0

Pretty basic question. I've had someone alert me to a concern that the initial IT firm that setup the server environment where I currently am did not install hardware to the specifications specified in the proposal/quote/invoice.

Question is, is checking RAM, processor and hard drives the same as on a normal PC? Right-click on My Computer when logged into the SBS 2008 and the figures shown are the actual specifications of the server?

And for the hard drives, opening compmgmt.msc and navigating to Disk Management and then simply view the disks shown?

The proposal says Dual Xeon Quad-Core 2.4Ghz processor and the System window shows Xeon(R) CPU E5506 2.13GHz.

The proposal says 32 GB DDR3 1333Mhz RAM and the System windows shows 24.0 GB.

The proposal says 8 x IBM 300 GB SAS hard drives and the Disk Management windows shows 2 disks, one being 136.7 GB and the other 931.46 GB.

Is anyone able to shed some light if where I'm looking (I'm used to a PC) is still accurate on a server?

Thanks.

** EDIT **

Have just run msinfo32 and the Processor shows: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5506 @ 2.13GHz, 2128 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s) - so this is not the dual Xeon Quad-Core 2.4GHz processors as outlined is it? The Installed Physical Memory (RAM) also shows 24.0 GB total, so I know that one isn't the 32 GB they outlined.

Logan
  • 27
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8

2 Answers2

3

Yes, you have correctly determined what hardware is in your server. Windows Server really is not significantly different from the client OS.

Michael Hampton
  • 237,123
  • 42
  • 477
  • 940
  • Thanks for the confirmation. Sorry I just re-read the proposal and it mentions "...dual Xeon Quad-Core 2.4Ghz processors". Should the Systems window therefore show 4.8Ghz (if these were actually installed) or is the figure usually a bit lower? And would the 8 x IBM 300 GB hard drives show as 8 separate disks in Disk Management? Thanks. – Logan Feb 20 '14 at 23:59
  • No. Because core speed would still be 2.4ghz, But you would see 8 or 16 cores (depending on hyperthreading enabled). More info would be available via WMI. The discs - not if ther is a raid controller. In this case you would see the raid exposed volumes, not the discs. – TomTom Feb 21 '14 at 00:00
  • Sorry I'm relatively new to this, is the WMI tool standard on SBS 2008 or it that something I need to download and run? Do you know of an online tutorial for me to find that info. using WMI? And would the 8 x IBM 300 GB hard drives show as 8 separate disks in Disk Management? – Logan Feb 21 '14 at 00:02
  • Please refer to my edit of question also, just ran msinfo32 and got a bit more info., need to know if I'm interpreting it correctly. – Logan Feb 21 '14 at 00:11
  • Again, you appear to be interpreting it correctly. That system bears little resemblance to your quote. – Michael Hampton Feb 21 '14 at 00:13
  • Thanks very much guys. Looks like that's the reassurance I needed to take this further. Much appreciated. – Logan Feb 21 '14 at 00:17
  • Before you go too much further, make sure you are looking at the right server! Perhaps the quote refers to some other server. – Michael Hampton Feb 21 '14 at 00:18
1

I would caution - While the reporting of the hardware is the same, things COULD be different because servers use different hardware. As noted by Michael Hampton, RAID controllers alter how the hard disks are reported to the OS. RAID controller software can interact with the RAID controller and give you ACTUAL disk information. RAM can be different as well - some systems allow for "backup" RAM and/or mirroring the RAM so what's reported to the OS may not be what's actually installed - and telling may require rebooting and going into BIOS.

Truly analyzing server hardware requires, in my opinion, a more methodical and CAREFUL analysis. Identify the ACTUAL hardware installed. I use System Information for Windows (SIW) to get most details... but you still have to be aware of the RAM and Drive config.

Oh, and don't forget, virtualized systems may report certain things differently.

Multiverse IT
  • 1,815
  • 9
  • 10
  • Hmm thanks for pointing that out. May have to get a third-party in to confirm my suspicions before proceeding to confront the firm that implemented the environment. Cheers. – Logan Feb 21 '14 at 03:32