After 4+ years using SBS2003 I'm thinking about upgrading hardware of the server. The server is used in a photography studio with 5 clients, mostly as a file server and Exchange Server. Clients work on the server with large files in Photoshop and Lightroom. Together with the server upgrade I plan to upgrade both our router and switch from 100Mb to 1Gb to increase throughput of the network. All clients already have 1Gb network cards. Which part of server hardware is most crucial for a fast file server? Fast CPU? Or two CPUs? CPU architecture? RAM? Harddrives... Users complain about time need to open/save 100MB files on the server and my goal is to address that. :) Thanks for any insight!

I'm no expert in this field, but I would imagine you are looking for the same set up you would want if you were creating a stand alone image editing machine + series networking abailities. You've already taken care of the networking part, so what else is important? Lots of storage, and fast read times. That means you are looking at a large SATA RAID 0/4 array. Then you will want enough memory to run the server, plus handle the largest image file x the maximum number of users opening files at the same time. I would imagine that is in the 4GB-8GB range. CPU is not really that important. One final note, you will want to get a HIGH QUALITY network card. One that can handle the processing itself instead of relying on your server's CPU. -Ryan Adams Free Computer Tips and more:http://RyanTAdams.com Paid Tech Support: Black Diamond

Here is what I would list as important: Max the memory. If 32bit that's 4gig. If 64bit anywhere from 8 to 12gig. This is hardware AND OS dependent [2003 standard for example will only use 4gig] Max the RAID. Hard drives are the slowest component of the system. I would not recommend SATA which is just glorified IDE/ATA. I would recommend the time proven standard of SCSI drives. To increase drive bandwidth you want a dual channel scsi card. Raid5 is OK but for large drawings and quicker saves consider Raid 10. This raid level is not to be confused with Raid 0+1. Both Raid 10 and 0+1 are better than Raid5 imho. I configure the raid array so half the drives are on one channel and the other half are on the other channel. This greatly reduces channel contention/saturation. Managed gigabit switch. You get more features and better bandwidth control with a managed switch. Dual nics. With a managed switch that supports trunking you can team these nics to provide 4000 mbps full duplex access to your server. This has become pretty common to do with the built into the mainboard nics. Make sure you ask about this feature. High as you can afford CPU's. I consider dual cpu's minimum. The higher the clock rate you can afford the better. Understand with one cpu socket you get two cpus. With dual cpus you get four. Exchange, Server OS, and Tcp/ip stack all take advantage of hyperthreading/symmetric multiprocessing as will SQL server. Example of Oxymoron: Person who is pro life and anti sex education. Education is key to prevention. Prevent conception you prevent abortion. Abstinence training clearly isn't working.

You can keep throwing money at it and see what sticks, or you can use the Window's native performance profiling to see where your bottlenecks are. I'd start there. Aside from that, I'd suggest a RAID 5, and some method for backing up.

Thank you all for your help and ideas. Below is a draft configuration which comes slightly above $3k. Can I get away with just one CPU? Any weak points? Or can I save somewhere? • Intel Xeon E5410 Harpertown 2.33GHz LGA 771 80W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80574E5410A ($269.99) • (3x) Kingston 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) ECC Registered Dual Channel Kit Server ($389.97) • (5x) Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive ($374.95) One drive for system, the other 4 for data. We need to have access to 1.2TB of data at a time. I know, no SCSI... • SUPERMICRO X7DBE-O Dual LGA 771 Intel 5000P Extended ATX Server Motherboard ($409.99) • SUPERMICRO CSE-743TQ-865B Black 4U Pedestal Server Case ($399.99) • LG 22X DVD±R DVD Burner with LightScribe Black IDE Model GH22LP20 ($25.99) • Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2008 Standard - OEM ($828.99) And also: • D-Link DIR-655 IEEE 802.11n (draft) IEEE 802.11g IEEE 802.11b IEEE 802.3 IEEE 802.3u • Xtreme N Gigabit Router ($94.99) • NETGEAR GS724T 10/100/1000Mbps ProSafe Gigabit Smart Switch ($259.99)

I take (3x) Kingston 4GB to be 12gig of ram but you are putting in Server 2008 SBS x86 Standard which can only use 4gig ram. This appears to be a 64bit board. If you install 2008 64bit the OS supports up to 32gig of ram. But did you ask the question of any rendering software you are using on the server supports 64bit? You need to get the right OS with the right memory for the right mainboard http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/... Not mirroring the system disk is a huge mistake. Assuming sata drives at 1.2tb with no mention of raid level so I am assuming you plan to software volume set it. Understand one drive dies you lost all data with no recovery possible. You are only as good as your last backup... which does not appear to be included, backup that is, in your quote. You certainly won't be backing 1.2tb up to DVD-RW 1 quad core cpu will be plenty. Another thought: You may want to consider putting that capital into a NAS unit and keeping your existing 2003 server as is. You can buy a good NAS unit with drive failover along with a backup unit and all the other equipment for under your new servers pricetag. Example of Oxymoron: Person who is pro life and anti sex education. Education is key to prevention. Prevent conception you prevent abortion. Abstinence training clearly isn't working.

wanderer, thank you so much! Yes, I was thinking about running the server 64bit. On the server, there won't be any software to work with files. We work with all image data on client stations (Photoshop, inDesign, Lightroom, Zoner Photo Studio). Therefore, hopefully, no compatibility issues. Mirroring system disc - good point, ok, how about RAID1? Not sure how a system disc speed is critical... Data disc: Here are my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong or paranoid but I'm afraid to use larger discs than 750 GB in a server. The idea is to use two 640 GB discs and the other two for automated back-ups. Currently, we back-up weekly to USB discs and in addition to that we store all new files (photographs) when they come to another USB disc. We might use RAID0 or RAID5 and keep backing up outside the server, but I doubt if we see a much of a difference in performance. Perhaps I'm wrong here, as well. NAS: Yes, I was considering it, but after reading so-so reviews on NewEgg I abandoned the idea. Some complains were also about significant delays especially with large files, which is our case. But, I'd like to test them, though. Existing 2003 Server: Yes, I tend to keep it for Exchange. Then, what would you say to using XP-64bit or Vista-64bit as a file server software? The main goal remains to provide faster infrastructure for users. We are loosing literally hours of time waiting while browsing through large images in Lightroom or opening/saving files in Photoshop. That fact justifies pretty generous budget for the whole thing but, off course, we don't have to waste it. Perhaps, I should start with upgrading the LAN to 1GB.