Active Forum Topics | Getting Started | Interviews | EMR Forum | Medical | Billings | Press & News | Voice Recognition | The Water Cooler
quote:Originally posted by r_rivera Alright, let me try to help here. First, what roles do you expect your server to perform? Usualy you only need a server in this kind of environment for two things: #1 Domain Controller, and #2 Database Server. Assumming those are the main functionalities you are looking for, I'd say some configuration similar to this should do: PowerEdge SC1420 OS: Windows 2003 Server Standard Processor: Single Pentium Xeon 2.8 - 3.2 GHz RAM: 1-2 GB HDD: 160 GB * 2 Configured in RAID 1 for Redundancy (This will result in only 160GB being available but if one disks dies the other one still has the data. Also note that this server uses SATA HDDs. Some IT guys will suggest going with SCSI, but given the scenario I dont see much of a noticeable performance increase.) This configuration can certainly be varied. And if you ask 50 different poeple you may get 50 different answers. The idea here is to think of the "toughest usage possible" scenario and trying to provide the needed resources without wasting too much money that could be otherwise used in other areas. One thing I really like to stress out for anyone thinking of using a single machine as a Server and Workstation: Dont do this! Even if you have enough RAM and processor it's still a bad idea. Say one of your employees opens a virus inside an email and it gets to her address book and is forwarded to everyone in the office. If the virus is capable of taking down your server and you happen to recieve and open the email in the "server", you are done. There are several other reasons not to do this, but I wont go into all of them. As for a backup method, I'd suggest Strychnine's method: Using an External HDD combined with and application like Acronis (or perhaps you could use Veritas). Like him, I dont really like tapes, so additional HD Drives look like a better solution to me. When it comes to wireless im not an expert nor a fan. Check out this thread if you havent already. http://www.emrupdate.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3781 I can answer basic specific questions, but im not that much help in that department. If you need any help configuring any more computers. Let me know. Regards I wholeheartedly agree about keeping a dedicated server in the back somewhere, that is only touched for maintenance purposes. Having worked break/fix support for an incalculable number of offices using peer-to-peer, you can avoid a lot of headaches for yourself with this method. Unless you intend to get into Active Directory, Exchange, WSUS, any other Windows Server specific functions, or software specifically requires it, XP Pro can function in a simple server role just fine. XP Pro can handle up to 10 concurrent connections, and it requires the purchase of no CAL's. Save your money on the Xeon. It is overkill unless you intend to grow. If you do grow, you would be better off passing this server down as a workstation and purchasing a new one. Take Rivera's ideas and drop them into a Dell PowerEdge 830 instead. Ditch the Xeon for a Pentium D 830. For workstations, look into Dimension or Optiplex. I prefer Optiplex myself. The current Optiplex GX520/620's are some excellent workstations. Very well-designed and quiet machines. Michael Wilson Network Admin - Albany Internal Medicine | Post Points: 5
Michael Wilson
Network Admin - Albany Internal Medicine
quote:Originally posted by FPdoctor SERVERS: Roberto said, "Actually, if you go for a PowerEdge 1800 instead of the PowerEdge SC1420. The same configuration will be a lot less expensive." Mike said, "Take Rivera's ideas and drop them into a Dell PowerEdge 830 instead. Ditch the Xeon for a Pentium D 830." PowerEdge 830 offers a Pentium D 830 DUAL processor. Is that what you mean? If so, Mike, how would you configure this? Is dual necessary? http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/tower?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd The Pentium D is a dual-core processor. I have found it to be an excellent alternative to a single Xeon in light server roles, and it can often be obtained cheaper. However, you would likely be equally pleased by a single Xeon, so go with whichever you can get cheaper at the time. Michael Wilson Network Admin - Albany Internal Medicine | Post Points: 5
quote:Originally posted by mchasemd Michael, Thank you for all of your contributions to the Forum. I enjoy reading your posts. Sounds like you have fought a few wars. I hope I can pick your brain. Regarding the XP connections that you mention above, I have a question regarding SQL Server environment using NT Authentication, but not SQL Server authentication. If SQL Server (or MSDE) is running on the XP machine, is it possible to use NT (Windows) Authentication with simultaneous users connecting in a peer-to-peer workgroup? Would it work if all users used the same UID and PW? I assumed that AD was needed in a domain setting to provide the authentication but I haven't tested it peer-to-peer. I like the idea of keeping hardware costs low for those docs who are opening a new office. My DELL XPS Notebook with its 3.4 GH Pentium HT, 1 GB of memory and SATA drive would probably run most offices just fine! Interestingly, in doing SQL performance stats at several busy facilities, the cache hit ratio is usually > 99% while ther server is using a max of 700 MB of memory (in a 1 GB machine). Is there any need to boost the memory to 2 GB if the cache hits are so high and the server never asks for more memory? All of our newer facilities use SATA (per our server specs) and we see no degradation in speed. Also, it seems odd to me that anyone who is considering wireless would