RAID 1 with an SSD and a larger HD
Tags:
-
SSD
-
Storage
-
Business Computing
- NAS / RAID
Last response: in Business Computing
benfct
April 28, 2014 5:00:45 PM
I am contemplating putting the 150 GB of programs and data of my small business on an SSD (office programs and all data), and then using RAID 1 to have it backed up (really mirrored) onto a larger 7200 rpm HD
Is this pointless, as writing to the HD will eliminate the speed advantage of doing everything on the SSD?
Do I solve that problem with two SSDs in the RAID 1 configuration (still not terribly expensive)?
Is this a dumb idea?
We now have one workstation that houses all files, and three client pc computers that can access the files and write changes using Windows file sharing (MS Office, Acrobat--nothing fancy). The computers all share one printer, and one internet connection. Right now, the Dell T 110 (or 110T) with Windows Server 2012 would cost about the same as a fast home desktop with Windows 7 Pro (current sale: $680). I don't anticipate more workstations being needed for the business.
I would be using the Dell Server as a workstation as well, and probably get refurbed core 2 duos with Win 7 Pro (the minimum client program, I gather) to replace the current client machines (old, slow, XPs). I plan to replace those anyway, and now I would focus on Win 7 Pro as the OS. There are plenty of SFF core 2 duo Win 7 Pro refurbs of this kind on the market.
Is this Dell Server approach drastic overkill for my foreseeable needs, and essentially pointless?
Should I just focus on a fast workstation (an XPS or the like) and continue with Windows file sharing (with the core 2 duos, since I don't want to continue with XP)?
Or is there a tangible advantage to the 110 T Server approach? The Dell sales guy was not super sharp, and couldn't articulate a real advantage for me. But is there any advantage? If there is, what is the advantage(s)?
Muchas gracias.
Is this pointless, as writing to the HD will eliminate the speed advantage of doing everything on the SSD?
Do I solve that problem with two SSDs in the RAID 1 configuration (still not terribly expensive)?
Is this a dumb idea?
We now have one workstation that houses all files, and three client pc computers that can access the files and write changes using Windows file sharing (MS Office, Acrobat--nothing fancy). The computers all share one printer, and one internet connection. Right now, the Dell T 110 (or 110T) with Windows Server 2012 would cost about the same as a fast home desktop with Windows 7 Pro (current sale: $680). I don't anticipate more workstations being needed for the business.
I would be using the Dell Server as a workstation as well, and probably get refurbed core 2 duos with Win 7 Pro (the minimum client program, I gather) to replace the current client machines (old, slow, XPs). I plan to replace those anyway, and now I would focus on Win 7 Pro as the OS. There are plenty of SFF core 2 duo Win 7 Pro refurbs of this kind on the market.
Is this Dell Server approach drastic overkill for my foreseeable needs, and essentially pointless?
Should I just focus on a fast workstation (an XPS or the like) and continue with Windows file sharing (with the core 2 duos, since I don't want to continue with XP)?
Or is there a tangible advantage to the 110 T Server approach? The Dell sales guy was not super sharp, and couldn't articulate a real advantage for me. But is there any advantage? If there is, what is the advantage(s)?
Muchas gracias.
More about : raid ssd larger
-
Reply to benfct
Quote:
I am contemplating putting the 150 GB of programs and data of my small business on an SSD (office programs and all data), and then using RAID 1 to have it backed up (really mirrored) onto a larger 7200 rpm HDDo not do this. That's not the way RAID 1 works.
A 256 SSD + a 1TB HDD in a RAID 1 = a 256GB drive.
Add to that....RAID is not a backup. Period.
-
Reply to USAFRet
m
0
l
Your choice of machine and hard drive configuration should be based on the cost of down time.
Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
Related resources
- 2 SSD RAID + 3 1TB HD can you backup everything on 1 4TB external Hard Drive - Forum
- RAID0 vs Larger Capacity Higher End Single SSD - Forum
- SSD Raid 0 vs larger SSD - Forum
- Need help moving Windows 8.1 to a larger SSD - Forum
- Clone a server raid 1 hard drive to a larger drive - Forum
benfct
April 28, 2014 9:52:00 PM
USAFRet said:
Quote:
I am contemplating putting the 150 GB of programs and data of my small business on an SSD (office programs and all data), and then using RAID 1 to have it backed up (really mirrored) onto a larger 7200 rpm HDDo not do this. That's not the way RAID 1 works.
