Home Forums Discussions Problems New to AC

Here is the website for the netgear NAS unit:
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Storage/ReadyNASNVPlus.aspx

It is actually called Netgear ReadyNAS NV+...

Eric,
Thanks so much for your feedback. I was actually looking at the Netgear one because we have their wireless router and we're very pleased with it, and our Internet security package, PC Cillian from trendmicro seems to interact with the router real well. One can see the covered computers on the network and things like that from the router controls. So perhaps when we get home I will take a closer look at it. How long have you had it now? I gather it has been nice and quiet. I was wondering, just what exactly protects a NAS unit, like my protection software would protect the harddrive and software on it? Do you use one of your wired computers to use and cover it with it's package or what?
Thanks again...
Paul

We have had the Netgear unit in service since 12/1/07. 100% uptime except for a brief power outage (I have yet to order the USB power backup but it is on my list).

Probably the most difficult feature to setup was the user level permissions for the shares. I wanted to prevent our office staff from deleting or renaming the Amazing Chart db and imported files while retaining their ability to read/write the files. We used the CIFS permission editor within the web interface of the product to accomplish this.

The actual protection of the unit itself comes with the type of operating system it has. It basically has a hardened Linux operating system, meaning it has removed all unnecessary services and ways to get into the unit. This prevents unauthorized access (unless of course you leave the permissions wide open). For virus checking of the files themselves, it is just like any other hard drive or USB drive attached to you machine and leverages the security software (for example, Mcafee or Norton) from your existing client.

Eric,
Thanks again. Yes I'm seriously considering this thing, with it's hot swappable drives and all. Nice to hear your feedback. Is it fast in terms of feeding and recieving stuff from its clients? My hope was that it would be faster than a client that has apps running on it and it has the safety of the swappable drives too. Now a dead computer or drive does not mean a dead office. I think you are in a windows XP P2P like we are yes? Do you mind if I call upon you for some set-up advice if and when I get it.

Anyway, Tomorrow after school I'm going to take my kids out of town for a few days. Tickets to see the NY Rangers at MSG as they take on the Buffalo Sabres. Pretty sweet. Their first Pro game and at the Garden too. Hope the Rangers come out all hot and bothered after 5 days rest while fighting for a playoff spot and put on a good show for my kids. So perhaps I bug you when I get back. Thanks for everything
Paul

The Netgear unit is very fast. This was one of the reasons I selected it over similar NAS units offered by Buffalo.

I used Google to locate the write/read speed comparisons

these are the reviews/speed comparisons I saw where ReadyNAS was fastest:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/infrant-readynas-nv,review-654-8.html

http://review.zdnet.com/external-hard-drives/netgear-readynas-nv-network/4505-3190_16-32651256.html

sorry for delayed response. just now configured my account so I receive emails when a new post arrives.

Our office uses a blend of XP SP2 and Vista notebooks. Not really a peer to peer network though as I'm a firm believer in dedicated server hardware for certain critical functions, like the database fileserver (our NAS).

I can certainly help you out on setup. If you want, I can document on the forum so others can view/critique as well. We'll get the better results with several eyes looking on.

After reading this post I am considering a NAS for my practice. I have a mixed XP and Vista set up, but have been having “too many connections” issues lately. I have 12 computers with one acting as the database. After looking at the cost of servers, CALs, and OS I was wondering is a NAS would not be the way to go. In the future I will probably be adding a few more client machines and was also wondering how many connections that I could have.

The key question is how many active users do you have in the database at one time? Is it 12? or somewhat less? I'm curious about the "too many connections" comment and what is telling you that this is the problem.

Our Netgear ReadyNAS has been perfect over the last year. It handles power outages with ease, even when I over run the USB battery backup. Once you set it up it keeps on ticking.

Nebo,

You state XP and Vista. But, you don't mention XP Pro or Home or Vista Business, Ultimate or what?

This may be a bit helpful. First, the total amount of users who cn access Access at the same time is 265. Realistically, it is about twice that amount. If you use it as a front end to SQL back end, it is way past that amount. But, I doubt we have anyone on here that has over 130 users and, in fact, probably no practice.

