server for small medical practice
Tags:
-
Business Computing
-
Servers
Last response: in Business Computing
tdiddy
October 9, 2013 5:05:44 AM
Hi, I'm a specialist physician and am opening a small 2 MD office of my own next year. I have some basic networking experience (ie have setup a few home networks, with NAS) but clearly not a professional. I am planning on using a ASP hosted EMR (electronic medical records) system and will leave that entirly to the pros... but I am still interested in having a local server to do basic functions. I would need a print server, fax server, backup and storage, and shared file access; none of this will touch the patient records. will probably get office 365 so will not need email/calander service
I'm considering between a
NAS (i've been happy with the simple synology device I own for the home, but find backing up the PC can be a little cumbersome);
windows server essentials 2013 (obviously the most expensive, but supposedly the easiet?);
ubuntu server (I have a linux machine that I'm somewhat familar with, but I'm sure there would be a lot of learning involved in this one)
does anyone have any particular recommendations between these 3 for my needs?
what kind of hardware would you recommend for this? Are there any particualr brands that are recommended with windows server essentials that are not too pricy at the entry level? I was hoping to spend <2K but this can be flexable
in the end I may hire someone to finalize this setup as well, but if I have a better idea of my needs it lowers the chances that they will overcharge (which commonly happens to MDs)
Thanks for the help!
TM
I'm considering between a
NAS (i've been happy with the simple synology device I own for the home, but find backing up the PC can be a little cumbersome);
windows server essentials 2013 (obviously the most expensive, but supposedly the easiet?);
ubuntu server (I have a linux machine that I'm somewhat familar with, but I'm sure there would be a lot of learning involved in this one)
does anyone have any particular recommendations between these 3 for my needs?
what kind of hardware would you recommend for this? Are there any particualr brands that are recommended with windows server essentials that are not too pricy at the entry level? I was hoping to spend <2K but this can be flexable
in the end I may hire someone to finalize this setup as well, but if I have a better idea of my needs it lowers the chances that they will overcharge (which commonly happens to MDs)
Thanks for the help!
TM
More about : server small medical practice
You are looking at building a multipurpose server system and, being in a medical office (if you live in the US at least) will need to have a domain in place for compliance with user account restrictions, control, and logging. This means you need a full Windows Server solution that can manage and run a domain. Now, on the cheap side you can utilize Windows Server 2012 Essentials, which can manage a domain for up to 25 total users. It's pretty easy to set up and still rather cost effective for a full server OS solution. However, there are some caveats as it does not allow for virtualization. I would recommend investing the little more cost to get the Windows Server 2012 Standard, as it will support domains of any size, supports virtualization through Hyper-V, and you can run up to two virtual machines with that same single license of Server 2012 Standard.
Here's why I say this. As your office grows, a NAS device is not going to grow with you. It's a static configuration and build generally which means you're not going to be able to run additional roles as needed in the future on that same hardware (such as domain controller, print server, etc.) it's just not built for that. A NAS device, by its very name, is meant for network storage.
Since you will be running your primary medical service off a different system or through an off-site solution, that does eliminate some of the performance needs you may have for your server, and should be able to do what you're looking at doing with a single physical server. However, I would break up the components into separate virtual machines if possible to help with compartmentalization. What I mean by this is on your physical server I'd run one virtual machine that operates as your domain controller print server, etc. In the future lets say you need to add a program that is run off your server and accessed through your network. I don't know of many specific software solutions directly utilized in your situation, so in this case I'll use the example of Dentrix which is commonly used by dentist offices for performing multiple tasks by multiple users across their office simultaneously and runs off of a central server. Instead of installing this software on the same virtual machine as your domain controller, create a new virtual machine to run that specific service and software. In this way, you can make changes to your domain virtual machine without affecting at all the settings or information in your application server virtual machine, and vice versa. There are a lot of reasons for this sort of thing, and I can help with explaining some details if necessary, but will leave that for another discussion for now.
Down to the physical hardware recommendations then: Well, this is kind of tough to say right now. We don't know exactly what sort of performance you are expecting, the amount of growth you wish to plan for, the level of high availability or fault tolerance, the amount of storage space you need, etc. However, I can tell you that even going with just enough server to run your current needs (not factoring in the ability to accommodate future growth) and standard levels of fault tolerance in the server hardware, you're going to be looking at much greater than $2,000 for your primary server. But this IS your primary server, the heart of your storage and operation, and you don't want to skimp on it believe me.
