WINDOWS XP vs WINDOWS 2003 server

Use this forum if you have installed hMailServer and want to ask a question related to a production release of hMailServer. Before posting, please read the troubleshooting guide. A large part of all reported issues are already described in detail here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Conzi
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-24 14:44
Location: Varese, Italy

WINDOWS XP vs WINDOWS 2003 server

Post by Conzi » 2006-05-15 18:19

For a mailserver with hmailserver + squirrelmail + php + perl + web server (not IIS but Key Focus),
why I would have to choose xp rather than win 2k3 server?
(and viceversa..)

conzi

User avatar
Slug
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 2005-03-13 05:42
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Slug » 2006-05-15 19:03

I would use XP, as why buy a Ferrari when all you need is a mini.

And its cheaper :-)

I only changed because I was using IIS

Michael
Missing Hmailserver ... Now running Debian servers

ajw
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 150
Joined: 2006-04-17 20:29
Location: Needham, MA 02492 USA
Contact:

Post by ajw » 2006-05-16 07:46

not only the OS is cheaper (XP instead of Win 2003 server) but tools for it too - things like Partition Magic, or backup utilities. They often charge way more for server versions.

I'd say the real question is: do you need Windows 2003 server instead of XP or Windows 2000 ?

I don't have any metrics to make a decision with though - I'm running Apache and hMailServer on an oldish machine with Win2k, but I'm only doing 4 or 5 emails a minute (receiving; not sending... :)

- Al Weiner -

^DooM^
Site Admin
Posts: 13861
Joined: 2005-07-29 16:18
Location: UK

Post by ^DooM^ » 2006-05-16 11:43

I use 2k3 Web Edition rather than the Server Edition. Its a hell of a lot cheaper and if all you are doing is hosting websites then this will be a better choice over XP IMO. It's not that much more expensive than XP Pro.

If you still want to go with XP you would need to use Pro over Home as Home edition does not have any of the network security permissions you would need for running web services etc.

HTH.

-Jon.
If at first you don't succeed, bomb disposal probably isn't for you! ヅ

ric melia
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 33
Joined: 2004-12-13 15:11

Post by ric melia » 2006-05-16 12:10

isn't a reason to use 2k3 over xp the fact that XP Pro SP2 now limits inbound and outbound connection attempts to no more than 10 at one time (and XP Home limits to 5) ?

the above is from memory so forgive me if i've got it wrong!

User avatar
Slug
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 2005-03-13 05:42
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Slug » 2006-05-16 14:47

Since he is using a 3rd party web server the 10 connection issue for xp pro is of no consequence. Im not aware of xp home having a connection limit as it does not have a web server.

There are registry hacks to raise the 10 concurrent limit to 50.

Michael
Missing Hmailserver ... Now running Debian servers

ric melia
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 33
Joined: 2004-12-13 15:11

Post by ric melia » 2006-05-16 16:53

I'm using apache and have noticed the constraint in my application log (i'm using xp pro).

From my understanding, it's the number of tcp/ip connections regardless of what port they come in on?

A consideration for business users: I *think* that the patches available to get round this limit break the licence agreement you accepted with MS when you installed windows

User avatar
Slug
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 2005-03-13 05:42
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Slug » 2006-05-16 17:12

ric melia, you are right.

I read about the connection limit a couple of years ago. But after rereading this just now

http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;314882

it seems that Mircosoft have changed what they consider 1 connection.

It says "All logical drive, logical printer, and transport level connections combined from a single computer are considered to be one session; therefore, these connections only count as one connection in the ten- connection limit. For example, if a user establishes two logical drive connections, two Windows sockets, and one logical printer connection to a Windows XP system, one session is established."

Before 1 computer could use more then 1 connection. So there might be a good reason to use 2003 rather then XP pro after all. Or use the mentioned hacks. So perhaps it should be called "Max number of Computers" not "connections".

Michael


Edit: I dont know how strict Martin is but for those interested in changing the max connections have a look here.
http://www.winxpcentral.com/windowsxp/xpsp2speed.php

It also seems the max connections is only for file & printer shares etc. So we are back to my original interpretation. If a program eg Hmailserver or a third party webserver is happy to accept more then 10 connections does the 10 connection limit for XP/2000 apply? I dont think so

I think Martin can answer this.

Michael
Missing Hmailserver ... Now running Debian servers

CraigHarris
Senior user
Senior user
Posts: 886
Joined: 2005-11-28 11:43

Post by CraigHarris » 2006-05-16 23:46

I would without question, use Windows 2003 R2 - it's a rock solid OS with every feature you may need.

XP is not designed for hosting servers, but it will suffice if you cannot afford 2003.

