[tglake]

I have a small network of 10 users on windows XP and 98.
I'm looking to buy a new server, which will serve files and handle the Access databases we run.

The database performance can get quite sluggish, so I need some advice on

- what server spec to go for
I know I need plenty of HDD space, but I'm not sure what other factors will improve the performance for file access

- how else can I tune my network or db to perform better

- is it worth investing in MS Small Business server. Looks like quite a lot. We currently just run windows 2000 on the server machine

any help appreciated - this forum looks excellent

[3xp0]

Get Xeon Dual 2.4Ghz - should be over enough
use SCSI hdds... it's much better file access

[tglake]

Xeon Dual - is that dual Processor ? Could you explain the logic behind this.

Also - the HDD - I need to know a bit more about SCSI.
Should I also consider RAID?
We don't really need anymore than overnight backups - a days data is not the end of the world for this office.

[hilowe]

When 3xp0 says dual 2.4 Ghz, he does mean dual processors. Dual processors can handle more commands than a single processor command. That's why the mail server where I work is a dual processor machine. It can more easily handle receiving mail, sending mail, and allowing customers access to their mail.

SCSI is a faster interface than IDE. I don't know how much faster. You will need a SCSI controller to use a SCSI hd.

I don't know a whole lot about RAID, but what I do know is that RAID will take multiple hard drives and make them look like one. It then "stripes" data between the hard drives (a little on the first, a little on the second, and so on). If one of the drives fails, it can be taken out, and a new one put in it's place, and the other drives will have enough overlap of data that they can rebuild the failed.

Personally, I'd go with RAID over SCSI, because of the last feature, but you'll also need a RAID controller.

Anything I missed?

[tglake]

Great stuff - thanks. This is a big help.

another question - will a Gigabit network make a significant difference to Access database response times, or that just overkill?

[HoLoCroN]

Gigabit will workout pretty well for your DB needs. The price of them have gone down significantly!!! So I would definitely go for it if you can.

Are you planning on using SQL as a backend databaser server?

[tglake]

I'm not sure how much effort it is to move from Access as a db to SQL server. The databases are split into data and app so that makes it easier.

Any views on this would be appreciated.

If I am running 100mbit, will gigabit make a useful difference?

[HoLoCroN]

Not much effort at all.... actually, if you can work on acces.. you can work on sql. Strings and commands are almost identical.

Usually, SQL is the backend DB while access is the front end.

A good example of SQL in action is.. this forum itself. I'm 99 % sure SQL is the backend DB for this application.

(Maybe 1% Oracle)

[tglake]

OK - that looks like the next development project.

Meanwhile - back to the machine spec....