Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndreZ
  • Start date Start date
A

AndreZ

Guest
Hey Gang,

It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I haven't been
keeping up with current hardware out there. So I'm looking for
recommendations

We currently have

Windows 2k (32bit) Server
2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
4gb Memory
SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)

This system was originally designed to house about 10-15 concurrent users
and thier applications. The last 4.5 years have been pretty good to use,
especially considering it's holding a load of about 35 concurrent users and
all thier applications. With that unexpected growth in mind.. I'm thinking

Win2k3 server (64-bit)
8GB Memory
Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and should I consider
starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the most reliable?


Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be appreciated

Thanks

Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only allow 64-bit
printer drivers, and add to the already existing problem with
finding TS compatible printer drivers.
That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008, which includes a new
feature called Easy Print, which should solve the printer driver
problem.

And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and load-balance
them than buying a single high performance server.
_________________________________________________________
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

"AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> Hey Gang,
>
> It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I
> haven't been keeping up with current hardware out there. So I'm
> looking for recommendations
>
> We currently have
>
> Windows 2k (32bit) Server
> 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
> 4gb Memory
> SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
> SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
>
> This system was originally designed to house about 10-15
> concurrent users and thier applications. The last 4.5 years have
> been pretty good to use, especially considering it's holding a
> load of about 35 concurrent users and all thier applications.
> With that unexpected growth in mind.. I'm thinking
>
> Win2k3 server (64-bit)
> 8GB Memory
> Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and should I
> consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
> Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the most
> reliable?
>
>
> Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be
> appreciated
>
> Thanks
>
> Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

Don't I need twice as many server licenses then?

"Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9A20DEB7E523Dveranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
> I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only allow 64-bit
> printer drivers, and add to the already existing problem with
> finding TS compatible printer drivers.
> That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008, which includes a new
> feature called Easy Print, which should solve the printer driver
> problem.
>
> And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and load-balance
> them than buying a single high performance server.
> _________________________________________________________
> Vera Noest
> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>
> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>
> > Hey Gang,
> >
> > It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I
> > haven't been keeping up with current hardware out there. So I'm
> > looking for recommendations
> >
> > We currently have
> >
> > Windows 2k (32bit) Server
> > 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
> > 4gb Memory
> > SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
> > SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
> >
> > This system was originally designed to house about 10-15
> > concurrent users and thier applications. The last 4.5 years have
> > been pretty good to use, especially considering it's holding a
> > load of about 35 concurrent users and all thier applications.
> > With that unexpected growth in mind.. I'm thinking
> >
> > Win2k3 server (64-bit)
> > 8GB Memory
> > Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and should I
> > consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
> > Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the most
> > reliable?
> >
> >
> > Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be
> > appreciated
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

You need to buy Windows 2003 twice, yes. Clients can use the same
server CAL and TS CAL to access both servers.
But often 2 moderately powerfull servers are cheaper than one high
performance server.
_________________________________________________________
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

"AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> Don't I need twice as many server licenses then?
>
> "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote
> in message
> news:Xns9A20DEB7E523Dveranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
>> I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only allow
>> 64-bit printer drivers, and add to the already existing problem
>> with finding TS compatible printer drivers.
>> That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008, which includes a
>> new feature called Easy Print, which should solve the printer
>> driver problem.
>>
>> And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and
>> load-balance them than buying a single high performance server.
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Vera Noest
>> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
>> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
>> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>>
>> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
>> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>>
>> > Hey Gang,
>> >
>> > It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I
>> > haven't been keeping up with current hardware out there. So
>> > I'm looking for recommendations
>> >
>> > We currently have
>> >
>> > Windows 2k (32bit) Server
>> > 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
>> > 4gb Memory
>> > SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
>> > SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
>> >
>> > This system was originally designed to house about 10-15
>> > concurrent users and thier applications. The last 4.5 years
>> > have been pretty good to use, especially considering it's
>> > holding a load of about 35 concurrent users and all thier
>> > applications. With that unexpected growth in mind.. I'm
>> > thinking
>> >
>> > Win2k3 server (64-bit)
>> > 8GB Memory
>> > Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and should
>> > I consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
>> > Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the
>> > most reliable?
>> >
>> >
>> > Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be
>> > appreciated
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

I've put both those suggestions through to dell, just to see what thier
recommendations are, they're telling me that thier "tech" guys say that it
will be to expensive and not benefit me. And that cluster licenses are 60%
more expensive then regular licenses?


"Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9A21D0464E91veranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
> You need to buy Windows 2003 twice, yes. Clients can use the same
> server CAL and TS CAL to access both servers.
> But often 2 moderately powerfull servers are cheaper than one high
> performance server.
> _________________________________________________________
> Vera Noest
> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>
> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>
> > Don't I need twice as many server licenses then?
> >
> > "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote
> > in message
> > news:Xns9A20DEB7E523Dveranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
> >> I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only allow
> >> 64-bit printer drivers, and add to the already existing problem
> >> with finding TS compatible printer drivers.
> >> That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008, which includes a
> >> new feature called Easy Print, which should solve the printer
> >> driver problem.
> >>
> >> And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and
> >> load-balance them than buying a single high performance server.
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> Vera Noest
> >> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> >> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
> >> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
> >>
> >> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
> >> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
> >>
> >> > Hey Gang,
> >> >
> >> > It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I
> >> > haven't been keeping up with current hardware out there. So
> >> > I'm looking for recommendations
> >> >
> >> > We currently have
> >> >
> >> > Windows 2k (32bit) Server
> >> > 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
> >> > 4gb Memory
> >> > SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
> >> > SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
> >> >
> >> > This system was originally designed to house about 10-15
> >> > concurrent users and thier applications. The last 4.5 years
> >> > have been pretty good to use, especially considering it's
> >> > holding a load of about 35 concurrent users and all thier
> >> > applications. With that unexpected growth in mind.. I'm
> >> > thinking
> >> >
> >> > Win2k3 server (64-bit)
> >> > 8GB Memory
> >> > Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and should
> >> > I consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
> >> > Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the
> >> > most reliable?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be
> >> > appreciated
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

Who talks about clustering???
I can only assume that Dell suggested that you run Session
Directory, which would mean that you have to run Windows 2003
Enterprise Edition, which is much more expensive, yes.
But that's not what I proposed. You can have a load-balanced farm
with Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
But if you want to go for a single 64-bit server, it's up to you. I
just don't like putting all my eggs in one basket.

_________________________________________________________
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

"AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 18 jan 2008 in
microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> I've put both those suggestions through to dell, just to see
> what thier recommendations are, they're telling me that thier
> "tech" guys say that it will be to expensive and not benefit me.
> And that cluster licenses are 60% more expensive then regular
> licenses?
>
>
> "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote
> in message
> news:Xns9A21D0464E91veranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
>> You need to buy Windows 2003 twice, yes. Clients can use the
>> same server CAL and TS CAL to access both servers.
>> But often 2 moderately powerfull servers are cheaper than one
>> high performance server.
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Vera Noest
>> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
>> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
>> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>>
>> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
>> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>>
>> > Don't I need twice as many server licenses then?
>> >
>> > "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se>
>> > wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9A20DEB7E523Dveranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
>> >> I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only allow
>> >> 64-bit printer drivers, and add to the already existing
>> >> problem with finding TS compatible printer drivers.
>> >> That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008, which
>> >> includes a new feature called Easy Print, which should solve
>> >> the printer driver problem.
>> >>
>> >> And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and
>> >> load-balance them than buying a single high performance
>> >> server.
>> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> Vera Noest
>> >> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
>> >> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
>> >> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>> >>
>> >> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
>> >> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>> >>
>> >> > Hey Gang,
>> >> >
>> >> > It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I
>> >> > haven't been keeping up with current hardware out there.
>> >> > So I'm looking for recommendations
>> >> >
>> >> > We currently have
>> >> >
>> >> > Windows 2k (32bit) Server
>> >> > 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
>> >> > 4gb Memory
>> >> > SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
>> >> > SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
>> >> >
>> >> > This system was originally designed to house about 10-15
>> >> > concurrent users and thier applications. The last 4.5
>> >> > years have been pretty good to use, especially considering
>> >> > it's holding a load of about 35 concurrent users and all
>> >> > thier applications. With that unexpected growth in mind..
>> >> > I'm thinking
>> >> >
>> >> > Win2k3 server (64-bit)
>> >> > 8GB Memory
>> >> > Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and
>> >> > should I consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
>> >> > Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the
>> >> > most reliable?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be
>> >> > appreciated
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> >
>> >> > Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