XP Pro limits in the incoming connections to 10 and XP Home limits it to 5. Vista is 10. It doesn't matter what the OS is that is connecting, only the one that has the database on it.

If you go with an NAS, you need to make sure that is not a problem. I believe that this one http://www.snapserveronline.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=80 would meet your needs. There are many. Buffalo makes a good one, but just make sure whichever one you use allows more than what you have. Sometimes even your networked printers, etc. can count.

If your database is on an XP Home Edition, I would first try switching it to a Pro edition or to Vista. Even if on XP Pro, it may be worth trying it on Vista or vice versa. If you can get close, it may work out as it is the number of connections at the same time.

Of course, the number of concurrent attachments to a database and the number of concurrent connections to the actual client or server is a different thing.

Therein lies your problem. With 12 computers, you will have 11 computers in your network attaching to the "server."

This has nothing to do with the database. It has to do with your peer-to-peer. In my estimation you have three options:

1. Take one computer off the network. If you have a computer which does not need to access the "database computer," you can disconnect it -- not from AC but from the network. Keep in mind that other network peripherals can count.
2. Go with an NAS that will allow more than 11 connections.
3. Purchase a server which can run a server OS. That would, as you say, mean purchasing a server, server OS and CALs.

Be sure that the "server PC" is either Vista or XP Pro.

The server is XP pro which will only allow 10 connections at a time and that is where I run into the brick wall.

At any given time the is one full time provider, a part-time provider, receptionist, 2 nurses, and an office manager using the database. I would like to have all computers logged on to the "server" without having the "too many connections" error from XP which is limited to 10 connections at a time. I have 6 exam rooms, 2 nurses stations, lab, 2 offices and a receptionist all logged in at the same time. The exam rooms are logged in with 2 accounts to save time. One for the provider and one for the nurse. Which would act more like 12 connections instead of 6. I was just wondering if a NAS could handle that much traffic or would I be better of with a server.

My plans are to add one more provider within the next year and probably a few more computers and the part-time provider going to full time at he first of the year.

While you are upgrading your system, consider a gigabit router/switch.

I have two offices, in one I have installed AC4 beta (latest version seems pretty stable). I recently upgraded the computers (found cheap ones with win xp sticker and gigabit networking) so I decided to add a gigabit network card to the server and purchase a gigabit switch (actually 2, one only had five ports but was real cheap then I found another with 8 ports which encompassed the rest.)

Wow, things are much faster. Its like AC database was installed on that remote computer, instant name popup when you type a name in, quick opening of the import items which used to be slow.

Soon I may get around to my other office, but one step at a time.

Network Attached storage (NAS) appliances like the Netgear ReadyNAS and the snap servers don't have this limitation. Your bottleneck would be the network or the AC database itself so Wendell's suggestion to have a gigabit router with associated network cards in each PC is very good advice.

Quoting from the Netgear website FAQ,

netgear website quote link

"There is a limit of 32,000 users and 32,000 groups, however, depending on application, the ReadyNAS will support from 1 to 20 concurrent users. For large video files, the ReadyNAS can stream 4 HD-quality video without frame drops. For Microsoft Office-type applications, the ReadyNAS will handle many more concurrent users."

you can translate this as the bottleneck is really the network connection and the disk transfer rates rather than the appliance OS itself.

Nebo,

It seems like we are talking apples and oranges and oranges and apples.

I am a little confused, because you talk about the users at first and then the physical computers. In your peer-to-peer network, you can have as many computers as you want connected, but the number of concurrent connections to any single computer (which would most likely be the one you have files or databases on) is ten. This has everything to do with the number of concurrent connections to the XP Pro OS after SP2 and nothing to do with the number of users and computers, etc.

Now, of course, the more users and computers you have, the more possible concurrent connections you have. From reading your post, you indicate that there would be (in the future) seven users if you are including yourself that would be accessing the system at anyone time. I would doubt that all of those seven would be accessing the XP machine at the same time. If so, then no one is taking care of the patients, physically, i.e. vital signs, etc. So, you have room for three more users based on the above scenario.

