| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/02/2006 11:13:25 AM · #1 |
I used to be quite good with the technical side of single computers and software until XP came and nothing broke down anymore. Now I need to create a small network and do not have a clue what is possible. Since I trust anyone here more than salesmen, please help me out with the following:
For a business we want to connect three computers. They need to be connected to share files, an MS Access database (running in a special piece of software) of max 2Gb that will be shared by two users at the same time max. We also want to share one printer and an internet connection (light use, just a bit of e-mail and browsing, nothing fancy), the files that are shared will not be big and are unlikely to be accessed by two persons at te same time.
So I asked a company to come up with a plan for this, as I had no idea what to do. They recommended a server (HP Proliant with a dual core processor, 3Gb RAM, three disks of 75GB etc, etc, etc with hardware firewall, powerprotection equipment, backup stuff, printserver, switch, MS Small Business Server 2003 etc). Including the new PC's (the current ones are 350 and 600Mhz, very old), the costs were extremely high.
This solution for what we want seems to me like pure overkill.
I could be wrong, but wouldnt it be possible to run just three computers with a switch and use the network capabilities and build in internet sharing program of Windows XP Pro? The PC on which the database and the important files are stored is on the whole day anyway and the three computers stand opposite eachother in the same room. Using just a switch is possible right?
When I put a strong dual core processor, lots of RAM and a couple of seperate disks in the main computer it should be able to deal with the requests of the other pc's while I still work on it right? The programs we run are not that heavy on the resources. The main reason why the third computer is in this network is a little bit of workplace flexibility and mainly internet sharing. So when the above is not possible I could do a direct link between the two.
Maybe some of you have some liks to good sites about networks? I really need to get some knowledge about this stuff.
At the moment I feel like they are trying to sell me an overkill system because they think I do not know any better.
Message edited by author 2006-12-02 11:15:30.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 12:05:28 PM · #2 |
It depends what you want but if it helps this is my setup at home...
Cable Modem -> {Vonage Router & Phone} -> Wired Router ->
-> Gigabit Switch -> 1 computer & NAS (for photo storage)
-> 2 Puters & Wireless Access Point (for work laptops).
- The wired router & gigabit switch are < $100 each.
- You could avoid the switch if you are fine with 100Mbit or you get a gigabit wired router (I got it years ago and was not an option).
- The switch is only for increased speed between the NAS and my photo editing computer.
- The NAS (network available storage) is just so important stuff is not on any machine & is available to all plus the NAS is running as a RAID5 box, so there is some redundancy - theoretically, I could lose a single drive in there and still recover. This is obviously optional and runs from @$400 up depending on the space you need and features.
- Some people put the Vonage thing off their main router - works fine either way but I wanted the phone to have all the bandwidth it needs at the cost of the incoming web connection.
- The computers are all sharing their local drives.
- I have the printer on the NAS so anyone can print. I think you can also share a printer on 1 of the machines if you prefer.
Hope some of this junk helps...
Message edited by author 2006-12-02 12:06:54.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 01:52:55 PM · #3 |
For the Internet-sharing/connecting-the-computers-together part, I would go down to the local best buy and buy a router. Like a Linksys WRT54G for example. This will give you a hardware router to share the internet connection. This router has 4 10/100 ports on it and wireless. You can hook 3 computers to it and one network printer. Done.
If you would rather use a non-networkable printer, just hook it to a computer and then share it.
For shared file space, you have several options. The cheapest would be to share a directory on one of the computers and then mount it as a network drive on the others. You could do the same thing with an external USB drive if you wanted. Or you could go NAS or you could but together a simple server and host it there. There are many options.
Hope this helps.
Message edited by author 2006-12-02 13:53:26. |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:15:52 PM · #4 |
Agreement with the other posters,
Would a Linky help?
One thing to note is that the versions with Gigabit (that I found, non-exhaustive search) were a LOT more expensive. There is the option for a separate switch/print servers and then getting a plain NAS solution.
If you do have a lager budget, I'd go with something like this, which has RAID for fault tolerance, one Gigabit switch, and choose a print server based off of needs. (USB/parallel,wifi,firewall,802.11abg,blah,blah)
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:26:52 PM · #5 |
while i agree that you can do it on the cheap for home & work .. (as I do for home but NOT at work)
what is the time & effort of the data you are storing ?
what is down time worth ? (time with no access to the DB ?)
