Is is a good idea to use Windows Server as a router?

[bestbuy]

Hi Guys,

If I load windows server on a computer (AMD 7750 + 4G RAM) and configure it as a router, is that a better solution then buying a cheap average router? (In terms of performance and stablility)

I'd like get your opnions, Thanks!

[sc302 Veteran]

buy the router.

[devHead]

No, just get a router. And don't cheap-out either. Get a Linksys.

[hdood]

A copy of Windows is going to cost more than a router. I would get a router, but if you're going to use the PC, you might as well put Linux or FreeBSD on it. Windows is a waste of money.

[+SOOPRcow MVC]

No, just get a router. And don't cheap-out either. Get a Linksys.

When did Linksys not become a "cheap-out"?

[WatchTheSoup]

A copy of Windows is going to cost more than a router. I would get a router, but if you're going to use the PC, you might as well put Linux or FreeBSD on it. Windows is a waste of money.

Agreed. Not to mention the power costs alone will waste extra $$$

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

I was going to say the power cost would end up way more than the router over a few years.

MAYBE if you use your Windows Server PC all the time, than you could possibly do it. But if you are ONLY using it as a router, I strongly suggest no.

[XerXis]

why would you want to use a windows server as router for a home network? Or a linux server for that matter

- it consumes more power

- is generally less stable

- costs more

Unless you have a very good reason it would be a waste of time and money

[bestbuy]

Thanks for the input!

cost is not an issue since i already have that computer running as a file server and for some other uses. I do have access to msdnaa for windows server.

So the quetion is simple, who will perform better? If a dedicted router will perform better then I guess I'll spend the extra cost to get one. Otherwise why not use the PC as a router?

[Max Veteran]

Otherwise why not use the PC as a router?

Because its overcomplicated.

Buy a router, they're like ?40 and let it do all the work for you. Seriously. [/end thread]

[hdood]

Thanks for the input!

cost is not an issue since i already have that computer running as a file server and for some other uses. I do have access to msdnaa for windows server.

So the quetion is simple, who will perform better? If a dedicted router will perform better then I guess I'll spend the extra cost to get one. Otherwise why not use the PC as a router?

I'm guessing this is your home network? There's no real difference. If you already have the machine up and running you have nothing to lose by giving it a try.

[bestbuy]

yes it's a home network with 3 clients. It's just that I've heard too many stories on bad routers that always crash/drop connections etc etc under heavy use, so i thought a PC might be a good alternative.

[+BudMan MVC]

'I've heard too many stories on bad routers that always crash/drop connections etc etc under heavy use"

This can be true for some home routers.. But using windows is going to give you less features and more complexity. Unless your running say ISA or something your going to be very limited in what you can do, or at min its going to be more complicated to setup.

If you want to leverage pc hardware to use as your router -- then go the linux router distro gateway way, pfsense, ipcop, smoothwall, m0n0wall, etc. Or if you want to use it as a file server, domain controller, email, etc. etc. Then go with a distro like ClarkConnect or SME Server which are distros designed to be a gateway for your network while also providing file sharing features, content filtering, caching, etc.

I have run all the above listed distros at one time or another, and currently use pfsense -- I would personally never go back to the limitations of a soho router. When I can leverage a junk p3 800 for example as a screaming router with all the bells and whistles.

[devHead]

When did Linksys not become a "cheap-out"?

Linksys are really, really good routers. They're not cheapies.

[+Ryster Subscriber²]

Linksys are really, really good routers. They're not cheapies.

Except the Linksys WAG160N which is absolutely horrible. Steer clear of this one.

[bestbuy]

'I've heard too many stories on bad routers that always crash/drop connections etc etc under heavy use"

This can be true for some home routers.. But using windows is going to give you less features and more complexity. Unless your running say ISA or something your going to be very limited in what you can do, or at min its going to be more complicated to setup.