There's more though that has to be addressed than just the server. Often times I've seen medical offices focused on getting their servers upgraded or operating secure and properly and completely neglect their network. You haven't mentioned what sort of network infrastructure you will be working with either. What sort of firewall, routers, or switches will you been looking at using or are you needing some information on that as well? Do you know the necessary securities and policies that need to be in place for HIPAA compliance?
Here's why I say this. As your office grows, a NAS device is not going to grow with you. It's a static configuration and build generally which means you're not going to be able to run additional roles as needed in the future on that same hardware (such as domain controller, print server, etc.) it's just not built for that. A NAS device, by its very name, is meant for network storage.
Since you will be running your primary medical service off a different system or through an off-site solution, that does eliminate some of the performance needs you may have for your server, and should be able to do what you're looking at doing with a single physical server. However, I would break up the components into separate virtual machines if possible to help with compartmentalization. What I mean by this is on your physical server I'd run one virtual machine that operates as your domain controller print server, etc. In the future lets say you need to add a program that is run off your server and accessed through your network. I don't know of many specific software solutions directly utilized in your situation, so in this case I'll use the example of Dentrix which is commonly used by dentist offices for performing multiple tasks by multiple users across their office simultaneously and runs off of a central server. Instead of installing this software on the same virtual machine as your domain controller, create a new virtual machine to run that specific service and software. In this way, you can make changes to your domain virtual machine without affecting at all the settings or information in your application server virtual machine, and vice versa. There are a lot of reasons for this sort of thing, and I can help with explaining some details if necessary, but will leave that for another discussion for now.
Down to the physical hardware recommendations then: Well, this is kind of tough to say right now. We don't know exactly what sort of performance you are expecting, the amount of growth you wish to plan for, the level of high availability or fault tolerance, the amount of storage space you need, etc. However, I can tell you that even going with just enough server to run your current needs (not factoring in the ability to accommodate future growth) and standard levels of fault tolerance in the server hardware, you're going to be looking at much greater than $2,000 for your primary server. But this IS your primary server, the heart of your storage and operation, and you don't want to skimp on it believe me.
There's more though that has to be addressed than just the server. Often times I've seen medical offices focused on getting their servers upgraded or operating secure and properly and completely neglect their network. You haven't mentioned what sort of network infrastructure you will be working with either. What sort of firewall, routers, or switches will you been looking at using or are you needing some information on that as well? Do you know the necessary securities and policies that need to be in place for HIPAA compliance?
m
0
l
tdiddy
October 9, 2013 11:55:03 AM
choucove said:
You are looking at building a multipurpose server system and, being in a medical office (if you live in the US at least) will need to have a domain in place for compliance with user account restrictions, control, and logging. This means you need a full Windows Server solution that can manage and run a domain. Now, on the cheap side you can utilize Windows Server 2012 Essentials, which can manage a domain for up to 25 total users. It's pretty easy to set up and still rather cost effective for a full server OS solution. However, there are some caveats as it does not allow for virtualization. I would recommend investing the little more cost to get the Windows Server 2012 Standard, as it will support domains of any size, supports virtualization through Hyper-V, and you can run up to two virtual machines with that same single license of Server 2012 Standard.Here's why I say this. As your office grows, a NAS device is not going to grow with you. It's a static configuration and build generally which means you're not going to be able to run additional roles as needed in the future on that same hardware (such as domain controller, print server, etc.) it's just not built for that. A NAS device, by its very name, is meant for network storage.
Since you will be running your primary medical service off a different system or through an off-site solution, that does eliminate some of the performance needs you may have for your server, and should be able to do what you're looking at doing with a single physical server. However, I would break up the components into separate virtual machines if possible to help with compartmentalization. What I mean by this is on your physical server I'd run one virtual machine that operates as your domain controller print server, etc. In the future lets say you need to add a program that is run off your server and accessed through your network. I don't know of many specific software solutions directly utilized in your situation, so in this case I'll use the example of Dentrix which is commonly used by dentist offices for performing multiple tasks by multiple users across their office simultaneously and runs off of a central server. Instead of installing this software on the same virtual machine as your domain controller, create a new virtual machine to run that specific service and software. In this way, you can make changes to your domain virtual machine without affecting at all the settings or information in your application server virtual machine, and vice versa. There are a lot of reasons for this sort of thing, and I can help with explaining some details if necessary, but will leave that for another discussion for now.
