I've been asked to build a server

[Martyuk39]

*Edit - now researching SAS!*

Any advice gratefully received.

10-15 users, running Office apps, Navision with SQL, and that's basically it. No Exchange or anything like that. Storage requirement under 100GB.

I think I can spec it myself once I make a few critical decisions.

Disks
SATA II v SCSI - is it worth my shelling out for SCSI disks? I can get a very nice SATA controller card, for instance the LSI LOGIC MegaRAID SATA 300, so I'm thinking of doing that.

I'm thinking of a pair of disks for system files, and a pair of disks for data. Is it worth getting WD Raptors, for either or both disk setups? It's a constant question on here I know. I've seen plenty of opinions, pictures and graphs, but don't know what it would mean in the real world.

Processor/Motherboard
I'm not sure what's going to be overkill here. Just to narrow it down a bit I was thinking of an Intel Dual Core 3060 or 3070 - they're LGA775 socket processors, and then an ASUS P5M2-M server motherboard - basically on the grounds that it was the only LGA775 board I could find that specifically stated support for the Dual Core Xeon 3000 series. I can't find much in the way of reviews of the board, apart from a couple of comments about oddly-placed board components.

Memory - just going to get 2x2GB of Crucial that matches the motherboard.

PSU - I've got my eye on a Corsair 620W - nobody seems to have a bad word for it. It's modular, powerful and quiet.

Chassis - I haven't made my mind up yet, apart from the fact it's got to be a tower. It's obviously got to have great cooling. I've thought of anything from an Antec P182, all the way up to a Silverstone Temjin TJ03. Saw the new Antec P190 with 2xPSU - overkill?

Thanks
Martin

 

[JackMDS]

Big mistake to build a business server.

The parts that you get are consumer parts, and a 24/7 business server that the health of the business depends on is the type of project that should be put at risk.

Dell and HP sell special computers built for this purpose.

 

[yinan]

Originally posted by: JackMDS
Big mistake to build a business server.

The parts that you get are consumer parts, and a 24/7 business server that the health of the business depends on is the type of project that should be put at risk.

Dell and HP sell special computers built for this purpose.

AGREE 100%

 

[Martyuk39]

OK fair enough. Changing the question then - for 10-15 users, file and print, SQL, maybe terminal services, what would be a decent spec in terms of:

1. processor
2. disk subsystem
3. memory

Thanks

 

[imipenem]

I built a dual Xeon (Irwindale CPUs) server about 2 - 3 years ago for our company (150 users). It serves as our domain controller and print server. I used a Supermicro board and an Antec RM enclosure. It's been running flawlessly and I saved about $800 on a identically configured Dell poweredge server...

 

[Martyuk39]

Well that's my feeling - I'm in England and I made up a spec costing around £2000 and I can't find anything under £2500 - £500 is $1000 these days!

However it's difficult to go against the perceived wisdom of people on here who say don't do it. Or put it another way if I have a problem down the line then somebody can say "told you so"

OK. Whether or not I build my own or go to Dell, here are some questions:

1. Given its relative cheapness, how much RAM?
2. Onboard SATA - no thanks. Onboard SCSI- still don't really fancy it

RAID Controller - with SATA disks, or SCSI, or SAS?

3. Processor - Dell configurator's coming up with Quad-core - surely overkill.?

Where are the bottlenecks going to be - 15 users, W2K2003, SQL, File and Print

 

[JackMDS]

This is a nice example, you took the right approach and you are lucky.

However, while $800 sounds a lot to humble enthusiasts it is nothing in the business world and it does not worthwhile to take the risk.

One big down, and the $800 can be wiped out big time.

Losing a Business server is a little more serious than losing one's WOW connection.

 

[Martyuk39]

I'm still in two minds. I used to buy from Gateway. Before Gateway made servers in the UK we used to cannabilise desktop systems - simply put in a RAID card and some disks, and never had a problem.

When we started buying servers (Gateway and Compaq Proliant in those days), on one I had to take out the RAID controller card every now and then and remount it. They claimed it was electrical interference in my warehouse. Hohum. I had about 3 disks fail, once having to shell out £1000 for a disk on the Compaq.

Reading about Dell, I don't want the integrated RAID, so they offer the Perc 5/i card. You google that and you get horror stories. OK so nobody's going to post and say how great their Dell Perc 5/i is performing, most people have got better things to do. But still I don't want one. So I might make my own server after all. My disk array with my LSI Logic card is no more likely to fail than Dell's.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Originally posted by: Martyuk39
Well that's my feeling - I'm in England and I made up a spec costing around £2000 and I can't find anything under £2500 - £500 is $1000 these days!

