Fileservers

Why a fileserver?

A high proportion of small businesses now have at least one onsite server. Nevertheless, it can sometimes be difficult to convince siteowners of the advantages a server brings. The typical counter-argument is that  Windows already allows users to share their data over a network, so why should we need a computer dedicated to this function?

Workgroup Sharing: The alternative to a server.. chaos in a handy-sized package.

Microsoft's Windows OS heavily promotes this method of working- that is, the sharing-out of data from your personal "My Documents" folder to other users on the local network. Smaller networks often tend to start-off this way. While this at first sight seems like a very flexible approach, it has several major drawbacks. The most obvious is the lack of control over who can access what, and where. Security is at best minimal, at worst, nonexistent.

As the network grows, workgroups soon become unmanageable. Consider a group of five computers; if each user wishes to access the "My Documents" folder of his chums, then that particular computer will need to make four connections to the other computers. Five people need to do this, so in total 4x5 or 20 connections need to be established. Even assuming just one shared folder per computer, the number of links equals the number of computers, times one less. For ten computers with two shares each, this becomes 180 links. It shouldn't take much insight to realise that the maintenance of all these links  starts to get overwhelming as the workgroup grows. The solution is to switch to a topology which doesn't suffer this square-law growth of interconnections.

More seriously,  with the data stored on personal computers,  the onus to back-up that data falls onto the users of those computers - and the one thing you can be absolutely sure of, the chore of backing-up will soon be forgotten about. When a serious data loss occurs, chances are that no-one will know who was supposed to be backing-up that data, let alone whether any backups were actually done.  In fact, a major data-loss incident is often the trigger for investigating the purchase of a server.

Advantages of a Server:

With data stored in a central location, it is much easier to find the document you're looking for.  Plus, centralised storage gives you the option to categorise documents  according to job, customer or function, instead of by username. Any user can access any document to which they have security rights, without requiring access to another user's computer. 

A server will typically have some means of automated backup. Often this will be a tape drive.  This would normally perform the backups out-of-hours. This avoids slowing the system whilst  work is in progress. Since the data is in a single location only one backup procedure is needed instead of many, and it is far easier to manage and supervise this.

Users will authenticate to the server instead of logging-on to their own computers.  This makes possible a more selective form of security, where the Administrator has the power to control access to key areas (for example, accounts data) on a user-by-user basis. The fact that users must log-on also allows for greater accountability of their actions - for example should undesirable material be found on a server share, the person who put it there can generally be identified, as can the time at which it was done. 

Maintenance costs for a server-based LAN are generally lower than for peer-groups.  The server itself can often be administered remotely,  saving a great deal of leg-work or driving. 

Since each computer only needs a connection to the server for its data, as opposed to connections to all of its peers, the square-law growth factor inherent in the workgroup is eliminated.

Hardware

A quick scan of the Dell or HP websites will reveal that prebuilt server prices vary enormously, depending not only on model, but on equipment fit.  What I will say here is that for smaller offices,  there is generally no longer any need for specialist hardware such as SCSI RAID disk-arrays or the like. The SATA 300 disk interface, found in most new computers, is more than fast enough for light-to-medium server duty, and  offers a far less expensive alternative to the more exotic, specialist-server hardware of yesteryear.

A point to watch is that prices quoted online often do not include disks, memory or any form of backup. Thus, they are unrealistically low. When comparing server prices,  ensure that you are in fact comparing like with like.  After all, a server with no disks is about as much use as <fill blank> and by the time you've added disks  -possibly at  an inflationary price- the real cost may be higher that of a competitor's fully-built server.

Whatever specification you choose, a substantial  part of the cost will be the backup subsystem. Yet, this is a vital part of the overall hardware.

Server Software

When costing a server, don't overlook the software licensing-costs, which might equal or exceed the cost of the hardware.  In this context,  be aware that licensed server-products typically  come with a remit to connect only five users.  Beyond that number, you need CALs (Client Access Licences) as well as the server licence itself.  So, a ten-user network may need the standard server product, plus five CALs.  It's perhaps worth clarifying that server licenses do not expire; once you have the licenses you can continue to use the server indefinitely.

When it comes to choosing server software, you basically have three choices open to you:

• Standard Windows Server
• Windows Small Business Server (SBS)
  
• Linux

There are, inevitably,  pro's and con's to each of these.

Microsoft resellers are currently exerting a heavy 'push' to sell SBS to small businesses.  We'll look at this option in mored detail later, but for the moment let's just say that pushy sales-tactics don't necessarily equal a wise choice.

Standard Windows Server is used by most corporate businesses,  and is a no-frills package offering the core server-functionality.  The functions it provides will meet the needs of most  small businesses. And, if that turns-out not to be the case,  its functionality can be expanded with relative ease, by adding extra packages from either Microsoft or other third-party suppliers.

Given good hardware  its reliability is excellent, uptimes of several months between reboots being normal.  Its management-tools are relatively easy to use, and work reliably.

Downsides of Standard Server include the relatively high licensing-cost, and the somewhat Spartan range of functions it provides out-of-box.  For example, no email server is included as standard. That said, it is a solid, dependable and highly-flexible platform which can be easily expanded-upon as the need arises.


