Servers

[aidanjt]

Build your own or buy in an IBM or something like that?

At some point in the next 3/6 months I'm going to retire our 2 Dell servers (and hopefully take them home )
Now the question is do I build one myself or do I just go buy an IBM or something off the shelf so to speak?
It wont be the main server as far as work is concerned, that'll still be our IBM server that runs our Strategix system but the new one will handle all the login/filestorage/email needs for the company and replace the old Novell 4 server we have that currently does login/filestorage stuff and a 2k server which does filestorage and email...
Neither of the servers I'm replacing is anything flashy, there old dell poweredge things, P3-450, 512Mb, ~40gb storage, cdrom, tapedrive, thats about it..

I'd like something thats gonna last a good 3 years which concidering what the current systems are shouldnt be too hard, possibly AMD64, dual board so if needed can stick an extra chip in there and also have the ability to go 64bit OS as and when theres something out there..

Discuss as the thread grows

It really depends on your companies needs, silly things like support and imediate setup is sometimes a concern, if not, then build it yourself.

As for specification, it really depends on the servers load, as for specification itself, therse the choice between AMD's Operion 2xx series chips for SMP, and Intel's Xeons, personally I would forget about 64bit and just go for raw bruital processing that Intel was so proud of, I would say a CM Stacker Chasis, Asus NCCH-DL Board, 2x2.8Ghz Xeons, and 2Gb of PC3200 ECC memory would be a fine base for any job a server may have to perform. the only unfortunate issuse with that board is Asus decided to use the Promise PDC20319 controller, which only has RAID modes 0, 1, 10, and JBOD.

Also, disk i/o load is another concern, how many users will access their files at once?.. Will it be plugged into a gigabit ethernet port?.. if its only hooked into the network via a 100Base-TX port, then even 3xWD Raptors in a RAID 5 array will be overkill, but if its plugged into a gigabit switch, and could have 20 people making high demand disk operations at the same time, then U320 RAID card and disks will need to be considered.

So the choice comes down to Highend SATA RAID cards, or U320 RAID. By the sound of it SCSI will be overkill for this servers application, and its not a cheap solution either. so its:
a) Adaptec AAR-2410SA SATA RAID Controller (If you want hotswappable support)
b) Highpoint Rocket RAID 1640 4-channel SATA RAID 5 Host Adapter (If downtime for replacing a dead disk isn't a concern)
or c) Adaptec SCSI RAID 2230SLP (if you have a big budget and really do need U320 levels of throughput)

Persionally I would go for a).. and get the enclousure kit if possible for hotswappable disk support incase something happens to a disk, means no downtime. 3x74Gb WD Raptors would be enough for pretty much anything. I have two of em stripped in my new rig and they cream anything else ATA and SATA wise.

All this hardware will work with Linux, so a nice efficent server operating system to go with effienct hardware..

As far as OEM servers go.. they are as likely to suffer hardware faults (if not more so) than a custom build, the only difference is the huge extra chunk you pay is for a support contract, and with the dealings i've had with support people in the past, i would rather stress test my own build, deploy it, then plug'n'run an OEM and hope something doesn't go wrong. skimping out on time to rush a deployment is simply not worth it and not good administrator practice in the first place.. thats why we gotta put up with the "Intardnet".

But this is my opinion of course, others may think different, including yourself

Hope it helps..

[Moby-Dick]

[grolsch] Schtop ! this network is not ready yet........[/grolsch]

after having a chat with Trig - I suspect we may be using large sladgehammers to crack a relativly small nut.

They need file / Print / authentication / mail ( anything has got to be better than VPOP!! ) for about 40 users.

The Ideal solution is Small Business Server 2003. (Standard Ed. )

Their current Server only has 40Gb of Storage - why stick half tarrabyte arrays on it when they really dont seem to need it.

the cost of storage is more than just the cost of the drives.

For every drive you have , you need to be able to back it up.

