ClioSport.net
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
What server would you use for a DC?
- Thread starter cava83
- Start date
RB 182FF, Saxo Track Car.
what the f***s a DC?
RS 200
Our primary Domain Controller is virtual on VMWare ESX which is on a HP DL380 G5. Our backup domain controller is on a physical box which is a HP DL380 G4.
Better than yours. C*nt.
Care to elaborate? We use a HP 1/8 G2 Autoloader (920) and it's the dog's. Transfer rate is a shade over 2GB/min, does everything we need of it...
Rav4
HP DL360, DL380
Dell PE1950, PE2950, PE2900 (Rack chassis)
Dell R200 would even do really....? Heh. Or even a HP DL160.
Depends on how redundant you want it etc too?
Any is fine.. I'd be more bothered about specification than brand of server... then from there, go to your preferred manufacturer.
Dell PE1950, PE2950, PE2900 (Rack chassis)
Dell R200 would even do really....? Heh. Or even a HP DL160.
Depends on how redundant you want it etc too?
Any is fine.. I'd be more bothered about specification than brand of server... then from there, go to your preferred manufacturer.
Better than yours. C*nt.
New job.............................................. oh dear!!!
New job, new house, new bird... All change! :clown:
Rav4
Rav4
I pressume for a DC a minimum spec will do really,
All they are going to be doing is AD, DHCP and DNS, therefore two servers per site with single processors running at 2.4GHz with minimum of 512 should be fine......
It's interesting, because everyone thinks completely different
Wish there was a case study, with a complete solution to it............... makes things easier to understand why certain things are done with good reasoning.
All they are going to be doing is AD, DHCP and DNS, therefore two servers per site with single processors running at 2.4GHz with minimum of 512 should be fine......
It's interesting, because everyone thinks completely different
Wish there was a case study, with a complete solution to it............... makes things easier to understand why certain things are done with good reasoning.
Rav4
I never ever spec a server with less than 2GB RAM now.. 4GB preferred.. it's REALLY cheap now!
The other decision is SATA or SAS for the hard drives.. but then, depends on the budget and use (in this case a DC).
On a DC though, you could get away with small SAS drives.. overkill maybe, however, I'd probably see the price before deciding. (74GB SAS would be fine.. two of them in mirror, or three of them in RAID5... or even four of them in RAID5 with a hotspare). I tend to always go towards SAS where possible.
Lots of decisions. I do this all day at work - speccing servers, but it's always dependent on lots of other things.. so not as easy as - "just get a Dell!"
The other decision is SATA or SAS for the hard drives.. but then, depends on the budget and use (in this case a DC).
On a DC though, you could get away with small SAS drives.. overkill maybe, however, I'd probably see the price before deciding. (74GB SAS would be fine.. two of them in mirror, or three of them in RAID5... or even four of them in RAID5 with a hotspare). I tend to always go towards SAS where possible.
Lots of decisions. I do this all day at work - speccing servers, but it's always dependent on lots of other things.. so not as easy as - "just get a Dell!"
Same one we had and it would barely go over 100mb
We had HP out, swapped the drive, tried different server, SCSI card
We gave up in the end and bought a Dell one which has been spot on
Better than yours. C*nt.
Nope, it does vary massively. If I were to put a sensible head on, VMware is excellent for DCs as they are required to be massively redundant, but not particularly powerful - which unfortunately redundant boxes tend to come as powerful boxes also, which is a massive waste of processing power!
Better than yours. C*nt.
SCSI terminator. Had the same issue with a couple of U320 RAID arrays, puzzled us no end. Event viewer showed the SCSI bus resetting regularly.
Fixed it by swapping the £5 terminator.
Rav4
Cheers Daz,
I have some Dell 1650's running with 2gig of ram, they are on a raid 5 config, 10k drives, they should be ok then for DC's.
I will then get some new servers for other stuff,
If you spec them up all day long, will give you a shout
Quite like HP's DL380's but for a company with a small budget, they are too much and also a bit overkill.
The stupid DC in this office does everything, AD, DNS, EXCHANGE, Backups, quay CRM software, file server and so much more. Retards.
I have some Dell 1650's running with 2gig of ram, they are on a raid 5 config, 10k drives, they should be ok then for DC's.
I will then get some new servers for other stuff,
If you spec them up all day long, will give you a shout
Quite like HP's DL380's but for a company with a small budget, they are too much and also a bit overkill.
The stupid DC in this office does everything, AD, DNS, EXCHANGE, Backups, quay CRM software, file server and so much more. Retards.
Of course, we also look after many. many servers running SBS... so those do everything as well - seems to work fine, until you add SQL on it.. SQL + Exchange on the same server == bad news! But when they don't run SQL and ISA (SBS Premium) they work really well for small companies.
Those Dell 1650's should be OK.. if you have four of them, two per site, then whilst redundant everything is OK (such as redundant PSU, hot spare drives etc), it doesn't really matter if one goes down.. (providing you sort out the Global Catalog etc)... so you should be OK.
What OS you going for?
Those Dell 1650's should be OK.. if you have four of them, two per site, then whilst redundant everything is OK (such as redundant PSU, hot spare drives etc), it doesn't really matter if one goes down.. (providing you sort out the Global Catalog etc)... so you should be OK.
What OS you going for?
Was thinking more 2008 Server.. the 1650 should just meet the minimum requirements, but not the recommended.. although, doing just an AD role should be fine? Heh.
2003 R2 would be my choice though I think on this one.. but.. 2008 is an option.
I cant believe it was that simple! we never tried that haha
Rav4
Hi,
2003 R2 I think,
Some servers here have 2000, some 2003 R2, one office is just a workgroup, all a mess, all good fun
Ideally, I would like to have 2003 R2 all round.
2 servers per site AD etc.
2008 looks great, but for AD 2003 should be fine, specially to meet our requirements, which is not that much.
If we were using TS/Citrix or other, then I would defo think about 2008 as a whole.
Just need to get good prices for the OS now.
Open License program I think instead of retail without Software Assurance should do.
Don't need any for the desktops at the moment. Just servers.
2003 R2 I think,
Some servers here have 2000, some 2003 R2, one office is just a workgroup, all a mess, all good fun
Ideally, I would like to have 2003 R2 all round.
2 servers per site AD etc.
2008 looks great, but for AD 2003 should be fine, specially to meet our requirements, which is not that much.
If we were using TS/Citrix or other, then I would defo think about 2008 as a whole.
Just need to get good prices for the OS now.
Open License program I think instead of retail without Software Assurance should do.
Don't need any for the desktops at the moment. Just servers.
Rav4
Similar threads