However it's difficult to go against the perceived wisdom of people on here who say don't do it. Or put it another way if I have a problem down the line then somebody can say "told you so"

OK. Whether or not I build my own or go to Dell, here are some questions:

1. Given its relative cheapness, how much RAM?
2. Onboard SATA - no thanks. Onboard SCSI- still don't really fancy it

RAID Controller - with SATA disks, or SCSI, or SAS?

3. Processor - Dell configurator's coming up with Quad-core - surely overkill.?

Where are the bottlenecks going to be - 15 users, W2K2003, SQL, File and Print

Is this your business? Why pinch pennies and put your reputation on the line unless you're the one paying for the more expensive hardware.

 

[Martyuk39]

It's not penny pinching. The 2 alternatives open to me are basically Dell and HP/Compaq. With Compaq I had a bad experience. I've never dealt with Dell servers before. However I have fixed numerous Dell desktop systems that people have come to me with, some under warranty, one brand new, because of the intransigence of Dell support. I think my disk sub system will be better than Dell's - it'll actually cost more. I've never had one that I've assembled fail on me.

Anyway, I want the point of this thread not to be self-build versus Dell or HP. What I'd like to know is, for the afore-mentioned 10-15 users, SQL, file/print etc, what spec of processor, how much memory and what kind of disk config - scsi/sata/sas I need

Dell and Intel tell me I need quad core - do I?

I'd have thought I need shedloads of RAM - the Dell configurator comes up with 512MB and leaves me to make up my own mind - that's why I'm here asking the question.

When I used to spec servers (I haven't for a while) it was pre-SATA and therefore SCSI versus IDE - no contest there. But now there does appear to be a choice. I'm assuming that onboard SATA/SCSI controllers are still to be avoided if possible. But will a SATA array with a decent controller be all right, or should I go for SAS? Or SCSI?

 

[SerpentRoyal]

If a PC works okay during the first few months, then it should hum along for many years. HP and DELL wouldn't last long if most of their products don't work as advertised. And they back up their products with a warranty.

If your rig fails during the first year, then you're the Village's Idiot. Do you think any end-user will know about your superior disk sub-system? Get the message?

Spend another 20 years in the real-world and you'll learn to protect you own a _ _.

 

[Martyuk39]

Here is the message - please please ignore the self-build v HP/Dell, OK?

What are the recommendations for:

1. processor
2. RAM
3. disk system

The Dell configurator is unbalanced - its default is a quad core Xeon processor, 512MB RAM and an 80GB SATA disk if you're lucky. That's ridiculous.

That's what I would like advice on, given the uses I have mentioned several times. I do not want advice on the merits/folly of self-build. Thanks

 

[Martyuk39]

Erm... SerpentRoyal. I assume you're trying to help but your edit is a tad offensive in tone.

For most of this thread, I have been asking not about the merits of self-build, because the consensus is that it is not wise. Fine. I'm not the one talking about it - you are.

That doesn't mean that the products on offer from Dell are great. It's just that particularly in the UK there is very little other choice. The Dell server systems I have researched have significant flaws. You'd think a RAID controller would report to you when a disk was on the verge of failure wouldn't you? Make a noise? Have a flashing LED? Appear in the Event Log? Dell's Perc controller doesn't. How much would it cost to put that feature in? A feature that has been present in all servers I've had anything to do with in the last 15 years. OK, so maybe Dell always use top-notch parts - disks that have a MTBF of a billion years. Yes, that must be it.

If not Dell, then HP - here I have to go through an authorised reseller. I've done that. First time they came back with 2 servers costing £9000 - about $18000. I said no way, second time they came back with 1 server costing $12000. I said no, and came on here. Thought about self-build, everyone says don't do it, so I won't.

I would like sensible recommendations on processor, disk system and memory, thanks.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Martyuk39
Erm... SerpentRoyal. I assume you're trying to help but your edit is a tad offensive in tone.

For most of this thread, I have been asking not about the merits of self-build, because the consensus is that it is not wise. Fine. I'm not the one talking about it - you are.

That doesn't mean that the products on offer from Dell are great. It's just that particularly in the UK there is very little other choice. The Dell server systems I have researched have significant flaws. You'd think a RAID controller would report to you when a disk was on the verge of failure wouldn't you? Make a noise? Have a flashing LED? Appear in the Event Log? Dell's Perc controller doesn't. How much would it cost to put that feature in? A feature that has been present in all servers I've had anything to do with in the last 15 years. OK, so maybe Dell always use top-notch parts - disks that have a MTBF of a billion years. Yes, that must be it.

