Use 2008, or reload with 2003?

Just taken delivery of some fairly substantial ironwork from Dell.

The box was preinstalled with Server 2008, with an OEM licence supplied.

The main requirement here is for file-distribution throughput, it will serve
large files to a CAD workgroup via a dedicated GHz LAN. Basically no frills
required but plenty muscle needed.

Clients are presently XP/32, but Win7/64 is being envisaged, mainly for its <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>4GB RAM capability, which on XP is a bottleneck for 3D CAD rendering.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The initial intention is to set this up as a workgroup server. I'm already
aware that there are issues with integrating 2008 into an existing 2000/2003
domain, but this will probably not be necessary as it's to serve a very small
group of distinct users.

My concerns:

1. 2008 is basically serverized Vista -/) -Therefore is it going to make
best use of the hardware's capabilities speedwise, or not?

2. There are numerous reports of SMB (file sharing) difficulties between
2008's SMB2 and earlier OS's that use SMB1. Is this likely to be an issue?

The scenario I really want to avoid at all costs is having to say, "Sorry
guys this didn't work out so we're going to have to start over again..."
some time down the line. That would not be a good outcome.

Therefore, opinions sought: Would I be better to nuke the lot and put on
tried-and-trusted 2003 SP2, or stick with largely-untested but newer 2008?

 

Anteaus <Anteaus@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Just taken delivery of some fairly substantial ironwork from Dell.
>
> The box was preinstalled with Server 2008, with an OEM licence
> supplied.
>
> The main requirement here is for file-distribution throughput, it
> will serve large files to a CAD workgroup via a dedicated GHz LAN.
> Basically no frills required but plenty muscle needed.
>
> Clients are presently XP/32, but Win7/64 is being envisaged, mainly
> for its<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 4GB RAM capability, which on XP is a bottleneck for 3D CAD rendering.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The initial intention is to set this up as a workgroup server. I'm
> already aware that there are issues with integrating 2008 into an
> existing 2000/2003 domain, but this will probably not be necessary as
> it's to serve a very small group of distinct users.
>
> My concerns:
>
> 1. 2008 is basically serverized Vista -/) -Therefore is it going to
> make best use of the hardware's capabilities speedwise, or not?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It can certainly handle more RAM (unless you have 2003 Enterprise)<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> 2. There are numerous reports of SMB (file sharing) difficulties
> between 2008's SMB2 and earlier OS's that use SMB1. Is this likely to
> be an issue?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I have no issues with this myself.<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> The scenario I really want to avoid at all costs is having to say,
> "Sorry guys this didn't work out so we're going to have to start over
> again..." some time down the line. That would not be a good outcome.
>
> Therefore, opinions sought: Would I be better to nuke the lot and put
> on tried-and-trusted 2003 SP2, or stick with largely-untested but
> newer 2008?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I'd go with 2008. There really isn't much different about it for the
purposes you plan to use it for (wow, awkward phrasing) and you may as well
jump on the bandwagon sometime. My feelings about Vista and the bleeding
edge are similar to yours, but I am not finding any issues with it in the
admittedly few environments in which I've installed 2008.

 

Hello Anteaus,

There is no problem to integrate 2008 into a domain with 200/2003. It is
also not a serverized Vista. Both have the same code, but you can not compare
them, becasue one is server with different features from the client OS version.

If you have domain, i would not built an additional workgroup with that server,
integrate it in the domain and avoid the additional administartive work with
local user accounts, maybe firewall configuration, local password reset etc.
etc.

For 1: See above.

For 2: No, SMB 2 is only used when all machines are capable of it, if that
isn't the case automatically SMB version1 is used.

For 3: Of course needs integration of new OS versions some testing, but as
a simple file server this shouldn't be that big amotun of testing.

Keep in mind that the firewall in 2008 is enabled by default, also install
SP2 and all latest patches to prevent known and already solved problems.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!!