XP also has a timeout set for when a disconnect happens. This can be reset to 0 which would allow for connections to disconnect more quickly, but I don't think you need to do this.

You are not on a domain, it appears you are on a workgroup. You are not logging into the "server," I believe you are logging into each individual computer which can all access shared resources on whichever computer you have designated as the "server."

A server/client domain running from Windows 2000 or 2003 server or Small Business Server (can't speak for Linux, etc.) are run on CALs. Typically, the Windows Server OS would come with five client access license, one for the server and four for clients. You then buy more in 5, 10, 15, etc. In this scenario, you can have 500 computers connected to a switch which is connected to a server with 10 licenses and you are fine, UNTIL they all try to log onto the domain. Then Windows takes first come, first serve. The fifth computer which tries to log on will not be allowed to. In this scenario, each computer which is logged on counts as a connection until they log off physically even if they are locked.

You never told us if you are using XP Pro or XP Home. This will make a huge difference. It would seem to make more sense if you were using the Home Edition as it can handle only five. In that case, then you may run into the "too many connections" problem. If you are using XP Pro, then there is an issue somewhere, possibly other peripherals that have connections. It is not always clear, and printers that are shared and in use can cause this to happen, which is where a print server would be cheaper than an NAS or server. In that case, get a good LaserJet printer or MFP that is networked and you should have less issues.

Finally, your decision between an NAS (if you are using Home and not XP Pro), depends on where you wish to go. If you just need to get rid of the problem, then a good NAS will solve your problem. If you are going to be adding more users and more computers, then you may wish to go ahead and set up a network which can grow with your business and go ahead and spend $2500 on a server and roughly $1200 to $1500 for an OS and CALs.

HTH

Sorry for the confusion earlier but Bert you are right in your assumptions regarding using a workgroup and not a domain. basically I have 12 computers with 11 sharing the database on the 12th which is XP Pro. All 12 are Logged into AC at once with the 6 exam room being logged on to AC twice with Fast User Switching. Which if I understand correctly Windows XP Pro sees as 18 connections plus my networked printers.

Money is a concern but not the major one. I like peer-to-peer for the simplicity. If I priced correctly I can get a Dell server with server 2008 and 20 CALs for around $2,500. I just dont want to get too complicated so we can do some of the IT stuff in house.

Thanks Nebo,

I would have to say that unless I am confused, Fast User Switching would only count as one connection. Only one can be logged in at one time and the "server" would only see one connection coming from that computer at any given time and, even then, when it is actively obtaining files or accessing the database.

I would also consider asking an IT person to stop by. Even if you had one come out to give an estimate on something (with the idea that you probably wouldn't do it) you could sneak in the fact that you are asking because of your issue. There is likely something wrong if 12 computers are all connecting at the same time. It is supposed to be concurrent connections; one has to wonder if there is so much network chatter form a PC that it is being considered a connection all the time. Remember, I try to help, BUT I am still not a Microsoft IT trained person. LOL. You could still even get an IT consult just to figure this out with the idea that you want to know ALL your options and not necessarily the best.

So, no, I don't think your server sees "18 connections" even with some activity to networked printers.

You will have to tell me where you are getting a Dell Server, Windows Server 2008 and 20 CALs for $2500.

A good price on LEGAL OS and CALs would be around:

$750 for 2008 Server OS and 5 User CALS
$450 for 15 more User CALS
That would leave you with $1300 for a Dell server. I suppose you could get one for that, but it would have to be very bare bones.

Bert,
What does a new AC practice really need in a server? Acording to the minimum requirements of Amazing Charts it isn't much. They certainly need *a* server, but just enough to use SBS as a domain controller, DHCP server, Exchange server, AC, and maybe a PMS. I can't think of anything more.
Am I missing something?

It seems these things could be accomplished with a fairly bare bones server. Has anyone run AC on SBS with a single quad core chip, 4 gigs RAM, and a three drive RAID 5?

Benjamin,

Good question. First, it doesn't really matter whether a practice is new to AC or not as to their needs for their network.

My posts clearly pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of all three options including the one where Nebo could figure out why he was having so many concurrent connections.

