Need a server spec

ace2109 · 4 May 2009 at 22:25

Hi Guys,
I need a spec for a good server. It needs to have a good amount of storage and raid backup is a must. I should also be able to easilty add extra hard drives as i need them. Large data files will be transferred back and fourth over the network connection so it will probably need to have 2 network cards to allow multiple connections to a switch.

I was thinking of a dell server with server attached storage, but not sure what i should be looking for.

Another thing i should mention is that this will all need to fit inside a rack.

Hope you guys can help
ace

iaind · 4 May 2009 at 22:52

What's it actually going to be used for?

ace2109 · 4 May 2009 at 22:58

File storage, Backing up large files, email and a domain controller in the not to distant future.

iaind · 4 May 2009 at 22:59

How many users/how much storage?

ace2109 · 4 May 2009 at 23:50

Should have really mentioned that lol,

To start about 5TB all in a raid array possibly raid 5 but open to suggestions. There will be around 10 users to start with but this will be increasing in the next 18 - 24months.

iaind · 5 May 2009 at 07:51

Blimey, 5Tb for 10 users!?

Take a look at the HP DL180 G5. The base spec (1 Quad core Xeon w/2gb RAM) is more than enough for a file server/DC and takes 12 SATA/SAS drives. I'd be inclined to have 2 drives (possibly 73gb SAS drives) in a mirror for the OS and the rest as a storage array. 10 1tb disks in a RAID10 would give you your 5Tb and the best IO performance, albeit at the higher cost per gb. RAID5 should be fine, although I'd be inclined to have a hot spare too just in case one drive fails.

I notice in your original post that you referred to RAID as a backup - RAID is meant for resilience rather than backup/recovery as it wont protect anything like corruption, viruses, fire, theft etc. How you'd go about backing up 5tb of data and taking it offsite is a bit of a challenge really!

mikeh501 · 5 May 2009 at 13:40

Dell PE1950III
2xQuadCore Xeon5440
8gb+ RAM
2 x 73GB SAS 15k
SAS 6i/R + PERC6E SAS RAID

Dell MD1000
14 x 450GB SAS 15K
(RAID 10)

All told approx £8k.

Throw on ESXi and add your hosts, and you should be golden. More than likely its overkill for what you need but will give substantial headroom for growth in terms of hosts.

Just to answer your exact Q's...
"I should also be able to easilty add extra hard drives as i need them."

Dont bother, get a DAS already fully populated with disks. If you run out of space get another DAS. If you think your setup is going to grow by a massive amount, then maybe go for a SAN as DAS by its very nature is going to limit you.

"Large data files will be transferred back and fourth over the network connection so it will probably need to have 2 network cards to allow multiple connections to a switch."

Any Dell box will really eat this up to be honest. Your going to need a decent switch for what you intend too.

"I was thinking of a dell server with server attached storage, but not sure what i should be looking for."

Dell is OK, and as for DAS versus SAN its simply a matter of intended use and what you expect it to grow to over the time horizon of hardware replacement (3-5yrs typically)

"Another thing i should mention is that this will all need to fit inside a rack."

The above does.

iaind · 5 May 2009 at 16:09

Can anyone say overspecification? :eek:

daz · 5 May 2009 at 16:46

mikeh501 said:
Dell PE1950III
2xQuadCore Xeon5440
8gb+ RAM
2 x 73GB SAS 15k
SAS 6i/R + PERC6E SAS RAID

Dell MD1000
14 x 450GB SAS 15K
(RAID 10)

All told approx £8k.

Throw on ESXi and add your hosts, and you should be golden. More than likely its overkill for what you need but will give substantial headroom for growth in terms of hosts.

Just to answer your exact Q's...
"I should also be able to easilty add extra hard drives as i need them."

Dont bother, get a DAS already fully populated with disks. If you run out of space get another DAS. If you think your setup is going to grow by a massive amount, then maybe go for a SAN as DAS by its very nature is going to limit you.

"Large data files will be transferred back and fourth over the network connection so it will probably need to have 2 network cards to allow multiple connections to a switch."

Any Dell box will really eat this up to be honest. Your going to need a decent switch for what you intend too.

"I was thinking of a dell server with server attached storage, but not sure what i should be looking for."

Dell is OK, and as for DAS versus SAN its simply a matter of intended use and what you expect it to grow to over the time horizon of hardware replacement (3-5yrs typically)

"Another thing i should mention is that this will all need to fit inside a rack."

The above does.

Ridiculous spec for a file server for 10 users.

I think a single quad core Dell 2950 (or the new R710) with 6-8 drives, RAID5 would be fine. You're overcomplicating things somewhat by introducing the MD1000.

iaind · 5 May 2009 at 16:49

I think even those are a bit of overkill - the HP DL180 is a really nice entry level box (single socket) with buckets of cheap storage, exactly what the doctor ordered.

8Gb RAM, 15k drives and 8 CPUs is completely mental for what is effectively a NAS with a DC

mikeh501 · 5 May 2009 at 18:52

Well given the limited info the OP has I dont think it overkill at all. Im also making some assumptions of my own here.

