XP server – Recommendation

[you2wire]

I am building a Web server, audio streaming and email server and I did a performance test and I want to know if a need more.

Projections:

Host 4 sites

Expected persons on the site 200 visitors

Streaming audio 2312 listenering

Bandwidth: 10m/1.5m

System information:

CPU Manufacturer: Genuine Intel

Number of CPU: 1

(2 Core(s)/CPU, 1 Logical(s)/Core)

CPU Type: Intel® Core2 CPU 6420 @ 2.13GHz

CPU Speed: 2133.2 MHz

Cache size: 4096KB

O/S: Windows XP (WIN32)

Total RAM: 3070.5 MB.

Available RAM: 2511.3 MB.

Total Disk Space: 500 GBytes

Cluster Size: 4.0 KBytes

File system: NTFS

----

Please can you provide your feedback?

I was going to update my CPU to one of the following.

1) Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 Processor BX80557E6850 - 3.0GHz, 4MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Conroe, Dual-Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan Price $299.00

or

2) Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor BX80580Q9300 - 2.50GHz, 6MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Yorkfield, Quad Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan Price $309

3)Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Processor EU80570PJ0876M - 3.16GHz, 6MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Wolfdale, Dual-Core, OEM, Socket 775, Processor Price $289.00

Is it worth the upgrade and will it make a difference? If is worth it which CPU should I go with.

[puntoMX]

2) Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Processor BX80580Q9300 - 2.50GHz, 6MB Cache, 1333MHz FSB, Yorkfield, Quad Core, Retail, Socket 775, Processor with Fan Price $309

The Q9300 CPU would perform best of those 3 CPUs in your case, however I can’t tell you much about "Streaming audio 2312 listenering" and that CPU.

[tux linux]

I wouldn't recommend upgrading anything if that's all you are going to use that server for. It should preform fine. However, your bandwidth may become an issue considering you only have 1.5m upload shared over 200 users. Another issue is the fact that you're streaming audio. Streaming + 200 peeps @ 1.5 shared = BAD.

Try to get some more bandwidth if anything.

[Idontwantspam]

Why XP as a server? XP is not meant to be a server... if you need to use windows for some reason, I would recommend getting a windows server license if you can afford it. Or, you could try using linux, since it's free and there are distros meant to be servers.

[tux linux]

XP Pro is fine as a server. Why else package it with IIS?

Either that or Apache.

[Idontwantspam]

Apache > IIS

Well, traditionally, Windows has been bundled with IIS, so that home users can have a server for personal use, or for small-scale business use. However, it is not a server class OS, and for uses such as the ones he is describing, it does not seem like the best choice. I'd go with a LAMP server myself....

[suryad]

Great recommendations. I would not upgrade the hardware. I would try to get more bandwidth...streaming media will eat up all your bandwidth for the most part so look in to that. IF it is about 200 visitors I would probably be fine with IIS especially if you are comfortable with it. But do remember that IIS is chock full of security holes. I am a fan of open source software that runs on Windows and Apache would be my preference big time. I agree with tux and idontwantspam

[you2wire]

thanks everyone

I am working to upgrade my Bandwidth to a more acceptable up speed. i am actually running

the following on my server

Apache HTTPD 2.2.8

Openssl 0.9.8g

MySQL 5.0.51a

PHP 5.2.5

PHP 4.4.8

phpMyAdmin 2.11.4

FileZilla FTP Server 0.9.25

Mercury Mail Transport System 4.52

Clamwin

Perl 5.8.8

mod_perl 2.0.3

System information update

2 Sata drive

Asus P5nsli 775 Motherboard

4 gig RAM (I know that XP will only see 3 GIG)

So based on you replies you would not recommed that i need any upgrade. maybe changing from XP to windows server 2003 better, is there any major difference if I change. the reason i am asking is for two reasons

1) i am not very familiar with windows 2003 server i am more comfortatble with XP.

2) I've put in a lot of work on the XP server and i change the OS to Windows server 2003 or 2008 i will lose all my data. Is there a way i can change and have all the programs and still installed. like MYSQL and etc without the need to reinstall the applications. If that is possible then i'll make the change.