buy SCSI over SATA because delivery of data will be slowed infinitely more by wireless than by SATA. One recent prospective client was warned vehemently by his IT people that we were all wet with SATA. For me, the proof is in the pudding-- if a physician can pay for faster, bigger drives for a fraction of the cost and have no measurable speed degradation, it's a no brainer. I appreciate your thoughts and thanks for your input on the forum. Matt Chase www.medtuity.com Definitely fought a few wars I have. Have scars and a little insanity to go along with it. That is an interesting question. SQL Server installations generally go hand-in-hand with the usage of AD. Not that it is required, but AD just makes more sense if you already have Server 2003 as most places do. That said, I have seen a deployment of SQL using NT authentication in a peer-to-peer workgroup only once. It was a bank that used Arta Lending/Deposit software with MSDE. The "server" was a Dell Dimension (forget the model) running XP Pro. Clients were 2000/XP Pro mixed. Clients used their own usernames and passwords, but these were also defined on the server. Worked like a charm. Never seen it tried with SQL itself, but I see no reason to believe it would not work. Moving right along to cache hits. In my experience, if your cache hit ratios are above 90% then SQL has all the RAM it needs to run efficiently. What size customers are these, and what is the average dbase size? Are you using static or dynamic memory allocations with SQL? I am glad to see some vendor support for both SATA and the more efficient use of your customer's EMR budget. My own proclivities concerning SATA were discussed at length in another thread. You can find cheap SCSI deals, and you can find cheap SATA deals. However, SATA is considerably cheaper when there are no deals. One can often buy 3 SATA drives cheaper than a SCSI drive (especially if comparing similar sizes). This gives you the ability to build larger arrays, thus possibly getting people away from RAID 5 and into RAID 10. Another thing to love about SATA is that when the real world strikes, you can get replacements easier (and can reasonably afford to stock them yourself). If I am in the office on Saturday for some server maintenance and the unthinkable trio of simultaneous drive failures occurs, then I can simply take a very short drive and obtain some replacements. No need to pick up the phone and deal with someone's tech support for an hour before they agree that the drives are dead, only to wait a few more hours for them to send a SCSI drive (if 4-hour response is guaranteed). Next day shipping on Saturday? Now I have to wait until Monday to get replacements, and deal with angry physicians when they show up to see patients that morning. With SATA, I have less than an hour of downtime. Michael Wilson Network Admin - Albany Internal Medicine | Post Points: 5
quote:Originally posted by FPdoctor Good ideas everyone. Joseph, this is what I'm thinking of having in each exam room for my tablet PC and or use as a mayo stand for small procedures. It would easily allow me to sit and use it as a desk at patients eye level. $69 http://www.dhmedical.com/ovtatidrme.html (other ideas here but don't give the Mayo Stand option and not as easy to put legs under the table top due to wheel bases. http://www.stacksandstacks.com/html/product411_0.htm ) After reading Matt's comment how start up offices could get away with just a laptop, I continue to realize how small my computer needs are. I'll continue to revisit this and have time to constantly evaluate. I'm not sure if a dual processor or a Xeon is needed for a two person office. Isn't the real rate limiting step my wireless network? My Practice Management / Billing is www.emedsoft.com via ASP. So the front desk will just need internet. My EMR??? At first I'm going to use possible combo's of MS Word/MS OneNote/Medtuity/Document Mangement (www.Itaz.com) I'm keeping an eye on SoapWare v5 for the future. But currently, I don't have any patients so will cross that bridge when I feel necessary. With a Server, what software do I run? Windows XP professional Regular Windows Server 2003 or Small Business Server 2003 OR do I just postpone server buying, waiting for practice to grow and then get the new Server App out next year in '06 ? The Pentium D should be cheaper than a single Xeon (I think the Xeon would be overkill at this point). The Pentium D should not be much more expensive than a Pentium 4 6xx (especially not from Dell). If you use Server 2003 you will definitely not go wrong, but you can get by fine with XP Pro unless Server 2003 is required by your software (and it may be). Don't let Joseph poison your mind with talk of SCSI and backup tapes. Words from the dark side they are. ;) One problem with RAID 5 is that unless you are using a good controller (dedicated processor and cache memory), all of those parity calculations get passed onto the server's processor. Another problem with RAID 5 is write performance. If you can afford 3 drives, buy 4 instead and use RAID 10. All of this is likely overkill as well, as RAID 1 would likely server your needs. If in the market for a laptop, I recommend the Dell Latitude D610 as well. I am posting from my Latitude D810, and I love the machine. They are built very solid. Joseph, I will be using SATA exclusively in my implementation of Logician here. Planning to migrate the CentricityPM server to a newer rig with SATA as well. It is currently on RAID 5 w/3 36GB 10K SCSI drives. They overpaid for that piece of Acer trash server long before I arrived. I will be using it for Exchange and WSUS once I move PM to a new box. Maybe you should fly to Georgia to see it sometime. ;) Michael Wilson Network Admin - Albany Internal Medicine | Post Points: 5