A 256 SSD + a 1TB HDD in a RAID 1 = a 256GB drive.
Add to that....RAID is not a backup. Period.
Dear USAFRet, thank you very much. Based on your response and that of VincentP, I think that I misunderstood RAID.
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
benfct said:
Is this Dell Server approach drastic overkill for my foreseeable needs, and essentially pointless? Should I just focus on a fast workstation (an XPS or the like) and continue with Windows file sharing (with the core 2 duos, since I don't want to continue with XP)?
Or is there a tangible advantage to the 110 T Server approach? The Dell sales guy was not super sharp, and couldn't articulate a real advantage for me. But is there any advantage? If there is, what is the advantage(s)?
Others have answered the SSD question, so here are some of the advantages of a server (not all may apply to your situation):
1) Domain-based roles & security - centralized management of users & resources (for a small network, may not be needed)
2) Server-class hardware - generally-speaking, servers use components that are (or can be) better than consumer-grade h/w; tested for reliability in more situations
3) A stand-alone server can more efficiently and efficaciously serve/share resources for clients; for example, it can be the central file storage location for multiple PCs, which can allow for smaller drives on clients; it can also be the centralized backup source for all of your clients on the network -- **** BACKUP is GOOD for everyone *****
4) Servers can participate in a server/client network for special network-aware programs
5) Servers can allow for more disaster-recovery/business-continuity options, both for hardware & software
These are just some of the benefits. Also, a Dell server w/Windows Server 2012 for < $700 is pretty good. I do NOT recommend working on the server when it is acting as the "server" for other clients. Mainly because whatever you do on the server can adversely affect everyone else, such as a program crash taking down network services.
So, for your situation, it may or may not be the best option for you right now. But those are some of the advantages. Servers really make sense as you increase in size & computing needs.
-
Reply to 2Be_or_Not2Be
m
0
l
benfct
April 29, 2014 2:15:53 PM
Dear Vincent P:
Thank you so much for your thoughts about my network revisions.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
Thank you so much for your thoughts about my network revisions.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
VincentP said:
Your choice of machine and hard drive configuration should be based on the cost of down time.Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
benfct
April 29, 2014 2:18:32 PM
Dear USAFRet:
I am replying again, because your qualifications appear to be in the stratosphere.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
Do not do this. That's not the way RAID 1 works.
A 256 SSD + a 1TB HDD in a RAID 1 = a 256GB drive.
Add to that....RAID is not a backup. Period.
I am replying again, because your qualifications appear to be in the stratosphere.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
USAFRet said:
Quote:
I am contemplating putting the 150 GB of programs and data of my small business on an SSD (office programs and all data), and then using RAID 1 to have it backed up (really mirrored) onto a larger 7200 rpm HDDo not do this. That's not the way RAID 1 works.
A 256 SSD + a 1TB HDD in a RAID 1 = a 256GB drive.
Add to that....RAID is not a backup. Period.
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
benfct
April 29, 2014 2:21:21 PM
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I can't quite figure out the actual reason for the durability/dependability of "business-class machines." I have read the kinds of comment you made, but are they genuine? How are we to know? The components seem the same, don't they?
Should I just focus on a fast workstation (an XPS or the like) and continue with Windows file sharing (with the core 2 duos, since I don't want to continue with XP)?
Or is there a tangible advantage to the 110 T Server approach? The Dell sales guy was not super sharp, and couldn't articulate a real advantage for me. But is there any advantage? If there is, what is the advantage(s)?
Others have answered the SSD question, so here are some of the advantages of a server (not all may apply to your situation):
1) Domain-based roles & security - centralized management of users & resources (for a small network, may not be needed)
2) Server-class hardware - generally-speaking, servers use components that are (or can be) better than consumer-grade h/w; tested for reliability in more situations
3) A stand-alone server can more efficiently and efficaciously serve/share resources for clients; for example, it can be the central file storage location for multiple PCs, which can allow for smaller drives on clients; it can also be the centralized backup source for all of your clients on the network -- **** BACKUP is GOOD for everyone *****
4) Servers can participate in a server/client network for special network-aware programs
5) Servers can allow for more disaster-recovery/business-continuity options, both for hardware & software
These are just some of the benefits. Also, a Dell server w/Windows Server 2012 for < $700 is pretty good. I do NOT recommend working on the server when it is acting as the "server" for other clients. Mainly because whatever you do on the server can adversely affect everyone else, such as a program crash taking down network services.