I've suggested the following little beastie.

http://www1.serversource.co.uk/shop/...t=76&prod=1054

Dell PowerEdge 2600 Tower Server

Dual P4 Xeon 2.8 GHz processor - 2Gb Ram - PERC 4/DI Raid Controller - 219 Gb hard disk space (3 x 736Gb 10K) - Redundant PSU - Dual 10/100 - Internal LTO2 200/400Gb tape drive - CD Rom,FDD,KBD,MSE - Plus 1 year advance replacement warranty

- Extend the Warrenty to a full 3 years onsite
- Purchase a nice little APC smart UPS ( £200 )
- 10 LTO2 Tapes ( £300 )
- Cleaning Tape (£30 )
- SBS2003 + 35 CALS ( total of 40 concurrent users ) - (£1700 )
- AVG Network Edition (£380 )
- Fax Modem ( £50 )

then you have a fully functional Infrastructure with more knobs , bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at !

[Vimeous]

Damn u Moby I wanted that one!

I run an SBS setup here and I'd agree if that's the general scenario it's the way to go. In fact we have a 2600 with single Xeon 2.8GHz for 20 odd users. (My new job will be a tiny bit different!)
You'll definitely need dual CPU's for that lot as we've had some speed issues when running Exchange, SUS Admin and AntiVirus databases from the same machine. If you add print serving for 4o peeps to that AND all their file needs the CPUs will be very busy with low level stuff.
We find our 1Gb RAM isn't enough for Exchange (4-6Gb database) which seems to chomp 75% of what's available and then gradually creeps up until the virtual RAM is exhausted (only had 18Gb RAID 1 for Exchange until recently).

I do have one question.
Are you likely to expand to 50 users? If so SBS will sadly be of little use.

Fun discussion!

[aidanjt]

The Ideal solution is Small Business Server 2003. (Standard Ed. )

- SBS2003 + 35 CALS ( total of 40 concurrent users ) - (£1700 )
!

£1700 for a server OS for only 40 users?.. that extreame to say the least, a properly configured SAMBA and mail server wouldn't cost anything except some time and patience.

Dell and SBS2003 would mean your paying near as much for software and support than you are paying for hardware, and that is just sick. I'm not being mean, or anti-microsoft, I use WinXP Pro for my rig, but you got to draw the line when it comes to paying that much for so little and inefficent use of resources.

I have an older Athlon XP 1800+ w/ 512mb of RAM and 2x120gb ide disks stripped at home running Gentoo and stuffed with tones of different services for private experimentation, and even that machine is overkill for the services. and i havn't needed to bring it down since I installed the OS, thats over 2 months now.

[Jiff Lemon]

£1700 for a server OS for only 40 users

If you look at the original quote - he is quoted £1700 for the Os and only 25 cals.

Factory Installed Operating System (PowerEdge)
==============================================
Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition with 25 Client Licenses (+ GBP £1,731)

a properly configured SAMBA and mail server wouldn't cost anything except some time and patience.

And who's going to support it? Time and patience? In the real world, time = money. Will it come with faxing support that integrates with office? Offer calendering services or a preconfigured intranet? Will it allow mobile devices to pick up their mail? And more importantly, will it offer all of the above, out of the box, in an easy to setup package that takes no more than a morning to install and setup?

I do have one question.
Are you likely to expand to 50 users? If so SBS will sadly be of little use.

SBS2003 has been stretched to allow 75 users.

[Moby-Dick]

at home

we are not talking about some little toy setup here.

This is the real world. With real money and everything.

If you build your own server and it goes belly up - then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Example - a hard drive fails. Can you source a replacement within 4 hours ?

Expensive software..... lets just take a couple of bespoke applications I support on my clients rigs

Voyager Recruitment System - £900 per user licence.
SQL Server - £10,000 PER CPU Licence
Care Manager - £1000 per user
Oracle - £more than you can shake a stick at ( makes SQL server look cheap )

£40 per user CAL is very very little seeing as that includes a full version of outlook 2003 for each machine on the network.