If not Dell, then HP - here I have to go through an authorised reseller. I've done that. First time they came back with 2 servers costing £9000 - about $18000. I said no way, second time they came back with 1 server costing $12000. I said no, and came on here. Thought about self-build, everyone says don't do it, so I won't.

I would like sensible recommendations on processor, disk system and memory, thanks.

Here's a bump for you. I wouldn't completely discount building the machine yourself. You just need to make sure you get appropriate components. HP and Dell use the same parts that you can get also. I think that most of the posters problems here are for support issues. If you believe you have the skill to build a solid server, then go for it. That way you can pick the best, most appropriate components for your specific needs.

I can't give you any advice on exactly what to buy, but hopefully someone will come in with some solid specs for you.

 

[RebateMonger]

While they might exist, I'm not aware of any RAID controllers that issue predictions of drive failure. Many beep when a drive has failed or their monitoring software will issue an email or, at least, an event in the System Event Log. Remember that redundant RAID arrays are OK as long as you don't lose more than one drive at a time (or two drives for RAID 6 and some other configurations).

 

[Martyuk39]

Yes of course you're right, drive failure is what I should have said. I was thinking back to some Compaq Triflex architecture or something like that which claimed to predict such a thing. If it did work, it successfully predicted failure about a nanosecond before it failed on my server

 

[mxnerd]

If you are not running Exchange on the same server, I think 4G of RAM is probably enough for 10-15 users of SQL server. As long as the application is not badly written which uses tons of memory and not releasing it.

And avoid any non INTEL motherboards, I have enough bad experiences with them, unstable, require constant updates of BIOS, not compatible with some components, etc.

I don't think Quad core is overkill if you can / your company can afford it. Quad core processors are so cheap now if you can have them, end users will be much happier when they get faster response from server.

And of course if you can use SAS drive, use it. Why use a technology (SCSI) that is on its decline?

 

[Nothinman]

If you believe you have the skill to build a solid server, then go for it. That way you can pick the best, most appropriate components for your specific needs.

The hardware is only a small part of the equation, when you buy from HP or Dell you're mostly paying for QA and support so if you go off on your own then the onus of support falls to you. So when (not if) something fails you're the one that has to buy a replacement and get everything up and running again. If you're lucky it'll be something that won't interrupt service like a single drive but if it's not then you're screwed until you get it fixed.

 

[Martyuk39]

Thanks for all the replies. OK, Quad core, 4gb RAM.

What about SATA (on a good controller card) v SAS?

Yes, SAS is better obviously. But a lot more expensive. So how much would the end user notice?

By the way, not to beat around the bush, Dell's next day support sucks - I have had numerous instances of that. Maybe things are different in the UK - we generally don't have the threat of clash action lawsuits so people have to tolerate worse service. I've no confidence that 4 hour onsite response would be any better, just more expensive

And HP is out because of the fact I'd be tied to this reseller who's saying I need to spend $12000. And that's before software. Perhaps again it's different in the UK.

Anyway there's a UK company that's calling me this morning. In the UK they win service and reliability awards ahead of Dell, HP et al year after year. And they use the components I would use if I were doing it myself!

 

[mxnerd]

I'm not SCSI or SATA expert, but SAS is like SCSI, has more intelligence than SATA, it's about reliability. SATA do have native command queue capability, but SATA is more like IDE than like SCSI.

SAS & SCSI is more geared to multi-user environment, while SATA & IDE is not. SAS & SCSI is way more reliable than SATA & IDE in multi-tasking & multi-user environment and last a lot longer, especially you have multi-user accessing SQL database at the same time.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Martyuk39]

Thanks - I did see some benchmarking which suggested that SATA II drives with NCQ on a good controller card performed pretty well in a multi-user environment.

However benchmarks are not the best guide. I was wondering if anyone had actually done it in a small workgroup situation, and was satisfied, or would the purveying feeling always be "you know I wish I'd spent that extra money on the SAS drives" - it's a big hike in the cost.

*** The company I'm thinking of in the UK uses Intel chassis and motherboards. I'm sure Intel didn't get where they are today by making lousy servers. Does anybody have an opinion of Intel server components?

