Windows 2003 Standard vs Enterprise

[Stelex]

We are re-architecting our 9.5 SP1 environment as follows:

Server A serves client requests, e-link server, and document store

Server B serves admin/index requests and AdLib Express

Server C is strictly a SQL 2000 Server

We currently operate with 2003 Standard, and are looking for some performance improvements. In this configuration, would Windows Server 2003 Standard or 2003 Enterprise be a better solution to go with, or if necessary, would installaing 2003 Enterprise on one or the other computers (my guess would be either Server A or SQL Server would benefit best).

 

[appnair]

The OS is only one of the deciding factors .Performance always have to be looked in context with your user load,your db performance etc.Are you collecting timings logs on your servers and has any analysis been done on them to pinpoint where the system is lacking.In many cases stacking more than one livelink instance on the same box and load balancing them ,called vertical scaling improves performance to some extent,if you have more boxes to run them on,it is called Horizontal scaling,but all these should be done only by analyzing the bottle necks.

There are performance analyzing tools,opentext performance reviews etc that can help you greatly.While none of these are cheap,I highly recommend doing it once to really bench mark your system.

Well, if I called the wrong number, why did you answer the phone?
James Thurber, New Yorker cartoon caption, June 5, 1937

 

[DrDDT]

I think the maximum for memory in W2003 standard is 4GB?
4GB might not be enough for the Admin server. We have serveral Admin servers on the larger Livelink instances needing more than 4GB of memory.