Config time - Setting up an SBS box from scratch takes about 4 hours ( including migration )

at a usuall £50 / hour support cost , thats a mere £200.

lets take a bespoke linux based system - once you have finished with the kernal hacking to ensure that all your hardware works at best , installed and configured each individual component , then set up your clients you are going to look at considerably more than 4 hours work ? Dont forget that *nix support costs are usually at a higher hourly rate.

I like Linux , but I'd never use it for such an infrastructure.

from Vimeous
I run an SBS setup here and I'd agree if that's the general scenario it's the way to go. In fact we have a 2600 with single Xeon 2.8GHz for 20 odd users. (My new job will be a tiny bit different!)
You'll definitely need dual CPU's for that lot as we've had some speed issues when running Exchange, SUS Admin and AntiVirus databases from the same machine. If you add print serving for 4o peeps to that AND all their file needs the CPUs will be very busy with low level stuff.
We find our 1Gb RAM isn't enough for Exchange (4-6Gb database) which seems to chomp 75% of what's available and then gradually creeps up until the virtual RAM is exhausted (only had 18Gb RAID 1 for Exchange until recently).

I run a 2650 on SBS 2003 for a 50 user call centre / service desk - its got a pair of 3 GHz Xeons and 3 GB of ram and has never had a problem - I'm confident it will be happy right untill they employ their 76th person - their fax server is a different matter , but thats a storey for another thread !

[aidanjt]

And who's going to support it? Time and patience? In the real world, time = money. Will it come with faxing support that integrates with office? Offer calendering services or a preconfigured intranet? Will it allow mobile devices to pick up their mail? And more importantly, will it offer all of the above, out of the box, in an easy to setup package that takes no more than a morning to install and setup?

I think what I said before covers all of that:

As far as OEM servers go.. they are as likely to suffer hardware faults (if not more so) than a custom build, the only difference is the huge extra chunk you pay is for a support contract, and with the dealings i've had with support people in the past, i would rather stress test my own build, deploy it, then plug'n'run an OEM and hope something doesn't go wrong. skimping out on time to rush a deployment is simply not worth it and not good administrator practice in the first place.. thats why we gotta put up with the "Intardnet".

I simpily don't belive in "out of the box" 'solutions'. The current server can continue serving until the new system is ready for deployment and can be retired. And yes, Linux can be used for faxing. at least it doesn't gobble up multi-gigabytes of memory replicating existing data, fragment partitions like its going out of fashion and choke on pagefiles.

[aidanjt]

University networks have been serving hundreds to thousands of users with a pure *NIX enviroments for decades, its certainly not a toy. And yes does require time and work, but it will save you in the long run, playing for new licences, support contracts, downtime for memory leaks, countless patches etc etc... As for sourcing new parts if a disk dies, theres nothing stopping you from keeping an extra blank disk as backup to rebuild the array.

[Vimeous]

I'd forgotten about the new SBS limit, Moby mentioned that to me a few weeks ago (We've SBS 2k)

*nix and the University
Often a Unix backbone running multiple servers and the fun ability to use *nix commands in dos. However they also have their own dedicated staff to service the system, plan and impliment upgrades and fix printer spools when the formatting goes to hell in a hand basket.

I thought this was about a single server offering a very diverse range of services that larger companies would use individual machines for. As such downtime isn't an option. It must be reliable as the office will rely on it 110% for everything they do and therefore the entire productivity of 40 users is under the direct influence of a single lonely server.
It's worth noting that in an isolated 40 user group the IT responsibility is often secondary to a primary task and so having the off-site support offered by a quality maintenance contract is totally invaluable.

Moby and Jiff also make a fine point that in business time is money. In a University it can wait until tomorrow (the attitude of many IT staff, not the user base ofc!).

In this particular instance a self-build, while fun and cheaper in captial investment terms, is probably not the best option.

