Fileserver vs Server advice

[Beetnik]

I suspect I know the answer here but I'd be grateful for comments from those in the know.

A client is running a network with 8 PCs/Laptops and using one PC as a fileserver - i.e. it's running MS XP SP3 and used by a member of staff with a partition used to store documents, spreadsheets, databases etc and which the other 7 machines accessing those files over the network. The fileserver has a Pentium D 3.00 GHz processor and 2 GB RAM.

Applications on the various machines keep 'freezing' and are obviously having problems accessing the fileserver.

They're a charity so don't have lashings of money to throw at the problem.

At this scale of network is it a case of it's far too big to rely on the fileserver and a dedicated server is required or might the problem lie elsewhere?

 

[Spinal]

8 PCs shouldn't have so many issues... That said, 2GB of ram on the server doesn't seem enough IMO. You have to consider the OS on the server is using it's fair share, as well as any running apps....

M.

 

[HughJarse]

I would ( and do ) use SME server - its free and does work exceedingly well.

read here - its worth the minute even if you don't got this route.
http://www.howtoforge.com/fileserver_with_sme_server7.1

 

[WLeg]

XP/Vista is limited to 10 concurrent network users accessing shared resourses, so you may need to address this should the office expand, in which case, go buy a Dell or HP server with SBS 2003 R2 on it. Otherwise, read on...

How the the addresses being allocated ? Probably DHCP from the router.

Try changing the "filserver" XP machine to a static IP address, and updating all the "client" machines with this address in hosts/lmhosts files (just use notepad, making sure NOT to add .txt whe nsaving the file). Routers are only interested in IP/DNS - this sounds like a WINS issue. I think the freezing is caused by network broadcasts, trying to find the relevant folder shares. As there is no WINS server, broadcasts are occuring. Static addresses will cure this.

If possible, keep the number of shares down,and reorganise the data access/folder security as necessary.

Is the share on a partition or seperate physical disk - this could also help speed things up. - Does the user working on the "fileserver" have these freezes, or is it just the network users ? Up the RAM to 4GB though, 2GB is min for a local user only.

 

[HughJarse]

XP/Vista is limited to 10 concurrent network users accessing shared resourses,

5 if its home, and it can be edited although this does go against initial acceptable user licence

 

[masher_uk]

Some good advice given already. Personally, I don't like the idea of one user's machine acting as the server for all. Apart from the performance issues, if that PC fails, what then?

Far better IMHO to have a dedicated server, something like one of these . Simply hangs off your existing LAN and can be configured in a RAID1 array with two HDDs (ie one drive exactly mirrors the other, so if one disk fails it can be hot-swapped and the array automatically rebuilt). You can also make additional backups to other media for, say, off-site storage. Plenty fast enough to support a small workgroup and at under £350 (2x 500GB drives) shouldn't break the bank. There are of course, plenty of alternatives... Just my two-penneth.

 

[WLeg]

Didn't know that...are you sure - there's no mention of it here ?

I've always though Windows client sharing has been 10, back to 3.51.....

(sorry to go off topic)

 

[Antharro]

I have a similar issue with network browsing. When browsing the network, opening a folder will result in the client machine freezing for a period of time. This is immensely annoying.

I get around it by using XP's network sessions viewer to kill the network session for that machine. (Right click My Computer > Manage > Shared Folders > Sessions) You may have to do it twice, but it seems to fix it for me. Of course, it's for that once instance only, and must be repeated ad-infinitum each time someone browses the network.

Other times I have no problem at all browsing the network. Similar setup - bunch of PCs connecting to an XP Pro box with a shared folder.

 

[Dryce]

I
Applications on the various machines keep 'freezing' and are obviously having problems accessing the fileserver.

They're not using something like Sage over the network or hitting it with large file loads and saves?

I would look at the appliacations being run, look at the AV on the server machine, is the user running something that is intensive (use the task manager and see if something is hogging the CPU), and also look at the neryworking - there's not a slow hub or switch in the mix?

At this scale of network is it a case of it's far too big to rely on the fileserver and a dedicated server is required or might the problem lie elsewhere?

I note the suggestions elsewhere about 2GB and 4GB of RAM and frankly shake my head.

I wouldn't recommend a ReadyNAS as a critical file server. It's a reasonable device for treating as network file storage but I wouldn't run applications that share files on it. They're very good for use to hold non-critical nearline backups.

And yes a dedicated file server would be a sensible solution. A small server with Windows SBS Standard. If the XP version is XP Pro then you can set up a domain. The server can centralise mail and calendaring with Exchange as well as doing file sharing. For 8 PCs it doesn't need to be a high performance unit - I would be tempted to go for something small and quiet.

 

[timskemp]

Responding to a few points above: Charities get substantial discounts on MS software including windows server. SBS 2008 requires 64 bit and 4 gig ram, preferably more. Win Server 2007 will run on very lightweight hardware (I have an Atom mini-ITX with 2 gig ram and sata drives running it here, draws 35 watts with 2x 7200rpm HDD) and support a surprising number of users for basic file sharing, if mailservices are required then there are alternatives to exchange.

If you're using XP home clients then they cannot join a domain and you'll have to bodge permanence into the connections, better to run a basic 2007 server as a workgroup server and licence appropriately.

And I give free telephone advice to charities (a good chunk of my work is charitable sector).

 

[Dryce]

SBS 2008 requires 64 bit and 4 gig ram, preferably more.

As I said - I shake my head! It's appalling that a simple office server should need more than say 0.5GBytes to deal with mail and file sharing.

 

[Beetnik]

Plenty of food for thought, thanks!

AV is Norton IS 2009 which I understand is much improved by way of resource hogging.

Apps running are QuickBooks (accounting) which does use a lot of resources, Access and another db package and all three may have two concurrent users. Other files are accessed on an individual basis - usual MS Office programmes.

All individual machines download email to client and *.pst file back up to fileserver. Fileserver runs backup overnight to a remote server (Mozy).

Discs are defrag'ed weekly.

I'd guess some machiones may be running XP home, I'd have to check next time I'm in. Otherwise a mixture of XP Pro, Vista business and Vista Home Premium.

Cabling, switches and hubs are all 5 or more years old. Possible problem here.

Not much more tha 5GB of data in total on the fileserver so capacity isn't an issue.

 

[timskemp]

As I said - I shake my head! It's appalling that a simple office server should need more than say 0.5GBytes to deal with mail and file sharing.

Just looking at usage on my server (private bytes)

Spamassassin - 171meg
IIS webserver 96 meg
SQL (logs and WSUS) 49 meg
Mailenable (mailserver) -20 meg

All the "protection" stuff (AVG server edition, spamassassin etc) eats CPU and memory like there's no tomorrow, but by offloading as much as you can to your server you can improve the performance of the desktops.

Me running a virtualised windows 7 on there isn't helping either...

 

[HughJarse]

Didn't know that...are you sure - there's no mention of it here ?

I've always though Windows client sharing has been 10, back to 3.51.....

(sorry to go off topic)

Note For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols combined. For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;314882