Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 25th Dec 2008 07:50 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Thread beginning with comment 341543
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: the list is impressive
by sbergman27 on Fri 26th Dec 2008 12:32
in reply to "RE[7]: the list is impressive"
RE[8]: the list is impressive
by davidsarmstrong on Mon 29th Dec 2008 11:07
in reply to "RE[7]: the list is impressive"
Very well could be a config issue. It was setup by the vendor of the software. They seemed competent, but who knows.
I have a friend, who worked in a shop of similar size (50 workstations) which was a pure Windows shop. They have a full-time network/admin and they had to get a 70,000 Euro server to handle the load, mostly because they are using terminal server. For whatever reason, it seems alot of Windows shops require alot of maintenance and heavy duty servers.
Thanks for giving the details of your operation. It doesn't sound like that's a particularly heavy workload, so I doubt you're hitting a design limitation of Windows Server. It seems like a case of misconfiguration.






Member since:
2006-01-02
Thanks for giving the details of your operation. It doesn't sound like that's a particularly heavy workload, so I doubt you're hitting a design limitation of Windows Server. It seems like a case of misconfiguration.