Another new server question
-
@notverypunny said in Another new server question:
Someone is no doubt going to chime in to say that Hyper V is basically a dead product at this point and suggest KVM, possibly xcp-ng or proxmox.
We covered that thoroughly in his first post on the subject. He's aware. There's no business or technical decision here, it's purely politics.
-
@notverypunny said in Another new server question:
If you can configure ALL SSDs that would be ideal, but I'd try to keep the hypervisor on a separate RAID set from the VMs. Ideally you'd have the VMs' OS disks isolated from their working data as well.
Only in extreme cases would I bother to separate them. There's just no need for that anymore (since SSDs, really.)
-
@Dashrender said in Another new server question:
it's not dead, just the stand alone product is dead - why do I say that? Because it's still in the Windows Server 2022 server itself. Sure that means you have to burn a license for the host, but meh, that's the cost of doing business
"Just a cost of not doing business well." It's not a good product (relative to what is on the market for free), nor does it have a proper install method (that doesn't require license management - that alone should send it to the rubbish heap.) If someone was "doing business", Hyper-V could never make the list of considerations anymore. So anyone claiming this is a cost of business is completely misunderstanding business and IT at a deeper level.
-
@pmoncho said in Another new server question:
As the saying goes, "Price is what you pay, value is what you get!" If the business perceives Windows 2022 with Hyper-V Role to be worth the value it provides then it is the lowest cost option.
Hyper-V has only negative value. So they'd have to PAY you to use it, to make it "cost less" than the alternatives. That's the issue.
-
@pmoncho said in Another new server question:
I second @notverypunny with separating the Hypervisor on its own RAID 1.
If using Dell servers, BOSS card is one possible option.If that was free and didn't lose us storage, I'd agree. But it costs money and lowers usable storage. Except in extremely special cases where performance or reliability have to be absolutely maximized (and NO situation like that would ever, ever, ever consider Hyper-V, Windows, or making decisions based on politics over business value - so it cannot in any way apply here) I would not do that, even with spinning disks. That's why "OBR10" was something we talked about so much a decade ago. The need to split file systems just isn't a thing today.
https://smbitjournal.com/2012/11/one-big-raid-10-a-new-standard-in-server-storage/
That was a full decade ago.
-
So my thought it....
Do you HAVE to get Lenovo because of the same politics making you get Hyper-V? Then get it, waste the money, and buy more SSDs for the VMs. Good value doesn't matter, at all. It is what it is, don't put yourself at risk to save money of people who might resent you for it.
If you have no real reason to choose Lenovo, skip these unnecessarily complex and inappropriately designed devices. Get something that fits your needs properly and do a single appropriately sized SSD array.
-
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
I wouldn't say it is overspecc'd, but impropoerly specc'd. Not quite the same thing.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.That all makes sense. With good SSDs, RAID 5 works fine.
-
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
-
@Pete-S Thanks so much for the help, I really do appreciate it.
You've given me some really good start points & info to go for a look and see what I can get.
Thanks again.
-
@Pete-S said in Another new server question:
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
I looked quickly but this all seems solid. I'd concur.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Another new server question:
@Pete-S said in Another new server question:
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
I looked quickly but this all seems solid. I'd concur.
The number of RAM modules will depend more on the channels used by the CPUs - assuming you don't want to gimp yourself.
-
@Dashrender said in Another new server question:
@scottalanmiller said in Another new server question:
@Pete-S said in Another new server question:
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
I looked quickly but this all seems solid. I'd concur.
The number of RAM modules will depend more on the channels used by the CPUs - assuming you don't want to gimp yourself.
For sure.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Another new server question:
If that was free and didn't lose us storage, I'd agree. But it costs money and lowers usable storage.
Dell & HP boxes have a daughter card. It will, in no way affect the RAID controller storage amount. Not free, but i very much love having the mirrored SSD/NVMe on the daughter card for the Hypervisor.
Then the regular storage on the RAID controller.
-
@Pete-S said in Another new server question:
R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDsI would only use the R350, assuming he does not need to step up to beyond a basic server.
The R250 has basically no good features.
The R350 has an actual PERC in it, getting you things like blind swap functionality for a failed drive.
I would get the 8 core processor.
A pair of 32GB RAM sticks to meet your requirements.
Choose the PERC.
Just picked 2x 4TB drives, find your own as @Pete-S noted.
As I said previously, I like the BOSS card for the Hypervisor.
iDRAC Enterprise, unless Dell has changed it to allow remote screen on Basic.
Redundant powersupply.
Dell price is $11k, but $7k of that is those two drives.
-
@JaredBusch said in Another new server question:
I would get the 8 core processor.
It's may be surprising to see but Pentium CPUs have been around a long time as server CPUs.
They're low power, dual core, but still high frequency and most importantly has ECC support (which normal desktop CPUs like i3, i5, i7 don't).
Not a good choice for a virtualization server but a good choice for a single purpose physical server that has no use for lots of cores - like a file server, a backup server or similar.
-
@Dashrender said in Another new server question:
@scottalanmiller said in Another new server question:
@Pete-S said in Another new server question:
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
I looked quickly but this all seems solid. I'd concur.
The number of RAM modules will depend more on the channels used by the CPUs - assuming you don't want to gimp yourself.
Xeon E-series has only two memory channels, so it just needs two RAM modules (UDIMMs) for maximum performance. And can't handle more than four UDIMMs in total.
Higher end server CPUs have more memory channels and use a different type of RAM module (RDIMM) which can handle more modules per channels.
-
Hey, thanks very much for the help, I really do appreciate it, I learn a little bit every time you guys help me, so thanks again.
I've spec'd up a server which comes in at $AU7500.00 approx which is within budget.
The server comes with the 2 x 240GB SSDs so I'm assuming they'll already be setup as RAID 1.
The 3 x 1.98 GB drives I'll setup as RAID 5. These were the largest SSDs on offer.
It comes with 2 x sticks of RAM so I've got that correct.
It comes from a vendor I trust and am sure I will not have issues with for whatever reason.
It comes as close to what you guys have suggested for a price that I think is reasonable.
What do you guys think?
-
@siringo Looks good all in all but the 5210 1.92TB SSDs are a peculiar breed.
Normal read intensive SSDs have a write endurance of around 1 DWPD - which means you can write 1.92TB new data on a 1.92TB drive every day of it's warranty life. And can write about 28K IOPS - so 28 thousand 4K blocks of data written to disk per second.
The Micron 5210 SSDs are specifically made to replace 10K HDDs at a very attractive price point. So while they are superior to 10K drives, compared to other read intensive SSDs they have low write performance (2K versus about 28K IOPs) and low write endurance (0.2 to 0.8 versus 1.0 DWPD).
If those drives are a good pick or not depends on the workloads you are running on the hypervisor. If you're running an SQL server or something you might want to pick another 1.92TB SSD.
Did Lenovo have other 1.92TB SSD options at a similar price point?