"...just enough to use SBS as a domain controller, DHCP server, Exchange server, AC, and maybe a PMS."

How many things do you need to run on a server before you need a "real" server vs "a" server. It's still going to be file server as well. Every time the topic of what to use for a network and how to configure a network and peer-to-peer vs Client/Server; we all seem to talk about it in terms of AC only. Same with backups. Everyone backing up with thumb drives but what are they doing for the entire backup?

Certainly using a regular computer for your "server" is fine. I am simply suggesting that if one is considering adding a user here, a computer there, that they may want to be able to grow into a network just as having an extra exam room for down the road.

But, there are advantages to real servers. For one, while you can use 4GBs of RAM, you cannot use buffered memory. Buffered memory is much more reliable than unbuffered and is responsbile for many crashes that we blame on Windows. To be sure, one should make sure the memory is ECC You can also get corrupted data with unbuffered memory.

Finally, a dedicated "regular machine" for a server can work very well, but it has been my experience that many users tend to use that server as a workstation a well, which is not Best Practices.

So, to answer your question, one can certainly get by without purchasing an expensive server, but one also has to ask themselves how important is your billing and patient data? In the end, your data is safer on a server, more likely to be backed up properly, and more consistently available. When was the last time a "real" server had to be rebooted from a crash? For me, it's been weeks.

Benjamin,
The setup for a server you suggest is probably better than most on the message boards. A huge number of people are simply using a dedicated PC to act as their "Main computer" or "mini-server," on a peer-to-peer network.

A few of us have true client/server setups. The RAID 5 setup you are describing w/ single quad core should be more than adequate, as long as it meets the minimum system requirements for Windows Server or Small Business Server.

I am using a dual quad core system, 4GB Ram, 4 hard drive RAID 10.

Email me or PM if you want to discuss the server concept further.

been a while since I posted..

I thought that I would point that the windows server licensing allows for a choice between a user CAL or a device CAL. This allows for flexibility in the setting up the server. A per user model would allow for any number of devices to be attached to the network but only the number of CAL users could log into the computers attached to the domain. A device CAL allows for unlimited number of users but a fixed number of devices. This is ideal for shift works (ie hospitals) where users are coming and going.

You can mix the user and device style CALs in the same server.

This link form MS explains this model in server 2003:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/overview.mspx

You can always find a MS software specialist/dealer that can assist in the licensing.

Geoff

Geoff,

Thanks for the info and the link.

Geoff,
thanks for that info!!
That was news to me.
I've been using SBS 2003 for about 1.5 years and only knew about the DEVICE CALs not USER CALs. I have the limit, 10 devices and no need to add another device. However I have only 6 staffers including myself. If I need to add other computers, could I switch the CALs to a USER model instead of current DEVICE model?

Adam,

I am not sure about changing licenses that you have already purchased.
This FAQ from M$ listed a question/answer:

Q. If my business needs change, can I switch between user CALs and device CALs?

A.

If you have Software Assurance for your SBS 2003 R2 CALs, you can only switch between CAL types when you renew your Software Assurance contract. If you do not have Software Assurance for your SBS 2003 R2 CALs, then you cannot switch between license types.

http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsServer2003/sbs/evaluation/faq/licensing.mspx

You are probably out of luck.

The original installation of the SBS allows for selection of either a user or device CAL or a mix of both for the first 5 licenses. After that each pack of CALs you can choose which license type but I think that you choice all one or the other, you can not mix and match. In the new server 2008 CAL structure, each type has a different price point with user CAL being slightly cheaper then the device CAL. I am no expert in this particular area, just a basic knowledge of the issue. I work in a hospital system where the IT manages the domain and network.

If you can not switch to the user CAL then just keep the device CAL. A mixed CAL environment is probably more trouble than it is worth.

I would mention to anyone reading this post that most AC users would be better off with the User CAL.

Geoff

Why does that not surprise me? Bill Gates certainly needs more money.

No, but Steve Balmer (is that his name) does.

Close. Needs another "l."

Thanks Geoff, much appreciated delivery of the bad news