HP Microserver G8 or build your own home server?

[cocksy_boy]

Evening All,

I have an old N36L Microserver running WHS 2011 and I'm planning on upgrading it to something a little newer and faster. Although I've not got any experience in visualization, my plan is to get my hardware server running Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 with a couple of virtual machines in it - WHS 2011 and Windows 10, and maybe 1 or 2 others like Linux etc for playing around with.

I was planning on building my own setup, something like this, but have just seen this G8 back on offer with 55 quid cashback so now I'm torn!

I'm fairly sure there is no way I can build something myself for the same cost as the G8, but I'm not massively happy with HP pulling the plug on support after a year without paying additional for things like BIOS updates etc. Also, I recall that the HPs are a little picky about memory, but if I build my own I should be able to spec something that will be a little cheaper and forgiving on the memory front.

So I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are on whether to bite the bullet on the G8 or still build my own?

[scaryjim]

You won't build something for as little as the Microserver, so if cost is at all important to you there's only one sensible option.

If you're not bothered about cost at all, then definitely build your own. If you really search there are some nice server-oriented mini-itx boards out there that would be perfect, but they don't come cheap (nowhere near).

If you're in-between - not too bothered about cost but would still like to keep it on the cheap - and you don't mind running your server in a bigger box, the best value components out there are older Core 2 and Socket 1366 Xeons - it's a little harder to track down suitable motherboards, but if you hunt you can get lots of cores and expansion options for very little money (I think I'd priced up a 6-core s1366 Xeon, motherboard and RAM on ebay for < £150 at one point)...

[peterb]

Pretty much as scaryjim says

Build your own = greater flexibility and control over the system, but at greater expense

HP = cheaper functional commodity product, but may less scope for modification.

There is a third way, which is build your own Linux box, then you can run what you want as a VM, much greater flexibility, but again more expensive. But if it's fileshareing you want to the server for, Linux does that very well.

[DanceswithUnix]

If you care about ECC ram, then that microserver is very cheap. If you don't then there are plenty of options that won't have you paying for a CPU upgrade if your demands out-strip a 2.3GHz celeron.

[cocksy_boy]

Thanks for the info. I'm not fussed about ECC RAM, but reading some threads I'm a little concerned about the fact the only 2 of the sata ports are 6GB/s; ports 3 and 4 and the ODD (where I was planning on running an SDD with the O/S and VMs) are only 3.

I'd like to play with Linux in a VM when I get it all up and running.

In terms of cost, the OH won't like it if I spend a lot but so keeping it fairly cheap is definitely high priority! Can anyone recommend a motherboard / CPU combo that won't break the bank and will roughly match the G8?

[b0redom]

Why not something a teensy bit bigger, but with WAY more upgrade potential?

http://www.serversdirect.co.uk/Lenov...UK/version.asp

I've got a couple of these, one is a VMWare box, the other is a hugely over specced NAS. Stick in an extra 4GB+ of RAM, and you're laughing.

[DanceswithUnix]

I wouldn't stress over 6Gbps sata ports. The main advantage of an SSD is the very fast seek time not the linear read speed.

Equivalent? How about:

£56 FM2+ motherboard with 8 SATA ports http://www.ebuyer.com/609504-asus-a8...ard-a88xm-plus
£23 Dual core 3.2GHz APU http://www.ebuyer.com/662722-amd-a4-...-ad4020okhlbox

Faster, bags of SATA ports, lack of ECC, can't expand beyond 4 core. I use the slightly cheaper 6 SATA port version of that board and a cheap quad core, but the quad is something like another £40.

[cocksy_boy]

Thanks - I'll check those out.

[EndlessWaves]

Faster

A single module 3.4Ghz Richland chip is faster than a 2.3Ghz Ivy Bridge Celeron? Call me dubious on that one.

There are some benchmarks here on the A4-5300 and G1620:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...-bridge_8.html

They're identical to the chips in question other than clockspeeds. The Celeron is 2.7Ghz instead of the 2.3Ghz you're looking at, while the A4 is 3.7Ghz instead of 3.4Ghz. Given the Celeron has a bigger clock speed boost you'd expect the G1620 to be ~10% ahead of the A4-5300 if the G1610T and A4-4020 were identical.

[DanceswithUnix]

A single module 3.4Ghz Richland chip is faster than a 2.3Ghz Ivy Bridge Celeron? Call me dubious on that one.

