Guest Dellboy Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Hi, don't know what happened to last Q. I reckon it got posted before I could ask my questions properly... I have two servers to upgrade (80 user network) and my query revolves around processors and windows version. It is a 3-server network, currently one 2003 Terminal Server (staying on domain, Member server) and two Win2000 (one an Exch 2000) servers. One server will be simple file and print, the other primarily an Exchange server. I intend using Windows Standard Edition, either 32 or 64-bit. Both servers will be AD controllers and will do other bits like DNS and DHCP. Q1. Will Windows 2003 standard edition take advantage of quad-core processors for general File and Print Server functions? Q2. Will Windows 2003 standard edition with Exchange 2003/7 take advantage of quad-core processors? Q3. Will having two processors in either server be worth the extra cash in terms of performance? (say £300 each). Will put in 2-4GB each of RAM. Q4. Are there any reasons not to mix 32-bit and 64-bit servers on a domain? (I know Exchange2007 requires 64-bit). Both being AD controllers? Q5. Do most business printers and copiers now have good 64-bit drivers? Q6. With Exchange, is Exchange 2007 worth putting on compared to 2003? (I know its the wrong forum, but I bet you know the answer..) Thanks These will be my first 64-bit and/or Exch 2007 servers if I go that way.
Guest Ryan Hanisco Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 RE: Server Upgrade Hello Dellboy, I'll answer by number: Q1: Yes though you might not see a lot of performance improvement here. Except under extreme circumstances, the processor isn't the limiting factor on File and Print. Q2: Yep, you should see improvment here. Q3: The good part here is that you can scale later if you want. You haven't given us any idea of the size of the environment and the expected load, but Exchange loves to have additional power. As before, with the DC or File and Print, you might not get much of a difference with the second proc. You do get the benefit of some redundancy in case of failuer and I am a huge fan of having similar equipment to maintain across platforms. Q4: There is no real reason not to mix, but the real questions is: why wouldn't you do x64? You'll want to check compatibility on Antivirus and backup, etc., but there isn't a lot of mainstream server class software that doesn't support 64 bit. Q5: HP has been doing a good job on newer things, but you'll want to validate these. Q6: Exchange 2k7 has been out for a while and avoiding an eventual upgrade seems well worth it. -- Ryan Hanisco MCSE, MCTS: SQL 2005, Project+ http://www.techsterity.com Chicago, IL Remember: Marking helpful answers helps everyone find the info they need quickly. "Dellboy" wrote: > Hi, don't know what happened to last Q. I reckon it got posted before I could > ask my questions properly... > > I have two servers to upgrade (80 user network) and my query revolves around > processors and windows version. It is a 3-server network, currently one 2003 > Terminal Server (staying on domain, Member server) and two Win2000 (one an > Exch 2000) servers. One server will be simple file and print, the other > primarily an Exchange server. I intend using Windows Standard Edition, either > 32 or 64-bit. Both servers will be AD controllers and will do other bits like > DNS and DHCP. > > Q1. Will Windows 2003 standard edition take advantage of quad-core > processors for general File and Print Server functions? > > Q2. Will Windows 2003 standard edition with Exchange 2003/7 take advantage > of quad-core processors? > > Q3. Will having two processors in either server be worth the extra cash in > terms of performance? (say £300 each). Will put in 2-4GB each of RAM. > > Q4. Are there any reasons not to mix 32-bit and 64-bit servers on a domain? > (I know Exchange2007 requires 64-bit). Both being AD controllers? > > Q5. Do most business printers and copiers now have good 64-bit drivers? > > Q6. With Exchange, is Exchange 2007 worth putting on compared to 2003? (I > know its the wrong forum, but I bet you know the answer..) > > Thanks > > These will be my first 64-bit and/or Exch 2007 servers if I go that way.
