I have this problem with maintaining my company's server room. No two machines are the same, they all lack processing power and disk space, not to mention VERY FREQUENT crashes, primarily performed by the three SQL servers.
List of servers:
- mail server (exchange)
- 3x SQL server
- proxy server
- terminal server
- file server
I was thinking maybe it was time we upgraded a little so that at least we would have all the same machines and some sort of SAN to minimize disk space lost due to partitioning. It would be nice (but not necessary) if the new servers could be fitted into a rack and / or have some sort of remote management capability.
I'm not really that good at hardware to be able to tell which server components fit together best (I'm just a maint grunt), so I would really appreciate your feedback on the matter so that I can make as good a proposal as possible to my bosses.
My proposed configuration would be:
8x RackSaver RS-1164-OP Opteron servers
16x Maxtor Atlas 10K IV 36,7 GB
2x Adaptec DuraStor 6320SS (SCSI interface) or 7320SS (fibre channel interface)
10x Maxtor Atlax 10K IV 146,8 GB
I chose opterons since the tests show this might be a good platform for SQL databases. Also the Newisys platform seems to probide a decent remote management set of features.
I chose Atlas disks since most of the reviews consider them as fine examples of SCSI devices.
The first batch of disks are system disks for servers in RAID 1. I'd take smaller ones, but it seems this disk model is not available in smaller capacities.
The DuraStors would be used as primary storage for all of these servers. Filled initially with only 5 disks each they would allow plenty of expansion space if need be in the future. The second batch of disks would be divided into two groups of 5 disks each (4 disks in RAID 5 + 1 hot spare). This is the most problematic part since I know the least about it. How suitable are DuraStors (or some other similar devices) for multiple SQL server access. If you remember, we have 3 SQL servers + Exchange server and I only chose two DuraStor cases. I did this partly because only two of these servers are actually under heavy load and two are not. DuraStor is an expensive product and I don't think adding more would be benefitial to my boss approving the proposal.
What do you think? Should I go with this, am I shooting in the wrong direction? How about classic towers? Maybe different disks, intel processors?
List of servers:
- mail server (exchange)
- 3x SQL server
- proxy server
- terminal server
- file server
I was thinking maybe it was time we upgraded a little so that at least we would have all the same machines and some sort of SAN to minimize disk space lost due to partitioning. It would be nice (but not necessary) if the new servers could be fitted into a rack and / or have some sort of remote management capability.
I'm not really that good at hardware to be able to tell which server components fit together best (I'm just a maint grunt), so I would really appreciate your feedback on the matter so that I can make as good a proposal as possible to my bosses.
My proposed configuration would be:
8x RackSaver RS-1164-OP Opteron servers
16x Maxtor Atlas 10K IV 36,7 GB
2x Adaptec DuraStor 6320SS (SCSI interface) or 7320SS (fibre channel interface)
10x Maxtor Atlax 10K IV 146,8 GB
I chose opterons since the tests show this might be a good platform for SQL databases. Also the Newisys platform seems to probide a decent remote management set of features.
I chose Atlas disks since most of the reviews consider them as fine examples of SCSI devices.
The first batch of disks are system disks for servers in RAID 1. I'd take smaller ones, but it seems this disk model is not available in smaller capacities.
The DuraStors would be used as primary storage for all of these servers. Filled initially with only 5 disks each they would allow plenty of expansion space if need be in the future. The second batch of disks would be divided into two groups of 5 disks each (4 disks in RAID 5 + 1 hot spare). This is the most problematic part since I know the least about it. How suitable are DuraStors (or some other similar devices) for multiple SQL server access. If you remember, we have 3 SQL servers + Exchange server and I only chose two DuraStor cases. I did this partly because only two of these servers are actually under heavy load and two are not. DuraStor is an expensive product and I don't think adding more would be benefitial to my boss approving the proposal.
What do you think? Should I go with this, am I shooting in the wrong direction? How about classic towers? Maybe different disks, intel processors?
Facebook
Twitter