 

[Nothinman]

By the way, not to beat around the bush, Dell's next day support sucks - I have had numerous instances of that. Maybe things are different in the UK - we generally don't have the threat of clash action lawsuits so people have to tolerate worse service. I've no confidence that 4 hour onsite response would be any better, just more expensive

I'm not a fan of Dell at all, we had nothing but trouble with a number of their boxes at my last job. But HP was great in almost all cases and their hardware was more reliable so we had to use them less. But do you really think that your support will be better? What happens when something does at 3am and you have to replace it? Are you buying two of everything up front just in case?

However benchmarks are not the best guide. I was wondering if anyone had actually done it in a small workgroup situation, and was satisfied, or would the purveying feeling always be "you know I wish I'd spent that extra money on the SAS drives" - it's a big hike in the cost.

I can't speak for SATA vs SAS since I don't own any SCSI drives but in SCSI vs IDE SCSI always wins the latency race if you get a 10K or 15K RPM drive and that's what you need in a multiuser environment. And since SCSI drives are considered high-end they're usually a lot more reliable.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Martyuk39
Erm... SerpentRoyal. I assume you're trying to help but your edit is a tad offensive in tone.

For most of this thread, I have been asking not about the merits of self-build, because the consensus is that it is not wise. Fine. I'm not the one talking about it - you are.

That doesn't mean that the products on offer from Dell are great. It's just that particularly in the UK there is very little other choice. The Dell server systems I have researched have significant flaws. You'd think a RAID controller would report to you when a disk was on the verge of failure wouldn't you? Make a noise? Have a flashing LED? Appear in the Event Log? Dell's Perc controller doesn't. How much would it cost to put that feature in? A feature that has been present in all servers I've had anything to do with in the last 15 years. OK, so maybe Dell always use top-notch parts - disks that have a MTBF of a billion years. Yes, that must be it.

If not Dell, then HP - here I have to go through an authorised reseller. I've done that. First time they came back with 2 servers costing £9000 - about $18000. I said no way, second time they came back with 1 server costing $12000. I said no, and came on here. Thought about self-build, everyone says don't do it, so I won't.

I would like sensible recommendations on processor, disk system and memory, thanks.

My dell servers do...and they also flash their little screen, and say on them "Disk Failure Imminent". I have never had issues with writing tons of data to my Perc5's

Supermicro reps can be decent, they come on site and pick our gear up the next day, and it's usually turned around within a few days. This works fine for a lab, where we can have a few days downtime, or just move another server in. This wouldn't work if that was, say, our corporate mail server. Your mail server being down for 3 days could cost you thousands or even millions.

That said, in this example, just SQL and navision (assuming sql isn't hit really hard) I would go with a single dual core Xeon, 2 GB memory, and a RAID 1 SATA drive with 2 spare drives on hand. You can swap drives friday night and send one off site as a ghetto backup.

Realize that for a business server, your primary concern is uptime/reliability, then speed,

that means get a RAID disk setup, so a drive failure doesn't mean downtime
Get a backup plan in place, and follow that. The replacing drives on a raid 1 array works OK, but I don't consider that a true backup. Use an LTO drive
For most applications, memory is what makes or breaks the experience, not modern processor, so more memory versus faster proc means memory wins.
Don't get a desktop board/proc/memory, get server based components if you are building. That means Xeon processor, server mb, and buffered/ECC memory.

 

[mxnerd]

Here is an article I found about SAS, SCSI & SATA.

Comparing SCSI, SAS and SATA

SCSI & SATA reliability

If you are really concerned about cost, at least a RAID 1 setup is required.
And use a enterprise grade SATA drive.

Reliability is number 1, speed is number 2 for business.

The load on SQL server actually depends on how users use their application. They have to specify more criteria before submitting a query instead of "Give me a full list!", some education definitely required.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If you believe you have the skill to build a solid server, then go for it. That way you can pick the best, most appropriate components for your specific needs.

The hardware is only a small part of the equation, when you buy from HP or Dell you're mostly paying for QA and support so if you go off on your own then the onus of support falls to you. So when (not if) something fails you're the one that has to buy a replacement and get everything up and running again. If you're lucky it'll be something that won't interrupt service like a single drive but if it's not then you're screwed until you get it fixed.

I've used Dell's next day on site support many times, both for my laptop and my servers. The 2 times they have come out for the servers, they threw everything and the kitchen sink into the request, as they felt they couldn't isolate it down to a component after being on the phone for about 20 minutes with me. That meant MB, backplane, 2 procs, memory, pretty much everything. The tech showed up at the datacenter, I had pulled it out of the rack, they did their magic and were gone within about 2 hours.