This is WAY OT, but since I know more than one of you runs a Home Server, I
thought you might find it interesting.
I upgraded my home server to Windows Server 2003 last night.
It was really quite uneventful. Installation is really no different than
Windows 2000 Server.
In fact, on the surface you'd think it's nothing more than Windows 2000
Server with the XP interface tacked on.
Where it's really different, though, is in the Server SETUP.
WinServer 2003 now classifies things as "Roles". For example, being a
Terminal Server is a "Role". Being a File Server is a "Role", etc...
The main Server Setup window lists the Roles, whether they are enabled, and
provides the link for you to click on if you want to Enable, Disable or
re-configure any particular Role.
I like the way they set it up.
It wasn't 100% trouble-free though. If you don't have a later model Intel
NIC Card, be prepared to spend a few bucks. That's because the ONLY
supported manufacturer in the HCL is INTEL! It's hard to believe, but not a
single 3COM NIC is listed as certified for use with Windows 2003 Server, and
a trip to 3COM's web site resulted in no information to question that. I
could find no drivers for any 3COM card indicating Windows 2003 Server
compatibility.
So, I had to go out and spend $59 on an Intel Pro/1000 MT NIC Card. I went
ahead and got two, and upgraded my workstation card which was a low-end
Intel In-Business Card. I want to play around with Remote Booting, Remote
Installations, and stuff like that and you have to have Managed cards for
that sort of thing.
Now, if only Gigabit SWITCHES would come down in price! Sheesh, the
cheapest one I could find was a 4-Port Netgear for $200!
So far, I like the improvements and it didn't turn out to be much of an
adventure (so far) :)
Larry
IMO Gig NICs are a waste at this point in time.
Not too many servers I know of can max out 400Mbps through their buses let
alone a Gig!
You're probably better off using two or more 100Mbps NICs in a team.
That'll provide for redundancy, failover, and so on. Cheaper then Gig
overall (include the cost per port of a quality switch in that too).
If I'm buying something new, no sense in buying the older technology,
especially when there isn't any real price difference in the card itself :)
Larry
"K e v i n �" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:T%rza.65611$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> IMO Gig NICs are a waste at this point in time. > > Not too many servers I know of can max out 400Mbps through their buses let > alone a Gig! > > You're probably better off using two or more 100Mbps NICs in a team. > That'll provide for redundancy, failover, and so on. Cheaper then Gig > overall (include the cost per port of a quality switch in that too). > > >True, it depends on the application and buyer. For a casual home or small
business user it's probably OK 'IF' the price of the NIC is cheap.
However for a large, highly available server farm, it's probably not very
cost effective at this point in time. Especially if you count in the price
of fast core Gig switch blades, say from Cisco or Nortel. Netgear isn't in
the same ball park as these two, but its cost per port reflects that (I
doubt you can get wire speed on all those ports at once).
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8ntza.59787$[email hidden]...
> If I'm buying something new, no sense in buying the older technology,
> especially when there isn't any real price difference in the card itself:)
let