If you want to leverage pc hardware to use as your router -- then go the linux router distro gateway way, pfsense, ipcop, smoothwall, m0n0wall, etc. Or if you want to use it as a file server, domain controller, email, etc. etc. Then go with a distro like ClarkConnect or SME Server which are distros designed to be a gateway for your network while also providing file sharing features, content filtering, caching, etc.

I have run all the above listed distros at one time or another, and currently use pfsense -- I would personally never go back to the limitations of a soho router. When I can leverage a junk p3 800 for example as a screaming router with all the bells and whistles.

Hey thanks, looks like I can give SME Server a try!

[ahhell]

Linksys are really, really good routers. They're not cheapies.

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

The Dlink gaming routers destroy Link**** routers (and even they aren't that good).

[hdood]

yes it's a home network with 3 clients. It's just that I've heard too many stories on bad routers that always crash/drop connections etc etc under heavy use, so i thought a PC might be a good alternative.

Well, that is true to some extent, but the kind of heavy use in question can really only be generated in one way on a home network, and that is with Bittorrent. These routers normally do address translation in addition to just routing (so you can have multiple clients with just one public IP address), which is somewhat more demanding. It's possible to configure a torrent client in such a way that it will attempt to open hundreds or even thousands of connections a second and maintain thousands of open connections. This can overwhelm a router, and is really outside of the kind of use they were designed for. In fact, if you tried hard enough you could even encounter hard limits such as the port number being a 16-bit variable, which results in a total limit of about 64,500 connections (which don't necessarily have to be open, they can have different states) for the whole network (assuming the address translation implementation can handle that load). This isn't much of a real problem, since it can be resolved by just changing the settings.

[+BudMan MVC]

"Hey thanks, looks like I can give SME Server a try! "

I would suggest you try CC before SME.. CC community version is FREE, some people don't look at the site enough and think that CC costs money -- only for the enterprise version that comes with support.

[bestbuy]

"Hey thanks, looks like I can give SME Server a try! "

I would suggest you try CC before SME.. CC community version is FREE, some people don't look at the site enough and think that CC costs money -- only for the enterprise version that comes with support.

haha you got that right, I saw the word buy and 30 day trail and left the site.. anyway thanks again.

[winrez]

Windows Server with Routing and Remote Access works way better than home routers and and is comparible to a enterprise router from Dell but you still would need to buy a switch to allow more than one pc on the network.

also with the Linux suggestions I have to say that there are tons of great distros to try

The plus to using a server is you dont have to power cycle the damn thing like 99% of the home routers I have used after a year of heavy use

I am currently using a PowerEdge 1430 Server with Server 2008 for routing hooked into PowerConnect 5424 switch and a D-Link WBR-1310 for wifi access

Edited October 15, 2009 by winrez

[p858snake]

why would you want to use a windows server as router for a home network? Or a linux server for that matter

- it consumes more power

- is generally less stable

- costs more

Unless you have a very good reason it would be a waste of time and money

You do know that most "home" routers are running some sort of linux on them? so your stability comment is kinda incorrect .

[nullie]

If you don't care about price and want the ultimate in configuration and features, give Windows Server a try... I think you'd get more use out of it once you try some of it's more advanced features, and file sharing and remote access, terminal server, active directory, and such are much more functional and useful to have around.

If you want wireless pick up a nice Cisco access point - run dedicated channels for each type of WiFi and w/ and w/o encryption if you want for best performance. ^_^

[M_Lyons10]

I just wanted to post to say that BudMan really knows his stuff. I'm sure he can point you in the right direction with your router needs. I wish I knew a 10th of what he knows...

[hdood]

The plus to using a server is you dont have to power cycle the damn thing like 99% of the home routers I have used after a year of heavy use

Is this a joke? A yearly reboot? Do you run Windows for years without installing any updates?

I am currently using a PowerEdge 1430 Server with Server 2008 for routing hooked into PowerConnect 5424 switch and a D-Link WBR-1310 for wifi access

Please tell me this is doing more than just routing on a home network. Talk about overkill.

Virtually all home users would be better of with a dedicated cheapo router. Running a full-blown server OS just adds unneeded complexity without offering anything of value.