Well, they implied I could only share licenses if I was clustered? I
haven't made any decisions yet.. I agree with the eggs in one basket bit,
but I'm still trying to learn more .. i've only ever had the one server so I
don't know what's involved with load balancing. Though, I do believe i'm
going to stall until 2008 release .. then there's the part about being iffy
on running on a brand new OS.. lol, I can't win here.


"Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9A29F3A3D1716veranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
> Who talks about clustering???
> I can only assume that Dell suggested that you run Session
> Directory, which would mean that you have to run Windows 2003
> Enterprise Edition, which is much more expensive, yes.
> But that's not what I proposed. You can have a load-balanced farm
> with Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
> But if you want to go for a single 64-bit server, it's up to you. I
> just don't like putting all my eggs in one basket.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Vera Noest
> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>
> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 18 jan 2008 in
> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>
> > I've put both those suggestions through to dell, just to see
> > what thier recommendations are, they're telling me that thier
> > "tech" guys say that it will be to expensive and not benefit me.
> > And that cluster licenses are 60% more expensive then regular
> > licenses?
> >
> >
> > "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote
> > in message
> > news:Xns9A21D0464E91veranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
> >> You need to buy Windows 2003 twice, yes. Clients can use the
> >> same server CAL and TS CAL to access both servers.
> >> But often 2 moderately powerfull servers are cheaper than one
> >> high performance server.
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> Vera Noest
> >> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> >> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
> >> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
> >>
> >> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
> >> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
> >>
> >> > Don't I need twice as many server licenses then?
> >> >
> >> > "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns9A20DEB7E523Dveranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
> >> >> I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only allow
> >> >> 64-bit printer drivers, and add to the already existing
> >> >> problem with finding TS compatible printer drivers.
> >> >> That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008, which
> >> >> includes a new feature called Easy Print, which should solve
> >> >> the printer driver problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and
> >> >> load-balance them than buying a single high performance
> >> >> server.
> >> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> >> Vera Noest
> >> >> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> >> >> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
> >> >> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
> >> >>
> >> >> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
> >> >> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hey Gang,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's about that time to upgrade our server, and honestly I
> >> >> > haven't been keeping up with current hardware out there.
> >> >> > So I'm looking for recommendations
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We currently have
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Windows 2k (32bit) Server
> >> >> > 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
> >> >> > 4gb Memory
> >> >> > SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
> >> >> > SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This system was originally designed to house about 10-15
> >> >> > concurrent users and thier applications. The last 4.5
> >> >> > years have been pretty good to use, especially considering
> >> >> > it's holding a load of about 35 concurrent users and all
> >> >> > thier applications. With that unexpected growth in mind..
> >> >> > I'm thinking
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Win2k3 server (64-bit)
> >> >> > 8GB Memory
> >> >> > Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and
> >> >> > should I consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
> >> >> > Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still the
> >> >> > most reliable?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would be
> >> >> > appreciated
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Andre
 
Re: Terminal Server Hardware Recommendations

You'll have to ask Dell what they had in mind, but there's no
"license sharing", with or without clustering.

