Peer Server info



Gordon Price
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
I am looking for some information on very small offices that are using a
Peer to Peer network with a dedicated 'Peer Server'. Specifically, what does
the server configuration look like, how many and what type of users, what
'Peer Workstation' OS is being used, etc? I have a number of small
architectural clients, most of whom are currently on Windows98 P2P or
Sneakernet networks, and for whom even the very cheapest SBS based
Client/Server network is just not an option. I am trying to establish the
viability of a WindowsXP Pro Peer Server with either WindowsXP Pro or
WindowsXp Home for Peer Workstations.
Any info is greatly appreciated.

Best,
Gordon

Danny Sanders
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
You can use Windows XP Pro to set up a p2p workgroup.

I would use XP pro because if by chance they move to a domain in the future
they will not have to change the XP client.

You should be aware that as with any MS operating system other than the
server version only 10 concurrent connections are allowed.

hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE

"Gordon Price" <gordon(thorn)@albedoconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:eD6aAPmVFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I am looking for some information on very small offices that are using a
>Peer to Peer network with a dedicated 'Peer Server'. Specifically, what
>does the server configuration look like, how many and what type of users,
>what 'Peer Workstation' OS is being used, etc? I have a number of small
>architectural clients, most of whom are currently on Windows98 P2P or
>Sneakernet networks, and for whom even the very cheapest SBS based
>Client/Server network is just not an option. I am trying to establish the
>viability of a WindowsXP Pro Peer Server with either WindowsXP Pro or
>WindowsXp Home for Peer Workstations.
> Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Gordon
>

Gordon Price
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Danny Sanders" <Danny.Sanders@NO-SPAMcpcmed.org> wrote
> I would use XP pro because if by chance they move to a domain in the
> future they will not have to change the XP client.
Yes, but when the goal is to finally get a new system of any kind, the
difference between XP Home clients and XP Pro can be the difference between
getting the goahead and getting a 'thanks, Win98 is working for us'.

>
> You should be aware that as with any MS operating system other than the
> server version only 10 concurrent connections are allowed.
Definitely. And, especially for Architects and their large image and cad
files, I suspect P2P performance would fail around 5 or 6 people.

Do you have any insight as to what processor/ram/hd configs are being used
for a P2P Server? I may actually have to spec a machine in the next few
days, so any info would be helpful.

best,
Gordon

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Gordon Price" <gordon(thorn)@albedoconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:eQhrOenVFHA.544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Danny Sanders" <Danny.Sanders@NO-SPAMcpcmed.org> wrote
>> I would use XP pro because if by chance they move to a domain in the
>> future they will not have to change the XP client.
> Yes, but when the goal is to finally get a new system of any kind, the
> difference between XP Home clients and XP Pro can be the difference
> between getting the goahead and getting a 'thanks, Win98 is working for
> us'.
>
>>
>> You should be aware that as with any MS operating system other than the
>> server version only 10 concurrent connections are allowed.
> Definitely. And, especially for Architects and their large image and cad
> files, I suspect P2P performance would fail around 5 or 6 people.
>
> Do you have any insight as to what processor/ram/hd configs are being used
> for a P2P Server? I may actually have to spec a machine in the next few
> days, so any info would be helpful.
>
> best,
> Gordon
>

Any current P4 or AMD Athlon CPU, Top brand of motherboard (Intel, Asus,
Gigabyte are all good) 512 MB RAM minimum, two hard drives of equal size,
DVD +/-RW drive, minimum 400 watt top brand PSU (I like Antec, AcePower is
OK), Windows XP Pro, Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost or something
similar. Use the imaging program for backups to DVD and image to the second
drive. Make sure whichever motherboard you go with it is not a "value"
model. Even the better manufacturers have some cheap ones. Don't use the
"server" as a workstation as well. Inevitably it will be comprised by the
user and the whole network will be down until it is fixed. When it comes
down to it the cost isn't that much more for Server 2003 Standard. Anything
more than 5 or 6 workstations quickly becomes unmanageable with peer to
peer. The cost of managing the peer to peer will be about the same as Server
2003. You may want to consider Linux as a server as well.

Kerry

Yves Leclerc
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Please note that XP Pro is limited to 10 concurrent "shared" connections.


"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:uYXqlIoVFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Gordon Price" <gordon(thorn)@albedoconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:eQhrOenVFHA.544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Danny Sanders" <Danny.Sanders@NO-SPAMcpcmed.org> wrote
>>> I would use XP pro because if by chance they move to a domain in the
>>> future they will not have to change the XP client.
>> Yes, but when the goal is to finally get a new system of any kind, the
>> difference between XP Home clients and XP Pro can be the difference
>> between getting the goahead and getting a 'thanks, Win98 is working for
>> us'.
>>
>>>
>>> You should be aware that as with any MS operating system other than the
>>> server version only 10 concurrent connections are allowed.
>> Definitely. And, especially for Architects and their large image and cad
>> files, I suspect P2P performance would fail around 5 or 6 people.
>>
>> Do you have any insight as to what processor/ram/hd configs are being
>> used for a P2P Server? I may actually have to spec a machine in the next
>> few days, so any info would be helpful.
>>
>> best,
>> Gordon
>>
>
> Any current P4 or AMD Athlon CPU, Top brand of motherboard (Intel, Asus,
> Gigabyte are all good) 512 MB RAM minimum, two hard drives of equal size,
> DVD +/-RW drive, minimum 400 watt top brand PSU (I like Antec, AcePower is
> OK), Windows XP Pro, Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost or something
> similar. Use the imaging program for backups to DVD and image to the
> second drive. Make sure whichever motherboard you go with it is not a
> "value" model. Even the better manufacturers have some cheap ones. Don't
> use the "server" as a workstation as well. Inevitably it will be comprised
> by the user and the whole network will be down until it is fixed. When it
> comes down to it the cost isn't that much more for Server 2003 Standard.
> Anything more than 5 or 6 workstations quickly becomes unmanageable with
> peer to peer. The cost of managing the peer to peer will be about the same
> as Server 2003. You may want to consider Linux as a server as well.
>
> Kerry
>
>

