Considering Upgrade Schedule

Hello,

We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount but
we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's reasoning
was for that one).

It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be greatly
improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
Windows Server and Exchange Server.

Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz processor,
we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick, in
terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take a
little time, but nothing too klunky.

Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated onto
its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?

Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.

Matthew

Kevin
Thu Oct 23 16:34:48 CDT 2003

Just somew thoughts ...

1. You don't indicate how much memory you have on your server. If you've had
it for 2 years, I might suspect about 512mb. If so, consider doubling it.
2. IMO, moving off Exchange will not help your 'slow' Access DB issue.
Retooling your Access DB design might be of some help - for example,
splitting it into a front end/back end design, if not already. I'll leave
that to the Access DB gurus in this NG!
3. What speed is your network actually running at? You may have PC's with
100mbps network cards, but if they are all connected to a 10mbps hub, your
network is only going to run at 10mbps.

-kw

"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount but
> we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
reasoning
> was for that one).
>
> It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
greatly
> improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> Windows Server and Exchange Server.
>
> Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz processor,
> we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
in
> terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take a
> little time, but nothing too klunky.
>
> Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
onto
> its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
>
> Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
>
> Matthew
>
>

Applebaum
Thu Oct 23 16:45:44 CDT 2003

1) Yes, we only have 512MB RAM. I totally didn't think of doubling it,
thank you!

2) DB is already split into front/back ends. Some of the queries it runs
can get pretty processor intensive. I think though that it uses the
client's processor, being the front end, but it still has to call up data on
the server.

3) We have a 10/100 switch, some workstations have 100MB NICs.

Thanks again!

Matthew


"Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbac@REMOVE_CAPSgte.net.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:%23bqZ91amDHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Just somew thoughts ...
>
> 1. You don't indicate how much memory you have on your server. If you've
had
> it for 2 years, I might suspect about 512mb. If so, consider doubling it.
> 2. IMO, moving off Exchange will not help your 'slow' Access DB issue.
> Retooling your Access DB design might be of some help - for example,
> splitting it into a front end/back end design, if not already. I'll leave
> that to the Access DB gurus in this NG!
> 3. What speed is your network actually running at? You may have PC's with
> 100mbps network cards, but if they are all connected to a 10mbps hub, your
> network is only going to run at 10mbps.
>
> -kw
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
but
> > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> reasoning
> > was for that one).
> >
> > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> greatly
> > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> >
> > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
processor,
> > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
> in
> > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take
a
> > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> >
> > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> onto
> > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> >
> > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
>
>

Applebaum
Thu Oct 23 16:49:10 CDT 2003

In a two 1/2 year old server, what parts might we expect to fail? It's a
Dell PowerEdge 2500SC. Hard drives are in a RAID5, so I'm not too worried
about one of them failing. It's got a redundant power supply. What else
might burn out on us?

Many thanks in advance!

Matthew

"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount but
> we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
reasoning
> was for that one).
>
> It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
greatly
> improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> Windows Server and Exchange Server.
>
> Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz processor,
> we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
in
> terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take a
> little time, but nothing too klunky.
>
> Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
onto
> its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
>
> Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
>
> Matthew
>
>

Marcia
Thu Oct 23 17:02:57 CDT 2003

Hi! Regarding Access, depending on how many tables, how many records in
each table, how many tables the queries hit, etc.

You may want to consider converting it to SQL. It isn't too painful,
really. SQL can be a pig though with the server.

When you say it opens slow, are you talking more than 5-6 seconds?

Marcia


"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:eI4z%237amDHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 1) Yes, we only have 512MB RAM. I totally didn't think of doubling it,
> thank you!
>
> 2) DB is already split into front/back ends. Some of the queries it runs
> can get pretty processor intensive. I think though that it uses the
> client's processor, being the front end, but it still has to call up data
on
> the server.
>
> 3) We have a 10/100 switch, some workstations have 100MB NICs.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Matthew
>
>
> "Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbac@REMOVE_CAPSgte.net.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:%23bqZ91amDHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Just somew thoughts ...
> >
> > 1. You don't indicate how much memory you have on your server. If you've
> had
> > it for 2 years, I might suspect about 512mb. If so, consider doubling
it.
> > 2. IMO, moving off Exchange will not help your 'slow' Access DB issue.
> > Retooling your Access DB design might be of some help - for example,
> > splitting it into a front end/back end design, if not already. I'll
leave
> > that to the Access DB gurus in this NG!
> > 3. What speed is your network actually running at? You may have PC's
with
> > 100mbps network cards, but if they are all connected to a 10mbps hub,
your
> > network is only going to run at 10mbps.
> >
> > -kw
> >
> > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and
we're
> > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two
years.
> > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
> but
> > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> > reasoning
> > > was for that one).
> > >
> > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> > greatly
> > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a
full
> > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > >
> > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are
using
> > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
> processor,
> > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan
on
> > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty
quick,
> > in
> > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations
take
> a
> > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > >
> > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> > onto
> > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Applebaum
Thu Oct 23 17:25:38 CDT 2003

