Please critique this setup

[scauffiel]

I'm currently looking to replace our two aging horror shows that we lovingly call servers with a couple of new boxes. I want these to last at least three years before needing to be upgraded. There is not a lot of traffic, nor much work being done by our servers yet - but I want to be ready for anything that comes up in the future. I'll be running Windows 2003 Server along with Exchange 2000 and SQL Server; not to mention a variety of Veritas products for backup.

Pentium Xeon 2.8 Ghz CPU
1 GB DDR RAM
10/100/1000 NIC
Two 40 GB 7200rpm Mirrored Primary Drives using RAID1; each on a separate controller
Three 80 GB 7200rpm drives in Raid5 config
Tandberg SLR100 Tape Backup
LiteON LDW-400D : DVD + & - RW (Or another dual format DVD Burner)
Built in video and sound is fine, otherwise not worried about it; AGP video if must, no soundcard needed.

I'm not sure about dual CPU's however. From what I understand, you have to install Windows with the duallies in order to benefit from them. If that is the case, then should I just start with them? Like I said, we're just starting to ramp up our use of the network and I want to be 'set' for a while. Any thoughts are appreciated...

Steve

 

[Soybomb]

I don't know what your budget is, but I'd consider scsi drives if possible.......if not for the added speed, the added life.

I do believe you are correct though, windows will need to be reinstalled to use multiple cpus. Been a long time since I've done windows and multiple cpus though

 

[scauffiel]

Yeah, I've heard that about SCSI's but to be honest, I've seen IDE drives run reliably for years (in the Navy) - I'm just not sure I can justify the cost (to myself) when looking at the price difference. What's an 80gig IDE cost? $75?? 80gig SCSI? Aieeeeee! At least twice the price.

I dunno.

 

[jbritt1234]

What is your budget? Couldn't even start to really suggest anything till I know.

Dual Proc's would probably be a good idea since it will be running Exchange and SQL at the same time...

IDE HDD's are reliable but they still aren't as fast as SCSI. They are getting better, but still not up to the job for a good server.

 

[scauffiel]

I'm hoping to stick to around $5K for the two machines. Extra for the tape drive and software. I just don't want to hammer the dogsh|t out of my boss about it. We just got rid of some bad eggs around here that have basically, well, "feathered their nest" with past computer money. I don't want to remind him of that too much...

As for the "speed" issue - I'll probably be sticking with IDE's simply because of the aforementioned cost factor. I'm not real concerned with being super fast, yet. 7200rpm drives will be fine; heck we're running 5400 drives right now and nobody complains.

Much.

S.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

A really good idea is not to have the tape backup on the server box. Have it on another machine (can't tell whether you budgeted for an internal or external solution). It does mean that your backup software will be more expensive - as no doubt you'll need the "network" version - but tape drives do still occasionally knacker their hosts, so can you afford the down-time?

Also, if you have the room (you should if you get a full size case) consider getting HD coolers. They'll make your setup louder - but since heat is the major cause of premature HD failure...

Good luck,

Andy

 

[scauffiel]

Right, good idea on both counts. I was planning on some heavy duty cooling, especially running five drives in the main box (I'm still unsure if I need five in the secondary) along with two Xeon's. Should I be looking at pullout units? That would make it easier in case one of them goes down....

S.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: scauffiel
Right, good idea on both counts. I was planning on some heavy duty cooling, especially running five drives in the main box (I'm still unsure if I need five in the secondary) along with two Xeon's. Should I be looking at pullout units? That would make it easier in case one of them goes down....

S.

You said it. You can pick up some heavy duty Lian-Li caddies that are designed for 15k SCSI drives. That way you get max cooling and can safely exchange if you switch to SCSI at a later date.

For the reasons stated previously, I think dual Xeons are a good move.

One final point - making both systems identical would be beneficial if you could afford it. It means if one goes done, or things are reorganised for whatever reason - it's that much easier to reorganise.

However, if budget constraints kick in - stick with the dual cpu's, networked tape drive and HD coolers. These seem to be the killer points IMHO.

Good luck,

Andy

 

[Oaf357]

Kinda curious why you need a DVD burner on a server.

But, I would highly recommend having the utmost amount of redundancy when using IDE drives.

Also, when building servers there is one key thing to remember... BURN IN TIME!

