|
Post by jmeeks51 on Apr 25, 2016 12:09:16 GMT
ok to bring everybody up to date here and looking for some advice here. i broke down and bought 2 dell 8900 xps systems with the basic configuration 16 gigs of ram and yes it has win 10 on it and i upgraded the hard drive from 1 to 2 tbs. on the system that i am running now i have win 7 pro on it and 18 gigs of ram. i am eventually going to turn the win 7 box in to a server because i have several external drives that i am using now with a usb extender. anyway, i know i can run the win 7 box as a server with just 7 on it, my question is this, should i stay with 7 or should i go with windows server 2008? and what benefits would i have going that route?
John
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Apr 25, 2016 17:38:17 GMT
From what I have gleaned in the past, most intelligent people I know use Linux as the OS on their servers. I may be wrong generally.
|
|
|
Post by irvsp on Apr 25, 2016 19:50:23 GMT
ok to bring everybody up to date here and looking for some advice here. i broke down and bought 2 dell 8900 xps systems with the basic configuration 16 gigs of ram and yes it has win 10 on it and i upgraded the hard drive from 1 to 2 tbs. on the system that i am running now i have win 7 pro on it and 18 gigs of ram. i am eventually going to turn the win 7 box in to a server because i have several external drives that i am using now with a usb extender. anyway, i know i can run the win 7 box as a server with just 7 on it, my question is this, should i stay with 7 or should i go with windows server 2008? and what benefits would i have going that route? John John, you might want to look at these links: www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/difference_between_server_and_desktop.htmltechzestblog.com/2008/04/09/the-difference-between-a-server-and-a-desktop-computer/www.diffen.com/difference/Server_vs_Workstationserverfault.com/questions/1214/running-windows-server-os-on-a-regular-desktop-machine/1262The big difference is the PC h/w. Server h/w is built to be a server. Intel even makes special CPU's for servers. If all you want to do is run the PC as a disk repository NAS's make a better choice. Don't know what would be on the disks nor how much they'd be accessed so it is hard to tell? Even 'where from' is part of the equation. Server's are 'used' to multiple requests at the same time and built to handle it. Desktop's are not really, especially if someone is using it. I keep my old PC's on the LAN and use them as storage when needed. Also my router has USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports. Some routers will support USB hubs to connect to them, but I know mine doesn't. Solution (if it really works and performs well) available without a NAS, such as this ==> www.amazon.com/Cirago-NUS1000-Network-Storage-Link/dp/B0037NYKW6 for instance. Probably your driving criteria with any of this will be data availability and performance. Again, depending on usage and load the differences could be significant. Me, I'd try just putting the W7 machine on the LAN, clearing the disks of not needed data/programs and test it. I would NOT expect Server s/w to make a significant difference though installed on the same h/w.
|
|
|
Post by raphoenix on Apr 26, 2016 1:15:38 GMT
|
|