I've been tasked with determining the server hardware and software needs for
a specific project. We are going to host a customer's website due to
several issues. We have a long term support/development contract with them
and their internal IT people have decided to discontinue supporting and
servicing their Windows server. The particular web application that is
hosted on this machine is in the process of having a major overhual via
ASP.NET.

I have a pretty good handle on the hardware requirements but I want to make
sure we purchase the right Windows Server 2003 edition and have the proper
licensing. The server will handle dual roles (hosting the website and some
background custom applications) so the Web Edition is out. My question is
how many CAL's do we actually need if the following is true:

1) There could between 30-40 users on the website anonymously.
2) There will be no more then one or two of our employees logged on at any
given time.

A little instruction to a puzzled newbie would be helpful. Thanks in
advance...

Robert

>I've been tasked with determining the server hardware and software needs for
>a specific project. We are going to host a customer's website due to
>several issues. We have a long term support/development contract with them
>and their internal IT people have decided to discontinue supporting and
>servicing their Windows server. The particular web application that is
>hosted on this machine is in the process of having a major overhual via
>ASP.NET.
>
>I have a pretty good handle on the hardware requirements but I want to make
>sure we purchase the right Windows Server 2003 edition and have the proper
>licensing. The server will handle dual roles (hosting the website and some
>background custom applications) so the Web Edition is out. My question is
>how many CAL's do we actually need if the following is true:
>
>1) There could between 30-40 users on the website anonymously.
>2) There will be no more then one or two of our employees logged on at any
>given time.
>
>A little instruction to a puzzled newbie would be helpful. Thanks in
>advance...
>
>Robert

Robert,

Depending on your budget and how heavy duty the background apps are,
you can easily get by with 2003 Standard Edition SP2 / or 2003 R2 SP2
running on a 1U Poweredge R300 Quad-core 2.66 and 4GB RAM. SE comes
with 5 CALs which is plenty enough for 5 people to be remotely in at a
time (as long as they log off properly later). Of course, if the apps
don't take advantage of all cores, you can always shoot for a Core2
Duo @ 2.13GHz and save about $350. Plan for the future but base it on
the apps to be run.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

Wolf Man :-), thanks for the advice.

So 5-CALs would be plenty for an internet (not intranet) web server
servicing one site with a couple of authenticated local connections,
correct?

Thanks again...

Robert

"Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message
news:67onv31mhqpj7bverc7r3kveq20s6e0p6g@4ax.com...
> >I've been tasked with determining the server hardware and software needs
> >for
>>a specific project. We are going to host a customer's website due to
>>several issues. We have a long term support/development contract with
>>them
>>and their internal IT people have decided to discontinue supporting and
>>servicing their Windows server. The particular web application that is
>>hosted on this machine is in the process of having a major overhual via
>>ASP.NET.
>>
>>I have a pretty good handle on the hardware requirements but I want to
>>make
>>sure we purchase the right Windows Server 2003 edition and have the proper
>>licensing. The server will handle dual roles (hosting the website and
>>some
>>background custom applications) so the Web Edition is out. My question is
>>how many CAL's do we actually need if the following is true:
>>
>>1) There could between 30-40 users on the website anonymously.
>>2) There will be no more then one or two of our employees logged on at
>>any
>>given time.
>>
>>A little instruction to a puzzled newbie would be helpful. Thanks in
>>advance...
>>
>>Robert
>
> Robert,
>
> Depending on your budget and how heavy duty the background apps are,
> you can easily get by with 2003 Standard Edition SP2 / or 2003 R2 SP2
> running on a 1U Poweredge R300 Quad-core 2.66 and 4GB RAM. SE comes
> with 5 CALs which is plenty enough for 5 people to be remotely in at a
> time (as long as they log off properly later). Of course, if the apps
> don't take advantage of all cores, you can always shoot for a Core2
> Duo @ 2.13GHz and save about $350. Plan for the future but base it on
> the apps to be run.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf

>Wolf Man :-), thanks for the advice.
>
>So 5-CALs would be plenty for an internet (not intranet) web server
>servicing one site with a couple of authenticated local connections,
>correct?
>
>Thanks again...
>
>Robert

I'm basing this assessment on an old PowerEdge 1750 that we have at
our site that is kind of similar to what you plan on using a server
for in your environment except ours is running as a print control
manager / print server for 12,000 students. It's running older Xeons
3.2GHz in dual-config with 4GB ram and hardly ever breaks a sweat.

