Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Server Build

Tags:
  • Servers
  • Desktops
  • Workstations
  • Business Computing
  • Build
Last response: in Business Computing
Share
October 7, 2013 9:28:08 AM

So I've built a number of desktops now, but this will be my first server. I work for a small business with 30 employees and 20 workstations.

The server is used to host a few server side applications (Quickbooks server, UPS Worldship Server, Domain Controller, Active Directory, et al) and as a file server.

I put this together from Newegg but have some reservations about it, let me know what you think.

Intel Xeon E5-2629
ASUS P9X790-E (I like the 6x 6gb/s SATA ports)
2 - WD VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX - 600GB for the OS - Raid 1
4 - WD RE WD200MFYYZ 2TB - RAID 10 - File Server
Thermaltate SP-750PCBUS
2 - Kingtons 16GB 240-PIN DDR3 SDRAM 1600 ECC
Sapphire Radeon HD 5450 1GB - PCIe 2.1 x16

Case suggestions are encouraged, as I want something very plain for a corporate environment but can still hold 6 hdds.

To make this more clear, I'm asking what people think of the build and if there is anything that I overlooked being my first server build.

Thanks,

John

More about : server build

October 7, 2013 9:40:32 AM

Trash it. Buy a Dell, HP, or IBM server. Get their warranty, etc. Plus your hard drives are crap you picked out for server work.

Go with a brand name server for their warranty. If you hand build your own server, you will regret it.

You will definitely want to go with Server 2012 Hyper-V or ESXi if you're a VMware shop since you're running so many different roles.
October 7, 2013 9:45:38 AM

riser said:
Trash it. Buy a Dell, HP, or IBM server. Get their warranty, etc. Plus your hard drives are crap you picked out for server work.

Go with a brand name server for their warranty. If you hand build your own server, you will regret it.

You will definitely want to go with Server 2012 Hyper-V or ESXi if you're a VMware shop since you're running so many different roles.


I wouldn't mind getting another Dell. We are running on a PowerEdge 1800, which has run for the last 6+ years and only been down maybe a week total, but only because of hard drive failure).

Related resources
October 7, 2013 1:16:50 PM

I'm gonna echo what Riser has said here. Building your own server may give you a little advantage on the cost, but it falls 100% on your shoulders to ensure that every single component is completely compatible, ideal performance and reliability, and that if something does go wrong it's up to you to solve. For a business-critical server you should probably go with a pre-built system from Dell, HP, etc. I prefer the HP ProLiant servers personally, I just prefer their options and quality above the Dells that I have worked with.

With that number of concurrent users and a pretty good list of services you are wanting to run on your server, I'd definitely recommend looking into virtualization. On the physical-side, I'd say it would be best to invest in a server capable of running dual processors. You might want to purchase something with dual-processors (minimum quad-core each) to begin with for the headroom to grow, but at the least, purchase a six-core processor now, with the capabilities of adding a second processor in the future if you need some additional performance to grow.

Mixing your storage solution and your application server can sometimes be the best solution for cost and consolidation, but sometimes it might be worth it to split them apart. For example, lets say you have your main server (which will be running your virtual machines for domain controller, application servers, etc.) which could benefit from some very fast set of hard drives, but doesn't necessarily need a huge amount of space. You could go with a RAID 10 array of four 15K SAS drives or even small capacity but incredibly fast SSDs. Then for your storage server you could set up a completely separate device (such as a pre-built NAS or just a very basic server) and utilize cheaper and slower high capacity SATA hard drives.

It's not always the case, but for one customer that we are researching server solutions for (in a similar situation to yours it seems) we were able to save enough on the main application server by going with lower capacity SAS drives to actually pay for a great portion of a separate NAS device utilizing the cheaper high-capacity SATA drives. They get the best of both worlds for almost the same cost as doing it all in one and having to sacrifice either speed or capacity.
October 7, 2013 2:56:16 PM

If you have rackmount capabilites, I'd probably recommend looking into the DL360p G8 series of servers to fit your needs with a 1U form factor, or a 380p G8 for a 2U form factor with a little more room to expand.

These series of servers support additional features like a built-in P420i SmartArray RAID controller with onboard cache for better throughput and reliability than the onboard software RAID of the DL160 lines (the link you posted didn't specify many details on the actual server.) This is also important if you decide to use ESXi instead of Windows for your physical host as no software RAID solutions are supported by ESXi for driver compatibility, so you'd have to utilize the P420 RAID controller, either included with the base server or as an additional PCI-Express controller card.

As for the storage server, I can't personally give you much information or suggestions on the Buffalo TeraStation as I've never used it so can't really speak for it's quality, performance, etc. In the case of the server that we were looking at for our customers, we were suggesting something like a DL320e G8 or DL360e G8 server running Windows Server 2012. The reason for this, although it is more expensive, is because of reliability and scalability. These servers run standardized server-class hardware which means if we have a power supply go out, or a stick of RAM go bad, we can swap it with compatible hardware. Finding a good replacement PSU for that Buffalo TeraStation would be a more difficult situation. The other thing here was compatibility. Software, memory, hard drives, etc. that is compatible with their primary servers (the DL380p G8 servers) would be pretty much all identical and compatible with their DL360e server. It is also capable of running the full Windows Server 2012 so they can run virtual environments for their storage if needed, or even perform other tasks with that server if necessary.

In the end it costs more to do it this way. There are other solutions, such as the pre-built system like you linked. The only pre-built NAS devices I've worked with though are Synology units so I may not be much help there!
October 8, 2013 6:32:31 AM

I'm not all that sure about this new hardware but I'm going to mention it since you are the exact target for this platform.

Microsoft has been pushing "CIB" - Cluster In a Box.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/jj5424...

These are white box solutions made from the same company who does all the metal bending for all HP/IBM/Dell/Etc. The device operates as a mini-SAN (24 TB) but running Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V on the controllers. With the 2 controllers you can have a 2 node Hyper-V cluster to run your VMs. Your Disk is local and highly available to your cluster. You have redundant everything in case of a hardware/software failure.

The cost is about $20,000 but you have a long term solution, with clusters, and a SAN with 24TB storage. Later on, you can convert the device to act only as a SAN if your environment grows larger.

Small business is the target for this device. For $20,000, you have everything you need except for a full DR site which most enterprises struggle with. Couple that with Windows Azure and you can have your 3rd party DR site for low cost if desired.

I saw the tech in action last week. Microsoft has barely announced it. I was one of the select few to get to sit down to watch the presentation on the tech and give feedback. But a one time cost of $20k to have everything, no requirement to buy new hardware for long time.. it's worth the money if the company can afford it.
October 8, 2013 7:12:03 AM

I've heard of and looked at the Cluster In a Box solution from Microsoft and I'm very interested in it. However, I've had a very difficult time of actually finding one of these solutions available for sale and readily supported. So far the closest I have found is the Dell PowerEdge VRTX which is basically combines up to four blade servers with a SAN unit in the same 5U chassis. If you've got the funds and are searching for a high availability solution, this is definitely something to consider. Going with a SAN is a whole new ballpark, and just remember that cost per GB in SAN storage is always much more expensive than cost per GB of storage in a normal storage server or NAS.
October 9, 2013 5:59:42 AM

They're new and not easy to find currently. Microsoft is leading the way in selling them as solutions for very small companies, generally less than 10 servers.
!