Hi Marcia,

We've got 54 tables, only a few have between 3,000 and 8,000 records.
Really not that big. Some of the queries are pretty deeply nested, though,
calling on other queries which call on other queries and so on. But the
majority of the queries are fairly straightforward, and most database
operations happen relatively quickly.

I reduced the time it takes to open the main forms by about 2 seconds. They
had many subforms, which I replaced with a single subform whose source
changes according to the tab selected. They now take 3-4 seconds to open.

Can you point me to info on how to move it into SQL? I'd love to switch
over, just for geeky reasons, but I don't think its size really justifies it
at this point. However, we are talking about implementing some sort of
change history system which would keep track of all changes to all fields in
all tables - who changed what and when - and that would take up lots of
space.

Thanks for your help,

Matthew


"Marcia" <mporter@martechgroup.net> wrote in message
news:%231qReFbmDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi! Regarding Access, depending on how many tables, how many records in
> each table, how many tables the queries hit, etc.
>
> You may want to consider converting it to SQL. It isn't too painful,
> really. SQL can be a pig though with the server.
>
> When you say it opens slow, are you talking more than 5-6 seconds?
>
> Marcia
>
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:eI4z%237amDHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > 1) Yes, we only have 512MB RAM. I totally didn't think of doubling it,
> > thank you!
> >
> > 2) DB is already split into front/back ends. Some of the queries it
runs
> > can get pretty processor intensive. I think though that it uses the
> > client's processor, being the front end, but it still has to call up
data
> on
> > the server.
> >
> > 3) We have a 10/100 switch, some workstations have 100MB NICs.
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbac@REMOVE_CAPSgte.net.NO_SPAM> wrote in
message
> > news:%23bqZ91amDHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Just somew thoughts ...
> > >
> > > 1. You don't indicate how much memory you have on your server. If
you've
> > had
> > > it for 2 years, I might suspect about 512mb. If so, consider doubling
> it.
> > > 2. IMO, moving off Exchange will not help your 'slow' Access DB issue.
> > > Retooling your Access DB design might be of some help - for example,
> > > splitting it into a front end/back end design, if not already. I'll
> leave
> > > that to the Access DB gurus in this NG!
> > > 3. What speed is your network actually running at? You may have PC's
> with
> > > 100mbps network cards, but if they are all connected to a 10mbps hub,
> your
> > > network is only going to run at 10mbps.
> > >
> > > -kw
> > >
> > > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and
> we're
> > > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two
> years.
> > > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good
discount
> > but
> > > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> > > reasoning
> > > > was for that one).
> > > >
> > > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> > > greatly
> > > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server.
Of
> > > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a
> full
> > > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > > >
> > > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are
> using
> > > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
> > processor,
> > > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't
plan
> on
> > > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty
> quick,
> > > in
> > > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations
> take
> > a
> > > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > > >
> > > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were
separated
> > > onto
> > > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Matthew
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Dave
Thu Oct 23 17:29:39 CDT 2003

I have a PE2500 going on 3 1/2 years old. I don't expect any parts to fail,
but here are a couple of comments: my DDS-4 tape drive did fail after about
maybe 2 1/2 years. I found out after the fact that someone sanded drywall
near the server, causing quite a mess. I'm not sure whether that caused the
drive to fail or not.

The best thing you can do if you're concerned about server health is to
download and install the most recent version of Dell's Open Manage Server
Administrator. It gets an unbelievable range of information from the
server's motherboard and interal sensors, and it has diagnostic routines for
all of the parts. You can even see internal temperature and fan rpm's. The
only possible negatives are that it's about a 130-mb download, and that it
will probably require you to upgrade your firmware and drivers if you
haven't done so since the server was new.

My best advice would be to download all of the current drivers and firmware
from the Dell web site, and the Open Manage Server Administrator software.
Then call Dell server support and let them walk you through all the driver
and firmware updates. There are a couple of things that can be tricky in
that process. Once your firmware is current, Open Manage installation is
easy, and it will do the firmware upgrades for you automatically from then
on.

