Windows Server version/edition

Options
mcmorry
mcmorry ✭
edited January 2013 in Photon Server
I'm new to Photon and I'm still evaluating the Cloud or the Server version.

About the Server version, I'm not sure what Windows Server could be fine.
A provider that I use for Linux servers offers a long list, with different prices.
Could be useful to know which one of these versions are fine or not.
    Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition Windows Server 2012 Datacenter Edition Windows Server 2008 SP2 Web Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Standard Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Core Datacenter Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Core Web Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Core Standard Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Core Enterprise Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Enterprise Edition Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 Datacenter Edition Windows Server 2008 Datacenter Edition SP2

And what kind of hardware requirement (CPU, RAM) do you have or suggest based on the CCU or other parameters?

Thank you.

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] ✭
    Options
    Hi,

    technically, Photon runs fine on any of these editions.

    So the choice is up to you - do you need any features of the more expensive editions? If not, just go with the cheap & simple ones - that's usually the Windows Server 2008 SP2 Web Edition or the Windows Server 2012 Standard Edition.

    The "Core" editions don't have a full GUI, I would not recommend them unless you know what you are doing. ;)

    Regarding the hardware: as a rule of thumb, 1 server with a decent quad-core CPU (e.g., an Intel Xenon X3440), 4GB RAM and 100 MBit/s bandwidth can handle about ~ 1000 CCU. If you want to handle more CCUs on a server, it is very likely that bandwidth will be the bottleneck, not the CPU.

    Disclaimer: This is really just a rule of thumb and depends on several factors - in the end, you need to run your own load test with your client & server implementation.
  • mcmorry
    mcmorry ✭
    Options
    Thank you for your help. Very appreciated and very useful. :)

    About LoadBalancing, should the servers be in the same LAN?
  • Philip
    Philip ✭
    Options
    mcmorry wrote:
    About LoadBalancing, should the servers be in the same LAN?

    No - they don't have to.

Cookies,
anyone?

We use cookies and related technologies to enhance your experience, show you personalised content and analyze performance and traffic on our website. By clicking on the „Accept All“ button you consent to the use of non-functional cookies and the subsequent processing of personal data to optimize our website and services as described in more detail in our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

By clicking on the „Customize or Deny all“ button you can decide otherwise. Clicking on the „Customize“ button will take you to a page where you can configure the usage of non-functional cookies (and related technologies) or deny all of them. You can access these settings at any time and also subsequently deselect cookies at any time in the footer area of our website.

ACCEPT ALL

Cookie Overview

We use the following categories of cookies and related technologies to enhance your experience, show you personalized content, and analyze performance and traffic on our website. We respect your right to privacy and accordingly you can chose to not allow some types of cookies (and related technologies). Click on the different category sliders and change our default settings to manage your cookie settings.

For more information on the specific cookies/related technologies we use and on how we use these, please see section 15 E. of our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

Authentication cookies we use are required to run our services … Cookies are required: Link

FUNCTIONAL AND MARKETING COOKIES

These cookies collect anonymous data and allow us to optimize our website and user experience. These cookies are listed here:

ANALYTICS

Help us to understand how visitors interact with our services, enables us to analyze and improve our services (also through third party analytics).