Which server is best in performance ?

[johnpau80]

I am planning to buy a server for some web application (80-100 users).

I wanted the server to be ergonomic, small and dont want to
compromise in performance as well.

I was looking at PowerEdge 2800 and IBM x3655 server.

Which process is good INTEL or AMD opteron 64 ?

 

[wahnula]

The bottom line is both servers should be good performers for your needs, I would recommend an eye to the future and upgradeability. Dual processors or Dual Dual-core is the norm now so anything less is not advised. As for storage, I like the old standby: small SCSI/SAS RAID 1 array for OS & apps and expandable SCSI/SAS RAID 5 array for data, and of course a backup plan.

Chances are all servers in your price range will all have similar performance. It is up to you whom you feel best about dealing with and get the best feeling from, as there will eventually be servicing necessary after the sale and you want someone who will be there for you. What is their down-time plan? Is their service 24-7-365?

Out of the two that you mentioned, I like the Dell for its roominess and the IBM for using AMD CPU's which is a personal thing.

See which company has the most interest in YOU and can offer you the most peace of mind. Best of luck.

Tony

 

[kmcferrin]

I have a really bad bias against Dell servers. Back in the day I worked at a company that had a lot of Dell mainboards on our Dell servers die (this was a very widely reported problem with that particular model at the time). This was a very painful experience for my company, and I've avoided Dell ever since. IMHO, Dell competes mostly on price to begin with, which means that they aren't necessarily engineering the highest quality solutions.

IBM, on the other hand, if anything tends to over-engineer their hardware. It's amazingly solid, performs well, and usually is more expensive because of that.

Given the choice between the two I would go with IBM, though my personal preference is HP.

 

[LawnBoy]

I've a dozen Dell servers, 2650's through 2950's, never had a hiccup out of any of them. Wait, I did lose a disk out of a RAID 1 array once and Dell had a replacement disk in my hands within 1.5 hours of calling them.

Desktops are a whole different story...

 

[kmcferrin]

Yeah, it can really be hit and miss. We had about 25% of our servers go down when they had that bad run of mainboards 4-5 years ago. Obviously that was an unusual circumstance, but it still left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Of course, I have customers that have dozens of Dell servers and haven't had any problems with them. I doubt that many of us have dealt with a truly statistically relevant sample.

 

[ArizonaGeek]

I have a really bad bias against Dell servers. Back in the day I worked at a company that had a lot of Dell mainboards on our Dell servers die (this was a very widely reported problem with that particular model at the time). This was a very painful experience for my company, and I've avoided Dell ever since. IMHO, Dell competes mostly on price to begin with, which means that they aren't necessarily engineering the highest quality solutions

Now see I have had the same experience with IBM servers as you have with Dell at my last job. I hated working on IBM machines we had problem after problem with them. We have an all Dell shop and not one problem. We have about 50 servers total and they run like clockwork.

Just my thoughts on it. Its has been a few years since I worked on an IBM so they may have improved since then.

Cheers
Rob

The answer is always "PEBKAC!

 

[wahnula]

Nobody's mentioned HP...they are firmly entrenched in the server market and they are popular with many.

 

[kmcferrin]

I did in my first post. It's actually my oreferred vendor for servers. But the OP sounded like he had already narrowed down his choices to two boxes, so spending time trying to get him to add a third didn't seem prudent.

Given my choice of any brand server out there, I would choose HP every time.

 

[Scotsdude]

An HP Proliant DL360 G5 would suit for this....we have several G4's running web apps in here, using dual-core Xeons. Plus, the rack mounting kit for HP servers is second to none....

------------------------------------------------------
Matt
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy

 

[Sympology]

We are a HP house. Diag tools are top notch. iLo is a life saver.

Stu..

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[LawnBoy]

I doubt that many of us have dealt with a truly statistically relevant sample.

Very true. Before the Dells we were a Compaq shop and they also ran flawlessly.

 

[Scotsdude]

To be honest, I used Dell when I worked for the NHS, and now use HP at the bank. I prefer HP over Dell for the general build quality, and the server management features are far superior. As Stu said. iLo (integrated LightsOut) is an absolute winner. We have all servers running at least basic iLo, with all servers not located at the main office running advanced iLo, which allows us to watch the boot up process remotely. IMHO, HPs wealth of experience on the server side is very hard to beat. And they're not as expensive as they used to be.

------------------------------------------------------
Matt
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy

 

[ceh4702]

I work in a college and we have used both Dell Servers and IBM Servers. The IBM Servers tend to be more dependable. Intel based is the way I would suggest. One option could be the new Quad Core Xeons if they dropped their prices a bit. One more processor revision and the quad core XEON should drop in price. IBM is selling both the Dual core and Quad Core packages. Dual Core Xeons may be the best price right now, but the quad cores probably pack more punch. A lot depends on the size of the database or whatever you are doing.

You may get a better deal if you go to an after market supplier of IBM Products like someone that does system integration. Sometimes it helps to have an expert size your system for you. You would be surprised just how fast you can outgrow your specifications. Also make sure you buy the server specifically for the server software you plan on running. Dont just assume the hardware will match up with the operating system. We have had servers that will not run Linux correctly, or are only somewhat compatible.



If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.