My first server spec

anything I don't mind

anything I don't mind

anything I don't mind

Permabanned
Joined
28 Dec 2009
Posts
13,052
Location
london
I have been asked by my boss to spec a server upgrade for where I work. This is my first time specing server hardware. I just want to see what you think about it.

Basically at the moment there is six physical hp servers with different functions and we want to virtualise the servers.

So my hardware proposal is:

2x HP ProLiant DL385 G7 Base - Opteron 6238 2.6 GHz Part Number: 654856-421
1x HP StorageWorks Modular Smart Array P2000 3.5-in Drive Bay Chassis - Part Number: AP838A
1x HP StorageWorks iSCSI Controller (4x1gbps) Part Number: BK829A
6x AP860A-PR1 HP P2000 600GB 6G SAS 15K rpm LFF (3.5-inch) Dual Port Enterprise HDDs (3TB raid 5)
2x ESW-540-24-K9 CIsco ESW 24-Port Gigabit Switch or 2x WS-C3750X-24T-L Cisco Catalyst 3750X-24T-L

What do you think about that and which switches do you think?

I priced fiber channel and it was not that much more expensive. But I went with gigabit switches instead.
 
You'll probably want a 'redundant' SAN if you are running VMs and several servers. Might be worth looking at a BK830A which is a P2000 G3 with dual controllers and PSUs.
 
This network is less important than the other network which is already virtualised. They used two storage controllers in the other p2000 san. 2x 1gigabit port each. I could look for a storage controller with the same set up so we have two storage controllers. The MSA I spec has dual psu. BK830A is too higher spec for the set up, i think. They have two networks, this network is the less important one and they are less inclined to spend more money on this one than the other one.
 
Yeah the old HP MSA's had 2 gig ports per controller, they've upgraded them to 4 now. If one controller is suitable for your needs then I guess it should be fine!

The old SANs are 2012i or 2312i (2312 being the newer of the two).
 
can you run all your servers on one of theose box's?

if not you need to get 3 not 2... or beef them up so they can run all the servers.. (it might just be a case of more ram)

thats my opinion anyway...
 
Interesting that he's gone the Amd Route...I'd personally reccommend the DL380 with a Xeon cpu over AMD CPU's any day of the week.
 
Depends on the work load really. Lots of cores is obviously where AMD pulls ahead but the Xeon's are generally more powerful overall (and more so in dual CPU systems)
 
True.....I just find so many of my clients dont even condsider the AMD platform in Virtual enviroments over Intel....general consensus for me is Intel performance just wins hands down and in areas where you want to fit as many VM's into one box as possible, then the performance benefits should outway the slower AMD's.

Each to their own though :)
 
francky said:
True.....I just find so many of my clients dont even condsider the AMD platform in Virtual enviroments over Intel....general consensus for me is Intel performance just wins hands down and in areas where you want to fit as many VM's into one box as possible, then the performance benefits should outway the slower AMD's.

Each to their own though :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom