Intel Core 2 Quad for a stand-by Mail-Server? 1

[AlexandrosG]

Hi! I am a system admin and my first care is our main server, which is a Domain Controller (Win2003), an E-Mail server (Exchange2003), a WEB server and an FTP server at the same time. The critical service is the mail service. I need a computer to use it, firstly, as a test environment for the server of my company and secondly, as a substitute server for our server (in an imaginary situation of a motherboard problem, i want to put this machine in place of our server so we can still have our mail service while waiting for a new motherboard (Which can take some days to arrive to our place) . I saw that for a reliable-enough server machine (even for to use as a substitute) we have to give 2.500-3.000 euro at least. Granted that we have already ordered spare H/W parts for our server and a bakcup software (and so the existance of a stand-by/substitute server is not so critical), i was thinking if there was a cheaper one solution . Do you thing that i could use a hi-performance desktop pc for the job that i described earlier?

I was thinking for something like that (which costs about 1000 euro):

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Core , Q9300 , 2.5GHz , LGA775
RAM: 4 x 1 GB , DDR2 , PC2-6400 , 240-pin DIMM , 800 MHz
Motherboard: ASUS P5K PRO
Video: ASUS EN6200TC512/TD 256 MB PCI-E
H.D #1: SEAGATE BARRACUDA ES 320GB SATA2
H.D #2: SEAGATE BARRACUDA ES 320GB SATA2
H.D #3: SEAGATE BARRACUDA 7200.10 80GB SATA2
Case: ThermalTake VH8000BWS ARMOR+ MX
Power Supply: TRUST PW-5550 520W PRO LOW NOISE BIG FAN PSU
Case Cooler: ZALMAN ZM-F1 80MM SILENT FAN
CPU Cooler: THERMALTAKE CL-P0333 BLUEORB FX
DVD: LG GH20NS10 SUPER MULTI DVD REWRITER
Monitor: 17'' LCD
Keyboard:
Mouse:

Some thinks (like the monitor or the video card) are not so important in my case. i have put some indicative just to have an indication of the final price. For the others it doesn't matter if e.g the motherboard is ASUS, but the capabilities that motherboards of this category offer.

Note: Our company server is an IBM xSeries 236, 2xIntel Xeon 3.6GHz, 3.2 GB RAM, H.D#1 68GB RAID-1, Disk#2 550GB RAID-5. CPU load is almost always under 5% and Available RAM is usually at 1500MB.

Any opinion is welcome!!

 

[58sniper]

A dual quad core system is overkill for Exchange.

For proper disk I/O, you need to use RAID 1 for the OS and paging file, RAID 1 for the Exchange binaries and tracking logs, RAID 1 for the transaction logs, and RAID 5 or RAID 10 for the databases. SATA drives are too slow, IMHO. 4GB of RAM is correct.

You don't mention how many mailboxes are being housed on this system.

Pat Richard
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Contributing author Microsoft Exchange Server 2007: The Complete Reference

 

[wahnula]

My opinion would be to add-in a quality SATA RAID card like the 3Ware Escalade series that would be portable from server to server. It allows for two arrays as Pat suggests above.

I never rely on the quasi-hardware SATA RAID built into the mainboard. If this machine was to be promoted to main server I would recommend SCSI or SAS, but as a backup it should be fine.

I also always recommend redundant PSU's for servers.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[AlexandrosG]

- About 200 mailboxes!

-I didn't make a choise on SATA. SATA is what most
desktop-motherboards support.

- I was thinking to make a RAID-1 for Exchange (databases,
tansaction logs) using the two 320GB disks.

- This desktop-based pc is not to be promoted to a
mail-server. It would be mainly for testing and as i said
for substituting the real server (only for a few days) in
extreme cases (e.g motherboard problem)

- I know that the right configuration is SCSI (or SAS)
instead of SATA2, separate RAID for O.S, separate RAID for
Exchange databases, separate RAID for transaction logs,
etc. BUT :
1) not even our server itself implements this multiple
RAID configuration.
2) Remember that what i am trying to think is a cheaper
alternative for buying a server machine.

Do you thing that SATA2 disks with just one separate RAID-1 for Exchange databades/tansaction-logs can't be fast enough to follow the mail-traffic read/writes? (i don't imply it is enough)

Some extra info for our server:
C (system disk , RAID-1) idle time: about 97%
E (exchange database, trans logs disk 5-disk RAID-5) idle time : about 98%
Paging File Usage : about 5,5%

 

[58sniper]

No. I would never recommend any of that for 200 mailboxes. Also, I'm a little unsure as to how you're going to use it in the event of a failure. What is your DR plan?

Pat Richard
Microsoft Exchange MVP
Contributing author Microsoft Exchange Server 2007: The Complete Reference

 

[AlexandrosG]

What is exactly that you want to know?

I am not a very experienced system admin (don't even ask about the previous admin (admin? haa!) that was here before me) but if you ask what we plan to do in each case of disaster is:

- If a H.D a fan or the RAIDController fails we have ordered
spare parts so we can replace them at once. We had an
experience with a failed disk (in RAID-5) before and it
took 5 days for the new disk to come (from abroad to our
hands).

- In case of a file corruption (e.g Information Store
database, Active Directory files, web pages,...) or a
deletion (accidental or by virus or ...), or an O.S
failure, we have ordered Symantec Backup Exec System
Recovery, so we can take file backups and Image backups of
the disks.