Down to the physical hardware recommendations then: Well, this is kind of tough to say right now. We don't know exactly what sort of performance you are expecting, the amount of growth you wish to plan for, the level of high availability or fault tolerance, the amount of storage space you need, etc. However, I can tell you that even going with just enough server to run your current needs (not factoring in the ability to accommodate future growth) and standard levels of fault tolerance in the server hardware, you're going to be looking at much greater than $2,000 for your primary server. But this IS your primary server, the heart of your storage and operation, and you don't want to skimp on it believe me.
There's more though that has to be addressed than just the server. Often times I've seen medical offices focused on getting their servers upgraded or operating secure and properly and completely neglect their network. You haven't mentioned what sort of network infrastructure you will be working with either. What sort of firewall, routers, or switches will you been looking at using or are you needing some information on that as well? Do you know the necessary securities and policies that need to be in place for HIPAA compliance?
Thanks for the reply!
I see your point about the NAS. I should say that I don't think we will really scale up that much. There is no way that we will ever have over 25 users (probably never more than 6 actually).
The hosted EMR setup really takes care of all the critical data, a lot of other docs in this kind of setting would even go without the server altogether so I don't think I should get too ambitious. I don't need extensive redundancy or high performance.
If I were to go with a windows server essentials system and needed extra features in the future (like the virtualization that you mentioned) then I think microsoft has the optoin to upgrade doesn't it?
as far as the networking, the primary connection is through a specific firewalled private internet connection, called the physicians private network. This is mandated by the government (I'm in Canada) and provided free of charge. I have not been able to find out too many details about it specifically yet, all I know is that I would only be responsible for setting up the LAN. My idea was to have a server, router, and 2 laptops (1 for each MD) moving between 4 examining rooms. The other option would be to purchase 4 workstations, one for each examining room, not sure which is best choice at this point.
m
0
l
Related resources
- Medical Small office setup HW,SW choices - Forum
- Used pc to practice assemble, build and configure a server - Forum
- Needing a practice server - Forum
- I just built my first desktop, I put windows 8.1 as my os. Then I was attemptin to install Server 2012 so I could practice Act - Forum
- Is this an ok practice server? - Forum
Let me work on the first question here, about upgrading from Server 2012 Essentials to Server 2012 Standard. The simple answer is "not really." These are two different operating systems, even if they are in the same product group. While it probably can be done, it's not going to be very "pretty" and you'll still have to find some way of somehow converting your physical machine to a virtual machine while also preserving your physical machine for use in running virtual machines now. Basically, upgrading from Server 2012 Essentials to a full virtual environment with Server 2012 Standard is a pretty extensive solution which means purchasing all new licensing (not just an upgrade), reinstalling everything on your server again, and re-setting up all of your software and data and configuration again.
Down to your network, this sounds like a pretty good solution, sorry that I'm not completely updated on the regulations and necessary configurations for medical offices in Canada. I know here in the US that security is always a huge issue that regulations are always changing. In fact, HIPAA requirements were just recently updated and there are "best practices" that are more strenuous requirements now than there were a month ago.
So, if you plan to operate with a wireless network, there's quite a few requirements at least by HIPAA best practices to help secure the network, which involves the use of the firewall in several ways. Their best practices suggest that the wireless network be set up on a completely separate network OUTSIDE of the firewall. This wireless network should be encrypted with WPA/2 encryption minimum. But, if someone were to get access to the wireless network still, they would not have access in any way to services or information within the network. This again is where the firewall plays a role. On your clinic laptops you would set up VPN connectivity through the firewall to inside network resources. This way you are protected with encrypted network access on the wireless network itself, plus another encrypted network directly connecting the laptop through the firewall to the internal LAN network.
Again, this is the best practices recommendation for HIPAA, but of course there are other ways around it. It takes quite a bit of configuration work to know how to set this up right. In the end it is more secure and often more cost effective to instead rely on wired connections instead of wireless. I've heard of many hospitals and clinics opting to go with cheap simple desktops in each room (which are locked when no one is in the room) which are hard wired instead of utilizing roaming laptops and sophisticated wireless network infrastructure and security measures.