So, for your situation, it may or may not be the best option for you right now. But those are some of the advantages. Servers really make sense as you increase in size & computing needs.
2Be_or_Not2Be said:
benfct said:
Is this Dell Server approach drastic overkill for my foreseeable needs, and essentially pointless? Should I just focus on a fast workstation (an XPS or the like) and continue with Windows file sharing (with the core 2 duos, since I don't want to continue with XP)?
Or is there a tangible advantage to the 110 T Server approach? The Dell sales guy was not super sharp, and couldn't articulate a real advantage for me. But is there any advantage? If there is, what is the advantage(s)?
Others have answered the SSD question, so here are some of the advantages of a server (not all may apply to your situation):
1) Domain-based roles & security - centralized management of users & resources (for a small network, may not be needed)
2) Server-class hardware - generally-speaking, servers use components that are (or can be) better than consumer-grade h/w; tested for reliability in more situations
3) A stand-alone server can more efficiently and efficaciously serve/share resources for clients; for example, it can be the central file storage location for multiple PCs, which can allow for smaller drives on clients; it can also be the centralized backup source for all of your clients on the network -- **** BACKUP is GOOD for everyone *****
4) Servers can participate in a server/client network for special network-aware programs
5) Servers can allow for more disaster-recovery/business-continuity options, both for hardware & software
These are just some of the benefits. Also, a Dell server w/Windows Server 2012 for < $700 is pretty good. I do NOT recommend working on the server when it is acting as the "server" for other clients. Mainly because whatever you do on the server can adversely affect everyone else, such as a program crash taking down network services.
So, for your situation, it may or may not be the best option for you right now. But those are some of the advantages. Servers really make sense as you increase in size & computing needs.
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
benfct said:
Dear Vincent P:Thank you so much for your thoughts about my network revisions.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
VincentP said:
Your choice of machine and hard drive configuration should be based on the cost of down time.Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
1, 2 and 3)
There will be no noticible performance difference between these three machines.
The PowerEdge is the only server class machine you have listed. This means it is designed for 24x7 use and should be more reliable than other machines.
Aside from quality of components, what you get from Dell and HP is service. Look at the service arrangement you are buying with each machine. How long is the service agreement, and how quickly will they respond. Certainly with Dell you should be able to choose the level of service agreement. If the motherboard in your PowerEdge dies after two years, Dell can come out and replace it with an identical board. That's not possible with a DIY PC.
4) A good SSD is just as durable as a mechanical hard drive.
5) This seems reasonable
The specifications of the client machines will make a noticeable difference to responsiveness of programs.
6) Yes
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
benfct said:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I can't quite figure out the actual reason for the durability/dependability of "business-class machines." I have read the kinds of comment you made, but are they genuine? How are we to know? The components seem the same, don't they?If you're looking for durability of servers versus a machine you buy yourself, the main differences are in the warranty & service options available from a company like Dell/HP (as mentioned by others), and sometimes different options not offered in consumer lines. The components can be better in areas like the grade of electrical components used in manufacturing the parts, such as the type of capacitors used, and they can also be better in allowing for more fault-tolerant equipment (like ECC memory).
However, the biggest difference is in the service & support for a server. You can get a service contract from Dell, for example, that says Dell will be onsite within 4hrs if your Dell server goes down. You don't get that if you buy a system that you assemble yourself. So if your business depends on that server being up, you may decide to pay more to make sure it can be quickly restored in the event of downtime.
On a side note, SSDs can be more durable than a mechanical spinning disk hard drive simply because they don't have any moving parts. They are much, much, much faster than mechanical drives. So the questions you asked previously as to what would make a difference in access files, SSD-based storage would be faster when you search for files. SSDs are also faster & saving files; however, if you're only saving one small file, you wouldn't really notice much of a difference. It's when you get to multiple files and/or large files that you will see more of a difference. If I'm copying a 1GB file, I can potentially save the file 50-75% faster if I have a good SSD versus a mechanical disk.
