[technoarch]

my office, which is an architectural firm, is on a typical small buisness setup where:

dsl----linksys router/switch-----then the network . . we are all running win2k sp3. on this network rests our server. it is just or ordinary file server that houses all of the data for the firm as well as a few programs that i run of of.

i've been granted to build a new server but need some advice. do i just leave the file server structure the way it is or is it beneficial for me to run a "true" server platform where i put all of the primary functions of the office on the box running Win2k server. mind you tha the office has only 10-20 employess at a given time.

any thought or suggestions would be appreciated


tech

[HandofG]

being that small I would leave it the way it is. As I was always told....if it aint broke dont fix it. If they are having problems that a true server would fix then yes but if they are happy with the way things are dont mess with it.

[BubbaJudge]

good advice.


unless your boss is yearning for better performance or wants to centralize services

take G's advice

[Hammer]

I am in precisely the same situation - well, different trade, but same office size, et cetera.

We do run a true server to provide MS Exchange and ICS services, and to provide roaming desktop functionality for some of our users.

We also run a small file server (SCSI RAID 1) to provide a central dump for important shared information, as well as secure user or department-only files. This box runs as just one more unit on the network.

The kicker here is that ALL our software is donated. Win2k, 2k Server, Exchange, the whole nine yards. If you get into an MS-based true server solution, the bills are going to roll in. If you have the time / expertise to implement and maintain a solution on another OS, maybe a true server would be worth it, but imho - simple is best. Especially for a small office.

Go with one more simple networked box.