Ok, as per my previous post my company has to source a server fairly quickly. However even for a mid-range spec you're looking at a couple of thousand pounds. I'm wondering is a server THAT different from a regular desktop build? What's stopping you using desktop parts that are a lot cheaper (or a lot more powerful for the same cash) and then installing Server 2003 on that box?
servers are designed for professional use, things like cpu, cooling, psu, quality of hardware, host swap, compontent compatability, seperate bus, etc etc etc.
desktop parts are meant for that - desktops. Yes for home use or even very small business use you'll be fine, hell big business is known to use high end desktops for development servers, however for genuine business use, a proper server class machine is what you want. Hence the price difference.
It is Inevitable.....
It obviously depends on usage, but yes, computers in even fairly small companies can just melt if they're not server class. I don't really know how or why it's so bad, but they seem to get hammered -especially if they're running MS software
You can always buy server class components and build your own..
Xeon CPU's
Motherboards
SCSI controllers and Drives
nothing beats vendor testing, packaging and support.
It is Inevitable.....
and someone to shout at when it all goes wrong....
Dell were always reliable at work..we had a few PowerEdge servers they have great support to.
Server Kit tends to be easier to maintain and designed for more 24/7 operations ( hence things like hot-swap PSU's , fans and drives. )Originally Posted by Lucio
They tend to have better monitoring software built in + facilities for remote management ( eg. iLo or Drac )
More importantly they have warrenties , which mean when it does pear shaped , you can phone some nice people in India , and they'll send a nice man round to fix you kit in 4 hours if need be.
If you do buy a "server" ( ie a desktop masquerading as one ) , please please please make sure you buy a proper raid card for it. The onboard stuff is bobbins. Also if it dies you'll have to fund a replacement motherboard.
I know where your logic is coming from ( as I used to think along similar lines many years ago ) , but its PC enthusiast logic , not business head logic- Its burnt me before and I'd not want anyone to make the same mistake again.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
Lucio (04-09-2007)
finally - the voice of reason
It is Inevitable.....
A good way to think of it is in terms of down-time. If your PC at home fails, it means you have to wait a couple of days for a new part before you can play Counter-Strike again. If your server at work fails, the consequences are a bit more dramatic.
Ok, that makes sense, basically they're a lot less likely to turn into a small pile of goo. Mostly this thread was because I needed some solid reasons for my boss so he didn't just go and order a Dell over the HP unit I had my eye on (DL 360 G5)
I'd have the dell presonally..everything in our server room with HP on it broke at some point this year.
Good stuff
Buy the 380 , its a much better server... end of subliminal message.
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
The term "server" covers a wide range of scenarios.
For instance, I have a dual-processor server (server motherboard, ECC memory, etc) that hosts my important data at home. It's 6-disc SCSI RAID 5 with a dedicated caching RAID card with on-board processor, etc. And I have spare drives sitting in caddies ready to plug in in seconds, and one of the 6 discs is configured as a hot standby. I also have two spare SCSI cards and two spare 3-disk racks (the 6-discs use two 3-disc racks).
That spec, really, is very much overkill for my needs. I can't afford to lose some of the data, but a solid backup regime deals with that. The server spec is more about availability and resilience that data integrity. But, in reality, it's usually not that important to me to keep that server available 24/7 and, if it goes down, a few hours of my time to bring it back up isn't usually much of an issue.
On the other hand, suppose "server" means a transaction server in a supermarket. If it goes down, and if there's no redundancy available, odds are the store shuts it's doors and the loss in revenue .... well, quite probably £100,000 plus per day for a medium-sized store.
So, they'll use a pair of servers, each reasonably well specified, each with a direct LAN link to the other server and the tills only go offline if you lose BOTH servers, because all transaction data goes to both servers.
Or, if you're running a service where you support hundreds of users and a server going offline means hundreds of staff are sitting there unable to work, or perhaps worse still, you're failing to meet contractual Quality of Service standards for customers, then it's pretty important that your servers don't go offline. In which case, you'll have dual/redundant power supplies, power conditioning systems, online UPSs, perhaps backup generators and so on.
The point I'm making, Lucio, is that yes, some servers fully justify costs which can be a LOT more than a couple of thousand. It's all down to your intended use and the implications of server unavailability in the event of a problem. If it's a minor (or perhaps fairly major) inconvenience then expensive hardware may not be an issue, but if it costs you £100,000 or more in lost sales and, worse, forces your store customers to go elsewhere for their shopping, then £5k each for a couple of servers (that'll last several years) is a trivial price to pay to avoid, or even reduce the risk, of that.
thats better than what they had at my last job supporting 100+ users haha
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