-
Reply to 2Be_or_Not2Be
m
0
l
benfct
May 1, 2014 6:01:19 PM
Dear Vincent P,
Thank you so much for your thoughts. A different computer altogether came up, that I bought for $530 incl. tax and shipping in. It's a refurbished Dell XPS i5 4430, and the board permitted more changes and upgrades than the HP Pavilion, and it's even warrantied for a year. The Dell Power Edge was tempting, but I couldn't see spending 40% more for a machine that had no more power, but might be more durable. We turn everything off at night anyway.
The key for me is to adopt and execute a good backup strategy. With Windows file sharing, it's so easy if my server/workstation goes down to switch the file sharing and make one of the clients the temporary file host. It just happened, and the downtime was 1/2 hour. There are only two of us now, and maybe there will be three. It's a small business in specialty finance.
MISSION CRITICAL: have up-to-date data files on the robocopy target, and fairly up-to-date files offsite. That's the bottom line.
Hopefully, robocopy will simplify backup. It's not that what I have done is terribly burdensome, but I want backup I can launch in a minute or two, and then be informed the next morning what failed, so I can remedy that.
In my new file host, I'll put in the SSD, and change it in 36 months.
I'll change the HD in the robocopy target in 36 months.
How often would you change the PSU in the host machine (why wait until it fails, and things get inconvenient)?
Should anything be done with the CPU cooling in now or in the future, to keep the CPU in better shape?
Is there any other preventive maintenance that you recommend?
Actually, the new XPS came with a half-decent video card. Should I just disable it and run on Intel graphics, to keep the internal heat down, or will it actually prolong CPU life if there is a separate video card?
Thanks,
Ben
P.S. I feel like I missed out not building a computer with hand-chosen parts. It would have been a learning adventure, which keeps things lively. But the fact is it would have cost 60% more, plus my time (or my colleague's time). It was hard to articulate a real business advantage, and generally if i can't articulate an advantage, there is none.
Thank you so much for your thoughts about my network revisions.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
1, 2 and 3)
There will be no noticible performance difference between these three machines.
The PowerEdge is the only server class machine you have listed. This means it is designed for 24x7 use and should be more reliable than other machines.
Aside from quality of components, what you get from Dell and HP is service. Look at the service arrangement you are buying with each machine. How long is the service agreement, and how quickly will they respond. Certainly with Dell you should be able to choose the level of service agreement. If the motherboard in your PowerEdge dies after two years, Dell can come out and replace it with an identical board. That's not possible with a DIY PC.
4) A good SSD is just as durable as a mechanical hard drive.
5) This seems reasonable
The specifications of the client machines will make a noticeable difference to responsiveness of programs.
6) Yes
Thank you so much for your thoughts. A different computer altogether came up, that I bought for $530 incl. tax and shipping in. It's a refurbished Dell XPS i5 4430, and the board permitted more changes and upgrades than the HP Pavilion, and it's even warrantied for a year. The Dell Power Edge was tempting, but I couldn't see spending 40% more for a machine that had no more power, but might be more durable. We turn everything off at night anyway.
The key for me is to adopt and execute a good backup strategy. With Windows file sharing, it's so easy if my server/workstation goes down to switch the file sharing and make one of the clients the temporary file host. It just happened, and the downtime was 1/2 hour. There are only two of us now, and maybe there will be three. It's a small business in specialty finance.
MISSION CRITICAL: have up-to-date data files on the robocopy target, and fairly up-to-date files offsite. That's the bottom line.
Hopefully, robocopy will simplify backup. It's not that what I have done is terribly burdensome, but I want backup I can launch in a minute or two, and then be informed the next morning what failed, so I can remedy that.
In my new file host, I'll put in the SSD, and change it in 36 months.
I'll change the HD in the robocopy target in 36 months.
How often would you change the PSU in the host machine (why wait until it fails, and things get inconvenient)?
Should anything be done with the CPU cooling in now or in the future, to keep the CPU in better shape?
Is there any other preventive maintenance that you recommend?
Actually, the new XPS came with a half-decent video card. Should I just disable it and run on Intel graphics, to keep the internal heat down, or will it actually prolong CPU life if there is a separate video card?