If Server Administrator reports that a drive or other part is failing, Dell
will replace it under warranty without you having to wait for it to actually
give up the ghost.

By the way, my 2500 is older than yours, and I'm not even considering
replacing it. In fact, I just bought a 2-yr warranty extension. That thing
is a tank. I did get an extra gig of ram from www.crucial.com, IMO the best
place to buy memory.

Make sure you get Server Administrator - there are several programs called
Dell Open Manage....



"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23jt$59amDHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> In a two 1/2 year old server, what parts might we expect to fail? It's a
> Dell PowerEdge 2500SC. Hard drives are in a RAID5, so I'm not too
worried
> about one of them failing. It's got a redundant power supply. What else
> might burn out on us?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Matthew
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
but
> > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> reasoning
> > was for that one).
> >
> > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> greatly
> > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> >
> > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
processor,
> > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
> in
> > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take
a
> > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> >
> > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> onto
> > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> >
> > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
>
>

Rob
Thu Oct 23 17:28:29 CDT 2003

Coolant Fans.

"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23jt$59amDHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> In a two 1/2 year old server, what parts might we expect to fail? It's a
> Dell PowerEdge 2500SC. Hard drives are in a RAID5, so I'm not too
worried
> about one of them failing. It's got a redundant power supply. What else
> might burn out on us?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Matthew
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
but
> > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> reasoning
> > was for that one).
> >
> > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> greatly
> > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> >
> > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
processor,
> > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
> in
> > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take
a
> > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> >
> > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> onto
> > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> >
> > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
>
>

Applebaum
Thu Oct 23 18:00:17 CDT 2003

Wow, thank you so much!!

I did upgrade the firmware recently, had to do that in order to add more
hard drives. I haven't yet taken advantage of their server admin software
though. This is good!

Matthew

"Dave Nickason" <gwdibble@NOSPAM.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:u%23I4mUbmDHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have a PE2500 going on 3 1/2 years old. I don't expect any parts to
fail,
> but here are a couple of comments: my DDS-4 tape drive did fail after
about
> maybe 2 1/2 years. I found out after the fact that someone sanded drywall
> near the server, causing quite a mess. I'm not sure whether that caused
the
> drive to fail or not.
>
> The best thing you can do if you're concerned about server health is to
> download and install the most recent version of Dell's Open Manage Server
> Administrator. It gets an unbelievable range of information from the
> server's motherboard and interal sensors, and it has diagnostic routines
for
> all of the parts. You can even see internal temperature and fan rpm's.
The
> only possible negatives are that it's about a 130-mb download, and that it
> will probably require you to upgrade your firmware and drivers if you
> haven't done so since the server was new.
>
> My best advice would be to download all of the current drivers and
firmware
> from the Dell web site, and the Open Manage Server Administrator software.
> Then call Dell server support and let them walk you through all the driver
> and firmware updates. There are a couple of things that can be tricky in
> that process. Once your firmware is current, Open Manage installation is
> easy, and it will do the firmware upgrades for you automatically from then
> on.
>
> If Server Administrator reports that a drive or other part is failing,
Dell
> will replace it under warranty without you having to wait for it to
actually
> give up the ghost.
>
> By the way, my 2500 is older than yours, and I'm not even considering
> replacing it. In fact, I just bought a 2-yr warranty extension. That
thing
> is a tank. I did get an extra gig of ram from www.crucial.com, IMO the
best
> place to buy memory.
>
> Make sure you get Server Administrator - there are several programs called
> Dell Open Manage....
>
>
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23jt$59amDHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > In a two 1/2 year old server, what parts might we expect to fail? It's
a
> > Dell PowerEdge 2500SC. Hard drives are in a RAID5, so I'm not too
> worried
> > about one of them failing. It's got a redundant power supply. What
else
> > might burn out on us?
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and
we're
> > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two
years.
> > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
> but
> > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> > reasoning
> > > was for that one).
> > >
> > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> > greatly
> > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a
full
> > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > >
> > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are
using
> > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
> processor,
> > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan
on
> > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty
quick,
> > in
> > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations
take
> a
> > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > >
> > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> > onto
> > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Applebaum
Thu Oct 23 18:01:41 CDT 2003

Hmm. Would the warning I get be that a fan isn't working, or would it be a
temperature thing?