Guest Dellboy Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 RE: Server Upgrade Ryan, thanks for the answers. I suspect I'll be going for Quad-core processors (seems to be a default choice anyway with Dell), possibly dual in the Exchange Server. I'll check out the a-v and backup s/w as you suggested and probably go for x64/exch2007 if I can find no reason not to. "Ryan Hanisco" wrote: > Hello Dellboy, > > I'll answer by number: > > Q1: Yes though you might not see a lot of performance improvement here. > Except under extreme circumstances, the processor isn't the limiting factor > on File and Print. > > Q2: Yep, you should see improvment here. > > Q3: The good part here is that you can scale later if you want. You haven't > given us any idea of the size of the environment and the expected load, but > Exchange loves to have additional power. As before, with the DC or File and > Print, you might not get much of a difference with the second proc. You do > get the benefit of some redundancy in case of failuer and I am a huge fan of > having similar equipment to maintain across platforms. > > Q4: There is no real reason not to mix, but the real questions is: why > wouldn't you do x64? You'll want to check compatibility on Antivirus and > backup, etc., but there isn't a lot of mainstream server class software that > doesn't support 64 bit. > > Q5: HP has been doing a good job on newer things, but you'll want to > validate these. > > Q6: Exchange 2k7 has been out for a while and avoiding an eventual upgrade > seems well worth it. > -- > Ryan Hanisco > MCSE, MCTS: SQL 2005, Project+ > http://www.techsterity.com > Chicago, IL > > Remember: Marking helpful answers helps everyone find the info they need > quickly. > > > "Dellboy" wrote: > > > Hi, don't know what happened to last Q. I reckon it got posted before I could > > ask my questions properly... > > > > I have two servers to upgrade (80 user network) and my query revolves around > > processors and windows version. It is a 3-server network, currently one 2003 > > Terminal Server (staying on domain, Member server) and two Win2000 (one an > > Exch 2000) servers. One server will be simple file and print, the other > > primarily an Exchange server. I intend using Windows Standard Edition, either > > 32 or 64-bit. Both servers will be AD controllers and will do other bits like > > DNS and DHCP. > > > > Q1. Will Windows 2003 standard edition take advantage of quad-core > > processors for general File and Print Server functions? > > > > Q2. Will Windows 2003 standard edition with Exchange 2003/7 take advantage > > of quad-core processors? > > > > Q3. Will having two processors in either server be worth the extra cash in > > terms of performance? (say £300 each). Will put in 2-4GB each of RAM. > > > > Q4. Are there any reasons not to mix 32-bit and 64-bit servers on a domain? > > (I know Exchange2007 requires 64-bit). Both being AD controllers? > > > > Q5. Do most business printers and copiers now have good 64-bit drivers? > > > > Q6. With Exchange, is Exchange 2007 worth putting on compared to 2003? (I > > know its the wrong forum, but I bet you know the answer..) > > > > Thanks > > > > These will be my first 64-bit and/or Exch 2007 servers if I go that way.
Guest Hank Arnold (MVP) Posted February 23, 2008 Posted February 23, 2008 Re: Server Upgrade IIRC, Exchange 2007 *REQUIRES* 64 bit OS & architecture... -- Regards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services Dellboy wrote: > Ryan, > > thanks for the answers. I suspect I'll be going for Quad-core processors > (seems to be a default choice anyway with Dell), possibly dual in the > Exchange Server. I'll check out the a-v and backup s/w as you suggested and > probably go for x64/exch2007 if I can find no reason not to. > > "Ryan Hanisco" wrote: > >> Hello Dellboy, >> >> I'll answer by number: >> >> Q1: Yes though you might not see a lot of performance improvement here. >> Except under extreme circumstances, the processor isn't the limiting factor >> on File and Print. >> >> Q2: Yep, you should see improvment here. >> >> Q3: The good part here is that you can scale later if you want. You haven't >> given us any idea of the size of the environment and the expected load, but >> Exchange loves to have additional power. As before, with the DC or File and >> Print, you might not get much of a difference with the second proc. You do >> get the benefit of some redundancy in case of failuer and I am a huge fan of >> having similar equipment to maintain across platforms. >> >> Q4: There is no real reason not to mix, but the real questions is: why >> wouldn't you do x64? You'll want to check compatibility on Antivirus and >> backup, etc., but there isn't a lot of mainstream server class software that >> doesn't support 64 bit. >> >> Q5: HP has been doing a good job on newer things, but you'll want to >> validate these. >> >> Q6: Exchange 2k7 has been out for a while and avoiding an eventual upgrade >> seems well worth it. >> -- >> Ryan Hanisco >> MCSE, MCTS: SQL 2005, Project+ >> http://www.techsterity.com >> Chicago, IL >> >> Remember: Marking helpful answers helps everyone find the info they need >> quickly. >> >> >> "Dellboy" wrote: >> >>> Hi, don't know what happened to last Q. I reckon it got posted before I could >>> ask my questions properly... >>> >>> I have two servers to upgrade (80 user network) and my query revolves around >>> processors and windows version. It is a 3-server network, currently one 2003 >>> Terminal Server (staying on domain, Member server) and two Win2000 (one an >>> Exch 2000) servers. One server will be simple file and print, the other >>> primarily an Exchange server. I intend using Windows Standard Edition, either >>> 32 or 64-bit. Both servers will be AD controllers and will do other bits like >>> DNS and DHCP. >>> >>> Q1. Will Windows 2003 standard edition take advantage of quad-core >>> processors for general File and Print Server functions? >>> >>> Q2. Will Windows 2003 standard edition with Exchange 2003/7 take advantage >>> of quad-core processors? >>> >>> Q3. Will having two processors in either server be worth the extra cash in >>> terms of performance? (say £300 each). Will put in 2-4GB each of RAM. >>> >>> Q4. Are there any reasons not to mix 32-bit and 64-bit servers on a domain? >>> (I know Exchange2007 requires 64-bit). Both being AD controllers? >>> >>> Q5. Do most business printers and copiers now have good 64-bit drivers? >>> >>> Q6. With Exchange, is Exchange 2007 worth putting on compared to 2003? (I >>> know its the wrong forum, but I bet you know the answer..) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> These will be my first 64-bit and/or Exch 2007 servers if I go that way.
Recommended Posts