If it takes more than 2 days time to rebuild the database from scratch
get a separate server - with Raid 0 & a UPS & some form of offsite back up -
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:40:36 PM · #6 |
Wow, that solution really is overkill... Especially that server, haha. I did two years of large scale networking (100+ computers) and that's the sort of thing we had for that. Anyways, I agree with what wavelength and TJinGuy said here. All you need for basics is a router and an internet connection.
You can attach a printer to one of the computers and share it that way. You can also share the local drives and access them from the other computers.
If you want a networked storage, then a NAS (Network Attached Storage) system like the Buffalo that wavelength suggested is a possibility. Although you might be able to find cheaper ones, they still won't be cheap by any means. Another thing you could do with this is to take one (or both) of those old PC's and add in a few massive hard drives to make it a file storage server by sharing those drives over the network. Sharing files takes minimal CPU power and you might as well not waste one of them.
The gigabit switch is a nice thing to have, but I wouldn't waste your budget on it. A 100Mbit switch would serve you just fine. If you were to go with the gigabit one, you would have to make sure all your computers have gigabit cards as well.
You can also buy a network print server that basically changes USB -> ethernet instead of getting a printer with a built in port, the external adaptors are generally cheaper from what i've seen.
I hope all this helps, let me know if you have any more questions about any of this.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:45:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
... I'd go with something like this, which has RAID for fault tolerance... |
Ooooooo, my favorite! Although I'd pick someplace other thean Dell to buy it from (don't get me wrong I love my Dell laptop). Cheaper that way. //www.buffalotech.com/products/storage.php
One word about the Home versions. If you ever need to swap a hard drive out to rebuild the RAID, I hear it's a royal PITA to take the whole thing apart just to get one drive out. I'm eyeing the Pro version. |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:48:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
The gigabit switch is a nice thing to have, but I wouldn't waste your budget on it. A 100Mbit switch would serve you just fine. If you were to go with the gigabit one, you would have to make sure all your computers have gigabit cards as well. |
Not necessary that ALL PCs have gigabit. It would just mean that traffic to and from those PC's without it falls back to the slower 100Mb speed. Those individual PCs would appear to be slower than the ones with 1000Mb NICs.
Message edited by author 2006-12-02 14:49:28. |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:51:01 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by wavelength:
... I'd go with something like this, which has RAID for fault tolerance... |
Ooooooo, my favorite! Although I'd pick someplace other thean Dell to buy it from (don't get me wrong I love my Dell laptop). Cheaper that way. //www.buffalotech.com/products/storage.php
One word about the Home versions. If you ever need to swap a hard drive out to rebuild the RAID, I hear it's a royal PITA to take the whole thing apart just to get one drive out. I'm eyeing the Pro version. |
whoa! that's a much better deal! $699 at TigerDirect. Sorry, no idea what they cost in Holland, Az :(
|
|
|
|
12/02/2006 02:59:03 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by _eug:
Ooooooo, my favorite! Although I'd pick someplace other thean Dell to buy it from (don't get me wrong I love my Dell laptop). Cheaper that way. //www.buffalotech.com/products/storage.php |
whoa! that's a much better deal! $699 at TigerDirect. |
I figured Dell added a 'healthy' markup. Ew... lol |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 03:05:09 PM · #11 |
agreed... that seems to be serious overkill, but they may have misunderstood your requirements. Go with the suggestions below - it would be very simple, and look something like this (quick mock-up):
The printer & database can reside on any of the 3 machines.
Start here and grow as needed.
edit: forgot to mention - the router/FW/switch can be separate devices or a multi-purpose unit.
Hope this helps...
Message edited by author 2006-12-02 15:07:24. |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 03:44:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
At the moment I feel like they are trying to sell me an overkill system because they think I do not know any better. |
They quoted you something that is a) professional b) not a slap-together soution for which you are goign to be paying consultants to routinely come in and tinker with and c) a solution which you could accomodate growth with without having to spend anything more on infrastructure.
I don't see anything on the quote that comes across as a blatant attempt to rip you off. The company that gave you the quote is going to be responsible for its performance, Quoting you a Linksys switch, a few power strips and some other junk from the local Best Buy is going to create as many problems for them as it will for you down the road.
If it is for your business, consider it a capital investment and do things right from the start.
The only thing in that quote worth researching alternatives on is the file server. If you never plan to grow, get the cheapest server from Dell that you can find. |
|
|
|
12/02/2006 03:58:32 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
At the moment I feel like they are trying to sell me an overkill system because they think I do not know any better. |
They quoted you something that is a) professional b) not a slap-together soution for which you are goign to be paying consultants to routinely come in and tinker with and c) a solution which you could accomodate growth with without having to spend anything more on infrastructure.
