Opinions on new server

[lolism]

Hey guys, currently we're running a Linux server for file sharing of a large database, other various documents and email. Our major software provider however changed from MDB to SQL - so we had to add in a Virtual Server running Windows Server 2008 (currently 9 clients connect to this) so we're planning on just running Windows Server 2008.

We plan on upgrading to the following server:

Standard Spec:

HP Proliant ML350 G6 Xeon E5520 2.2GHz Quad Core
6GB Ram – 3 x 2GB

Additional:

Xeon E5520
6GB Ram
ML350 G6 Tower to Rack conversion

Storage

HP 72Gb 10K SAS x 2
HP 300GB 10K SAS x 2
HP StorageWorks Ultrium 448 SAS

Security etc

Cisco ADSL Soho Security Router
Watchguard X550e Firewall Appliance
Symantec Multi Tier UPG Band A


Is this a bit of overkill for a maximum of 10 connections to the database (we're sort of hoping this will last a while)

 

[akakjs]

Is this a bit of overkill for a maximum of 10 connections to the database (we're sort of hoping this will last a while)

Depends on what the 10 users are doing

However if we can assume fairly normal usage, I can't really see where you'd want to cut-down with that specification. You might save some money by going non-HP, but I like their kit so I wouldn't bother. Strictly speaking you don't need separate RAID arrays for system/data (separate partitions will usually do), so you could run everything off the pair of 300gb disks but that depends on how much data you've expecting. At work we have about 45 users, and 300-300Gb of data but we're very heavy users.

akakjs

 

[lolism]

Mostly just accessing email (their outlook client will be open all day) while also working on our software which uses an SQL database to calculate and store employee records, calculate tax & NIC and export PDF reports as well as spread sheets.

I thought the hard drives and backup solution was a little overkill, considering the hp ultrium drive is a little shy of £1300 not including tapes. Our linux server hasn't taken up 40GB yet and the Virtual Windows Server is still below 15GB!

Thanks for the reply though - we'll definately be going with HP.

 

[Lanz]

Seems like overkill to me. The extra CPU wont be needed, I doubt you'd go above 5% CPU with just one of those Quads.

 

[akakjs]

I thought the hard drives and backup solution was a little overkill, considering the hp ultrium drive is a little shy of £1300 not including tapes. Our linux server hasn't taken up 40GB yet and the Virtual Windows Server is still below 15GB!

You could get an LTO3 drive rather than an LTO4 (which I guess the £1300 ultrium drive is). They're 400/800Gb rather than 1.6Tb in LTO4, but they cost a lot less, and I suspect you'll still be able to get an HP unit.

Some how I blanked the entire "additional" section. Lanz is right, the additional CPU is over-kill, the quad core should keep you happy for a while. And 6-8Gb of memory should be enough.

akakjs