The server is actually up and running now and works great i wanted to know if i needed more. I am going to build another server for the network office which will maybe 10 computer pulling file from it. or can i use the same server.

I am not sure that i am able or not to put my url but here goes http://www.rahtidfm.com

I am building an actual radio station in Jamaica and will obtain the finally license in about 3-4 months. so i now preparing all the harware and software before i get the green light.

Want to know if i am missing anything in refernce to the computer side of it either harware or software. yes i have all the cabling and routers . anything else.

Note:

I am not by far an IT guru. I am learning while i go.so any help will be welcome.

Edited April 8, 2008 by you2wire

[Tripredacus]

You could switch up to XP 64bit to see that extra RAM, or use WIndows Home Server.

[tux linux]

IIS 5 will only give you issues security-wise if you leave it unupdated (run Windows Update) or leave it on the default config out of the box. IIS 6 should run fine security-wise out of the box. In this sense, installing Server 2003/2008 would be a wise choice.

Please also note that Windows Server 2003 costs $400+

Edited April 8, 2008 by tux linux

[you2wire]

getting windows 2003 /2008 in not the issue.

Ok maybe changing from XP to windows server 2003 better, is there any major difference if I change. the reason i am asking is for two reasons

1) i am not very familiar with windows 2003 server i am more comfortatble with XP.

2) I've put in a lot of work on the XP box and if i change the OS to Windows server 2003 or 2008 i will lose all my data. Is there a way i can change and have all the programs and still installed. like MYSQL and etc without the need to reinstall the applications. If that is possible then i'll make the change.

IIS is not an issue as i use Apache as my webserver

[nmX.Memnoch]

XP Pro is fine as a server. Why else package it with IIS?

So that developers can test their web apps before deploying them to a real IIS server.

Also, if you plan on using IIS under XP you will not get more than 10 users at a time (not 10 per site, 10 users total). Get yourself a real server license. Windows Server 2003 Web Edition isn't really that much. For that matter, neither is Windows Web Server 2008.

But do remember that IIS is chock full of security holes.

Since when? IIS5 (Windows 2000) had a few serious holes that were fixed for the most part. IIS6, on the other hand, is rock solid and has had very few security bulletins released since 2003 went Gold. Edited April 8, 2008 by nmX.Memnoch

[you2wire]

My apologizes, but I think the main question is being lost here, IIS is not going to be used for my web server I am using apache, which can has unlimited connections.

The main question is as follows

I've put in a lot of work on the XP box and if I change the OS to Windows server 2003 or 2008 I will lose all my data. Is there a way I can change and have all the programs and still installed? Like MYSQL and etc without the need to reinstall the applications.

Other option is to upgrade the 32 bit XP pro to 64 bit XP pro. If I did would a lose all my data again.

The final question. What is the major gain for upgrading to windows server 2003/8 is it for IIS connections. It’s not worth it because apache takes care of that the connection limitation that IIS has in XP.

The only problem I see is to create a domain controller and active directory on XP in not possible. So I might have to build another server with windows 2003/08 to act as the DNS server domain controller and active directory.

If you read my post it mentions all the hardware and software on the server. The question is that sufficient

[cluberti]

The connection limit is imposed at the network layer, not the application. If you get 10 open active connections simultaneously, you will fail to host new connections. It should not be a regular issue (most web servers don't have persisitent open connections unless the client and server require it and send keep-alive headers), but it CAN happen on an XP box hosting any web server.

One thing you would benefit from on Server vs XP is the longer quantum for running tasks before context swtching, better background-task memory management (for services like IIS or apache), and no limit to inbound connections (CAL limits, but not limited at the TCP stack). You could of course patch tcpip.sys to bypass this limitation, but of course that would violate the EULA and such.

[you2wire]

Thanks for excellent reply,

Would the benefit of the move be significantly worth it from were you stand.

Right now if I moved to windows server 2003 I would be able to the move utilize the 4 GIG RAM I already have in the XP and even many be goto 8 gig RAM