You can get a free 180day trial license for 2003 from MS to delay the purchase :)

User avatar
martin
Developer
Developer
Posts: 6837
Joined: 2003-11-21 01:09
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by martin » 2006-05-16 23:52

Slug, I'm not sure what you want me to answer. As far as I can remember, the "technical speed limit" introduced in SP2 only applies to outgoing connections. Say that your computer tries to open 30 outgoing connections at one time. Windows will let 10 through immediately. Then the next second, it will let another 10 through, and then the next second another 10.

User avatar
Slug
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 2005-03-13 05:42
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Slug » 2006-05-17 03:56

martin wrote:Say that your computer tries to open 30 outgoing connections at one time. Windows will let 10 through immediately. Then the next second, it will let another 10 through, and then the next second another 10.
So with the above senario, would XP still be able to host Hmailsever with a few hundred users ? Just trying to answer the original posters question.

Michael
Missing Hmailserver ... Now running Debian servers

ric melia
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 33
Joined: 2004-12-13 15:11

Post by ric melia » 2006-05-17 09:38

From what i have read, SP2 just added to the limits by limiting outbound as well as inbound:

"Similar to the inbound connection limit Microsoft imposed on Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP (where these platforms are limited to 10 simultaneous inbound connections), Windows XP SP2 now limits outbound connection attempts to no more than 10 at one time."

http://forum.shavlik.com/viewtopic.php?t=1291 (topic of the thread is about a network scanner that won't work anymore but i think it's relevant)

User avatar
Slug
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1369
Joined: 2005-03-13 05:42
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Slug » 2006-05-17 09:46

ric melia wrote:From what i have read, SP2 just added to the limits by limiting outbound as well as inbound:
These two limits are not the same, the incomming is 10 connections using file or printer services (10 concurrent connections total), the second is 10 connections per second outgoing
"Similar to the inbound connection limit Microsoft imposed on Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP (where these platforms are limited to 10 simultaneous inbound connections), Windows XP SP2 now limits outbound connection attempts to no more than 10 at one time."

The incoming connections are only for windows services, not for programs running on the machine, outgoing connections by the above definition are limited to 10 per second. So using XP pro should not be a problem.

Michael
Missing Hmailserver ... Now running Debian servers

nocloud
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 59
Joined: 2005-06-29 20:50

Post by nocloud » 2006-06-09 05:51

so since the 10 connection limit doesn't effect apache, mysql, or hmailserver and those services can still have as many connections as they want...there's like no reason to get windows server 2003 if you use apache right?

simon
New user
New user
Posts: 11
Joined: 2005-12-28 12:23

Post by simon » 2006-06-11 22:26

CraigHarris wrote:I would without question, use Windows 2003 R2 - it's a rock solid OS with every feature you may need.

XP is not designed for hosting servers, but it will suffice if you cannot afford 2003.
I agree, Win 2003 is more stable and have better performance than XP.

Here is a quote from a guy in newsgroup microsoft.public.virtualserver:
The XP operating system is tuned for different workloads than Server 2003.
First of all, XP allocates it's various memory regions differently than
Server 2003. On a large system running many virtual machines, some of the memory pools may be exhausted before the system's physical memory limit is reached.

Second of all, Server's network stack is tuned such that it is capable of
handling higher throughput and more connections than XP.

Third of all, the execution quanta (the time a thread spends executing when it is granted processor time) is significantly higher on server than on XP. This means that less processor time is wasted on context switches on server, at the cost of reduced responsiveness on the console when the server is under load.

troels_dk
New user
New user
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-06-13 11:21

regarding win2k3

Post by troels_dk » 2006-06-13 11:25

this is exciting reading... 8)

now I have a little question here from little Denmark..

for a win2k3 r2 server, that should run apache and hmailserver
lets say the hmail has 3 domains - with 30 accounts on each domain

how big a license do I need for my windows 2003 R2 server ?

best regards from troels

simon
New user
New user
Posts: 11
Joined: 2005-12-28 12:23

Re: regarding win2k3

Post by simon » 2006-06-13 12:58

troels_dk wrote:this is exciting reading... 8)

now I have a little question here from little Denmark..

for a win2k3 r2 server, that should run apache and hmailserver
lets say the hmail has 3 domains - with 30 accounts on each domain

how big a license do I need for my windows 2003 R2 server ?

best regards from troels
I would recommend the Standard Edition.
I dont think the web edition can run apache.

You can also compare here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2 ... tures.mspx

^DooM^
Site Admin
Posts: 13861
Joined: 2005-07-29 16:18
Location: UK

Post by ^DooM^ » 2006-06-13 17:34

Web edition can run apache.

troels_dk
New user
New user
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-06-13 11:21

Post by troels_dk » 2006-06-14 11:39

ok thanks alot...

so the number of users for the license doesnt have anything to do with the number of domains i run on my windows 2003 ?

(just to be completely sure.. )

Gustav
Normal user
Normal user
Posts: 224
Joined: 2005-11-01 16:25
Location: CPH

Post by Gustav » 2006-06-14 11:56


Post Reply