If money was no object...what server would you chose? 2

[SteveAudus]

Here is a little topic you will all have an opinion on,

If money was no object, and you had to purchase
a new server and backup server to support over 1000 users and 500 workstations to last about 5 years and hopefully beyond...

what would you buy....?

http://www.chaucer.sheffield.sch.uk

 

[NickFerrar]

Hmm it kinda depends on what services the server is providing.

 

[SteveAudus]

Well at present the old server, provides runs Win 2k,
runs all logons, print server, DHCP, some shared applications, a SQL server and share SQL applications and is also the file server, so it does everything.

I was really just looking for some dream specs.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Steve

http://www.chaucer.sheffield.sch.uk

 

[jkupski]

If "money was no object" I'd want to have more than one server. SQL on its own box, the DC (and DHCP, DNS, etc) on a second box, and a third machine to serve files. Depending on what your shared applications are, you might want yet a fourth server (or more, depending on the load) to handle those.

You'd be much better off buying four $5000 machines instead of one $20000 monstrosity.

 

[johnny99]

If I didn't have to think about money and just for my own personal fun I would get the biggest Unisys ES7000 server I could find. (if it had to be Intel based)

Or running TPF or z/OS on an IBM mainframe. Or even Linux would do on that platform.

/johnny

 

[technome]

Go along with Jkupski...

Two server would not be enough.

Money no object, then add...
All server would be dual processor, 2 gig ram min, throw in a solid state drive on all the servers, larger ssd on the SQL server also more ram, dual Raid 10 arrays on each server with hotspares, 15k drives, Gigabit network layer 2/3 switches, Gigabyte backbone for servers, min 2 library tape backup units min 6 tapes, IP based KVM with power switches for remote power reset, dual broadband lines, massive or multiple BBU(s). All servers would have the same exact hardware, maintain cold spare server, maintain cold spare drives

 

[SteveAudus]

Now that's what I call a spec... cheers technome

http://www.chaucer.sheffield.sch.uk

 

[technome]

If only I had clients with unlimited resources...
I consider myself lucky though.. a couple of my clients do have the resources do the above, minus the solid state drives..sometimes new network toys are as important as the money.

 

[technome]

If your seriously thinking about revamping your servers..

Some rambling..

For a high end servers, not even a "dream spec", I shy away from Dell, I use Dell for low end servers, but build high end servers myself ; you can not build the lower range servers yourself and save money. This range would be servers with a simple arrays such as a single raid 5

Dell servers have propriety backplanes, low density internal array drive bays, a 3 year drive warranty, and high prices for the high end servers. If you need more than an 8 drive array, you need to use their external arrays (expensive money maker). As far as using new technology, they are always one step back from "tried and true parts", I am not talking cutting edge.. not due to safety concerns but there is more profit selling older technology. An example is their drive bay..they purposely keep the 8 bay maximum, so you need to buy an external add-on to create most high end multiple striped (more then one array set) arrays.

Drives are a big cost factor on servers; with Dell if you do not haggle on drives prices they charge you double the price for 3 year warranty OEM drives as per Internet pricing.

As far as building servers, the hardest part is choosing and purchasing the parts at a good price. The actual assembly takes about 3-6 hours. Purchasing and research can take >8 hours to get the lowest pricing, and the matching components. As is, with Dell it takes me 8 hours to order a Dell, because of research and the back and forth on pricing.
(research is the killer, getting in depth info from Dell is difficult)

Generally I use Supermicro cases, and motherboards from Supermicro or Intel for high end servers. For a high density setup I would use the cases as below..

http://supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/?chs=942

With high end server, you can save 50% by assembling from components, get better drive warranties, get newer technology.. versus purchasing pre built units servers.
If your worried about warranty part service, a spare motherboard, CPU, raid adapter, ram etc would run about $ 2500, only part of the savings from assembling one high end server. My choice of raid adapter would be an Lsilogic u320-2x or Lsilogic u320-2e, depending on which motherboard.

http://lsilogic.com/products/megaraid/scsi_320_2x.html

http://lsilogic.com/products/megaraid/megaraid_320_2e.html

As far as drives, I have only used Seagate drives in the last 10 years

 

[SteveAudus]

Thank you technome for your words of advice.

We are definatly replacing our server this July with the mother of all servers, and a redunate server running parrall just in case.

I'm not building the servers myself, I simply do not have time, I have a school to run!!!

I'm looking for dream specs so I know what to ask for.

Thank for your advice, I will stay away from Dell.

Cheers.
Steve

http://www.chaucer.sheffield.sch.uk

 

[jkupski]

We are definatly replacing our server this July with the mother of all servers, and a redunate server running parrall just in case.

I'm not building the servers myself, I simply do not have time, I have a school to run!!!

I'm looking for dream specs so I know what to ask for.

Is this an instance where you have to buy "two servers" regardless of price, and could not buy more even if you were spending less money? The wonders of government budgeting.

 

[SteveAudus]

I have final say, so I buy as many servers as we need.

The government have nothing to do with it......sort of!!!

http://www.chaucer.sheffield.sch.uk

 

[technome]

Up there in price, but with their upper raid adapters, the HP server below is a flexible server, with more internal storage options than the Dell servers. The raid adapters, smartarray 6402 and the 6404 are top of the line. The 2m cache vs 4m cache on the processors will make little, if any difference, so I would go with the following machine, talking HP into equipping the machine with 2 meg cache processors. The 6404 array 4 channel adapter would only be useful if each individual drive chassis can be split into 2 channels, which is unlikely, or if you have an array setup with external raid storage.
This is a setup equivalent to my server builds.

http://h71016.www7.hp.com/dstore/Mi...0710&oi=E9CED&BEID=19701&SBLID=&AirTime=False

This array server would be setup with 4 drives divided over two channels in raid 10 for the OS and applications, 8 drives in raid 10 for data. Having an extra cold spare drive for each array set would be important.

For the ultimate setup you would need the smartarray 6404 4 channel adapter, and an add-on external scsi storage rack.. then I would have 8 drives (internal) for the OS and programs in raid 10 over two channels.. on the external storage I would put 10 drives over two channels in raid 10 for the data (larger capacity drives than the raid 10 for the OS)..with this setup you have the drive bay capacity to have hot spare drives for each array ....all of which would gets expensive.

I am sure your old servers are not completely ancient, so I would recycle at least one of the old servers as a Terminal server, so the teachers can work from home at night, a 1 Ghz server, 2 Gig ram is fast enough for this purpose (should go over good with the teaching staff) < grin >

Good Luck

 

[technome]

Forgot...
You might also look into DoubleTake from NSI or another server replication program for redunancy..I do not recommend the MS OS cluster server setup.

 

[jkupski]

I have final say, so I buy as many servers as we need.

Then buy what you actually need. As noted above, a single "mother of all servers" will cost you more and not be as good at the task as multiple servers.

Don't waste your (or rather, your school's!) money on something that is less suited to the task simply because the specs look better on paper.