rajuabjuMemberFeb 19, 2007 at 2:01 pm #121483
Here’s our situation-
We currently have SBS 2003 running on a Dell PowerEdge 1800. Dual 3.2Ghz Xeon’s, 2GB of RAM, and a RAID-1 with 73GB Hard Drives (SCSI of course). I’ll assume those are the key spec’s needed, if any other specs are important, let me know.
Our network currently has about 15 users on it, and I expect that within the next 3-4 years, a maximum of 5 more may be added. I dont see us going over 20 users anytime soon.
The SBS server currently runs Exchange, acts as a file/printer server, and also runs Symantec Anti-Virus Corporate Edition as well as Veritas Backup Exec 9.1. We use OWA, and I’ll occassionally VPN in from home, but not frequently. Oh, and we also run WinAmp which handles our music on hold for the telephone system.
I now want to add an email archiving software, MailArchiver by GFI, which will require the use of SQL (Workgroup Edition of SQL 2005). This MailArchiver program itself uses minimal system resources. SQL is of course a different story.
I am thinking of adding another 2GB of RAM (to have a total of 4, the max allowed by SBS 2003), and a second RAID 1 (two new hard drives dedicated to the exchange store, as well as the emails archived). I could also do a RAID 5 setup if that’s somehow more efficient?
Our exchange store is currently about 12GB in size, and we have another 15GB or so of PST’s that will be migrated to the archive system. I except about 2-3GB per year added to the size of the archive.
Will these hardware upgrades be sufficient? Or am I starting to load up too many services and going to experience network reliability/speed issues?
Our technical support company has highly recommended we get a second server running Windows Server 2003 Standard, and use that as a member server and migrate over some of the services… but that would add another $6k or more in cost and will be very difficult to get approved by the company.
On one hand, I have issues of a budget constraint, on the other hand, I dont want to overtax our server by running too many processor/memory intensive services, and by all accounts, SQL is memory intensive.
Any thoughts, suggestions & comments are greatly appreciated.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.