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Just taken delivery of some fairly substantial ironwork from Dell.
>
> The box was preinstalled with Server 2008, with an OEM licence
> supplied.
>
> The main requirement here is for file-distribution throughput, it will
> serve large files to a CAD workgroup via a dedicated GHz LAN.
> Basically no frills required but plenty muscle needed.
>
> Clients are presently XP/32, but Win7/64 is being envisaged, mainly
> for its
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> 4GB RAM capability, which on XP is a bottleneck for 3D CAD rendering.
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> The initial intention is to set this up as a workgroup server. I'm
> already aware that there are issues with integrating 2008 into an
> existing 2000/2003 domain, but this will probably not be necessary as
> it's to serve a very small group of distinct users.
>
> My concerns:
>
> 1. 2008 is basically serverized Vista -/) -Therefore is it going to
> make best use of the hardware's capabilities speedwise, or not?
>
> 2. There are numerous reports of SMB (file sharing) difficulties
> between 2008's SMB2 and earlier OS's that use SMB1. Is this likely to
> be an issue?
>
> The scenario I really want to avoid at all costs is having to say,
> "Sorry guys this didn't work out so we're going to have to start over
> again..." some time down the line. That would not be a good outcome.
>
> Therefore, opinions sought: Would I be better to nuke the lot and put
> on tried-and-trusted 2003 SP2, or stick with largely-untested but
> newer 2008?
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Thanks for opinions. Reckon the best course of action is a test-run before
the rollout to see that the shares are working properly for XP users, however
I think I'll stick with 2008. One issue I'll need to look at though is that
I'd want to have a bare-metal restore option, and I don't think the methods
used on 2003 are applicable.

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I'd go with 2008. There really isn't much different about it for the
> purposes you plan to use it for (wow, awkward phrasing) and you may as well
> jump on the bandwagon sometime. My feelings about Vista and the bleeding
> edge are similar to yours, but I am not finding any issues with it in the
> admittedly few environments in which I've installed 2008. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Anteaus,
I have had a Windows 2008 64 bit server set up as a member server on an SBS
2003 active directory domain for over a year. It has caused me no problems
whatsoever. In addition to file/print server, I run virtual desktops under
HyperV on the 2008 server- in fact I'm sending this post on a virtual
desktop running on the 2008 system. I would definitely recommend you go with
Windows server 2008 64 bit for your task.

"Anteaus" <Anteaus@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8E7B663-E3E6-4798-8E5A-CEA379DBC222@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Just taken delivery of some fairly substantial ironwork from Dell.
>
> The box was preinstalled with Server 2008, with an OEM licence supplied.
>
> The main requirement here is for file-distribution throughput, it will
> serve
> large files to a CAD workgroup via a dedicated GHz LAN. Basically no
> frills
> required but plenty muscle needed.
>
> Clients are presently XP/32, but Win7/64 is being envisaged, mainly for
> its<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>4GB RAM capability, which on XP is a bottleneck for 3D CAD rendering.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> The initial intention is to set this up as a workgroup server. I'm already
> aware that there are issues with integrating 2008 into an existing
> 2000/2003
> domain, but this will probably not be necessary as it's to serve a very
> small
> group of distinct users.
>
> My concerns:
>
> 1. 2008 is basically serverized Vista -/) -Therefore is it going to make
> best use of the hardware's capabilities speedwise, or not?
>
> 2. There are numerous reports of SMB (file sharing) difficulties between
> 2008's SMB2 and earlier OS's that use SMB1. Is this likely to be an issue?
>
> The scenario I really want to avoid at all costs is having to say, "Sorry
> guys this didn't work out so we're going to have to start over again..."
> some time down the line. That would not be a good outcome.
>
> Therefore, opinions sought: Would I be better to nuke the lot and put on
> tried-and-trusted 2003 SP2, or stick with largely-untested but newer 2008?
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Just done a test-run with a virtual 2008 server, and encountered no SMB
problems to XP. A stress-test comparison with a virtual 2003 server on the
same host shows no noticeable difference in file-copy performance.

Think as regards bare-metal recovery I'll suggest they buy Acronis
Enterprise.

"dan" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Anteaus,
> I have had a Windows 2008 64 bit server set up as a member server on an SBS
> 2003 active directory domain for over a year. It has caused me no problems
> whatsoever. In addition to file/print server, I run virtual desktops under
> HyperV on the 2008 server- in fact I'm sending this post on a virtual
> desktop running on the 2008 system. I would definitely recommend you go with
> Windows server 2008 64 bit for your task.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->