There are some benchmarks here on the A4-5300 and G1620:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...-bridge_8.html

They're identical to the chips in question other than clockspeeds. The Celeron is 2.7Ghz instead of the 2.3Ghz you're looking at, while the A4 is 3.7Ghz instead of 3.4Ghz. Given the Celeron has a bigger clock speed boost you'd expect the G1620 to be ~10% ahead of the A4-5300 if the G1610T and A4-4020 were identical.

Interesting, thanks.

I don't usually play that low down in the range. My server uses the cheapest quad core AMD sold because I needed that many threads. Very happy with it, whisper quiet, very snappy, cheap, allows plenty of ram.

[cocksy_boy]

I wouldn't stress over 6Gbps sata ports. The main advantage of an SSD is the very fast seek time not the linear read speed.

Equivalent? How about:

£56 FM2+ motherboard with 8 SATA ports http://www.ebuyer.com/609504-asus-a8...ard-a88xm-plus
£23 Dual core 3.2GHz APU http://www.ebuyer.com/662722-amd-a4-...-ad4020okhlbox

Faster, bags of SATA ports, lack of ECC, can't expand beyond 4 core. I use the slightly cheaper 6 SATA port version of that board and a cheap quad core, but the quad is something like another £40.

So that looks like a good sort of combo. My only slight concern is as the motherboard is not designed for the server role, am I going to struggle getting the hypervisor (Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 was what I had in mind) working, in terms of drivers etc?

I've also just been doing some research and it appears that VT-d (or AMD-V) is required to give the VMs pass through access to the HDD controllers. I'm still learning this virtualisation stuff, but I think not having that might be an issue, right?! I'm just trying to see if that ASUS has it or not.....

Why not something a teensy bit bigger, but with WAY more upgrade potential?

http://www.serversdirect.co.uk/Lenov...UK/version.asp

I've got a couple of these, one is a VMWare box, the other is a hugely over specced NAS. Stick in an extra 4GB+ of RAM, and you're laughing.

That looks good, although there doesn't appear to be a huge amount of space inside the case as its only got 4 x 3.5" drive spaces. What is the motherboard like in terms of SATA ports, and does it support VT-d?

Cheers!

[DanceswithUnix]

So that looks like a good sort of combo. My only slight concern is as the motherboard is not designed for the server role, am I going to struggle getting the hypervisor (Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 was what I had in mind) working, in terms of drivers etc?

I've also just been doing some research and it appears that VT-d (or AMD-V) is required to give the VMs pass through access to the HDD controllers. I'm still learning this virtualisation stuff, but I think not having that might be an issue, right?! I'm just trying to see if that ASUS has it or not.....

Sorry, can't help. My server runs Centos Linux, and uses the VM farm support in that which runs lovely.

[Splash]

So that looks like a good sort of combo. My only slight concern is as the motherboard is not designed for the server role, am I going to struggle getting the hypervisor (Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 was what I had in mind) working, in terms of drivers etc?

If it has drivers for Server 2012R2 then you'll be fine. I'd be surprised if it didn't, to be honest.

I've also just been doing some research and it appears that VT-d (or AMD-V) is required to give the VMs pass through access to the HDD controllers. I'm still learning this virtualisation stuff, but I think not having that might be an issue, right?! I'm just trying to see if that ASUS has it or not.....

VT-d and AMD-V are CPU extensions required by the hypervisor to do things like guest 64bit OS etc - they have nothing to do with HDD controllers, really (though it seems that AMD-V does some form of acceleration of IO). Your controller just needs a driver for the host OS (and as Hyper-V still doesn't do PCI passthrough you can't present the controllers directly to the guest OS anyways). The processor you linked does AMD-V according to http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...20A4-4020.html though you will likely need to make sure that it's enabled in the BIOS.

[cocksy_boy]

Sweet - thanks!

[cocksy_boy]

If it has drivers for Server 2012R2 then you'll be fine. I'd be surprised if it didn't, to be honest.

bugger - doesn't look like ASUS does drivers for any windows server OSes. It does have them for windows from XP to 10 in 32 and 64 bit....

[timcamnz]

bugger - doesn't look like ASUS does drivers for any windows server OSes. It does have them for windows from XP to 10 in 32 and 64 bit....

It should be the same for server server OS as desktop OS, 2012 should be Windows 8 drivers.