Sharepoint Forum

Ask Question   UnAnswered
Home » Forum » Sharepoint       RSS Feeds

Is this an acceptable configuration

  Asked By: Imdrajit    Date: Apr 12    Category: Sharepoint    Views: 879

I had been originally hoping that I could run SPS on my current server.
Given that this won't work, I was thinking of picking up another
inexpensive server from Dell. Any comments on this configuration would
be most appreciated:

Current Server:
Dual P3 1.0Ghz
1.0gb RAM
Two 10k SCSI drives doing mirroring for OS
Three 10k SCSI drives in RAID 5 for data
Small Business Server 2000 which is running:
Exchange 2000
ISA 2000
SQL 2000

This server also acts as the Internet proxy (via ISA 2000) and stores
all of our company files. We have about 25 users, of which there are
usually not more than 10 logged on at any given time.

New Server:
P4 2.4Ghz
512mb RAM
One 7.2K drive
SharePoint Portal Server

Is this an acceptable configuration? If not, what changes should I
consider? We are a small non-profit on a very limited budget. We are
only able to afford this because of the charitable pricing on SPS that
we are eligible for.



4 Answers Found

Answer #1    Answered By: Upbrave C# expert     Answered On: Apr 12

That should be OK for the amount of users you mentioned. You are
correct about it not running on the SBS server. Sharepoint doesn't
play well with exchange and is unsupported by MS. My only suggestion
is to take guess at how much you're going to store as per the MS cap
planning document and make sure your system can cache as mush of the
data in memory as possible. The first thing you'll likely be pinched
on is memory as more content gets added, second is processor as more
users are added, last is disk throughput as the data out strips your
memory capacity.

Answer #2    Answered By: Sylvia Barrett     Answered On: Apr 12

I would say that the sps  server would suffice as is, as long as you
understand there is not a lot of "wiggle" room. I completely understand
your budget constraints. Here is what I would suggest you look for if
you can afford it , 1 drive for os , 2nd hd for sps data ( large enough
that you will not outgrow it before you outgrow the processor), 512mb
should work, but it might be worth getting a board that will accept more
memory for further growth. Also do not forget that you must backup the
whole SPS , there is no "differential" or "transaction log" backup so
you must have ample space to save the backups.

Answer #3    Answered By: Cody Hinton     Answered On: Apr 12

Thanks for the feedback Darrin. I think we can probably come up with a
few extra bucks for a second hard drive.

A few further questions:

Is there any advantage to moving SQL from the current  server to the new

Should we continue to use the current server  as the file server, or
should we move them to the new server (the one that will be running

SPS uses a SQL database, correct? Which server should I locate this
database on?

Is it worth several hundred dollars ($499 vs. $800) to get a SCSI hard

Answer #4    Answered By: Vicky Gillespie     Answered On: Apr 12

For V1 SQL server  is not used. For V2 Beta it is used. So if you are
looking at V1, there is no need to install SQL Server. As a matter of
fact, if you install the 120 day eval product on same machine as SQL
Server, it will update the MS Search service and when the eval has timed
out, the Search Service which is also used by SQL will no longer work.
It is best if able to have the sps  Server alone on its own box. SPS is
resoruce intensive and will eat as much memory as it is allowed. If you
have no choice, then you can share SPS and the file server. I have run
sps with with both types or HD. I can not comment on if it is worth the
extra money. I would say I would rather spend my money on a hardware
RAID 5 with 3 drives  before spending money on SCSI. RAID 5 will provide
you with some redunancy and better disk IO.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Find more on Is this an acceptable configuration Or get search suggestion and latest updates.