Thanks,
Ben
P.S. I feel like I missed out not building a computer with hand-chosen parts. It would have been a learning adventure, which keeps things lively. But the fact is it would have cost 60% more, plus my time (or my colleague's time). It was hard to articulate a real business advantage, and generally if i can't articulate an advantage, there is none.
VincentP said:
benfct said:
Dear Vincent P:Thank you so much for your thoughts about my network revisions.
Based on the two comments, I don’t think I need RAID. I think that I need to get up to speed on Robocopy.
May I please solicit your thoughts about the following? As a backdrop, my network is 3-4 computers. At maximum usage, each computer might have 10 open files, including MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, two browsers, two email accounts. Please give a minute to my follow-up thoughts:
(1) Would I find any material difference in the speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents if I host the data on: (1) a PowerEdge-T100 II server, with MS Server 2012 OS, a Xeon E3-1220v.2 CPU (Passmark: 6525), 8 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD; versus (2) an HP Pavilion 500-297c, with Windows 8.1 64-bit (and file sharing), an i5-4440S CPU (Passmark: 6139), 12 GB of 1600MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD? I could buy the Power Edge this week for $680, and I could buy the Pavilion for $505. In your opinion, is the performance difference worth that much more money?
(2) Would either of those two hosts be likely to be much more dependable/durable? I keep reading that business desktops are more dependable and durable. But are they, and if so, what makes them more reliable and durable? In your opinion, is the dependability/durability difference worth the extra money?
(3) I could also build a file-host computer Windows 7 (or 8/8/1) Pro, i5-4670 CPU (Passmark: 7484), 8-12 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and a 7200 rpm HD. I could select an ASUS 87A MB, “dependable” Kingston RAM, “dependable” WD Blue HD. I could get a better case, bigger PSU, and better CPU cooling. Of course, this would cost more time and money than either solution in #1 (perhaps $825-850, plus time).
---Would I achieve noticeably more speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents with this host machine?
---Would the host be materially more dependable/durable?
---Are these differences worth the time and money?
(4) I’m thinking of taking whatever host machine I purchase, and replacing the HD with an SSD. Would a “dependable” SSD, such as Samsung EVO, be materially less dependable than an HD?
(5) Then I would buy three refurbished core 2 duo 3.0 GHz SFF desktop computers, with 4 GB RAM, to be the client machines. In one client machine, I would replace the HD with a new HD, and I would make that computer, with the new HD, the Robocopy target. I would initially Robocopy the entire storage to the target. Then, three to five days a week, I would Robocopy changes to the target. Twice a month, I would instead target an external HD, kept off-site.
---With a new hard drive, does that seem like reasonably secure data preservation?
---Would different specs for the client machines do anything to materially change their speed of accessing, opening, and modifying files/documents on the data-host computer?
(6) Does this solution seem like a sensible approach to my network? If not, why not?
VincentP said:
Your choice of machine and hard drive configuration should be based on the cost of down time.Choosing a server machine can give you hardware RAID and redundant power supplies, but these are not standard on low end servers.
These technologies help minimise down time because a disk or power supply can fail and you still have access to your data while your new power supply or disk is delivered.
RAID also reduces the risk of data loss since your last backup, but by no means eliminates it.
Look at these advantages and weigh them against the cost of the server compared to a cheaper machine to host the files.
Choosing between SSDs or mechanical hard drives comes down to speed. If mechanical hard drives are not fast enough, choose SSDs. If using RAID, stick to using the same type of disks in the array (both SSDs or both mechanical). RAID 1 will give you some performance increase for reading files, but the same performance as a single disk for writing files.
Don't consider mirrored RAID to be a backup. Separate to your choice of machine to host the data you should be backing it up regularly to an external drive and keeping this off site (e.g. at home). For such a small amount of data it is easy to have two external drives and each day take one of these to the office to create a backup.
Something else you can do is configure something like a windows scheduled task running robocopy to backup the data from your server (or desktop hosting the files) to some other machine on the network. Robocopy has options to copy only changes. You could schedule this to make frequent backups which are not stored on the machine hosting the files. Even once per hour would likely be fine.
1, 2 and 3)
There will be no noticible performance difference between these three machines.
