Are there any issues with the 64 bit servers

[Curler]

We are retiring a Novell server that provided file storage for the last umpteen years. Am I safe to go with a 64 bit Windows 2008 Standard server or are there any issues I should watch for? I can still go with a 2003 Standard R2 server that I wouldn't expect any problems with. The application servers are Windows 2003 Standard and the network is all peer to peer - no Active Directory involved. We are about 25 users.

I'm asking because the first 64 bit XP Pro workstation was an adventure. Getting the right flavour of application software was relatively easy to resolve but the security configuration seemed to be a test for software installation and setting the proper rights to data folders.

 

[58sniper]

I think you're safe. Dunno why you wouldn't put in Active Directory, but x64 should be fine.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[technome]

Go with 64 bit if you can...

If your purchasing a new server get plenty of ram, if 64 bit at least 8 gigs, but 12 would be better.

If you need old 16 bit programs 64 bit Windows will not do it, you would need to stay with 32 bit standard.

SMB signing issues can be an issue with either version.

SMB 1.0 versus SMB 2.0 can cause issues, but not usually, again with older programs/data.

Agree with Pat, Active Directory would greatly ease your network management. Making changes on 25 machines versus the server gets insane.

Converted a number of Novell networks over to Windows, best to run in tandem until everything is gracefully connected to the Windows realm.




........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[pjcarmen]

XP Pro x64 and the server x64 versions are pretty different animals. You should have no trouble. I just added 2 x64 2008 servers to my network, no issues whatsoever.

I am curious though as to why you are running Windows servers in peer to peer?

======
"Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care."
-Jimmy Buffett

 

[kmcferrin]

First, I highly recommend going with Active Directory. It will greatly simplify your life over having peer to peer networking with 25+ hosts.

Secondly, 8-12 GB of RAM for a file server is ridiculous, especially for one that serves for only 25 clients.

Third, Windows XP x64 was a bit of an aberration. It was released so that there would be a Windows client OS that has support for more than 4GB of RAM. Usually this would have gone for technical/medical workstation users, not average home or corporate users. Because it was released so late in the XP cycle and required completely different drivers, it was difficult to get well-supported hardware. This was also exacerbated because so many applications still had 16-bit code in them or in their installers. 16-bit code will not run on 64-bit Windows, period. 32-bit code will run on 64-bit Windows through built-in emulation.

Now with Vista and Server 2008, 64-bit support has been planned from the beginning and just about every piece of commonly used hardware will have driver support for 64-bit versions. This is especially true in the server hardware space. The only potential issue that you could run into would be if you tried to use 16-bit software on the server. If you are just using standard file and print services or any other roles/features that are included with Windows 2008, you will be fine. All of the mainstream antivirus and backup companies have released versions that are either 64-bit or are compatible with 64-bit systems.



________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Windows 7
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[Curler]

Re peer to peer vs Active Directory

We supply one stop support services for a number of companies. This minimalist behaviour has just evolved. These peer to peer sites are typically one location plants or offices. We need our customers to be self reliant and have found security to be a non issue. (We aren't talking about anti-virus, malware, etc) Upgrades are few unless a feature is required.

These networks are small with typically one server running the accounting or main business application and the other running shared storage or ghosting for laptops used in the field. Access is controlled by setting up groups as required, but kept to a minimum.

With Active Directory running on systems that failed either because of motherboard or Raid drives or operating system aborts I just decided the problems in getting those AD systems back up and running weren't worth the benefits.

Many of our customers have been inherited during rescues so the way we set up our clients may be a result of knowing a little about a lot. If I haven't been at a site in six months or a year I don't want to take two days to get myself oriented before I can work. KISS works for us.

I agonized over the decision the first time I switched a site from AD after a failure. Later I found out that they thought they had to have that because the people that installed the new software told them they needed it along with the two new servers. Right. That was about four years ago.

I'm not trying to suggest there is no place for AD but I haven't been persuaded that these smaller sites benefit from it.

 

[58sniper]

Small Business Server is your friend. You can develop a "canned" installation that suits 99% of your customers. Well worth it.

A agree that more than 4GB of RAM isn't needed for a file server serving ~25 people.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/