- In (the more extreme case) case of another H/W failure
(e.g motherboard) and while waiting for the new
motherboard, i am thinking of restoring the image of the
server disks to this IntelCore2Quad PC and put it in
place as a temporary substitute. (don't even try to think
about clustering because we have the death combination
Win2003-Echange2003-DomainController) Hey don't think i
don't know it would be better to have a second server
machine for that job but as you can understand its all a
matter of the available budget.

For the sake of discussion i would like to mention that i
work for a university department.

 

[Zelandakh]

Oh dear.

The main server seems ok. The backup "server" isn't a server. Get a real server.

A DR plan doesn't work like that - you need to read up on it.

 

[AlexandrosG]

I think you miss the point!!

a) I know the system i describe isn't a real server!

b) If i could, i would get a real server! Don't think that i am trying to save their money. I am just trying to see what we can do based on what they are willing to pay!

c) The primary usage of this (hi-end pc?) would not be stand-by server as i said from the begining. However, i was wondering if this machine could be used (and under which conditions e.g a RAID-1 for Exchange data and a second RAID-1 for O.S) with success as a stand-by server.

 

[Zelandakh]

What is the price on the box you've spec'd?

 

[AlexandrosG]

The system that i describe at the top you mean?
Not more that 1000 euro (just an indicative price).

 

[Zelandakh]

To be honest, thinking about this logically you'd be better off putting a second power supply, more disks and a UPS on that main server and ignoring the backup server.

But that's just my opinion - I've never had a hot swap server for Exchange so I would suggest that...

 

[wahnula]

AlexandrosG

You welcomed any opinion, please listen to what is being said to you not so much by me (a hardware guy) but Zelandakh and 58Sniper, who are both Exchange MVPs.

I reiterate my concern with motherboard-based RAID. It should only be used for things you can easily replace (Like OS & apps). All data should be stored on a PCI (or PCIe & PCI-X) based add-in card with its own processor to handle the database and/or pagefile. This is true hardware RAID. SATA is acceptable, just not motherboard SATA.

In (the more extreme case) case of another H/W failure
(e.g motherboard) and while waiting for the new
motherboard, i am thinking of restoring the image of the
server disks to this IntelCore2Quad PC and put it in
place as a temporary substitute.

Make sure that the image is not hardware-dependent, in other words requires the exact same chipset to restore.

I have a MUCH smaller network that I watch over (not a pro like the members above) yet I have (3) spare disks, a spare motherboard, a spare PSU, and an online UPS on the server. My SBS backup requires the same hardware to restore, so I went the extra mile and bought the spare motherboard, which was out of production, new-in-a-sealed-box on eBay just to be ready for all scenarios. My server runs SBS on a SATA RAID 1 array and the Exchange database, files, and other databases on a SATA RAID5 array.

I have had to do a complete restore due to a failure of the motherboard's RAID 1 controller, and plan to get that array off the m/b ASAP.

To summarize, there is nothing really wrong with SATA (although SCSI and SAS are better) just stay away from the motherboard's SATA controller. And I agree with Zelandakh, you would be much better off spending your money improving your current server and getting it faster and more reliable than building a workstation as a backup server. Best of luck.



Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[Zelandakh]

Nicely written Tony - have a star from me.

 

[wahnula]

Zelandakh

I am honored. I read this forum mostly to learn, and only jump in when I think I have something to offer. Thanks for the star and the moral support.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[AlexandrosG]

Ok, from what you have said so far i understand that IntelCoreDuo and 4GB RAM its more than enougn and that a potencial problem with mail-traffic handling would lie on the disk performance. Moreover, its better to use a PCI RAID-Controller for Exchange data/logs than count on the motherboard's RAID-Controller. But it would not be so bad to make another RAID-1 for O.S using motherboard's RAID.

3Ware Escalade seems to be a bit expensive for my "cheap alternative scenario". I think that something like Adaptec 1420SA would be more feasible.

Make sure that the image is not hardware-dependent, in other words requires the exact same chipset to restore.

I have checked this out! I have tried to restore O.S and Exchange databases using Backup Exec System Restore (a trial version) to another desktop PC (a Lenovo 3000 J Series) and it worked fine!

To be honest, thinking about this logically you'd be better off putting a second power supply, more disks and a UPS on that main server and ignoring the backup server.

Our server is already power supplied by a huge FerroUPS (along with many other computers) which proved to be very reliable till now. Disks have also been ordered ( something that would have been done long ago). Power supply is something that we missed, i think!

 

[wahnula]

it would not be so bad to make another RAID-1 for O.S using motherboard's RAID.

Correct. This array is not as critical as the data array.

I have checked this out! I have tried to restore O.S and Exchange databases using Backup Exec System Restore (a trial version) to another desktop PC (a Lenovo 3000 J Series) and it worked fine!

I thought so, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the situation.

The Adaptec card you mentioned will only do RAID 0, 1 & 10, not RAID 5, which is the most cost-effective of the RAID levels. RAID 10 (1+0) is faster, but expensive (four drives minimum) and more complex.

A redundant power supply is two power supplies in one unit, that allows for seamless live switch-over of power duties. This is an example:

http://www.directron.com/tc650rvn2.html

And, hardware aside, don't forget this advice:

A DR plan doesn't work like that - you need to read up on it.

This is probably the most important advice in this thread.



Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[AlexandrosG]

A redundant power supply is two power supplies in one unit, that allows for seamless live switch-over of power duties.

Interesting! I was not aware of this way increasing the fault tolerance.

Thanks, everybody for your advices/opinions!