_________________________________________________________
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

"AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 21 jan 2008 in
microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> Well, they implied I could only share licenses if I was
> clustered? I haven't made any decisions yet.. I agree with the
> eggs in one basket bit, but I'm still trying to learn more ..
> i've only ever had the one server so I don't know what's
> involved with load balancing. Though, I do believe i'm going to
> stall until 2008 release .. then there's the part about being
> iffy on running on a brand new OS.. lol, I can't win here.
>
>
> "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se> wrote
> in message
> news:Xns9A29F3A3D1716veranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
>> Who talks about clustering???
>> I can only assume that Dell suggested that you run Session
>> Directory, which would mean that you have to run Windows 2003
>> Enterprise Edition, which is much more expensive, yes.
>> But that's not what I proposed. You can have a load-balanced
>> farm with Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
>> But if you want to go for a single 64-bit server, it's up to
>> you. I just don't like putting all my eggs in one basket.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Vera Noest
>> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
>> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
>> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>>
>> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 18 jan 2008 in
>> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>>
>> > I've put both those suggestions through to dell, just to see
>> > what thier recommendations are, they're telling me that thier
>> > "tech" guys say that it will be to expensive and not benefit
>> > me. And that cluster licenses are 60% more expensive then
>> > regular licenses?
>> >
>> >
>> > "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se>
>> > wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9A21D0464E91veranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
>> >> You need to buy Windows 2003 twice, yes. Clients can use the
>> >> same server CAL and TS CAL to access both servers.
>> >> But often 2 moderately powerfull servers are cheaper than
>> >> one high performance server.
>> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> Vera Noest
>> >> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
>> >> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
>> >> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>> >>
>> >> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
>> >> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>> >>
>> >> > Don't I need twice as many server licenses then?
>> >> >
>> >> > "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.noest@remove-this.hem.utfors.se>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> > news:Xns9A20DEB7E523Dveranoesthemutforsse@207.46.248.16...
>> >> >> I would think twice about the 64-bit. This would only
>> >> >> allow 64-bit printer drivers, and add to the already
>> >> >> existing problem with finding TS compatible printer
>> >> >> drivers. That is, unless you can wait for Windows 2008,
>> >> >> which includes a new feature called Easy Print, which
>> >> >> should solve the printer driver problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And I would rather buy to less powerfull servers and
>> >> >> load-balance them than buying a single high performance
>> >> >> server.
>> >> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> >> Vera Noest
>> >> >> MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
>> >> >> TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net
>> >> >> ___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "AndreZ" <shmoes@hotmail.com> wrote on 09 jan 2008 in
>> >> >> microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Hey Gang,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's about that time to upgrade our server, and
>> >> >> > honestly I haven't been keeping up with current
>> >> >> > hardware out there. So I'm looking for recommendations
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We currently have
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Windows 2k (32bit) Server
>> >> >> > 2ghz Dual Processors (single core)
>> >> >> > 4gb Memory
>> >> >> > SCSI Raid 1 (operating system)
>> >> >> > SCSI Raid 5 (Data files)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This system was originally designed to house about
>> >> >> > 10-15 concurrent users and thier applications. The last
>> >> >> > 4.5 years have been pretty good to use, especially
>> >> >> > considering it's holding a load of about 35 concurrent
>> >> >> > users and all thier applications. With that unexpected
>> >> >> > growth in mind.. I'm thinking
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Win2k3 server (64-bit)
>> >> >> > 8GB Memory
>> >> >> > Dual Quad Core Processors (speed recommendations? and
>> >> >> > should I consider starting with 2 expandable to 4?)
>> >> >> > Hot swappable Hard Drive .. is SCSI obsolete or still
>> >> >> > the most reliable?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Any Tips and recommendations for your experiences would
>> >> >> > be appreciated
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Andre
 
Back
Top