Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Reason to Switch to Server OS


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 jediderek

jediderek

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:42 PM

Posted 10 August 2017 - 10:15 AM

I recently started at a new business and I'm the only IT/Programmer( I do both). They are using a server right now as a file server with Windows 10 Home. The users open excel/word/visio/etc files from the server constantly. I've noticed that this can be slow at times. 

I'm new to the server world and was wondering if its a good idea to let them continue with this set up. What would be a better option in my situation? I was thinking switching over to a linux OS or windows server OS but not sure what would be better at the moment. 

At the moment I'm creating software for the company to do everything instead of them moving files around and opening many files, all their work will be done in Access forms with access database(its what they want, but I'm very certain we will end up moving to sql server and using a bettter 
frontend).

So what would you guys recommend to do and what are the reasoning because I'm eager to learn more about this type of work. Thanks!



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 3,163 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:01:42 AM

Posted 10 August 2017 - 10:32 AM

Linux servers tend to be more relaible, even microsoft behind closed doors use linux servers.


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

ljxaqg-6.png


#3 mremski

mremski

  • Members
  • 497 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH
  • Local time:01:42 AM

Posted 10 August 2017 - 11:57 AM

First you need to get hard requirements on what the machine is supposed to be doing.  Is it's sole purpose to be a networked file share?  If so, then I'd look at some of the commercial "NAS" devices.  Yes, you are spending money, but for good reasons:  storage capacity, ease of use, ease of maintenence, data safety (most commercial units have multiple drives setup in some kind of RAID configuration).  Could you do all that yourself?  Sure, but a lot of times the end result costs more because you are responsible for picking the correct hardware, the correct OS and then setting it all up correctly.  Choosing the correct system makes everything a lot smoother;  plan for future capacity expansion so all you need to do is add drives.

 

That's what I would recommend.

 

But an answer to your question (my opinions) is yes a server OS would be better suited to the job.  Windows HOME editions are typically crippled (Win7 Home Premium 64bit has hardcoded memory limits), they are not designed to do heavy duty file sharing.


FreeBSD since 3.3, only time I touch Windows is to fix my wife's computer


#4 jediderek

jediderek
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:42 PM

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:28 PM

First you need to get hard requirements on what the machine is supposed to be doing.  Is it's sole purpose to be a networked file share?  If so, then I'd look at some of the commercial "NAS" devices.  Yes, you are spending money, but for good reasons:  storage capacity, ease of use, ease of maintenence, data safety (most commercial units have multiple drives setup in some kind of RAID configuration).  Could you do all that yourself?  Sure, but a lot of times the end result costs more because you are responsible for picking the correct hardware, the correct OS and then setting it all up correctly.  Choosing the correct system makes everything a lot smoother;  plan for future capacity expansion so all you need to do is add drives.

 

That's what I would recommend.

 

But an answer to your question (my opinions) is yes a server OS would be better suited to the job.  Windows HOME editions are typically crippled (Win7 Home Premium 64bit has hardcoded memory limits), they are not designed to do heavy duty file sharing.

After reading a little bit on NAS devices, they sound pretty good. My only question that I couldn't find is that would it be able to store  a sql database that can be accessed all the time? If so, then this is something I will consider talking to my boss about.



#5 mremski

mremski

  • Members
  • 497 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH
  • Local time:01:42 AM

Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:51 AM

Sure they can store the sql database.  Running the actual SQL server on a NAS may be a different story, but that is what I meant by "hard requirements".  SQL server does 2 main things:  service incoming requests and read/write a database.  Nothing says that the actual database itself needs to be on the same machine as the SQL server.  You may be able to take the existing machine, load a version of Linux on it, then set it up to act as the SQL Server, then all the physical files live on a NAS.


FreeBSD since 3.3, only time I touch Windows is to fix my wife's computer





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users