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
&*%$ spellchecker. That should have been compromised :-)

Kerry

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:uYXqlIoVFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Gordon Price" <gordon(thorn)@albedoconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:eQhrOenVFHA.544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Danny Sanders" <Danny.Sanders@NO-SPAMcpcmed.org> wrote
>>> I would use XP pro because if by chance they move to a domain in the
>>> future they will not have to change the XP client.
>> Yes, but when the goal is to finally get a new system of any kind, the
>> difference between XP Home clients and XP Pro can be the difference
>> between getting the goahead and getting a 'thanks, Win98 is working for
>> us'.
>>
>>>
>>> You should be aware that as with any MS operating system other than the
>>> server version only 10 concurrent connections are allowed.
>> Definitely. And, especially for Architects and their large image and cad
>> files, I suspect P2P performance would fail around 5 or 6 people.
>>
>> Do you have any insight as to what processor/ram/hd configs are being
>> used for a P2P Server? I may actually have to spec a machine in the next
>> few days, so any info would be helpful.
>>
>> best,
>> Gordon
>>
>
> Any current P4 or AMD Athlon CPU, Top brand of motherboard (Intel, Asus,
> Gigabyte are all good) 512 MB RAM minimum, two hard drives of equal size,
> DVD +/-RW drive, minimum 400 watt top brand PSU (I like Antec, AcePower is
> OK), Windows XP Pro, Acronis True Image or Norton Ghost or something
> similar. Use the imaging program for backups to DVD and image to the
> second drive. Make sure whichever motherboard you go with it is not a
> "value" model. Even the better manufacturers have some cheap ones. Don't
> use the "server" as a workstation as well. Inevitably it will be comprised
> by the user and the whole network will be down until it is fixed. When it
> comes down to it the cost isn't that much more for Server 2003 Standard.
> Anything more than 5 or 6 workstations quickly becomes unmanageable with
> peer to peer. The cost of managing the peer to peer will be about the same
> as Server 2003. You may want to consider Linux as a server as well.
>
> Kerry
>
>

johnsuth@nospam.com.au
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In <eD6aAPmVFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, "Gordon Price" <gordon(thorn)@albedoconsulting.com> writes:
>I am looking for some information on very small offices that are using a
>Peer to Peer network with a dedicated 'Peer Server'. Specifically, what does
>the server configuration look like, how many and what type of users, what
>'Peer Workstation' OS is being used, etc? I have a number of small
>architectural clients, most of whom are currently on Windows98 P2P or
>Sneakernet networks, and for whom even the very cheapest SBS based
>Client/Server network is just not an option. I am trying to establish the
>viability of a WindowsXP Pro Peer Server with either WindowsXP Pro or
>WindowsXp Home for Peer Workstations.
>Any info is greatly appreciated.


My classroom has two non MS peer servers, a TCP/IP web server and a NetBeui file server, serving six XP Home clients at minimum cost.

I have a problem with Windows apps wrongly interpreting file server permissions as read only. Notepad however can read and write to the server. This has not been a big issue in my situation, but I hope to sort it out. The web server works faultlessly.

In my experience, slow file transfer on peer networks occurs only when I use the GUI to select which file is to be copied to where. Network backup is 80% of the speed of local backup.

I don't know how MS enforces its 5 and 10 box limits, but they don't seem to apply to me.

johnsuth@nospam.com.au
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In <c1.2c.2wcBfD$0II@smith.microsoft.com>, johnsuth@nospam.com.au writes:
>In <eD6aAPmVFHA.2960@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, "Gordon Price" <gordon(thorn)@albedoconsulting.com> writes:
>>I am looking for some information on very small offices that are using a
>>Peer to Peer network with a dedicated 'Peer Server'. Specifically, what does
>>the server configuration look like, how many and what type of users, what
>>'Peer Workstation' OS is being used, etc? I have a number of small
>>architectural clients, most of whom are currently on Windows98 P2P or
>>Sneakernet networks, and for whom even the very cheapest SBS based
>>Client/Server network is just not an option. I am trying to establish the
>>viability of a WindowsXP Pro Peer Server with either WindowsXP Pro or
>>WindowsXp Home for Peer Workstations.
>>Any info is greatly appreciated.
>
>
>My classroom has two non MS peer servers, a TCP/IP web server and a NetBeui file server, serving six XP Home clients at minimum cost.
>
>I have a problem with Windows apps wrongly interpreting file server permissions as read only. Notepad however can read and write to the server. This has not been a big issue in my situation, but I hope to sort it out. The web server works faultlessly.
>
>In my experience, slow file transfer on peer networks occurs only when I use the GUI to select which file is to be copied to where. Network backup is 80% of the speed of local backup.
>
>I don't know how MS enforces its 5 and 10 box limits, but they don't seem to apply to me.


Further reading suggests that if yur servers are not Windows, then the Windows limit on concurrent client incoming sessions do not apply.


Peer Server info