We too are looking for a new server for our AC.
The imported items conundrom really has us stymied: it doesn't make any sense why adding items to the II folder should result in such a performance hit (assuming the indices are set up correctly and are intact in SQL): The SQL table stores the record of the item, date, type (and of course patient) and a path to the file itself. The II itself isn't accessed until one clicks on that item in the treeview.
FAP I understand is much faster. I have built a view external to AC on an Access MDB (Access for crying out loud) of similar architecture (paths to the actual PDF or TIF) that as > 250,000 records, and it is MUCH faster that then AC implementation.
OK, enough of that rant, but a seque to my added question:
I am considering a SSD, but don't have the $2500+ for a TB drive. Don't need one if: a) don't use AC II tab, or b) can have the images them selves (PDF and TIF) stored on another DRIVE. Is there such an option?
