Hard drives for Hp MicroServer Gen8

[freedomit]

Just quoting a client for an SBS2003 replacement Server.

3 user accountancy company, who use Sage, QuickBooks and a SQL based application. They currently have 60GB of data in total.

I'm quoting a HP MicroServer Gen8, 16GB Ram, Server 2012 R2 Essentials & hosted Exchange but cant decide what hard drives to quote in the Server?

Options are....

1) 2 x 1TB SATA in Raid1 - I think this will be to slow with just two disks

2) 4 x 500GB SATA in Raid10 or 2 x 2 x 1TB Raid 1 - better as can split OS & Data/SQL

3) 2 x 512GB SSD in Raid 1 & 2 x 500GB SATA Raid1

The third option is going to be quickest but im never sure about putting 3rd party SSD's in HP Raid1, also will need to buy adapters for them.

Another thought it whether to go for HP drives or 3rd party, the Server will have at least a 3 year care pack warranty but most 3rd party drives are also 3 year and much cheaper than HP. 3rd party drives also tend to be faster as we have the option of Hybrid drives or Raptor drives.

Thoughts please.....

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I'd do 4x drives, RAID 1 for the OS and a second larger RAID 1 for the Apps/Data.

Having 2x separate spindles, especially for SQL, will lead to much better performance.

I'm not a fan of SATA drives in a server....they're for desktops. But WD Raptors, or at the very least...the 64 meg cache WD Black Editions or RE series, would be OK..since it's just a little office of 3.

Would never do SSDs on a server. Replace too many SSD's to want to take on that nightmare.

 

[freedomit]

I'd do 4x drives, RAID 1 for the OS and a second larger RAID 1 for the Apps/Data.

Having 2x separate spindles, especially for SQL, will lead to much better performance.

I'm not a fan of SATA drives in a server....they're for desktops. But WD Raptors, or at the very least...the 64 meg cache WD Black Editions or RE series, would be OK..since it's just a little office of 3.

Would never do SSDs on a server. Replace too many SSD's to want to take on that nightmare.

Thanks for the advice.

I'm not a fan of SATA either but when the server costs £400ex and the HP SAS controller is £415ex its an expensive option. For 3 users and without the overhead of Exchange & SharePoint I think it should be ok.

I just realised the model we are quoting comes with a 1TB HP drive, so I will match that in Raid1 with another HP 1TB for data and then put 2 x 500GB high performance SATA drives in Raid1 for the OS.

 

[MobileTechie]

For an office of 3 people I doubt any of this really matters much.

I've small businesses operating on single RAID1 setups with SBS2003-2008 running just fine in terms of the users experience - mail comes in, Sage acts as expected, files open nicely etc. And that is with old h/w and they're running Exchange.

AFAIK most of these are 7.2K SATA drives and probably not even "enterprise grade" ones either.

Dunno about you but I don't actually see that many outright drive failures in my servers.

Obviously in an ideal world you'd have SAS drives and multiple arrays and redundant PSUs and all that but in the real world, many clients prefer (and are pretty well served by) the cheaper options running a decent backup in case disaster hits.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Sage and Quickbooks and an SQL app....I'll call that heavy. 'course perceived performance is all up to end users experience...for some people slow is the norm. If you've experienced them on a fast server with high RPM and multiple spindles...and then you sit down at an "average" server...you'll be screaming "It's so bloody slow!"

Quickbooks...all about lots of memory and at least a mid-range CPU..and it can hit the disk a bit depending on company database size and how they use it. I've seen some HUUUGE company files.
Sage...snappy network, decent disks.
SQL....CPU and fast...fast disk I/O on the server.

Server essentials has a bunch of fluff on it that makes it a "no so fast" server...compared to vanilla server. By itself it's much more of a pig than SBS2003 ever was if standing side by side.

 

[MobileTechie]

Yeah but I'm wondering if an HP Microserver is likely to be a "fast server" limited by non-optimal HDD config?

Obviously you're correct and all these things will make a difference but it tends to come down to money, bang for buck and user perception. I might be more inclined to spend the money on CPU and memory here?

 

[marley1]

raid 10 with sata is fine.

I just had a microserver in that had issues with SSD drives.

I used seagate constellations

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Obviously you're correct and all these things will make a difference but it tends to come down to money, bang for buck and user perception. I might be more inclined to spend the money on CPU and memory here?

From our experience...even the cheaper model servers tend to perform "OK" when you put in a decent hardware based RAID controller, and you put in separate spindles, and decent disks.

Everyone here knows I'm not a fan of SATA disks in a server. I pretty much do not do them, unless on a super cheap server for a tiny tiny office...like...3 or less users. I have done a couple. I work on lots...sure, I often take on a client that has existing servers with SATA drives. I've started with an existing server with SATA...ran like a dog for the client. Often it's just a RAID 1. Same spindle. Can't begin to count how many SBS setups I've found on that. I've added a 3rd and 4th drive...created a second RAID 1 volume with that...now I have 2x spindles. For the price of 200-250 bucks. Move the second partition of the server to that second spindle...and it adds some performance. I'll often still replace the first two HDDs with upgraded SATAs...like Raptors or WD Blacks or REs. Get another little boost in performance.

This server here he's spec'ing...already at 16 gigs. Dunnno what CPU he's using....but even with a fairly base 4x core or 6x core ...it'll do alright with that.

As for RAID controller itself...I'm not overly familiar with the options on these Microservers...I don't do them, probably pretty limited with just fake-RAID options..but at least IMO...doing 4x upgraded SATAs...that additional pair of SATAs for a RAID1/RAID1 setup will cost just 250 or so more bucks. For the increase in performance that gives over a single RAID 1...IMO..that's the best bang for the buck. I would do a RAID1/RAID1 over a single RAID 10.

Client easily recovers that money over the course of time because you spend less time in front of the server (or remotely) waiting for it to reboot, or shoving in updates. I dread working on cheap servers with single drives when it comes to doing windows updates or reboots...man the sun and rise and drop before the server completes some stuff. it's painful. But my clock is ticking for the clients invoice...so ultimately they do pay at the end of the day, for skimping and getting a cheap server.

 

[MobileTechie]

You make a pretty good case for it when you put it like that.