I don't see anything on the quote that comes across as a blatant attempt to rip you off. The company that gave you the quote is going to be responsible for its performance, Quoting you a Linksys switch, a few power strips and some other junk from the local Best Buy is going to create as many problems for them as it will for you down the road.
If it is for your business, consider it a capital investment and do things right from the start.
The only thing in that quote worth researching alternatives on is the file server. If you never plan to grow, get the cheapest server from Dell that you can find. |
Agreed if the money is in the budget, but AZ seemed liked he was balking at the idea of spending that much right now, which might mean that there's not much in the coffer for a capital outlay at the moment. For very small business structures, ROI is VERY key.
routerguy is right in that buying TOO cheap is going to cause you more trouble than it fixes. Buying three new PC's alone (if they are needed) is going to run you at the very least $500USD for the cheapest barebones system available. More likely you'll spend something like $1000USD/per for some decent systems that will last a few years. It all depends on what your needs and budget are.
If you do want to hand over the IT work to these consultants (or another), it's probably better that you put in some systems that it will be worth while for them to work on, but more importantly find someone that you trust. Shop around and ask around to see if you know anyone that uses them or has another company that they recommend.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2006 05:35:17 AM · #14 |
Thanks so much for your replies (and the drawing). I get a better idea of what I want and what is possible now.
We do have a good budget for this and will buy good quality stuff.
For continuity of the database and files, there will be a good backup solution. The use of one of the old computers as storage is also a good idea.
I will talk to the company tomorrow to discuss this, so they can make a new offer (we will not only ask them). They are good, well known and respected. Maybe we both didn't communicate things good enough.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2006 05:52:04 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Thanks so much for your replies (and the drawing). I get a better idea of what I want and what is possible now.
We do have a good budget for this and will buy good quality stuff.
For continuity of the database and files, there will be a good backup solution. The use of one of the old computers as storage is also a good idea.
I will talk to the company tomorrow to discuss this, so they can make a new offer (we will not only ask them). They are good, well known and respected. Maybe we both didn't communicate things good enough.
Thanks again. |
hi,you have to remember that cheap solutions are regularly the bad ones, so in my opinion as i have over 11 years of experience (and still young :-)) the best solution is something in the middle, but you have to recognize the values of power protection and backup/archive solution because they intend to cost more but there overall values is priceless when you consider things, trust me.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2006 05:57:04 AM · #16 |
Okay, for a small, 3 computer, network, I'd probably suggest that you get a "wireless broadband router". This would allow you to share your broadband connection (be it ADSL or Cable, this would determine the type of broadband router that you would purchase), over either wireless or wired connections. Most "wireless" routers of quality offer at least 3 physical ethernet connections, too. (So, in essence, the router also acts as a switch, and firewall).
Obviously if you went the wireless route you would need to secure it down, but most decent devices will offer you WEP or WPA. If you enable one of those and hide the SSID you'll be more secure than half the wireless networks out there right now. Wireless would, however, offer you significant flexibility in terms of moving kit around such as laptops, and possibly save money in building cabling.
Aside from that, the network itself -
If you introduced a server, then it could offer you somewhat more security, data resiliance, and processing power at the cost of more money and time in administration. You could have one central point to store files, etc, one central email server, and other such things. It could also be permanently accessible, unlike other people's machines, which may be turned off or taken off-site, for example.
Bear in mind that, when people try to sell businesses "servers", they are selling what are, essentially, highly-specified PCs with a server-type Operating System. You don't *have* to buy one of them. Any PC that meets hardware requirements to run a server-type OS could act as a domain server. Any PC at all with most OS on the market can act as a "server" to some extent (eg offering file and print services).
So I'd definitely recommend just getting some kind of box, be it a PC or a beefy server to act as your file store, and to be permanently turned on to run printing services and what-not.
Just as an aside, someone mentioned RAID 0. Whilst this does offer you the opportunity to join disks together to create a large storage array, it does not offer data resilience / drive redundancy. If a salesman tells you to get a "server" with RAID 0 to increase your data security, stear clear. |
|
|
|
12/03/2006 05:58:51 AM · #17 |
| Oh, yes. I also wanted to say that Access isn't that great when it comes to supporting multiple connections. You should be okay with two users, but for more than that you may want to consider implementing something else as a back-end for your database. Microsoft SQL Server Express Edition will host a database for you whilst allowing you to link in through access for front-end operations, and it is available to use for free. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/07/2026 03:58:40 AM EST.