 

[lobadobadingdong]

well if you're building them yourself I'd go with an athlon mp setup if your wanting to go cheaper, they run very well with sql server, and are shoo wins for exchange services. otherwise I'd suggest going with a Dell setup of some kind for the simple reason of 4hr response times, that will impress anyones boss if they've never heard of it.

you can get 2 600sc's with 3.06 p4's, 4 drive 80GB IDE raid 5 array, 20/40DLT tabe drive, g-bit nic, 1GB ddr, 2003 w/5 client, sql and exchange for $7100 each....will you be running sql and exchange on the same box or sql on one and exchange on the other? if so then one box would be like $5800 and the other $6000 with 3yr 4hr response services for minimal down time. If you don't have a really heavy work load on the servers(running several programs at once) the dual's probably isn't even necissary.(if running sql on one and exchange on the other)

and I don't really even like dell desktops (I do a lot of field work for Dell through Unisys and Banctec) but their support on thier servers is top notch compared to anyone else. The way I look at though the prices are cheaper than what you're looking into anyway after the costs of exchange and sql. +plus+ less down time if something fries on you(and in 3 years between 2 systems you're bound to have something go down nomater what system you buy/build)

edit: yes why do you want a dvd burner on a server? that kind of stuff should be on someones desktop.

 

[scauffiel]

Well, the reason for the DVD Burner is threefold: 1) more and more programs are coming on DVD's; b) It doubles as a CD Burner for small backups; and 3) It's a DVD Burner for larger backups in case the tape backup goes down for some reason. I just figgered that if I'm going to get a CD Rom/Burner for, what $75? - That I might as well go the extra mile (and $100ish) and get a DVD Burner.

lobadobadingdong (man, I have zero idea how to pronounce that) I thought about using Dell stuff, but pricing is ridiculous. I'd probably look into running SQL and Exchange on the same box, but it won't be the DC. As for redundancy, depending on the items used, I'd probably grab spares of things that could sh|t the bed. Controller cards, hard drive, NIC; that sort of thing, making it easier to swap out inside four hours if need be. I've already got the software, just need a couple more client licenses; and as already noted I'd run dual CPU's just in case.

Thanks for the ideas guys,
S.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

A really good idea is not to have the tape backup on the server box. Have it on another machine (can't tell whether you budgeted for an internal or external solution). It does mean that your backup software will be more expensive - as no doubt you'll need the "network" version - but tape drives do still occasionally knacker their hosts, so can you afford the down-time?

Also, if you have the room (you should if you get a full size case) consider getting HD coolers. They'll make your setup louder - but since heat is the major cause of premature HD failure...

Good luck,

Andy

Then you introduce around 200GB of network traffic everytime you want to run a full backup, require a second server, and greatly increase the backup window. Bad idea. I have years of experience w tape drives/backups and I have never had a drive bring a server down.

Also, depending on your frequency of backups and whether someone is around to switch tapes, I would consider DLTIV or SDLT. DLTIV tapes are dirt cheap these days.

 

[Fencer128]

Then you introduce around 200GB of network traffic everytime you want to run a full backup, require a second server, and greatly increase the backup window. Bad idea.

I was assuming that he had the bandwidth available. If your servers are on a gigabit backbone this would also be advantagous.

I have years of experience w tape drives/backups and I have never had a drive bring a server down.

I've seen it twice (admittedly old drvies, and not my own work you understand!). On one of them it appeared that the motor had developed a fault, drawn too much current and nuked the PSU (the way we fixed it was to replace the tape drive and the computer PSU). I don't know about the other. Maybe this doesn't apply here, but in both instances, if the tape drive had been on another server it obviously wouldn't have affected the critical servers. Secondly, if the tape drive had been a SCSI external solution on another server - it could have been unplugged and moved to a different machine temporarily if only the machine was at fault (and you'd had the foresight to get a couple of SCSI cards already into a few other machines).

Also, depending on your frequency of backups and whether someone is around to switch tapes, I would consider DLTIV or SDLT. DLTIV tapes are dirt cheap these days.

I agree too, though I've heard that DDS tapes can be moe relaible if reused alot? Can you help me confirm that?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[scauffiel]

Then you introduce around 200GB of network traffic everytime you want to run a full backup, require a second server, and greatly increase the backup window. Bad idea. I have years of experience w tape drives/backups and I have never had a drive bring a server down.

Well, we don't have anywhere near 200GB worth of data total (yet), but I get your point. We're already going to be running a second server and if I'm backing up at 0100 in the morning, I'm not too concerned with the window; but it's something else to think about.

The tape drive I'm considering is the one found here: http://www.inostor.com/products_slr_100.htm - it got pretty high marks over at Tom's, and it's "fairly" cheap at $1200ish. Does that look pretty good?

S.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: scauffiel

The tape drive I'm considering is the one found here: http://www.inostor.com/products_slr_100.htm - it got pretty high marks over at Tom's, and it's "fairly" cheap at $1200ish. Does that look pretty good?

I remember an article on Tom's about 4 or 5 months ago about tape drive. Completely sucked. More than half the drives they reviewed I would throw out the door before the review even started. I just dug around on Ebay and you can get a used DLT 7K drive for around $300-500.