Windows Small Business Server (SBS) offers a cut-down version of the standard Windows Server,  combined with a number of additional packages, including the Exchange email platform, which is costly to buy as a separate item. Its range of features is truly comprehensive, providing every function than anyone is ever likely to need or use. Its initial cost is somewhat less than Windows Server Standard, which at first sight makes it seem a very attractive option. There are several limitations, though, and problems most often arise because buyers fail to properly read the documentation, and to ensure that their requirements fall within Microsoft's definition of a 'small business' site. Some key points to note:

• SBS is designed for small businesses. In practice this means singe-site offices, typically with one server. It is not intended for running a multi-site intranet. But, some people inevitably decide they'll try!
  
• With its numerous builtin functions, the SBS package is far more demanding of hardware perfomance than is the vanilla Windows Server product. Problems most often arise because buyers assume that a 'small' business server will run on budget hardware. Not so. If run on inadequate hardware it will be slow and unreliable. Thus if you cannot afford heavy iron, look-to a less demanding server operating-system.
  
• From a maintainer's point of view, the critical issue with SBS  is its 'tightly-integrated' nature, which dictates that no part of the system can be maintained in isolation from the rest. A problem with any one SBS service -for example email- is liable to lead the whole network having to be taken offline whilst the problem is investigated. Thus, if yours is the kind of site which cannot tolerate occasional maintenance downtime, SBS may not be the ideal choice.
  
• SBS management is via 'Wizards' instead of via the more familiar 'Control Panel'  or 'Administrative Tools' items. What's more, you MUST use the wizards, attempts to change settings by the conventional routes can lead to trouble. That would be fine IF the wizards always worked reliably.. but experience is that they do not. Even mundane tasks such as adding a user frequently devolve into 'hacking' to correct the problems which the Wizard leaves behind it.

Lowdown is that I'm tired of being asked to sort-out SBS servers built by other IT guys on shoestring hardware which run like treacle and crash regularly. If the hardware isn't up-to the job, then it simply isn't going to run reliably, and that will reflect badly upon the reputation of the IT maintainer as well as causing endless aggro. If you have one such, then expect me to insist on a substantial hardware upgrade before I will even consider a maintenance arrangement. Either that, or swap it out for an operating system which will run satisfactorily on low-powered hardware. Or, both.

Linux offers the advantage of being completely royalty-free, with no charge to use the server software, no requirement for CALs, and no hard-limit on users.  In view of this, it's surprising that its deployment into the small-business sector is not greater than it is.

IWR Consultancy, after forays into various options, has settled on two Debian Linux servers for our own office, and their performance  has been superb.The file-transfer speed of these servers far exceeds anything we could achieve with Windows Server. Uptime of a year has been achieved., and even then the server in-question was only  taken offline to allow a hardware upgrade.  Linux is highly configurable, and can be built to provide only core functions, or to provide a comprehensive set of services. Unlike the take-it-or-leave-it choice of  Standard or SBS Windows Server, you have full control over which options  you include, and which you do not.  Even if you do initally get your options wrong, changing them post-deployment is generally not a big issue.

As for the indications against using Linux, the reason businesses are reluctant to take the Linux-server route would seem to stem mainly from concerns that  at some point in the future they may need to run specialist sofware which will ONLY install onto a Microsoft server.  Admittedly this situation does arise, although not as frequently as some would imagine. It is an aspect which needs some forethought, though.

The other fear touted by people who've never seen Linux in action is that Windows (or Macintosh) computers won't be able to properly access files on a Linux server.  Not so. From the user's perspective, when seen over the network a Linux fileserver 'looks' exactly the same as a Windows fileserver. Except, that it may transfer files somewhat faster. ;-)

The other stalling-point in the adoption of  Linux is the bewildering number of variants, or 'distros' available. With Microsoft products you have a handful of choices, but with Linux you have ten or twenty individual brandnames to choose from, and it is an observed fact that the lack of any clear 'brand leader' in a product-line tends to discourage business purchasers. Basically, the main point here is that whilst individual distros have their own ways of doing things, all of the major names are good, well-tested products.  The choice  will therefore mainly depend on whether your maintainer is comfortable with, and has experience of using a given distro. Using an unfamiliar distro is not  a major issue as the core fucntionality is much the same throughout Linux, though there will be some learning to be done as regards the finer points. Here we tend to standardise on Debian for the server role. Ubuntu, which is based around Debian but has a style of user-interface more familiar to Windows users, is a good choice for Linux desktops.

Mangement of Linux server is somewhat more complex than that of a Standard Windows server, and despite advances in the Linux interface, some management-work  still involves typing instructions at the commandline.  That said, I would rate Linux as being easier to manage than SBS with its glitchy and unpredictable Wizards.

-Oh and if yours is the type of business that insists on a formal support-contract for every item of software in the inventory, bear in-mind that Ubuntu, SuSE and Red Hat products (among others) can be covered by such. Free doesn't necessarily mean lack of vendor support.

To Summarise:

For most small-business installations, I personally would recommend either Standard Windows Server or Linux. The choice here may rest-upon whether software which demands a Windows Server may be required at some point in the future.

If on the other hand the client wishes to use the Microsoft Exchange email platform, then SBS may  be the most economical way of acquiring this. That said, the choice of SBS should only be made once the considerations mentioned above have been taken into account.