jlee
Lifer
Oh come on. I work at a smallish place and could get by on one server. However it would be a tricked out R730xd 768GB RAM, 32 core VM monster.
You'd be better off running two lesser spec'd machines and setting up HA/DRS.
Oh come on. I work at a smallish place and could get by on one server. However it would be a tricked out R730xd 768GB RAM, 32 core VM monster.
Oh come on. I work at a smallish place and could get by on one server. However it would be a tricked out R730xd 768GB RAM, 32 core VM monster.
You'd be better off running two lesser spec'd machines
I have often wondered that. With servers costing more than twice as much as consumer level tech, for light use what is the real benefit over a single super server vs two cheapo desktops like OP bought with some sort of software RAID that rsyncs with the identical box every hour or whatever? I mean sure ECC RAM and PSU redundancy is great, but it seems for every bit of protection a real server can give you complete system redundancy would still be better. Especially because the clone server could be in the owner's basement or some satellite office, which then makes your setup fire proof.
I mean I get why companies that user servers to serve data externally go for real serves, but for an office file server isn't two better than one of anything?
I can understand ECC ram and such being more expensive and good idea to have but when it comes to the OEMs they do overcharge WAY too much. For example, go to Dell's website and build a server. The base price is actually really reasonable if you only want something with a 120GB drive and 1GB of ram and a Celeron(why is that even an option?!?). Add 4GB of ram and maybe bump up the cpu to a higher end(lol) Celeron, and suddenly it's practically double the price. For that price I can build a Supermicro based server with like 64GB of ECC ram and a Xeon processor and SSD for OS drive. Best part is, the parts like hard drives are standard so I can always buy more elsewhere and add them in. If I was owner of a company I'd rather build 2 or even 3 of the custom built Supermicro servers and build more redundancy into the system, than pay an arm and a leg just for the 4 hour support.
Some companies like Google actually have this right. Most of their gear is actually consumer grade and/or custom. It's node based, if a node goes down it's not a big deal. Fix it and put it back in service. Nobody even notices.
If I was a company owner I rather have IT staff that is physically building and fixing stuff, than spending hours on the phone with Dell support trying to convince some guy in India that the hard drive really is dead and that a new one is needed, then having to deal with the fact that they sent the wrong part etc.
With custom stuff you'd be able to use standard hard drive (using that as an example but could be ram or anything else) and have spares or easily be able to get new parts. 3 years down the line you're not dead in the water either. With OEM stuff it's all proprietary and once the warranty runs out you're on your own because good luck finding parts. You can go through ebay but do you really want to trust that.
Then there's the whole liability thing, which I find is completely retarded and babyish, but one of the main reasons companies do go with OEMs is so they can put the blame on someone else when something goes wrong. Stop the stupid babyish blame game and just setup something that works for a decent price and when it does break deal with it like an adult and move on.
"server hardware is a ripoff" - says naive individuals until their critical business functions are in the crapper. Then they find someone to cry to and try to get it repaired cheaply too.
You can have it good, fast, or cheap...but you can only pick 2.
a well thought out post, who would've thunk it.
@XavierMace, that applies to TPM's like SMS as well. In most cases they'll provide adequate support for a comparatively reasonable price(largely cheaper than other vendors). But there's a handful of cases in the last few years where I've had to pick up the pieces after them. It's worth noting that these incidents weren't on x86 systems.
Something I haven't seen mentioned here (Haven't looked too close) is a happy medium. Being an IT consultant myself, I often buy servers for clients. The thing we do is buy the HP server base model we need, and buy the parts separately. We get the server itself from Ingram Micro for much less than HP sells it for, and we buy HP brand parts like drives, ram, second CPU, second PS from other sites and install them ourselves. They are still covered under warranty, and we save a ton of money over building up a system through HP direct. Of course you need to be a re-seller to do this, but just a thought.
I would never say they're flawless. But in my experience they are consistently better than Dell/HP direct and we deal with them a LOT.
xSauronx: x86 vendors like Dell/HP/IBM(now Lenovo for x86) won't care. If your box is on maintenance or warranty, and the parts that need replacing are valid part numbers for the box(check their sites for support parts listing), then they'll be ok with it. HP uses "spare" part numbers to identify valid parts, IBM/Lenovo use FRU or CRU numbers. I don't know what Dell uses...almost never touch a Dell..
What you're talking about won't happen until you hit enterprise type gear. Then companies start to get picky about what's in the box.
Not sure why i'm sharing all the secrets, but here it is, for HP at least.
I have often wondered that. With servers costing more than twice as much as consumer level tech, for light use what is the real benefit over a single super server vs two cheapo desktops like OP bought with some sort of software RAID that rsyncs with the identical box every hour or whatever? I mean sure ECC RAM and PSU redundancy is great, but it seems for every bit of protection a real server can give you complete system redundancy would still be better. Especially because the clone server could be in the owner's basement or some satellite office, which then makes your setup fire proof.
I mean I get why companies that user servers to serve data externally go for real serves, but for an office file server isn't two better than one of anything?
You'd be better off running two lesser spec'd machines and setting up HA/DRS.
This would also require the purchase of vcenter which no small office is going to do.