New Windows Server Build

Unanswered Question
Nov 4th, 2009

I'm preparing to build a new Windows server for an LMS (potentially LMS + HUM) installation. The LMS is a 300 device license but it may be increased in the future to the next licensing tier (1500 device license - don't anticipate managing more than 500 max though).

My server hardware is a HP Proliant DL140 3G with dual 300 GB SAS drives, a single dual core Xeon processor and 4 GB of RAM.

My question is whether I'd be better served by:

a. Windows Server 2003 R2 (x64 version Standard Edition with Service Pack 2) as opposed to Server 2008 SE with SP1. I'm leaning this way due to the swap file bug / workaround and the feeling that Server 2003 is more mature than Server 2008 (though if LMS was supported on Server 2008 R2 I'd reconsider).

2. Should I drop in another 4 GB of RAM? I know that 2 GB is all that's REQUIRED but would moving from 4 GB to 8 GB help things out on a <300 device installation? (It's < US$200 at Crucial and I have 4 empty slots.)

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Joe Clarke Wed, 11/04/2009 - 14:14

I recommend you move to 2008 now. there are no show stoppers with LMS on 2008 that cannot be easily worked around, and moving forward, we will be phasing out 2003 support.

Yes, especially if you want HUM. Add at least another 4 GB.

yjdabear Wed, 11/04/2009 - 15:32

It seems win2k8 SP1 has some security bugs that're addressed by SP2. I suppose it could be a potential showstopper from the customer perspective for biting the win2k8 bullet if SP2 is not yet supported by TAC, such as mentioned in this thread:

Joe Clarke Wed, 11/04/2009 - 15:48

Security hotfixes are generally supported. That is, if there are specific patches required on top of SP1, we will support those. Full SPs can add other patches which could potentially break LMS, so we require more rigorous testing before certifying a new SP.

Marvin Rhoads Wed, 11/04/2009 - 18:43

I can live with a Server 2008 SP1 installation. I'll get that extra 4 GB of RAM too. It'll be sitting on an internal-only network with a non-NAT'd RFC1918 address and I'll follow best practices for locking it down while retaining functionality necessary for CiscoWorks' functions. Maybe I should blog the process. ;)

The referenced threads were leaning me to my predilection to choose Server 2003 but Joe Clarke's recommendation carries a lot of weight.

Thanks guys for the input. Netpro rocks!


This Discussion