[Jiff Lemon]

I simpily don't belive in "out of the box" 'solutions'. The current server can continue serving until the new system is ready for deployment and can be retired. And yes, Linux can be used for faxing. at least it doesn't gobble up multi-gigabytes of memory replicating existing data, fragment partitions like its going out of fashion and choke on pagefiles.

ok, look at it this way:

We know we've got 40 users. How many techies you think are going to be there? Do you think Trig is going to be heading up a team of 10, sat around drinking coffee all day? Or should we assume, like most of us, he's overworked and underpaid?

So..... When do you think he's going to have time to (a) learn a whole new operating system then (b) Custom build the infrastructure?

I not going to dispute that University's use a *nux infrastructure, but do you think they were designed and implemented by a single techy?

[aidanjt]

ok, look at it this way:

We know we've got 40 users. How many techies you think are going to be there? Do you think Trig is going to be heading up a team of 10, sat around drinking coffee all day? Or should we assume, like most of us, he's overworked and underpaid?

So..... When do you think he's going to have time to (a) learn a whole new operating system then (b) Custom build the infrastructure?

I not going to dispute that University's use a *nux infrastructure, but do you think they were designed and implemented by a single techy?

I absolutly agree with that, and I do understand the root of the problem lays with corporate attitudes to IT, unfortunatly they don't understand that they are wasting more money and resorces skimping out on good IT staff.
*edit* not that i think your a crap admin Trig Its acctually refreshing to see admins investigating solutions from various sources before begining implimentation. Just need more of you!

[nichomach]

*What he said, double!*

Bingo. I look after over 200 users with very diverse requirements (lots of mobile users, lots of industry specific apps, no such thing as a standard machine config). I'll build a machine if it looks like the best option (and our 3D rendering box which is on 24/7 does very nicely thank you), but for a general purpose fileserver on which the business depends? Thanks, I've been using Poweredges for years and they are solid as a rock, well-designed and the performance is excellent. I recently swapped our main fileserver (an old PE2400) with a PE2850, the configuration of which took naff all time, and turned the PE2400 around as an SQL Server, up, running, patched and happy in (accounting for fitting the work in around all the other stuff I do) half a day. Am I happy with an out-of-the-box solution? Oh yes.

That's not a problem with corporate attitudes to IT, that's just what works, works well and works quickly.

[aidanjt]

nichomach, while it works, and works quickly, and your happy about that.. 'out of the box' solutions generate the majority of waste and danger on the internet, between worms, trojans and spam. That is my major gripe. If people made more of an effort we wouldn't have it. fast and easy doesn't always mean best

[nichomach]

nichomach, while it works, and works quickly, and your happy about that.. 'out of the box' solutions generate the majority of waste and danger on the internet, between worms, trojans and spam. That is my major gripe. If people made more of an effort we wouldn't have it. fast and easy doesn't always mean best

Sure, if you have a badly configured or non-existent firewall, never apply software patches and don't run decent A/V software; out-of-the-box doesn't mean "deployed without thought or reasonable caution". That's not down to whether a solution is "out-of-the-box", that's down to whether it's been competently deployed. Still less is it down to hardware OEMs; after all, they just provide the kit. How you use (or misuse) it is entirely your own affair. All of the dangers that you talk about are issues with poorly deployed and poorly protected software. You'll note that I did say "patched and happy"?

[Moby-Dick]

Sure, if you have a badly configured or non-existent firewall, never apply software patches and don't run decent A/V software; out-of-the-box doesn't mean "deployed without thought or reasonable caution". That's not down to whether a solution is "out-of-the-box", that's down to whether it's been competently deployed.

What he said

*cough* IMF *cough* SUS *cough* ISA

All components of SBS.

Add an AV solution and set up DSL router of your choice and you are good to go. Protection by obscurity just doesn't cut it anymore.

[wenis]

Your needs will vary, but I use Compaq/HP Proliants. I have never had a single hardware failure. I even have two Proliants that are 6 years old been on 24/7 since they were new and they are humming away. I have tried one Dell Server and did not like it.