka max na ang 5 users. So I guess kahit siguro a core2duo system would be enough? I'll just find a motherboard with RAID capability put 2 HDDs, and 3gb ram. Ok na siguro ito?

[badsekktor]

This is what I am talking about. we could disagree with each other but we could do it in a nice way. We should avoid making unecessary remarks if our ideas are opposing.

Anyway, we are also forgetting some factors, like budget constraints and number of users. QB is a good software for FS and utilizing its full features eats up a lot of space and resources. It is up to our TS what option he would choose since he is the one who fully understands what his operation needs. We are simply basing our conclusions from what is presented to us.

[ghosthunter]

badsekktor, hindi po kami malaking company that would require that much powerful server. As I've posted, in the 7 months that we've been using QB, the data file now is just less than 40mb. My QB license is just for 3 simultaneous users. If we'll ever expand, baka max na ang 5 users. So I guess kahit siguro a core2duo system would be enough? I'll just find a motherboard with RAID capability put 2 HDDs, and 3gb ram. Ok na siguro ito?

Should be more than enough. We have a similar spec system (just 2gb ram and twin 80gb SATA hdd on RAID1) and running Windows XP. It houses our database with normally two users accessing with peak of five users (but happens a few days in a month).

The only other function of this PC is to share the printers for other users.

I suggest avoid getting the cheap PC power supply and spend some money on a good quality PS. If not, just have a spare PS available for a quick swap to minimize down time.

[badsekktor]

Cool lang kayo mga tech gurus, baka mas uminit pa kayo kesa sa PC system ko dito

badsekktor, hindi po kami malaking company that would require that much powerful server. As I've posted, in the 7 months that we've been using QB, the data file now is just less than 40mb. My QB license is just for 3 simultaneous users. If we'll ever expand, baka max na ang 5 users. So I guess kahit siguro a core2duo system would be enough? I'll just find a motherboard with RAID capability put 2 HDDs, and 3gb ram. Ok na siguro ito?

yep ok na yan bro! basta make your system lean, meaning walang ibang nakainstall kundi OS at yun quickbooks. kung plano mo maginstall ng antivirus, try mo yun hindi makain sa resources. avoid mcaffee and symantec, ok sana ang mga to kaso sobrang lakas magpabagal ng server.

since sa tingin ko eh ikaw na din ang magmemaintain ng system, try reading about system administration sa net kapag may free time ka lalo na about database servers. meron naman forums para sa IT techies and you could always ask them if you have problems.

tip nga pala, wag ka basta-basta maguupdate ng OS ng server. delay mo muna ang updates and examine mo muna bago mo install yun updates. better yet, try searching for reviews on updates before installing them sa system mo, mamaya kasi baka after mong mag-update biglang hindi mo ma-access yun database mo or biglang ma corrupt yun file. nangyari sa min dati yun, yun list ng suppliers info namin nabura lahat. lahat ng transactions with suppliers, corrupted lahat ng data.

Suggestion ko sa yo, yun lumang pc mo sa room mo ang gawin mong server, then bili ka ng bagong gaming system na mas high end hehehehe!

[boybi]

Suggestion ko sa yo, yun lumang pc mo sa room mo ang gawin mong server, then bili ka ng bagong gaming system na mas high end hehehehe!

Hehe, I was thinking about this, but my motherboard doesn't support RAID Although, naka setup naman itong system ko to backup the database to another HD every midnight. Pwede na ba ganitong pagbackup or should I really opt for a RAID setup?

[ghosthunter]

Hehe, I was thinking about this, but my motherboard doesn't support RAID Although, naka setup naman itong system ko to backup the database to another HD every midnight. Pwede na ba ganitong pagbackup or should I really opt for a RAID setup?

A full RAID1 system would be best because if the either HDD fails, you can still run the system from the remaining HDD. Replace the faulty HDD and the RAID1 system will rebuild itself.

A daily backup is good only a precaution. But if the primary HDD fails, getting the system back up will take a few hours at least. You can do a disk image to the 2nd HDD to minimize downtime but it might take a long time to do a disk image every night.