Thanks,

Matthew

"Rob Cullen" <rcullennospam@curchodandco.com> wrote in message
news:ulIKCUbmDHA.2772@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Coolant Fans.
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23jt$59amDHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > In a two 1/2 year old server, what parts might we expect to fail? It's
a
> > Dell PowerEdge 2500SC. Hard drives are in a RAID5, so I'm not too
> worried
> > about one of them failing. It's got a redundant power supply. What
else
> > might burn out on us?
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and
we're
> > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two
years.
> > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
> but
> > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> > reasoning
> > > was for that one).
> > >
> > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> > greatly
> > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a
full
> > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > >
> > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are
using
> > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
> processor,
> > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan
on
> > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty
quick,
> > in
> > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations
take
> a
> > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > >
> > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> > onto
> > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Marcia
Thu Oct 23 18:32:16 CDT 2003

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;285829&Product=acc2002

Click on Tools, Database Utilities, Upsize Wizard. It is pretty simple.
Get a decent SQL book and Access Book, and you'll be fine.

Definately try it in a test environment first.

Marcia

"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:OnDOSSbmDHA.2772@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Marcia,
>
> We've got 54 tables, only a few have between 3,000 and 8,000 records.
> Really not that big. Some of the queries are pretty deeply nested,
though,
> calling on other queries which call on other queries and so on. But the
> majority of the queries are fairly straightforward, and most database
> operations happen relatively quickly.
>
> I reduced the time it takes to open the main forms by about 2 seconds.
They
> had many subforms, which I replaced with a single subform whose source
> changes according to the tab selected. They now take 3-4 seconds to open.
>
> Can you point me to info on how to move it into SQL? I'd love to switch
> over, just for geeky reasons, but I don't think its size really justifies
it
> at this point. However, we are talking about implementing some sort of
> change history system which would keep track of all changes to all fields
in
> all tables - who changed what and when - and that would take up lots of
> space.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> "Marcia" <mporter@martechgroup.net> wrote in message
> news:%231qReFbmDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi! Regarding Access, depending on how many tables, how many records in
> > each table, how many tables the queries hit, etc.
> >
> > You may want to consider converting it to SQL. It isn't too painful,
> > really. SQL can be a pig though with the server.
> >
> > When you say it opens slow, are you talking more than 5-6 seconds?
> >
> > Marcia
> >
> >
> > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:eI4z%237amDHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > 1) Yes, we only have 512MB RAM. I totally didn't think of doubling
it,
> > > thank you!
> > >
> > > 2) DB is already split into front/back ends. Some of the queries it
> runs
> > > can get pretty processor intensive. I think though that it uses the
> > > client's processor, being the front end, but it still has to call up
> data
> > on
> > > the server.
> > >
> > > 3) We have a 10/100 switch, some workstations have 100MB NICs.
> > >
> > > Thanks again!
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> > > "Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbac@REMOVE_CAPSgte.net.NO_SPAM> wrote in
> message
> > > news:%23bqZ91amDHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > Just somew thoughts ...
> > > >
> > > > 1. You don't indicate how much memory you have on your server. If
> you've
> > > had
> > > > it for 2 years, I might suspect about 512mb. If so, consider
doubling
> > it.
> > > > 2. IMO, moving off Exchange will not help your 'slow' Access DB
issue.
> > > > Retooling your Access DB design might be of some help - for example,
> > > > splitting it into a front end/back end design, if not already. I'll
> > leave
> > > > that to the Access DB gurus in this NG!
> > > > 3. What speed is your network actually running at? You may have PC's
> > with
> > > > 100mbps network cards, but if they are all connected to a 10mbps
hub,
> > your
> > > > network is only going to run at 10mbps.
> > > >
> > > > -kw
> > > >
> > > > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and
> > we're
> > > > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two
> > years.
> > > > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good
> discount
> > > but
> > > > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> > > > reasoning
> > > > > was for that one).
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can
be
> > > > greatly
> > > > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server.
> Of
> > > > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a
> > full
> > > > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > > > >
> > > > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are
> > using
> > > > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
> > > processor,
> > > > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't
> plan
> > on
> > > > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty
> > quick,
> > > > in
> > > > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations
> > take
> > > a
> > > > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were
> separated
> > > > onto
> > > > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Henry
Thu Oct 23 19:47:40 CDT 2003

Mathew,

You should post this to:
comp.databases.ms-access
The brains trust there is phenomenal, and they will help you optimise
your Access Application ( better SQL Queries, Indexing, etc... etc.... )

If you -do- upgrade the DB engine from Jet to MSDE or SQL Server running
on the SB Server then you will probably want to Upgrade the SB Server as
you'll probably want to be running Stored Procedures and Triggers.

