Using two cheap servers instead of one expensive server
Alex Day
Looking for some advice here. I am currently running on Pentium Pro
200, server that I purchased from the cheapest mail order house I could
find. (Have been running on this for over a year with no problems) A
consultant told me that I need to put in a Compaq server that is going
to cost me over $10,000, if I want true reliability. Being cost
conscious, I am hesitant to spend that kind of money. I was wondering
if there is any way that I can put in another CHEAP server, and mirror
the drives over the network, so if one server goes down, I can easily
(relatively easily) switch to the other. I have 7 PCs on my LAN, not
counting my server. I figure, I can buy several nice (nice in terms of
memory, processor and features) servers (at least two) for what I would
pay for the one Compaq.
I host my own e-mail and will be hosting a web-site soon. Should I not
be a cheap skate and go for the server that has the best reliability???
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Lee Sharp
Alex Day wrote in message <3565D58D...@creative-net.net>...
|Looking for some advice here. I am currently running on Pentium Pro
|200, server that I purchased from the cheapest mail order house I could
|find. (Have been running on this for over a year with no problems) A
|consultant told me that I need to put in a Compaq server that is going
|to cost me over $10,000, if I want true reliability. Being cost
|conscious, I am hesitant to spend that kind of money. I was wondering
|if there is any way that I can put in another CHEAP server, and mirror
|the drives over the network, so if one server goes down, I can easily
|(relatively easily) switch to the other. I have 7 PCs on my LAN, not
|counting my server. I figure, I can buy several nice (nice in terms of
|memory, processor and features) servers (at least two) for what I would
|pay for the one Compaq.
We are a Compaq exclusive shop. Desktops, servers, and laptops are only
Compaq, and I insisted it was that way. My home computers are home builds.
They all have things like Adaptec 2940UW, and Barracuda or Cheetah wide
drives, and over 128 meg of ram, so it wasn't for cost. Compaq's cannot be
beat for long term reliability, hot swapability, fast repair and final
performance. You pay a lot for all that. I am about to buy another server
for $50,000 and that is cheap.
Two servers will not give you what a Compaq can. But do you need it?
You can get a third party fiber channel array, and MS Cluster server, and
build a system that would cost much less than the $250,000 Compaq version,
but you may have other issues. In the end, it is up to you. If your
web/mail server HAS to be up all the time, go to Compaq works
http://www.compaqworks.com and get a Compaq factory refurb.
Lee
--
SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then. *
Black holes are where God divided by zero.
Andrew Corn
Boring BS, just because you were an idiot and taken in by marketing don't
expect others to follow your route.
--
Andrew Corn
Emergency Business Solutions
IBM Business Partners/HP Authorized Resellers
Microsoft and Novell Certified Personnel
Specialists in Corporate Relocations/Deployments and
Pro Active Network Design and Maintenance
netadmin...@gte.net
Lee Sharp <bo...@PeakUSA.com> wrote in article
<L%l91.546$312.1304836@insync>...
Information Services
I have nine Gateway 2000 NT servers that have been running for years with
little or no problem. They are my File, Print, SQL, SMS and domain
servers. Some of the stuff we run is extremely critical. For the rare
occasion when something goes down, I have .BAT files that re-point the
critical apps on the workstations to a different server.
When we started our web site, and installed an e-mail host, my boss
insisted on a Compaq Proliant 6500 at 35k. It is too new to tell, but I
doubt it is any more reliable than the Gateways. The only thing it really
has, that the Gateways don't, is the hardware RAID and hot-swap drives.
If it was up to me, I would continue to by small, cheap NT servers and put
in a new box for each new (major) app.
--
Remove LOSE-THIS to reply
Alex Day <auda...@creative-net.net> wrote in article
<3565D58D...@creative-net.net>...
> Looking for some advice here. I am currently running on Pentium Pro
> 200, server that I purchased from the cheapest mail order house I could
> find. (Have been running on this for over a year with no problems) A
> consultant told me that I need to put in a Compaq server that is going
> to cost me over $10,000, if I want true reliability. Being cost
> conscious, I am hesitant to spend that kind of money. I was wondering
> if there is any way that I can put in another CHEAP server, and mirror
> the drives over the network, so if one server goes down, I can easily
> (relatively easily) switch to the other. I have 7 PCs on my LAN, not
> counting my server. I figure, I can buy several nice (nice in terms of
> memory, processor and features) servers (at least two) for what I would
> pay for the one Compaq.
>
Mark Durgee
Lee Sharp wrote in message ...
| Two servers will not give you what a Compaq can. But do you need it?
|You can get a third party fiber channel array, and MS Cluster server, and
|build a system that would cost much less than the $250,000 Compaq version,
|but you may have other issues.
Let me go out on a limb here - wouldn't advising $250,000 on a server for 7
PCs be a bit out of whack?
Mark Durgee
Ken Ernstberger
I think that if you can afford to spend $250,000, you should either spend
it, or get your head examined... I pick the latter.
We use a Dual Pentium II 266 server with an Asus P2L97DS mainboard, 256 MB
ram and 3 9.1GB Ultra wide SCSI HDD's with HDD mirroring installed. And we
run fine. The PDC and BDC service 200 workstations (not simultaniously
though) running Office97, C compilers, assorted other things, and it is our
web server as well. All this and no problems to report.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ernstberger
Network/Systems Supervisor
Engineering Technology - Red River College
http://tesla.rrcc.mb.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Day wrote in message <3565D58D...@creative-net.net>...
rob...@bigfoot.com
Compaq? They are very good server but you can get TRUE reliability from a
host of machines. We run an entire company using a 3rd party vendor who
outs together all of our machines with VERY few hardware problems.
Throwing money at a problem in not always the ONLY solution.
JoeSmokie
> Looking for some advice here. I am currently running on Pentium Pro
> 200, server that I purchased from the cheapest mail order house I could
> find. (Have been running on this for over a year with no problems) A
> consultant told me that I need to put in a Compaq server that is going
> to cost me over $10,000, if I want true reliability. Being cost
> conscious, I am hesitant to spend that kind of money. I was wondering
> if there is any way that I can put in another CHEAP server, and mirror
> the drives over the network, so if one server goes down, I can easily
> (relatively easily) switch to the other. I have 7 PCs on my LAN, not
> counting my server. I figure, I can buy several nice (nice in terms of
> memory, processor and features) servers (at least two) for what I would
> pay for the one Compaq.
>
> I host my own e-mail and will be hosting a web-site soon. Should I not
> be a cheap skate and go for the server that has the best reliability???
>
> Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
-<< Posted with Actif News --- http://www.actifnews.com >>-
Joshua T. McKee
Alex Day <auda...@creative-net.net> wrote in article
<3565D58D...@creative-net.net>...
> Looking for some advice here. I am currently running on Pentium Pro
> 200, server that I purchased from the cheapest mail order house I could
> find. (Have been running on this for over a year with no problems) A
> consultant told me that I need to put in a Compaq server that is going
> to cost me over $10,000, if I want true reliability. Being cost
> conscious, I am hesitant to spend that kind of money. I was wondering
> if there is any way that I can put in another CHEAP server, and mirror
> the drives over the network, so if one server goes down, I can easily
> (relatively easily) switch to the other. I have 7 PCs on my LAN, not
> counting my server. I figure, I can buy several nice (nice in terms of
> memory, processor and features) servers (at least two) for what I would
> pay for the one Compaq.
>
> I host my own e-mail and will be hosting a web-site soon. Should I not
> be a cheap skate and go for the server that has the best reliability???
>
> Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
It sounds as though you need to asses your servers availability
requirements. You cannot answer the question unless you first determine
how important your information availability needs to be. What is the
length of time your business can afford to be without the data available?
Does it need to be available 24 x 7 no questions asked? Can you afford to
be down for a few hours while you swap in a standby server? Can you afford
to be down longer while you repair the server and restore from backup? The
answer you give will point you to what you should get. The more important
your data availability has to be, the more money you should spend.
To address your situation, my personal feeling is that multiple servers are
prefereable to single servers for two reasons:
1. No matter what the reputation of a manufacturer, equipment still fails.
Multiple server minimize this risk significantly (even if it's a standby
server sitting in the closet until needed).
2. Load balancing. Multiple systems can handle the workload instead of a
single server. Even if it's a simple policy of placing the mail system on
one server and the file/print sharing on another, etc.
I personally tend to go with the name brand stuff. When it came to
choosing a system for my business, I went with Sun hardware even though I
could use PC's running Linux at significantly lower cost. My business
requires 24 x 7 availability and I was willing to spend the money (even if
foolishly) for the peace of mind for name brand equipment.
Hope this helped
Josh
Eugene Nine
Don't forget the amount of use you're going to get web hosting. seven PC's
don't take much bandwidth on a server. I few hundred web hits will begin to
use up CPU time, memory and swap space, resulting in more wear on the hdd,
etc. If you want to biuld it yourself, then you can get quality parts like
intel, ami, or asus server motherbaords that have some of the availabity
features like the Compaq. You might be getting close to the Compaq price
though, so you may give them a look. $10,000 seems a little steep for a web
server, if you want a couple systems for web hosting, look at something like
the 850R, which is designed targeted at web hosting.
Eugene
Joshua T. McKee wrote in message
<01bd8e36$4c0954a0$d78d26d1@pc_jtm.peakcare.com>...
cheapwhole...@gmail.com
> Looking for some advice here. I am currently running on Pentium Pro
> 200, server that I purchased from the cheapest mail order house I could
> find. (Have been running on this for over a year with no problems) A
> consultant told me that I need to put in a Compaq server that is going
> to cost me over $10,000, if I want true reliability. Being cost
> conscious, I am hesitant to spend that kind of money. I was wondering
> if there is any way that I can put in another CHEAP server, and mirror
> the drives over the network, so if one server goes down, I can easily
> (relatively easily) switch to the other. I have 7 PCs on my LAN, not
> counting my server. I figure, I can buy several nice (nice in terms of
> memory, processor and features) servers (at least two) for what I would
> pay for the one Compaq.
>
> I host my own e-mail and will be hosting a web-site soon. Should I not
> be a cheap skate and go for the server that has the best reliability???
>
> Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
MASSIVE FEATURES, UNBEATABLE PRICES!
Intel Xeon E3-1245V2 HDD
6TB SATA Enterprise
16 GB DDR3 ECC RAM
Unlimited Traffic
Connection 1 Gbit/s-Port
Full Root Access
Traffic Statistics
VNC-Installation Installer
NIC 1000Mbit-Intel 82574L
RAID Controller 4-Port SATA PCI-E
Reverse DNS Administration
Juniper Routing Technology
High-Speed Access to all Internet Uplinks
ONLY
$89.99
www.cheapwholesaleservers.com
https://www.cheapwholesaleservers.com/billing/cart.php?gid=6