Considering the current Core 2 Duo is probably 2 or 3 times faster
than these old CPUs, I don't see why you coulnd't have a server on a
Core 2 Duo yourself and upgrade to a Quad Core CPU some time in the
future when better and cheaper models come out or when the clients /
software benefits from it.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

My follow-up was having to do with appropriate licenses when using Windows
Server 2003 to host a website. I thought I read some place that in a
hosting environment, one CAL is used for all inbound web access (that is
anonymous, like people browsing). Yet I read other places that said
something that sounded different and that got me confused. Is that prior
statement accurate?

I do, however, appreciate greatly your insights on the hardware end of
things. That has been very, very helpful.

"Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message
news:e3rpv3dpmf41ceshencv7frdvgtlhalgqg@4ax.com...
> >Wolf Man :-), thanks for the advice.
>>
>>So 5-CALs would be plenty for an internet (not intranet) web server
>>servicing one site with a couple of authenticated local connections,
>>correct?
>>
>>Thanks again...
>>
>>Robert
>
> I'm basing this assessment on an old PowerEdge 1750 that we have at
> our site that is kind of similar to what you plan on using a server
> for in your environment except ours is running as a print control
> manager / print server for 12,000 students. It's running older Xeons
> 3.2GHz in dual-config with 4GB ram and hardly ever breaks a sweat.
>
> Considering the current Core 2 Duo is probably 2 or 3 times faster
> than these old CPUs, I don't see why you coulnd't have a server on a
> Core 2 Duo yourself and upgrade to a Quad Core CPU some time in the
> future when better and cheaper models come out or when the clients /
> software benefits from it.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf

>My follow-up was having to do with appropriate licenses when using Windows
>Server 2003 to host a website. I thought I read some place that in a
>hosting environment, one CAL is used for all inbound web access (that is
>anonymous, like people browsing). Yet I read other places that said
>something that sounded different and that got me confused. Is that prior
>statement accurate?
>
>I do, however, appreciate greatly your insights on the hardware end of
>things. That has been very, very helpful.

What? I've never heard that? Where did you hear this? It wouldn't
surprised if the boys in Redmond pulled some kind of garbage like that
but that doesn't make sense since IIS or whatever web server daemon is
running is a service and not an interactively logged on user. You may
want to research it further.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

> >My follow-up was having to do with appropriate licenses when using
> >Windows
>>Server 2003 to host a website. I thought I read some place that in a
>>hosting environment, one CAL is used for all inbound web access (that is
>>anonymous, like people browsing). Yet I read other places that said
>>something that sounded different and that got me confused. Is that prior
>>statement accurate?
>>
>>I do, however, appreciate greatly your insights on the hardware end of
>>things. That has been very, very helpful.


"Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message
news:7q6qv3ts5ljv9dmkchqhqcmhkjnlgiided@4ax.com...
>
> What? I've never heard that? Where did you hear this? It wouldn't
> surprised if the boys in Redmond pulled some kind of garbage like that
> but that doesn't make sense since IIS or whatever web server daemon is
> running is a service and not an interactively logged on user. You may
> want to research it further.
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf

I thought I was "researching" by asking the question originally here in this
newsgroup. I just wanted to confirm that I didn't need anymore than 5-CALs
(the minimum I would/can purchase) to run an internet web server in a small
office with limited direct, authenticated access.

Robert