Down to your network, this sounds like a pretty good solution, sorry that I'm not completely updated on the regulations and necessary configurations for medical offices in Canada. I know here in the US that security is always a huge issue that regulations are always changing. In fact, HIPAA requirements were just recently updated and there are "best practices" that are more strenuous requirements now than there were a month ago.
So, if you plan to operate with a wireless network, there's quite a few requirements at least by HIPAA best practices to help secure the network, which involves the use of the firewall in several ways. Their best practices suggest that the wireless network be set up on a completely separate network OUTSIDE of the firewall. This wireless network should be encrypted with WPA/2 encryption minimum. But, if someone were to get access to the wireless network still, they would not have access in any way to services or information within the network. This again is where the firewall plays a role. On your clinic laptops you would set up VPN connectivity through the firewall to inside network resources. This way you are protected with encrypted network access on the wireless network itself, plus another encrypted network directly connecting the laptop through the firewall to the internal LAN network.
Again, this is the best practices recommendation for HIPAA, but of course there are other ways around it. It takes quite a bit of configuration work to know how to set this up right. In the end it is more secure and often more cost effective to instead rely on wired connections instead of wireless. I've heard of many hospitals and clinics opting to go with cheap simple desktops in each room (which are locked when no one is in the room) which are hard wired instead of utilizing roaming laptops and sophisticated wireless network infrastructure and security measures.
m
0
l
tdiddy
October 12, 2013 5:29:35 AM
Thanks again for your reply. Yes Canada is far behind the Usa in terms of privacy laws, but hipaa is not a bad goal to strive for in case we catch up in a few years. I think you are right about the desktops vs laptops, it is probably easier just to have a set of them. I received good news from the health board in that I'm still eligible for their funding support to upgrade to electronic medical office. Now I will have a grant of $14k to cover all expenses... Except the server itself !?. That needs to include 4 client PCs , printer, good scanner, router + switchs and IT. Anyways I can now budget a better server than I initially thought.. And will definitely get tech support
So if I go the WS 2012 standard instead of essentials, other than not having the convenience of using dashboard to do some dumb downed upkeep/setup myself, the other cost would be separate licences for the clients right?
For the actual hardware, I was thinking a tower would be best because I don't think I'll have room for a proper rack setup? What are the priorities when choosing in this price point? Raid controller, 2nd processer, more ram, or entry level configuration of a better server? I looked at a few local resellers, they seem to focus on one brand, so I guess I have to be the one that chooses HP vs dell vs lenovo before they can help with options?
Its hard to say what my future requirements would be, have been thinking about this. There is a open source EMR program that I could consider in the future that actually utilizes a local server instead of asp hosted. It runs a mysql database on a Ubuntu server setup. I highly doubt I will go down that route, but if I did would be nice to have a capable server that could run Ubuntu server as a virtual machine? If we ever made a website, I don't think I can conceive ever hosting it myself. There is a program, called dragon, for voice dictation, I was planning on just installing it on the clients, its a bit of a resource hog, the software rep is going to look into what the requirements would be for a server installation, which she didn't recommend. Aside from that it would just be the domain, file, backup, print and fax setup, 3 users to start with, max up to 10 in the future (if I get a few more md's and there admin support, but really not leasing a place with more than 4 MD so that will be the limiting factor)
So if I go the WS 2012 standard instead of essentials, other than not having the convenience of using dashboard to do some dumb downed upkeep/setup myself, the other cost would be separate licences for the clients right?
For the actual hardware, I was thinking a tower would be best because I don't think I'll have room for a proper rack setup? What are the priorities when choosing in this price point? Raid controller, 2nd processer, more ram, or entry level configuration of a better server? I looked at a few local resellers, they seem to focus on one brand, so I guess I have to be the one that chooses HP vs dell vs lenovo before they can help with options?