The PowerEdge is the only server class machine you have listed. This means it is designed for 24x7 use and should be more reliable than other machines.
Aside from quality of components, what you get from Dell and HP is service. Look at the service arrangement you are buying with each machine. How long is the service agreement, and how quickly will they respond. Certainly with Dell you should be able to choose the level of service agreement. If the motherboard in your PowerEdge dies after two years, Dell can come out and replace it with an identical board. That's not possible with a DIY PC.
4) A good SSD is just as durable as a mechanical hard drive.
5) This seems reasonable
The specifications of the client machines will make a noticeable difference to responsiveness of programs.
6) Yes
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
benfct
May 1, 2014 6:10:10 PM
Dear 2 Be,
I opted away from the Server. See my note to Vincent below. You contributed to that decision by advising that I not use the server as a workstation. What that told me is that my business is just too small for a real server--we're usually running 2-3 computers including the file host (server). I just couldn't see buying an extra machine to be the dedicated server. Doesn't mean my judgment is correct.
I appreciate your thinking about the SSD. I am going to install one to house the programs and data. That's a minor expense (at my 150 GB of programs and data), and I understand that I will notice the difference with an SSD. We'll see. Anyway, no moving parts is elegant, right?
Thanks again,
Ben
If you're looking for durability of servers versus a machine you buy yourself, the main differences are in the warranty & service options available from a company like Dell/HP (as mentioned by others), and sometimes different options not offered in consumer lines. The components can be better in areas like the grade of electrical components used in manufacturing the parts, such as the type of capacitors used, and they can also be better in allowing for more fault-tolerant equipment (like ECC memory).
However, the biggest difference is in the service & support for a server. You can get a service contract from Dell, for example, that says Dell will be onsite within 4hrs if your Dell server goes down. You don't get that if you buy a system that you assemble yourself. So if your business depends on that server being up, you may decide to pay more to make sure it can be quickly restored in the event of downtime.
On a side note, SSDs can be more durable than a mechanical spinning disk hard drive simply because they don't have any moving parts. They are much, much, much faster than mechanical drives. So the questions you asked previously as to what would make a difference in access files, SSD-based storage would be faster when you search for files. SSDs are also faster & saving files; however, if you're only saving one small file, you wouldn't really notice much of a difference. It's when you get to multiple files and/or large files that you will see more of a difference. If I'm copying a 1GB file, I can potentially save the file 50-75% faster if I have a good SSD versus a mechanical disk.
I opted away from the Server. See my note to Vincent below. You contributed to that decision by advising that I not use the server as a workstation. What that told me is that my business is just too small for a real server--we're usually running 2-3 computers including the file host (server). I just couldn't see buying an extra machine to be the dedicated server. Doesn't mean my judgment is correct.
I appreciate your thinking about the SSD. I am going to install one to house the programs and data. That's a minor expense (at my 150 GB of programs and data), and I understand that I will notice the difference with an SSD. We'll see. Anyway, no moving parts is elegant, right?
Thanks again,
Ben
2Be_or_Not2Be said:
benfct said:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I can't quite figure out the actual reason for the durability/dependability of "business-class machines." I have read the kinds of comment you made, but are they genuine? How are we to know? The components seem the same, don't they?If you're looking for durability of servers versus a machine you buy yourself, the main differences are in the warranty & service options available from a company like Dell/HP (as mentioned by others), and sometimes different options not offered in consumer lines. The components can be better in areas like the grade of electrical components used in manufacturing the parts, such as the type of capacitors used, and they can also be better in allowing for more fault-tolerant equipment (like ECC memory).
However, the biggest difference is in the service & support for a server. You can get a service contract from Dell, for example, that says Dell will be onsite within 4hrs if your Dell server goes down. You don't get that if you buy a system that you assemble yourself. So if your business depends on that server being up, you may decide to pay more to make sure it can be quickly restored in the event of downtime.
On a side note, SSDs can be more durable than a mechanical spinning disk hard drive simply because they don't have any moving parts. They are much, much, much faster than mechanical drives. So the questions you asked previously as to what would make a difference in access files, SSD-based storage would be faster when you search for files. SSDs are also faster & saving files; however, if you're only saving one small file, you wouldn't really notice much of a difference. It's when you get to multiple files and/or large files that you will see more of a difference. If I'm copying a 1GB file, I can potentially save the file 50-75% faster if I have a good SSD versus a mechanical disk.
