Server OS Suitability

[papashex]

Does the Windows flavor matter?

We are a small firm with an 8 user limit on our manufacturing database app, with at most 4 users logged in most of the time.

If I have a system that is running a manufacturing database app, does a server version of windows really run it any faster than the XP version of windows? I would expect that the clients percieved application performance is influenced more by the network speed.

As I look into replacing the system I feel it would be better to invest the server os funds into quality network speed (gigabit), instead of adding to M$ pockets.

There is a PDC running on this network already. I don't see why the originator set up the application on another "server" as opposed to dedicating a workstation.

[prathapml]

Hmmm.... For one, dual-processor utilization is better on Server 2000/2003, whereas XP wastes it.

As for the rest, it boils down to capability factors - MS has deliberately made it such that only the Server OSes can provide Active-Directory, DNS, SMTP, etc...

[papashex]

I was thinking along the lines of a guide that was posted ( on MSFN?) that listed server 2003 to xp configuration steps.

Are you saying that there is no way to perform a similar re-configuration making xp into a server os?

Edited September 22, 2005 by papashex

[prathapml]

Reducing Svr2k3 *DOWN* to workstation is possible, since it has all that XP has, and more.

Doing it the other way round is not possible, since XP lacks much of what Svr2k3 has.

[papashex]

Thanks for the input, but let me try to spin my question in this way.

Is there any reason a winxp pro box can't be dedicated to this database app for shared access? This new box won't be providing any additional networking services that you mentioned (AD, DNS, etc).

Given a suitable (single core) cpu and sufficient ram, would there be a marked difference in the ability of the xp box to "serve" up the app as opposed to a server box?

[mattofak]

Not really... if its just that one app running on a dedicated box, then essentially all your going to get out of Win2k3 is stability... and unless its mission critical, then thats not really a big worry...

Application performance usually has to do with the kernal, and the kernals for Win2k3 and WinXp are pretty close to the same...

[xtp183]

Hmmm....  For one, dual-processor utilization is better on Server 2000/2003, whereas XP wastes it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you post where you learnt that from? The only thing I could find slightly similar to this, is that XP Home doesn't support Symmetric Multi-Processing (thus can't utilize multiple processors), whereas XP Pro does.

As for the rest, it boils down to capability factors - MS has deliberately made it such that only the Server OSes can provide Active-Directory, DNS, SMTP, etc...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless I'm mistaken, XP Pro has those capability factors..

[mattofak]

Uh... WinXP definitly cannot run as a domain controller, a DNS server, media server, whatever using microsoft server technologies. Not only are they not released to the XP family of computer (2003 is not XP btw), you cannot even install them.

The only server service that you can install on a WinXP computer is IIS 4 and SMTP proxy...

now, it is possible to install those technologies if you are not using ms platform tools...

[xtp183]

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess the "capabilities" descriptor we used (prathapml and I) is a bit vague to discern the difference between XP Pro being able to join a domain, as opposed to being able to host one.

As for Active-Directory, I believe all versions of XP have it.. hell, I thought XP was the first to introduce it, unless 2K did.. but I don't think so. Anyway, based upon the fact that their is oodles of stuff to configure in the GPO regarding Active-Directory, SMPT, and Domains, I thought it would be easily valid to criticize that quote.

[prathapml]

Can you post where you learnt that from? The only thing I could find slightly similar to this, is that XP Home doesn't support Symmetric Multi-Processing (thus can't utilize multiple processors), whereas XP Pro does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

XP supports dual-processor, but under-utilizes it. For example, if you go to task manager, you find XP running both processors at 50% CPU usage each. Whereas Svr2k3 utilises closer to 97%

As for Active-Directory, I believe all versions of XP have it.. hell, I thought XP was the first to introduce it, unless 2K did..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it was win2k that introduced AD.

But still, even then, win2k pro & winXP pro can only JOIN a domain, only server can HOST it, or run as Primary/Secondary/Backup Domain Controller.

[xtp183]

The point of questioning your statement before was simply to clear things up, as it led the reader to believe XP Pro couldn't do anything Active-Directory/ DNS/ SMPT related.

Regarding the dual-proc XP issue:

I would feel more confident in "taking your word for it", if I were sure that what you are describing isn't just a one-off scenario. I'm sure I would have found something regarding this matter in my google searches if others have experienced "XP dual-core under-utilisation", but I haven't. Which as you can tell, leaves me still in doubt. So, please if you can, find another occurence of this issue you are describing, because I can't.

[mattofak]

Um, I'm not sure if there are results on the web for this, but if one notes, a highly intensive threading application, such as MySQL, does run faster on Win2k3. It has to do with mutex creation, P_THREAD_SPLIT, and mutex SendMessage() time...

The kernal on Win2k3 is highly optimized for highly threaded applications, whereas on WinXP its more general... You do have to be looking for it though, its not highly obvious...

[xtp183]

Can't someone post a link that confirms any of this?

[-I-]

Actually it was win2k that introduced AD.

But still, even then, win2k pro & winXP pro can only JOIN a domain, only server can HOST it, or run as Primary/Secondary/Backup Domain Controller.

Say again???? - Active Directory where introducte in 'Windows NT' (i just dont realy know, what version probebly NT-4.0 (or even as early as 3.5)

but still running any server type of aplication on a dedicated worstation, can be done, and wont make a real diference

unless;

• You are running a dual-core or dual cpu machine,
  
• You go go past the 10 simultanious conections
  
• Your memorie requirements go past the 1gb of RAM.
  

in those cases, I would start asking myself whether or not to use a windows-server-OS

[InTheWayBoy]

To answer the thread question, you should be fine using XP to run this app.

XP has a 10 concurrent connections limit, but since the application itself has a limit of eight then you won't have to worry about that. If you need more than 10, you'll need to run a server class OS.

Other than that, you won't run into much else if it's just a database application like you say. If it requires more functions then that's different, but to just serve up some files all you need is XP.

You wouldn't get things like Shadow Copies or Offline Files, but for an app like that I doubt you want that anyway.

And Active Directory came out with 2000, not NT4.

Edited November 20, 2005 by InTheWayBoy