Its hard to say what my future requirements would be, have been thinking about this. There is a open source EMR program that I could consider in the future that actually utilizes a local server instead of asp hosted. It runs a mysql database on a Ubuntu server setup. I highly doubt I will go down that route, but if I did would be nice to have a capable server that could run Ubuntu server as a virtual machine? If we ever made a website, I don't think I can conceive ever hosting it myself. There is a program, called dragon, for voice dictation, I was planning on just installing it on the clients, its a bit of a resource hog, the software rep is going to look into what the requirements would be for a server installation, which she didn't recommend. Aside from that it would just be the domain, file, backup, print and fax setup, 3 users to start with, max up to 10 in the future (if I get a few more md's and there admin support, but really not leasing a place with more than 4 MD so that will be the limiting factor)
m
0
l
Licensing for the server will be your WS2012 Standard. That will include your physical machine plus up to two WS2012 Standard virtual machines on that host. For your end computers you will have licensing for Windows 7 Pro or Windows 8 Pro, but most likely that will be figured into the cost of your individual desktop computers. Other than that, it may just come down to device CALs. Each computer connected up to a domain requires a device CAL (you could instead use individual user CALs but it seems in your situation you will have fewer devices than users and thus less cost) which are not very expensive at all, and you can buy a 5-pack CAL for less than $200 I believe.
Choosing the brand you want to go with can be difficult as there are a lot of very small differences between them. However, in your situation, you can really consider each brand as equal, since yes there may be differences in hardware configuration or software options for little things, but the main thing to be concerned with is SUPPORT. What will the support be for purchasing an HP server and if it takes a dive mid-day on you, compared to if you went with a Dell server? What's the cost difference then? Personally I prefer the HP servers because I've never had issues with any of them, and because there tends to be a little more flexibility for me to configure and do whatever is needed with them. However, again the main thing you should be looking at for brand here is support because you can buy identically configured servers that are equal in performance and features from any of those major brands.
Looking into the future to plan ahead is a GREAT idea! Far too often businesses will not consider their future growth potential and end up having to spend more in the long run replacing out servers too early. But, on the other hand, since you are starting small and just beginning you may not want to overdo your initial server and here's why: Let's say you plan for future growth for three to five years out that might require additional upgrades to your server, and spend an extra $2,000 now on your server to accommodate that. Three to five years later rolls around and now your server hardware is getting somewhat outdated, and the additional $1,000 you have to put into your server to get it upgraded will do what you need, but you're upgrading an already aging server system and perhaps not running quite as efficiently as you could on a newer platform.
Given what you have told me so far about your needs and utilization, I'd probably suggest looking at a server that runs a single quad-core or hex-core processor. You can look into a server which supports dual-processors for future upgrades if you wish, but it will increase your cost quite a bit. A nice Xeon quad-core processor is still going to get what you need done. I'd suggest starting with at least 16 GB of RAM, though more than that definitely wouldn't hurt. RAID controller will also be important not only for performance but reliability. You don't want hard drive failures causing you data loss even if that data isn't patient records. Losing your domain controller, without proper backups, can cause you to rebuild your whole network. Plus you can face an extended period of downtime. A hardware RAID controller with onboard cache is the best option.
Again, one area that is hard for me to help determine for you is the amount of storage space you need. Part of this will largely come from how much backup you want done of your individual computers as well as what all records you will directly be storing instead of through the patient records system. You can use SATA hard drives for greater capacity at the lowest cost, but the performance on a SATA hard drive under a lot of simultaneous demand is not going to be the greatest and you may consider utilizing SAS drives instead though they are more expensive. Sometimes if you need the best of both worlds, then it may be something to consider purchasing high-performance SAS or SSD drives that are low-capacity for your server and running only what is necessary on there (such as your virtual machines.) Then put in a separate NAS device with SATA hard drives for standard data storage, such as documents, computer system backups, etc.
Choosing the brand you want to go with can be difficult as there are a lot of very small differences between them. However, in your situation, you can really consider each brand as equal, since yes there may be differences in hardware configuration or software options for little things, but the main thing to be concerned with is SUPPORT. What will the support be for purchasing an HP server and if it takes a dive mid-day on you, compared to if you went with a Dell server? What's the cost difference then? Personally I prefer the HP servers because I've never had issues with any of them, and because there tends to be a little more flexibility for me to configure and do whatever is needed with them. However, again the main thing you should be looking at for brand here is support because you can buy identically configured servers that are equal in performance and features from any of those major brands.