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
You can remove the graphics card and use integrated graphics to reduce power.
I've never heard of anyone proactively replacing a power supply. Good power supplies usually last longer than other components like motherboards or hard drives.
Replacing the whole computer every three years is probably not a bad strategy.
I've never heard of anyone proactively replacing a power supply. Good power supplies usually last longer than other components like motherboards or hard drives.
Replacing the whole computer every three years is probably not a bad strategy.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
benfct
May 6, 2014 7:52:24 PM
Thanks, Vincent.
So, "reducing power" by using onboard graphics vs. a graphics card better preserves/protects the CPU? Or the PSU? Or the MB? Or more than one of the above?
I'm hoping to get more than three year out of the computer. Our business uses are so mundane that I won't change it in search of new technology (every time MS changes Office, it gets more dumbed down, not better). Is 3 years the expected trouble-free life of a desktop these days, even if you change the storage? What fails, the MB?
As to the PSU, I'm getting whatever Dell puts in the machine. It's 450 Watts, but as to quality, probably not great. It surprised me that you wrote of long PSU life. I've changed a few of those that failed. Not MBs or CPUs, not optical drives.
Again, thanks for you help.
I've never heard of anyone proactively replacing a power supply. Good power supplies usually last longer than other components like motherboards or hard drives.
Replacing the whole computer every three years is probably not a bad strategy.
So, "reducing power" by using onboard graphics vs. a graphics card better preserves/protects the CPU? Or the PSU? Or the MB? Or more than one of the above?
I'm hoping to get more than three year out of the computer. Our business uses are so mundane that I won't change it in search of new technology (every time MS changes Office, it gets more dumbed down, not better). Is 3 years the expected trouble-free life of a desktop these days, even if you change the storage? What fails, the MB?
As to the PSU, I'm getting whatever Dell puts in the machine. It's 450 Watts, but as to quality, probably not great. It surprised me that you wrote of long PSU life. I've changed a few of those that failed. Not MBs or CPUs, not optical drives.
Again, thanks for you help.
VincentP said:
You can remove the graphics card and use integrated graphics to reduce power.I've never heard of anyone proactively replacing a power supply. Good power supplies usually last longer than other components like motherboards or hard drives.
Replacing the whole computer every three years is probably not a bad strategy.
-
Reply to benfct
m
0
l
Reducing power means less on your electricity bill. Probably no difference to component life.
Three years is the standard warranty period on Dell servers and work stations.
I've seen more motherboards go than anything else.
Cheap power supplies can fail very quickly of course, but Dell don't use rubbish components.
Fans and hard drives have moving parts so these of course wear out.
Using a good quality power board can help prevent unexpected failures as well.
Three years is the standard warranty period on Dell servers and work stations.
I've seen more motherboards go than anything else.
Cheap power supplies can fail very quickly of course, but Dell don't use rubbish components.
Fans and hard drives have moving parts so these of course wear out.
Using a good quality power board can help prevent unexpected failures as well.
-
Reply to VincentP
m
0
l
Related resources
- SolvedOpinion 2 SSD in Raid 0 or Larger single drive Forum
- Solved1 SSD + 2 HD in Raid 0 and 2 HD in Raid 1 Forum
- SolvedCan RAID 0+1 be made with SSD's in 0 and an HD for the mirror? Forum
- SolvedSetting up a SSD system drive with RAID 1 mirrored HD's Forum
- Raid vs larger SSD? Forum
- SSD - larger drives vs. RAID 0. More chips = less reliability? Forum
- Do I need Intel Rapid Storage Technology? No raid, 1 SSD, 1 HD Forum
- Larger faster new ssd vs 3 raid 0 older ssds Forum
- Raid 1 upgrade to larger drives? Forum
- RAID 1 in 2 HD with a SSD boot disk Forum
- Adding Raid1 with a Larger Drive Forum
- RAID 1+0 Larger than 2TB Forum
- Stick with larger Raid 1 or go to Raid 5? Forum
- Upgrade RAID1 Disks with new larger disks Forum
- Upgrading RAID1 to larger drives (HELP, I'm stuck) Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Business Computing categories
!