Need to build a server. Any recommendations?

Lister2020 · 25 Feb 2008 at 20:38

The new server I'm setting up for this place where I'm gonna be working, needs to accomodate between 40-50 machines connected to it though its safe to say that it will only have the 40+ connected for a cpl of hours each day, so I don't wanna go overkill and take out several hundred from the budget that I could spend on a nice LEATHER CHAIR FOR MY OFFICE!!!

So, gonna be running server2003, have 40-50 machines connected with 100-150 user accounts, functions as a print/file server all the usuals.

Recommendations? (Oh, more than 1 gig of ram which the current one has

)

It's a computer suite that over the years I got up to 40 computers, its a mess because the guy I know has let everyone use admin logons so he is giving me a part time job in the place as admin, gonna be fantastic for my CV and using the money from it to get my MCSE/MCSA certs

jak731 · 25 Feb 2008 at 20:41

you may be better off with a prebuilt that comes with on-site support unless you are fully clued up on how to fix a very wide range of problems

Fr0dders · 25 Feb 2008 at 20:42

buy one from HP.

They use proper quality chassis with hot swappable stuff. You also got proper support if stuff goes wrong as opposed to having to post it back and spend weeks with your hardware

building your own would be fine if you were planning on making your own web proxie / share point server or something. But dont leave your main workhouse up to a home build.

Fr0dders · 25 Feb 2008 at 20:46

As a starting point. Consider the HP Proliant ML350 (single processor) or the ML370 (dual processor) if you want pedestal.

Look at the DL series (ive got less experience of these so cant recommend a specifc model). But they do feature some very nifty tools that allow you to remote into a server even when its switched off to work on the bios and properly powercycle etc.. Stuff you just cant do with home builds.

Best place to start is the Intel based DL3xx series.

Lister2020 · 25 Feb 2008 at 21:00

i have setup servers before, just aint built one. I'll go with a pre made one if you think thats best?

Fr0dders · 25 Feb 2008 at 21:06

i honestly wouldnt trust you main workhorse to a homebuild. Like i said, entrusting your latest project is fine. Its not live and people dont depend upon it. Heck, it would probably be fine for live stuff thats not crucial. But even i wouldnt entrust any of Domain Controllers to a home build. And thats comming from somebody thats never owned a prebuilt PC before, and currently has a ~ £2000 home built system.

The main reason for getting a prebuilt server is the flexibility they offer. They have proper hot swappable HD cages. Meaning you can remove and replace hard drives with the server switched on, as i said earlier, on some models you can access the bios remotely. They have indept monitoring tools that tell you the output of every temperature sensor and fan sensor in the chassis. Yes you can build something that does this, but its easier and more functional to buy prebuilt

then theres the added comfort of having proper HP on call waranty for when your raid array screws up and you need a new HD. No sending it back off the shop while they take a week to diagnose it. They come out, replace (if they agree with your diagnosis) job done.

Lister2020 · 25 Feb 2008 at 21:14

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I'll go for a pre built

Thing is this place is just part time at the mo as I said, and im taking the current server and spicing it up a bit to function as a permanent backup incase the main one goes down or when i perform monthly mainteance on it and the like. But still, ill go for one of those. should support 40 XP clients ok yea?

Fr0dders · 25 Feb 2008 at 23:27

Which one you looking at ?

ive personally seen single processor ML350s cope just fine with 40 users with nothing more than 2gb of RAM and a dual core CPU

but then ive seen similar sized organisations go for ML370 with 4gb of ram and twin quadcores

Little_Crow · 26 Feb 2008 at 01:21

I'd agree with most of the recommendations here, personally I'd go with HP. Have about 60 at work, and rarely get any problems outside of the usual HDD and tapedrive failures.

One thing I'd advise, UPS, dual PSU's, and RAID. The more reundancy you have built in, the less you need to spend on support cover (and less earache).
And don't forget a backup device!

Banzai_Joe · 27 Mar 2008 at 09:08

Slight bump on this thread. I'm in the same predicament. My budget has been dictated and some company 'guru' has suggested increasing the hdd storage in our Dell Poweredge 1750 (1u) to a 500gb sata drive. I had to explain that it aint sata is standard scsi and to maintain raid 5 integrity when rebuilding we'd ideally need to swap all the drives out to be safe.
My other idea was that i now have a Quad core, 4gb rig, sitting doing nothing now. I was thinking of putting about 500gb drives in Raid 5 to use as a file server only with server 2003 on it.
But you guys don't think its a good idea? I guess homebuilds are less likely to have a hardware raid controller as folk would just use what comes with the mobo i suppose.
In the 2 and a half years i've been at this job, looking after 5 servers and 50 pc's, i've only had one hdd failure, which only needed a rebuild, not a swap out.

neil_g · 27 Mar 2008 at 09:14

recommend - dell poweredge 1950/2950. thats what we use throughout the company in slightly different flavours as DC's, exchange, SQL, SAN connected cluster, etc etc boxes.

(200 odd users btw)

edit: didnt spot the last post

neil_g · 27 Mar 2008 at 09:17

k.Jacko said:
Slight bump on this thread. I'm in the same predicament. My budget has been dictated and some company 'guru' has suggested increasing the hdd storage in our Dell Poweredge 1750 (1u) to a 500gb sata drive. I had to explain that it aint sata is standard scsi and to maintain raid 5 integrity when rebuilding we'd ideally need to swap all the drives out to be safe.
My other idea was that i now have a Quad core, 4gb rig, sitting doing nothing now. I was thinking of putting about 500gb drives in Raid 5 to use as a file server only with server 2003 on it.
But you guys don't think its a good idea? I guess homebuilds are less likely to have a hardware raid controller as folk would just use what comes with the mobo i suppose.
In the 2 and a half years i've been at this job, looking after 5 servers and 50 pc's, i've only had one hdd failure, which only needed a rebuild, not a swap out.

personally id get a quote to do it correctly using the server that is more up to the task.

khrall · 27 Mar 2008 at 09:42

It all depends on how much downtime will cost your company. It's the one single factor that businesses should look at whilst speccing a server.

Server goes down, people can't work, company looses money.

If you have a branded model on contract and 4/8/16 hour R.T.S, you should, at most, loose 16 hours productivity (2 days).

If you have a self build, something dies, you have to spec the part, order it, wait for it to arrive, fit it, hope that resolves it, if not, order another part etc..

Spend the extra, buy a HP or Dell, get a maintainence contract on it. Let someone else worry if something breaks. You then have someone else to put pressure on if a Director is breathing down your neck

Depending on how much your company would loose with the server being out of action, you then look at various levels of redundancy (RAID, Paired Controllers, Dual PSU, Dual NIC, Dual CPU etc)

neil_g · 27 Mar 2008 at 11:23

khrall said:
Spend the extra, buy a HP or Dell, get a maintainence contract on it. Let someone else worry if something breaks. You then have someone else to put pressure on if a Director is breathing down your neck

couldnt agree more. had a replacement server PSU turn up from dell in under 4 hours before. granted the server hadnt gone down as it has redundancy set up but i was extremely happy to see it arrive so quick.