Looking into the future to plan ahead is a GREAT idea! Far too often businesses will not consider their future growth potential and end up having to spend more in the long run replacing out servers too early. But, on the other hand, since you are starting small and just beginning you may not want to overdo your initial server and here's why: Let's say you plan for future growth for three to five years out that might require additional upgrades to your server, and spend an extra $2,000 now on your server to accommodate that. Three to five years later rolls around and now your server hardware is getting somewhat outdated, and the additional $1,000 you have to put into your server to get it upgraded will do what you need, but you're upgrading an already aging server system and perhaps not running quite as efficiently as you could on a newer platform.
Given what you have told me so far about your needs and utilization, I'd probably suggest looking at a server that runs a single quad-core or hex-core processor. You can look into a server which supports dual-processors for future upgrades if you wish, but it will increase your cost quite a bit. A nice Xeon quad-core processor is still going to get what you need done. I'd suggest starting with at least 16 GB of RAM, though more than that definitely wouldn't hurt. RAID controller will also be important not only for performance but reliability. You don't want hard drive failures causing you data loss even if that data isn't patient records. Losing your domain controller, without proper backups, can cause you to rebuild your whole network. Plus you can face an extended period of downtime. A hardware RAID controller with onboard cache is the best option.
Again, one area that is hard for me to help determine for you is the amount of storage space you need. Part of this will largely come from how much backup you want done of your individual computers as well as what all records you will directly be storing instead of through the patient records system. You can use SATA hard drives for greater capacity at the lowest cost, but the performance on a SATA hard drive under a lot of simultaneous demand is not going to be the greatest and you may consider utilizing SAS drives instead though they are more expensive. Sometimes if you need the best of both worlds, then it may be something to consider purchasing high-performance SAS or SSD drives that are low-capacity for your server and running only what is necessary on there (such as your virtual machines.) Then put in a separate NAS device with SATA hard drives for standard data storage, such as documents, computer system backups, etc.
m
0
l
tdiddy
October 12, 2013 8:22:45 PM
Great feedback. I was leaning towards a base model HP ProLiant 350p, single processor that can be upgraded, 16GB ram, the RAID setup is: HP Smart Array P420i/512M FBWC Controller (RAID 0/1/1+0/5/5+0/6/6+0). Would you recommend that? I think I could probably get away with SATA HDs, but will think about it.
There is one issue I'm a little perplexed about with the server. I would like to use the HPs extensive remote support features, however the private internet connection that I am required to use seems like it may be an issue.
They state " HTTPS based Web Remote Access / Control Tools
Several publicly available tools utilize the HTTPS protocol and a web interface to provide remote access (e.g. from home) to the computer or other devices in a practice’s LAN environment. A key feature of these tools is that the HTTPS connection is always initiated from within the practice LAN. This ensures they comply with PPN security policy which prevents any incoming network connections that originate from the public Internet. Initial HTTPS connection request must be initiated by the tool installed on the practice LAN." PPN=physicians private network, run by the government
Its a bit of a vague government document, but does this sound like it will be a issue for remote support on the server (especially when off work hours for server maintenance etc)? Are these "tools" VPNs? or is there something I'm completely missing here?
There is one issue I'm a little perplexed about with the server. I would like to use the HPs extensive remote support features, however the private internet connection that I am required to use seems like it may be an issue.
They state " HTTPS based Web Remote Access / Control Tools
Several publicly available tools utilize the HTTPS protocol and a web interface to provide remote access (e.g. from home) to the computer or other devices in a practice’s LAN environment. A key feature of these tools is that the HTTPS connection is always initiated from within the practice LAN. This ensures they comply with PPN security policy which prevents any incoming network connections that originate from the public Internet. Initial HTTPS connection request must be initiated by the tool installed on the practice LAN." PPN=physicians private network, run by the government
Its a bit of a vague government document, but does this sound like it will be a issue for remote support on the server (especially when off work hours for server maintenance etc)? Are these "tools" VPNs? or is there something I'm completely missing here?
