Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Performance

  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I've heard differing views. In a 10 station network would performance be better by upgrading the server or the workstations? The server is a peer to peer running XP Pro. One medical app and 2 shared folders are serviced. Generally 2 or 3 stations are inputting & updating while the others are just accessing data. No shared printers are setup. Right now the server is also a workstation. They want to purchase a new PC and were wondering if it should be a workstation for the person using the server or replace the server and let the person keep their current PC.

  2. #2
    WS Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,203
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 989 Times in 919 Posts
    The answer is, it depends.
    Does the server run some sort of database / application that everyone accesses?
    Do you want to use shared printers?
    Do you want to store all documents in one place?
    Do you have a centralised backup?

    If you are going to spend the money I would opt for a low end server with a pair of disks for redundancy, with all user files stored on the server and a central backup.

    cheers, Paul

  3. #3
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Burrton, KS, USA
    Posts
    833
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    I second Paul's suggestion.

    I don't know what "performance" issues you are dealing with but all user's files in a central location for backup would be a huge reason for me to go with the server.

  4. #4
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,594
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 928 Posts
    Remember guys, the OP says the "server" is an XP Pro machine running in a peer-to-peer network. I don't think there is any intent on installing a real server. I could be wrong.

    Joe
    Joe

  5. #5
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    The scenario is:
    The network already exists. It has an XP peer to peer network and the server is also a workstation. One app is shared and one folder is shared. there are no network printers. The company wants to buy a new PC. Would they get a better return on their investment if the new PC became the peer to peer server or should they keep the server the same and use the new PC as a workstation?
    Is it better to have faster workstations or a faster server? The load is not that great on the server. Only 2 users are changing the data, the others only look at the data. The shared folder holds scanned docs and there is not a lot of scanning going on. The company will never buy a real server. The application runs on the workstations and the server only supplies data. No sql databases or anything like that is going on.
    I hope this helps clear things up.

  6. #6
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,594
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 928 Posts
    It seems as though there in not a lot of strain on the "server". Why are they thinking of buying a new PC? Is performance suffering now? If so, you need to determine the bottleneck before just jumping in with a new PC. It could be the network as opposed to a PC usage problem.

    If buying a new PC is a "done deal" and the current PC is performing OK as a workstation I'd use the new PC as the server. It always seems that usage increases on server like machines.

    You should note the connection limits stated in Inbound connections limit in Windows XP.

    Joe

    Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •