Which Server To Use - Need An Answer Quickly!!

[H0wz3r]

Hi Guys,

I'm currently setting up our new network infrastructure and have 2 servers that need setting up. Both will have Windows Server 2003 standard installed (32-Bit)

One of these servers will reside in the main office and will run our accounts package only, which is run on a database (not SQL though). The other server will reside in our remote office and will serve 5 users (my documents, profiles and printers) and will also be a GC domain controller.

Question is I don't know which server to keep here at main office and which one to setup for our remote branch? The server specs are as follows:

Server 1:

HP Proliant ML350 G3
2 x Intel Xeon 2.8GHz HT CPUs (Prestonia Core) running on 533MHz FSB
4Gb DDR 2100 ECC RAM (dual channel)
3 x 60Gb SCSI HDDs in RAID5

Server 2:

Dell PowerEdge SC1420
1 x Intel Xeon 3.0GHz HT CPU (Irwindale Core I think)) running on 800MHz FSB
4Gb DDR2 3200 ECC RAM (dual channel)
2 x 60Gb SCSI HDDs in RAID1

I don't know which server would be 'faster' i.e. better suited to the task in hand.

As I'm at the setup screen for one of these servers, I would really appreciate some ideas as soon as possible please!!

Thanks for your input in advance!

 

[DRZ]

Is the database likely to be hammered? Lots of reads, writes or both?

Database apps need CPU and high I/O speed. RAID5 will give you resiliency but write speed is compromised. RAID1 will give you resiliency and read speed but again, write speed is no faster than a single disk.

IMO, Server 1 is (much) faster but neither are really cut out for a big database role. Server 1 has more space so I would probably use that for the file store etc unless the DB is huge.

 

[H0wz3r]

Is the database likely to be hammered? Lots of reads, writes or both?

Database apps need CPU and high I/O speed. RAID5 will give you resiliency but write speed is compromised. RAID1 will give you resiliency and read speed but again, write speed is no faster than a single disk.

IMO, Server 1 is (much) faster but neither are really cut out for a big database role. Server 1 has more space so I would probably use that for the file store etc unless the DB is huge.

Well, the accounts database is used by pretty much everyone on a day to day basis and at some times can have as many as 15 users on it at any one time. I guess the answer to that is yes it will be hammered each and every day.

Although neither server is ideal for the role, it is the only option we have at present short of putting in a new all singing all dancing server (we're only a small-medium business so funds are a little short!)

My own view is that as a database server is more bandwidth intensive in terms of bus speed and ultimately RAM, then server 2 is the better choice? Server 1 has more processing power but server 2 has more bandwidth am I right in thinking this?

The database, with 4 years of records on it (it's designed to hold 6 years of records) is around 8Gb in size and so isn't huge. With a 15Gb partition for Windows, that would leave around 40Gb free if I were to use Server 2 which is more than ample for it's role.

There's always the option of buying a second CPU for server 2 which would seriously boost its processing power and if we were to do this, would also give it more processing power than server 1 does at present.

Any more thoughts?

 

[zetec452]

Go with the ML350. Try and get SAS SCSI disks too as they'll be a bit quicker. You can also use the iLO feature with HP to remotely manage the server. Will be a godsend for the remote branch.

I didn't think you could get 60GB SCSI disks.

 

[quackers]

I'd probably use server1 for the remote domain controller, profiles etc. More space to play with and also a decent spec for exchange if you ever decide to use it

 

[daz]

A Poweredge 860 with a quad core CPU and a couple of 15k SCSI in RAID1 comes in relatively cheaply these days - certainly worth looking into if performance per pound is a concern.

 

[TrX]

Go with the ML350. Try and get SAS SCSI disks too as they'll be a bit quicker. You can also use the iLO feature with HP to remotely manage the server. Will be a godsend for the remote branch.

I didn't think you could get 60GB SCSI disks.

SCSI disks usually come in 73GB, 60 sounds strange

A SAS controller and decent >10,000RPM SAS drives will probably cost nearly as much as a cheap server

Anyway, without knowing how much load your DB put's on a system, you can't really make a decent choice here. Server 2 seems better for the DB because of the disk config and the extra space on S1 for users...

However if you do this and find the DB doesn't run to well on one HT chip.. That's worse than having to ban users from storing MP3's ;p