m
0
l
The ProLiant 350p is a good fit for your system I think. The SmartArray P420i/512MB is a good card as well as it gives you hardware RAID with cache to support both Windows and ESXi operating systems, improve performance, and stability. I guess I'm a little unsure of all the remote support features that you mean with these servers, as the only thing I know of like this is the HP Integrated Lights Out (iLo). This is a hardware-based remote access and service software. There's a physical ethernet connection on the server (in addition to the four from the standard server NIC) which can be set up with an IP address and, utilizing HP's iLo configuration software, you can remotely view the status of the server as well as perform similar functions as remote desktop without having to actually be connected to it with a mouse, monitor, etc. Ideally yes, this is something that can allow you to view the server and perform maintenance work on it from outside your network, but I've personally not done this before. There are several ports used through iLo which have to be configured in the firewall to allow remote access which, as you are stating in your comment, might not be possible. I'm not exactly sure the method that the iLo works for network traversal, but I know that it would have to initiate somehow first from the outside network with a request to the private LAN, not the other way around.
m
0
l
tdiddy
October 20, 2013 9:58:06 AM
So I've been looking into this a bit more in terms of drives and the HP 350P. Adding many drives that are compatible with this server will get $$ quickly, even the SATA ones. What would you recommend as a drive configuration, say if I were running a virtualized Windows Server 2012 as you suggested, so I would know how many physical drives I would need? Is there a specific configuration that would make it easier to add storage in the future as needed? You had mentioned a combination of NAS +server storage to save costs before. Will Windows Server 2012 work nicely with a separate NAS in terms of automatic file backups, file history (windows 8 machines) or does it complicate things in terms of indexing etc?
m
0
l
If done properly you can add in a separate storage server or NAS with little or no difficulty in your overall network.
Determining the right drives for you is a little difficult as again I don't know how much storage space you are going to need. Running multiple virtual machines simultaneously is best done on a set of high-speed SAS hard drives, but if you only have a single VM that won't be temendously demanding, then you can use SATA hard drives at 7k RPM with adequate performance and greater cost efficiency. One of the servers I have at my office is currently running three lightweight VMs (domain controller, simple application server, and a testing Win8 desktop) on a set of 1 TB 7k SATA hard drives and I don't really notice a slowdown on the throughput unless I'm transferring large files between these.
It is possible now to purchase the HP Gen8 hard drive caddies separately, and put in your own hard drives. It is much cheaper to do this than buy the HP direct hard drives even though you are getting the same (or better) quality. For example, several of the 2 TB SATA hard drives I've ordered directly through HP were just simple Hitachi desktop-class hard drives. At nearly $500 a piece, it's about half the cost instead to purchase the HP Gen8 hard drive caddy an a 2 TB Western Digital RE4 hard drive.
Determining the right drives for you is a little difficult as again I don't know how much storage space you are going to need. Running multiple virtual machines simultaneously is best done on a set of high-speed SAS hard drives, but if you only have a single VM that won't be temendously demanding, then you can use SATA hard drives at 7k RPM with adequate performance and greater cost efficiency. One of the servers I have at my office is currently running three lightweight VMs (domain controller, simple application server, and a testing Win8 desktop) on a set of 1 TB 7k SATA hard drives and I don't really notice a slowdown on the throughput unless I'm transferring large files between these.
It is possible now to purchase the HP Gen8 hard drive caddies separately, and put in your own hard drives. It is much cheaper to do this than buy the HP direct hard drives even though you are getting the same (or better) quality. For example, several of the 2 TB SATA hard drives I've ordered directly through HP were just simple Hitachi desktop-class hard drives. At nearly $500 a piece, it's about half the cost instead to purchase the HP Gen8 hard drive caddy an a 2 TB Western Digital RE4 hard drive.
m
0
l
tdiddy
October 22, 2013 5:18:56 AM
choucove said:
If done properly you can add in a separate storage server or NAS with little or no difficulty in your overall network.Determining the right drives for you is a little difficult as again I don't know how much storage space you are going to need. Running multiple virtual machines simultaneously is best done on a set of high-speed SAS hard drives, but if you only have a single VM that won't be temendously demanding, then you can use SATA hard drives at 7k RPM with adequate performance and greater cost efficiency. One of the servers I have at my office is currently running three lightweight VMs (domain controller, simple application server, and a testing Win8 desktop) on a set of 1 TB 7k SATA hard drives and I don't really notice a slowdown on the throughput unless I'm transferring large files between these.
It is possible now to purchase the HP Gen8 hard drive caddies separately, and put in your own hard drives. It is much cheaper to do this than buy the HP direct hard drives even though you are getting the same (or better) quality. For example, several of the 2 TB SATA hard drives I've ordered directly through HP were just simple Hitachi desktop-class hard drives. At nearly $500 a piece, it's about half the cost instead to purchase the HP Gen8 hard drive caddy an a 2 TB Western Digital RE4 hard drive.
