With much respect I come back over to Tdub to ask for your opinions...

I need to know if our current server is up to the task.

Currently the server handles a SQL Server 2005 Express database for our POS system, is our file server, handles a time clock server app, and hosts a couple of smaller accounts payable, and payroll databases. The POS concurrently runs on 3 workstations.

The most access at once is about 3-4 workstations for the databases and fileserver. We are about to add another software suite that will also be SQL based, and will be running on 8 workstations, probably not more than 5 concurrently. I'm waiting to hear from the vendor of the new software if the two databases can be hosted from the same sever. (I'm not that savvy)

The stats of the current server are

Intel Xeon 2.4 Ghz w/ 2 gig ram running winserver 2003 sp2
From the device manager, it looks to have 4 processor cores.

We are also going to be upgrading our POS system which requires a dedicated server, and will eventually remove the SQL from our existing server. Its a mess, I know.

What do you guys think?

10/6/2009 5:59:51 PM

that's a bit much. and besides that, if that one server is offline for any reason, seems to me like most of your work grinds to a halt.

10/6/2009 8:24:30 PM

RAM is cheap. get some.

10/6/2009 9:48:00 PM

^agreed

it MIGHT handle it, and well, probably will most of the time (albeit probably slowly at best)...but you def need to look into at least more RAM and very soon need to look into having some sort of redundancy. sounds like you're f'ed if something happens to that server.

[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM. Reason : a]

10/6/2009 9:52:14 PM

this is PROBABLY way more than you're going to want to do, though I'm available if you want to contract someone to do it, but I would turn this box into an esxi server (an embedded virtualization server) and convert what makes sense into smaller virtual machines. then I would buy another similar box. this way you can aggregate the load across 2 machines and if one dies, you can fail over the virtual machines to the other esxi box. you'd also be able to do in place updates as 1 machine could handle the load of everything for the few minutes it takes to update the other. with remote storage for the vm's you can upgrade your server hardware at any time without minimal downtime, easily do full system backups, etc.

10/6/2009 10:34:40 PM

^^
Agreed, stick another 2GB stick in there, assuming the system / OS is only 32-bit capable. Also assuming, from reading, this is a situation where trying to go as cheap as can get.

Did a quick check, and, doesn't look like SQL Server Express 2005 has a limitation on number of concurrent connections, just total size of DBs and amount of memory that can be used. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this.

10/6/2009 10:39:44 PM

you could get the hardware to do what I posted from carl for $cheap
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=578148

10/6/2009 11:12:31 PM

^that is a terrible idea. Not to put down Carl's business, but I would never ever run refurb or non-supported hardware in a business environment. Support is everything, and the cost is more than made up for in peace of mind and guaranteed uptime and support.

Also, an ESXI environment is ridiculous overkill for a SQL Express based server. He should be doing regular backups, but that is more than enough. Backups and a RAID1 configuration will keep a Xeon based machine rock solid for 20 years. Other than adding more memory, the rest of the configuration is already having plenty of overhead.

10/7/2009 12:00:32 AM

you honestly think that 2.4ghz hyperthreading box is under a support contract right now? the beauty of virtualization is that if your hardware shits the bed you can replace it with almost anything and not skip a beat. definitely not worth spending all that money on a big support contract these days. you're living in the past. storage and networking equipment on the other hand...

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 7:59 AM. Reason : nevermind there is 0 fault tolerance in his current setup. ]

10/7/2009 7:57:35 AM

^ i think i'd still like to have the piece of mind of a support contract, mostly for parts replacement and on-site service. i'm perfectly capable of doing the work myself, but i don't keep a lot of server-quality spare parts laying around.

that said, maybe i should. also, i do agree with your point about VMs being the ultimate way to go. that's a great way to bring up additional capacity with a minimum of pain and suffering.

10/7/2009 9:10:54 AM