You'll then need to look at 4 areas, Bus Speed, Processor, RAM, and Disk
I/O, so you'll be looking to:
Faster Motherboard Bus Speed
Faster CPU ( and/or Dual CPU )
Max (High Speed) RAM
(Reliable) High Speed Disk I/O ( SCSI RAID )

You'll also be looking at -where- to place the DB Separate Drive/Array
etc.
( in fact you may want to consider some of these as an option with the
current Jet db)

8,000 records is tiny for Jet, so I suspect that the folks at
comp.databases.ms-access
should be able to help you tweak the App up successfully.

---
Henry Craven

"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:OnDOSSbmDHA.2772@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Marcia,
>
> We've got 54 tables, only a few have between 3,000 and 8,000 records.
> Really not that big. Some of the queries are pretty deeply nested,
though,
> calling on other queries which call on other queries and so on. But
the
> majority of the queries are fairly straightforward, and most database
> operations happen relatively quickly.
>
> I reduced the time it takes to open the main forms by about 2 seconds.
They
> had many subforms, which I replaced with a single subform whose source
> changes according to the tab selected. They now take 3-4 seconds to
open.
>
> Can you point me to info on how to move it into SQL? I'd love to
switch
> over, just for geeky reasons, but I don't think its size really
justifies it
> at this point. However, we are talking about implementing some sort
of
> change history system which would keep track of all changes to all
fields in
> all tables - who changed what and when - and that would take up lots
of
> space.
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> "Marcia" <mporter@martechgroup.net> wrote in message
> news:%231qReFbmDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi! Regarding Access, depending on how many tables, how many
records in
> > each table, how many tables the queries hit, etc.
> >
> > You may want to consider converting it to SQL. It isn't too
painful,
> > really. SQL can be a pig though with the server.
> >
> > When you say it opens slow, are you talking more than 5-6 seconds?
> >
> > Marcia
> >
> >
> > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:eI4z%237amDHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > 1) Yes, we only have 512MB RAM. I totally didn't think of
doubling it,
> > > thank you!
> > >
> > > 2) DB is already split into front/back ends. Some of the queries
it
> runs
> > > can get pretty processor intensive. I think though that it uses
the
> > > client's processor, being the front end, but it still has to call
up
> data
> > on
> > > the server.
> > >
> > > 3) We have a 10/100 switch, some workstations have 100MB NICs.
> > >
> > > Thanks again!
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> > > "Kevin Weilbacher" <kweilbac@REMOVE_CAPSgte.net.NO_SPAM> wrote in
> message
> > > news:%23bqZ91amDHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > Just somew thoughts ...
> > > >
> > > > 1. You don't indicate how much memory you have on your server.
If
> you've
> > > had
> > > > it for 2 years, I might suspect about 512mb. If so, consider
doubling
> > it.
> > > > 2. IMO, moving off Exchange will not help your 'slow' Access DB
issue.
> > > > Retooling your Access DB design might be of some help - for
example,
> > > > splitting it into a front end/back end design, if not already.
I'll
> > leave
> > > > that to the Access DB gurus in this NG!
> > > > 3. What speed is your network actually running at? You may have
PC's
> > with
> > > > 100mbps network cards, but if they are all connected to a 10mbps
hub,
> > your
> > > > network is only going to run at 10mbps.
> > > >
> > > > -kw
> > > >
> > > > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years,
and
> > we're
> > > > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next
two
> > years.
> > > > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good
> discount
> > > but
> > > > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what
Microsoft's
> > > > reasoning
> > > > > was for that one).
> > > > >
> > > > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability
can be
> > > > greatly
> > > > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated
server.
> Of
> > > > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server
to a
> > full
> > > > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > > > >
> > > > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We
are
> > using
> > > > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single
933MHz
> > > processor,
> > > > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we
don't
> plan
> > on
> > > > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is
pretty
> > quick,
> > > > in
> > > > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database
operations
> > take
> > > a
> > > > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were
> separated
> > > > onto
> > > > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we
encounter?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Marcia
Fri Oct 24 07:46:40 CDT 2003

Hi! You mentioned getting software real cheap every 2 1/2 years. I also
work for a non-profit charity organization. Where do you get your software
from? Thanks.

