"Best" reasonable home server setup question

[Scholin]

As a newbie to Alpha and being a non-programmer (but pretty adept at making things work), I would like to get an opinion of the best reasonable home server setup. Here are my needs and current situation:

1) Just had installed a separate DSL line with 5 Meg down, and .6 up with 5 static IPs

2) I will be building a server computer dedicated to this so not to conflict with my other computers and/or business stuff

3) I understand that I can only run one www.mysite.com, short of using a setup like www.mysite.com/client1, etc. - not a problem today but may be 6 months from now.

4) I am building a service that will be a medical data "portal" where my clients will upload several PDF files; enter patient data into forms online. All of this will happen from the operating rooms that they are in from different cities. Some of these clients will have weak internet connections and in some cases, working off of their Verizon wireless broadband cards in their computer.

5) In the beginning, there will be no more than 5-10 people connected to the server at any time but in the future the max may be 100 people max.

6) Being that I will be dealing with patient data, I will have the entire site secured with SSL and be a https web site.

So my questions are listed below but I would like opinions based on the idea that although I will spend some money for the separate DSL line and a dedicated server, money is still an issue and want to maximize my performance for the best bang for the buck - so where it is best to put my dollars that will yield the greatest results. This project will barely pay for itself but is being built to help my clients and as a feature that I will have that my competition will not. It will not a main source of income.
With this in mind, the questions are:

1) For the server, should I put more money into a faster HD, more than 2 gigs ram, faster processor, windows server or will windows XP be enough? Where will I see a real benefit(s)? If I would see a real benefit in using windows server, is there anything I would need to do to run Alpha Five?

2) Will having a https configuration slow things down noticeably?

3) How much faster or efficient are dialog forms vs grid forms for entering data? Especially with the possibility of my clients have a slow connection? (Being a non-programmer it appears that dialog forms may be difficult but I am sure with direction and/or examples I could learn).

4) Lastly, I am having a difficult time setting the login session variables to be able to filter the �view� of the different individual�s data. In addition, I am having a hard time when a new record is created, using the session variables to set the correct �clientID� and �regionID�. Would someone be willing to take a look at my database and for a reasonable fee (cheap is important), set up a couple of the I have grids for me to achieve this so I can then follow that example on the other grids I have?

Looking forward to your responses. Thank you.

[aschone]

Re: "Best" reasonable home server setup question

1) Just had installed a separate DSL line with 5 Meg down, and .6 up with 5 static IPs

You may want to increase the upload bandwidth. I would look into a synchronous DSL instead of asynchronous DSL. Synchronous DSL splits the total available bandwidth evenly between the upload and download portion. Asyncronous is good for a normal internet user because more of the bandwidth is dedicated to the download side. Since you are running server you will be uploading more data than a typical internet user does.

3) I understand that I can only run one www.mysite.com, short of using a setup like www.mysite.com/client1, etc. - not a problem today but may be 6 months from now.

Typically you have one webhost per IP address. Since you are getting 5 static IP addresses you may have up to 5 separate webhosts. I have not played with Alpha5's web portion yet, Alpha5 may have a limitation of only being able to run one webhost per computer. I am sure others here have more experience in this area and help clarify.

1) For the server, should I put more money into a faster HD, more than 2 gigs ram, faster processor, windows server or will windows XP be enough? Where will I see a real benefit(s)? If I would see a real benefit in using windows server, is there anything I would need to do to run Alpha Five?

When planning your hardware, make sure you leave enough upgrade room in the server to upgrade down the road. 2 gig I think is your minimum, I would leave enough room to upgrade to 4 gig in the future if need be. Fast hard drives will help, but having the operating system on one hard drive, page file on a separate hard drive, and data files on a 3 hard drive is one of the easiest methods to reduce the hard drive bottleneck. Other options include using a RAID configuration, but may be overkill for your initial size. In picking out your harddrives stay with the SATA drives, IDE is slower and will soon be completely replaced.

windows server or will windows XP be enough

Windows XP has a hardcoded limit of only 10 simultaneous connections at a time. Again I have not worked Alpha5's software, but I would definitaly verify that this wont cause you any problems if you choose to go with XP. Hopefully others here have tested this and can answer it better than I.

2) Will having a https configuration slow things down noticeably?

SSL will introduce a slow down, if the slow down is noticeable then either the server or the client processor needs to be upgraded. Your end users should not really see much difference from an SSL website to a non SSL website.

[Scholin]

Re: "Best" reasonable home server setup question

Thank you Andrew for the prompt and very practical advice. I like the idea of the hard drives - good point.

[APFCClyde]

Re: "Best" reasonable home server setup question

Here is an explanation on the 10-user limit:

http://msgboard.alphasoftware.com/al...0&postcount=16

[dmartens]

Re: "Best" reasonable home server setup question

I'll offer a couple additional comments beyond the very good responses you've already received.

On processor speed:

A very good price-performance tradeoff exists for processors that are near the top of the performance scale BUT not at the top. Let's say that processor speeds were 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 GHz for one brand of processor. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that system performance is linearly proportional to processor speed (this is not precisely correct, but it's close enough for our purposes). If we assume the 2.0GHz processor costs $100, you should expect the other prices for the slower chips to increase linearly, while at the highest performance model, the price increases far more than the proportional increase in performance. Thus, by purchasing the 2.4GHz chip, you get the highest performing _system_. Items like the motherboard and case are a fixed cost (speaking generally, again) but paying a little more for the microprocessor boosts the performance of the whole system without having to pay more for the other parts. This is a big deal if you have performance concerns.

On memory:

2GB is really the lowest anyone should go these days. Please keep in mind that 32b processors are not able to fully address a 4GB or larger memory space, though. In effect, you could have memory that is physically present in the system but unreachable to the processor. Thus, a 64b processor may be desirable. Example: Intel T7700 or equivalents.

On DSL:

If you anticipate having more than 10 people actively using your system at once, 0.6Mbps upload won't be sufficient. Upload speed could easily be a performance bottleneck for your system. SDSL lines are certainly more expensive than ADSL lines, unfortunately.

On disk:

As Andrew mentioned, RAID would be a very good idea. For my PC, I regularly back up my non-RAID system to a NAS unit (network attached storage) unit with RAID5. This would allow for my PC disk to fail or one of the disks in my NAS unit to fail or both, without losing data (excepting what little data was entered between backups).

My NAS unit also has Apache and MySql built-in, which you may want anyway as you develop your site further. There have been many discussions about using Apache for multi-site management with Alpha5 in this discussion forum. I chose the Synology CS-406. This has a very lower power mode when not in use.

On system:

The home web server I'm building right now sounds similar to yours for needs and goals. Although I want it to be always available, I know there will be periods of inactivity. For that reason, I chose a case/motherboard that was much lower power than a typical pc. I did this for personal reasons (concerns with wasting energy) and cost reasons. I chose the Aopen MP965-DR. This system uses a processor that uses considerably less power while still maintaining medium-level processor performance.

I hope this has offered a little additional insight.

Good luck,
Dave

[Scholin]

Re: "Best" reasonable home server setup question

Thank you Dave, you offer some great advice that I will be able to use. Once again, this forum offers some of the best cooperative help I have seen. Thanks!