Ok that is helpful, the HP drive prices are a bit outrageous.. at least for my needs
So I spoke to one of the IT/sales guys at a local store that sells/supports HP servers. He tried to talk me down to a ML310e.. he said if i'm going to have <25 users for the next few years then I should just get a budget solution for now, that my money would go further down the road. Told me to go with hyper V with windows server 2012 essentials virtualized on it. I guess this one does seem to have all the expansion capacity I could imagine using any time soon. I could always use the hardware at home or for some other purpose down the road if I needed to get a more capable server in a few years.
But I don't know about the onboard raid etc of that server, I don't want to cut corners either
m
0
l
The ML310E G8 is another great server, and likewise we have used it at several offices. It doesn't offer quite as much expansion, as it's only a single processor and up to 32 GB of memory, but that should be adequate for what you need running one to two virtual machines. Here's the things, though, that I would suggest looking into differently than most of the ML310E configurations that come standard:
1) Upgraded RAID controller: The onboard B120i controller is only software RAID and supports SATA drives only. It's functional and will get the job done alright, but for running multiple virtual machines it's not going to offer the best performance or reliability. I would suggest adding a P222 or P420 RAID controller (you can also find very cheap costs on the older P410 generation RAID controllers which also still work great!) with at least 512 MB of onboard cache. Most of these cards come with either battery backup units or flash backed write cache (FBWC) which is also recommended.
2) Redundant power supply kit: Most of the ML310E servers come with a standard 350 Watt ATX power supply. If the server is performing daily business critical tasks, and the power supply goes out on your server, then you could be without a server for a week or more until replacement parts are shipped in and the system is replaced. If you can't be down for that long without the server, then an option would be to utilize redundant power supplies. This works similarly to how a RAID 1 works for your hard drives. Both of them operate together normally, but if one power supply were to go out suddenly, the system continues to operate on the one good power supply until a replacement can be installed, but there is no downtime. There are a few different configurations of Smart Buy on the ML310E servers that come with Redundant 420W Common Slot power supply options, plus you can do custom-ordered systems configured that way depending upon how that local reseller does their systems.
1) Upgraded RAID controller: The onboard B120i controller is only software RAID and supports SATA drives only. It's functional and will get the job done alright, but for running multiple virtual machines it's not going to offer the best performance or reliability. I would suggest adding a P222 or P420 RAID controller (you can also find very cheap costs on the older P410 generation RAID controllers which also still work great!) with at least 512 MB of onboard cache. Most of these cards come with either battery backup units or flash backed write cache (FBWC) which is also recommended.
2) Redundant power supply kit: Most of the ML310E servers come with a standard 350 Watt ATX power supply. If the server is performing daily business critical tasks, and the power supply goes out on your server, then you could be without a server for a week or more until replacement parts are shipped in and the system is replaced. If you can't be down for that long without the server, then an option would be to utilize redundant power supplies. This works similarly to how a RAID 1 works for your hard drives. Both of them operate together normally, but if one power supply were to go out suddenly, the system continues to operate on the one good power supply until a replacement can be installed, but there is no downtime. There are a few different configurations of Smart Buy on the ML310E servers that come with Redundant 420W Common Slot power supply options, plus you can do custom-ordered systems configured that way depending upon how that local reseller does their systems.
m
0
l
Related resources
- SolvedSmall Business Server Build Forum
- Best Practice Terminal Server User Setup Forum
- SolvedHelp me build a small server pc Forum
- SolvedNeed help with choosing a small business server. Forum
- SolvedSmall network setup with web & data server Forum
- SolvedThoughts/Improvments on a small file server build Forum
- SolvedWant to build small form factor Plex server with some Steam capabilities Forum
- SolvedHow to setup server for 30 small office computers? Forum
- SolvedCan this machine run a small Minecraft server? Forum
- How much would it cost to build a small terminal that can recieve input and send it to a server and then stream the output fro Forum
- NAS Buyer - Small Business, Remote Server Forum
- SolvedSmall Server for a Bike Shop Forum
- Windows Server 2008 R2 and connecting a small business network Forum
- Local email server for small office Forum
- Solvedsmall office server Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Business Computing categories
!