Im assuming:

* Its this company's first server
* They are going to be growing like most companies and their needs are probably understated in terms of extra services (like mail, database etc in future)

So based upon those assumptions and the requirement from the OP of 5tb of storage I think its exactly whats needed. In addition i'm throwing in ESXi as a feature of the spec for quick easy future growth potential and you've gota winner. Of that spec only 2k is the 1950 chassis with the remainder being the storage. If the storage was 2tb then i'd go for a 2950 or something, but 5tb of storage with any kind of decent performance and resiliency requires more spindles and your just not going to get that in a 2950 chassis.... How exactly are you getting 5tb in a 2950 btw???? And please dont say 1tb disks lol

Also when speccing servers I never ever spec them to be upgraded later. Of the 100-200 servers we've got through as a business over the last 7-8 years we have never upgraded a single one (apart from disks on ocassion.) Its normal for the cost of replacement and the cost of downtime/upgrade that its simpler and more cost effective to put in a new box and use the old one for something less important. This is in a software development company by the way.

Burnsy2023 · 5 May 2009 at 19:15

I'd go base spec for DC/NAS and then get another server if the requirements change. Investing in such a high spec sever for requirements not yet even thought of seems a waste.

iaind · 5 May 2009 at 19:33

I completely agree that you should allow room for expansion, but the DL180 I previously suggested would still do that - a single quad core CPU and an upgrade to 8gb of RAM in the future would be perfectly sufficient to start chucking Exchange/SQL on etc.

We're talking 10 users here, maximum - albeit with a bit of a data hunger.I've got 3 servers of that sort of spec serving well over 100 users with all sorts of services and barely ticking over.

If it was my money I'd get a NAS such as a thecus and a pretty basic server for the DC. Although I'd be inclined to look at SBS for the added benefit of easy administration, exchange etc.

I wouldnt want to be spending much more than 2k for that many users

iaind · 5 May 2009 at 19:34

Oh and SATA disks will be perfectly sufficient too, we're talking high capacity low IO here - exactly what SATA is good for in this case. SAS drives would be a big waste of money and energy

daz · 5 May 2009 at 19:54

mikeh501 said:
How exactly are you getting 5tb in a 2950 btw???? And please dont say 1tb disks lol

What's funny? He's apparently moving large files around - not lots of little file accesses. SATA versus SAS at sustained transfer rate there's not much in it.

mikeh501 said:
Dell PE1950III
2xQuadCore Xeon5440
8gb+ RAM
2 x 73GB SAS 15k
SAS 6i/R + PERC6E SAS RAID

Dell MD1000
14 x 450GB SAS 15K
(RAID 10)

All told approx £8k.

You can get a 24 bay Supermicro NAS with 24 drives for less than half that price... stick ZFS and Solaris/OpenSolaris on there and it's a very robust solution as fileservers go.

mikeh501 · 5 May 2009 at 19:56

iaind said:
I completely agree that you should allow room for expansion, but the DL180 I previously suggested would still do that - a single quad core CPU and an upgrade to 8gb of RAM in the future would be perfectly sufficient to start chucking Exchange/SQL on etc.

We're talking 10 users here, maximum - albeit with a bit of a data hunger.I've got 3 servers of that sort of spec serving well over 100 users with all sorts of services and barely ticking over.

If it was my money I'd get a NAS such as a thecus and a pretty basic server for the DC. Although I'd be inclined to look at SBS for the added benefit of easy administration, exchange etc.

I wouldnt want to be spending much more than 2k for that many users

Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion and given the lack of info it makes no difference. I'm just saying every situation is different and your 3 servers servicing 100 users is at one end of the spectrum and our business with well over 60 servers with around 70 staff is probably somewhere at the other. I just wouldnt be speccing something so low-end when its very likely the needs will increase substantially during the lifetime of the hardware, especially for the sake of a few thousand pounds.

mikeh501 · 5 May 2009 at 19:59

daz said:
What's funny? He's apparently moving large files around - not lots of little file accesses. SATA versus SAS at sustained transfer rate there's not much in it.

Im interested is all, so how do you spec 5tb of RAID storage in a 2950 chassis?

daz · 5 May 2009 at 20:03

6 x 1TB in RAID5, or if you're feeling fanciful, use your own drives for 6 x 1.5TB in RAID10 (4.5TB useable).

No hot spare

() and performance may be wanting, but it depends entirely the kind of disk accesses that he's doing.

mikeh501 · 5 May 2009 at 20:07

daz said:
6 x 1TB in RAID5, or if you're feeling fanciful, use your own drives for 6 x 1.5TB in RAID10 (4.5TB useable).

No hot spare () and performance may be wanting, but it depends entirely the kind of disk accesses that he's doing.

Exactly, its not exactly a great setup eh, and I bet its still 4-5k.

daz · 5 May 2009 at 20:11

edit: shouldn't reveal our pricing, but i recommend you get an account manager