Backup server comparison



  • Looking for opinions on a new backup server. This box will be a backup server, and will have Hyper-V Server on it, which will have a Veeam VM on it as well. This is where all of the backups will go from various sources. Mostly from Veeam, but also file level backups as well. Since it will have Hyper-V on it, I'll also be able to spin up VMs on it in case the main server goes down. Because refurbished servers have been so reliable for me, and I have a source that has very reasonable prices, I narrowed it down to 3 choices below.

    0_1521833227654_40bd569c-c8f1-4ee9-a58c-25849f5e59b1-image.png

    The main differences are U size (which at this point, is not a big factor), # of available drives, and the RAID controller. (The cost you see does NOT include HD costs)

    Please "sell me" on one of these, stating your reasons why.



  • If you need lots of storage, out of this group, the R510 would be the logical choice. 12 x 3.5" HDDs can get you a ton of storage. This is the one I use in a very similar config for my Veeam backups. Sure it's going to be more power hungry than the R710 or R320 but it's not that much worse.

    Since the R710 is also likely the LFF version with 6 drives, that's only half the available potential storage for exactly the same performance (from the server components) so again, if the choice is between the R510 or R710, I choose the R510.

    The R320 is only 4 Drives for storage but much newer.

    Other factors to consider...

    • Assuming none of these have warranty? If so, that's moot.
    • How much backup storage do you need?
    • If you truly don't care about the extra 1U of rack space or not.

    If I was picking, I'd go with R510, if these are my only choices.



  • How much storage will this backup server require? Only 4-6 drive slots could be limiting.

    The R710 and R510 look identical in specs, therefore I might would opt for the R510 with the more drive slots.

    The R320 will be a slightly newer generation, but still two generations old now. I guess it depends too on how much you'll need the improved processor performance and core count. For just Veeam, I should think any of these would be fine. If you're talking about adding other VMs potentially, then the extra core count could be beneficial, but again where's your storage capacity with only 4 slots?

    Edit: I second @NashBrydges



  • @nashbrydges

    Warranty is not an issue for me.
    Currently, my entire backup volume is about 1 TB.
    As of now, I don't care about the U size. In the future, if this workload moves to COLO, then yes, I would care.

    The R510 - That's the way I am leaning as well.



  • @zachary715 said in Backup server comparison:

    The R320 will be a slightly newer generation, but still two generations old now. I guess it depends too on how much you'll need the improved processor performance and core count. For just Veeam, I should think any of these would be fine. If you're talking about adding other VMs potentially, then the extra core count could be beneficial, but again where's your storage capacity with only 4 slots?

    The R320 is newer, but what I was trying to decide how that benefits me for this specific workload. Also, much less available drives. So I am also leaning towards the R510.



  • @fuznutz04 said in Backup server comparison:

    @zachary715 said in Backup server comparison:

    The R320 will be a slightly newer generation, but still two generations old now. I guess it depends too on how much you'll need the improved processor performance and core count. For just Veeam, I should think any of these would be fine. If you're talking about adding other VMs potentially, then the extra core count could be beneficial, but again where's your storage capacity with only 4 slots?

    The R320 is newer, but what I was trying to decide how that benefits me for this specific workload. Also, much less available drives. So I am also leaning towards the R510.

    I would think this only benefits you from a support standpoint. For instance, VMware 6.5 doesn't support the R710 and R510 but does support the R320. I know you're using Hyper-V and this doesn't apply, but that's the only reason I would care about the newer generation. That and newer processors which may give greater performance per core.



  • @zachary715 said in Backup server comparison:

    @fuznutz04 said in Backup server comparison:

    @zachary715 said in Backup server comparison:

    The R320 will be a slightly newer generation, but still two generations old now. I guess it depends too on how much you'll need the improved processor performance and core count. For just Veeam, I should think any of these would be fine. If you're talking about adding other VMs potentially, then the extra core count could be beneficial, but again where's your storage capacity with only 4 slots?

    The R320 is newer, but what I was trying to decide how that benefits me for this specific workload. Also, much less available drives. So I am also leaning towards the R510.

    I would think this only benefits you from a support standpoint. For instance, VMware 6.5 doesn't support the R710 and R510 but does support the R320. I know you're using Hyper-V and this doesn't apply, but that's the only reason I would care about the newer generation. That and newer processors which may give greater performance per core.

    Right. I know Hyper-V 2016 supports the R710, so I assume it supports the R510, but will double check to be sure.



  • @fuznutz04 said in Backup server comparison:

    @zachary715 said in Backup server comparison:

    @fuznutz04 said in Backup server comparison:

    @zachary715 said in Backup server comparison:

    The R320 will be a slightly newer generation, but still two generations old now. I guess it depends too on how much you'll need the improved processor performance and core count. For just Veeam, I should think any of these would be fine. If you're talking about adding other VMs potentially, then the extra core count could be beneficial, but again where's your storage capacity with only 4 slots?

    The R320 is newer, but what I was trying to decide how that benefits me for this specific workload. Also, much less available drives. So I am also leaning towards the R510.

    I would think this only benefits you from a support standpoint. For instance, VMware 6.5 doesn't support the R710 and R510 but does support the R320. I know you're using Hyper-V and this doesn't apply, but that's the only reason I would care about the newer generation. That and newer processors which may give greater performance per core.

    Right. I know Hyper-V 2016 supports the R710, so I assume it supports the R510, but will double check to be sure.

    Its mainly the CPU you will have to worry about when it comes Hyper-V 2016.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/system-requirements-for-hyper-v-on-windows
    A 64-bit processor with second-level address translation (SLAT). To install the Hyper-V virtualization components such as Windows hypervisor, the processor must have SLAT. However, it's not required to install Hyper-V management tools like Virtual Machine Connection (VMConnect), Hyper-V Manager, and the Hyper-V cmdlets for Windows PowerShell. See "How to check for Hyper-V requirements," below, to find out if your processor has SLAT.



  • @black3dynamite Ah yes, SLAT. Almost forgot about that. I ran into that trying to install HV 2016 on a REALLY old box for testing. I could install it, but that's where the story ended.

    If I get the E5620 or higher in the Xeon family, I think I should be fine. I know for sure that the E5620 works. I have them in my R710.



  • @fuznutz04 said in Backup server comparison:

    @black3dynamite Ah yes, SLAT. Almost forgot about that. I ran into that trying to install HV 2016 on a REALLY old box for testing. I could install it, but that's where the story ended.

    If I get the E5620 or higher in the Xeon family, I think I should be fine. I know for sure that the E5620 works. I have them in my R710.

    The same thing happened to me. So it made my decision to use KVM even easier for what I was using the server for.


Log in to reply