Marcia


"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount but
> we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
reasoning
> was for that one).
>
> It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
greatly
> improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> Windows Server and Exchange Server.
>
> Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz processor,
> we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
in
> terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take a
> little time, but nothing too klunky.
>
> Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
onto
> its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
>
> Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
>
> Matthew
>
>

Kristofer
Fri Oct 24 08:51:21 CDT 2003

Hi,

I do not think that they will notice much difference, but it is of course
hard to tell. I would recommend you to use Perfomance Monitor, and see if
you have any bottlenecks.

--
Regards,
Kristofer Gafvert
http://www.ilopia.com - FAQ & Tutorials for Windows Server 2003, and SQL
Server 2000
Reply to newsgroup only. Remove NEWS if you must reply by email, but please
do not.

Problems with spam and viruses? See
http://www.ilopia.com/security/newsposting.aspx


"Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount but
> we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
reasoning
> was for that one).
>
> It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
greatly
> improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> Windows Server and Exchange Server.
>
> Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz processor,
> we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
in
> terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take a
> little time, but nothing too klunky.
>
> Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
onto
> its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
>
> Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
>
> Matthew
>
>

Merv
Fri Oct 24 17:26:20 CDT 2003

http://www.techsoup.org/DiscounTech/Default.asp?visit=1

Be aware that not all charities (such as religious groups) qualify for some
of the software. If you do qualify, you can get SBS 2000 with 50 CALs (and
SA is including with the server software and the CALs) for less than $60
(about a $3000+ savings). So, if you wanted to, you should be able to then
upgrade to SBS 2003 Premium for only the additonal cost of the SBS 2003
server software CDs.

--
Merv Porter [SBS MVP]
===================================
"Marcia" <mporter@martechgroup.net> wrote in message
news:uarggzimDHA.2216@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi! You mentioned getting software real cheap every 2 1/2 years. I also
> work for a non-profit charity organization. Where do you get your
software
> from? Thanks.
>
> Marcia
>
>
> "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and we're
> > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two years.
> > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
but
> > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> reasoning
> > was for that one).
> >
> > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> greatly
> > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a full
> > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> >
> > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are using
> > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
processor,
> > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan on
> > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty quick,
> in
> > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations take
a
> > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> >
> > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> onto
> > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> >
> > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Matthew
> >
> >
>
>

Marcia
Fri Oct 24 20:54:38 CDT 2003

Thank you so much...

Marcia


"Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]" <mwport@hotmail.com_no_spam> wrote in message
news:uuOkE3nmDHA.1728@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> http://www.techsoup.org/DiscounTech/Default.asp?visit=1
>
> Be aware that not all charities (such as religious groups) qualify for
some
> of the software. If you do qualify, you can get SBS 2000 with 50 CALs
(and
> SA is including with the server software and the CALs) for less than $60
> (about a $3000+ savings). So, if you wanted to, you should be able to
then
> upgrade to SBS 2003 Premium for only the additonal cost of the SBS 2003
> server software CDs.
>
> --
> Merv Porter [SBS MVP]
> ===================================
> "Marcia" <mporter@martechgroup.net> wrote in message
> news:uarggzimDHA.2216@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi! You mentioned getting software real cheap every 2 1/2 years. I
also
> > work for a non-profit charity organization. Where do you get your
> software
> > from? Thanks.
> >
> > Marcia
> >
> >
> > "Applebaum" <mapplenospam@inchnospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%235dnjZamDHA.3320@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We've been running SBS2000 on a single server for 2 1/2 years, and
we're
> > > trying to figure out possible upgrade scenarios for the next two
years.
> > > Being a nonprofit organization, we can get software at a good discount
> but
> > > we can only do so once every two years (not sure what Microsoft's
> > reasoning
> > > was for that one).
> > >
> > > It has been suggested that network performance & reliability can be
> > greatly
> > > improved by separating out Exchange onto its own dedicated server. Of
> > > course, doing so would mean moving from Small Business Server to a
full
> > > Windows Server and Exchange Server.
> > >
> > > Performance has not really been much of an issue thus far. We are
using
> > > about 27GB out of total capacity of 63GB. It's a single 933MHz
> processor,
> > > we're not using SQL Server. We are about 25 people and we don't plan
on
> > > expanding over 30 in the next two years. Network speed is pretty
quick,
> > in
> > > terms of document retrieval. Sometimes Access database operations
take
> a
> > > little time, but nothing too klunky.
> > >
> > > Would our users notice much of a difference if Exchange were separated
> > onto
> > > its own server? What other benefits/issues might we encounter?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or input is greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Matthew
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>