Need help with server replacement options

[browolf]

I currently have 4 quotes by different companies to replace our 6-7 yr old non-virtualised servers with a new virtualised system.

I'm not really sure what's best out of them and the variation between lowest and highest is £8000

 

The specs of the school are 1500 pupils, 350 workstations & pupil laptops, 75-100 staff laptops/desktops, 50 printers,

Currently our servers are 3 Domain controllers/file/print servers, 1 terminal server, 1 sophos server, 1 sql sims server, 2 admin file servers, 2 UPSs, 4 TB San with 8GB fibre channel

We also having the network upgraded to 10Gb

 

Option 1 Hyper-V 2 servers 1 san

=====================

 

2x Dell R440

each with 2x intel xeon silver 4110, 128GB Ram, 2x 300gb 15k sas drives

 

1 Dell Md3420 SAN with 4 x800GB SSD + 20 1.2TB 10k SAS

 

Option 2 HyperV 2 servers no san

=====================

 

Intel server system R2000WF Series (R2312WF)

each with 2x Xeon Silver 4114, 96GB Ram, 4x 2TB 7200rmp Sata, 2x960GB SSD,

 

Option 3 VMware 3 servers 1 san

====================

 

3x HP DL360 Gen9 Diskless

each with Xeon E5-2620v4, 80GB ram, 8GB SD Card,

 

HP MSA 2240 with 9x 1.8TB 12G SAS 10k,

 

Option 4 Vmware 2 Servers 1 San

=====================

 

2x HP DL360 Gen9 Diskless

each with Xeon E5-2620v4, 176GB ram, 8GB SD Card,

 

HP MSA 2240 with 9x 1.8TB 12G SAS 10k,

 

What do you think?

 

Edit: the companies providing the hardware are also doing the migration. HyperV or VM is their preference.

Edited May 9, 2018 by browolf

[Steve21]

I mean those 4 are so different it's not really comparable in that sense.

 

Firstly do you want hyperV or Vmware? If you want hyperV you really do want a disk based server so #3/4 are pointless. (generally would always recommend HyperV as it's a lot cheaper and easier for smaller setups)

 

#2 I'd wipe off as the 7.2k drives are pretty poor in all regards for a main server.

 

Of all of them I'd prefer #1, but it's not a proper SAN its a disk array and personally I think more RAM would be better.

 

Personally though I'd dump all those options, and consider two decent fat hosts stacked with local disks replicating between the two. Unless you think you'll be expanding to 3/4 servers anytime soon you're going to spend a lot to get shared storage when you probably don't need it.

 

Steve

[browolf]

I mean those 4 are so different it's not really comparable in that sense.

 

Firstly do you want hyperV or Vmware?

 

 

I have no personal preference - The companies are providing the hardware and doing the migration so the host software is their preference.

[Steve21]

I have no personal preference - The companies are providing the hardware and doing the migration so the host software is their preference.

 

You still have to do the day to day management of the HOSTs though, and pay for licensing on-going etc etc Just because they're doing the install doesn't mean you shouldn't be deciding that side really

 

Steve

[Oaktech]

Hyper V whatever. It's not as nice as VMWare on a day to day basis, you have to shut servers down to perform certain reconfig functions, but if you buy in 2 copies of data centre you can run as much of whatever you like saving a metric ton on windows licensing.

 

Personally I'd always go 2 server (minimum) dual ethernet fabric and a dual controller san.

[JackCPickup]

Why a SAN for so few hosts? It's not really recommended until you're nearing 10 hosts. You'd be better looking at 2 or 3 node hyperconverged systems to avoid an IPOD with 1 SAN.

[browolf]

Why a SAN for so few hosts? It's not really recommended until you're nearing 10 hosts. You'd be better looking at 2 or 3 node hyperconverged systems to avoid an IPOD with 1 SAN.

 

I think there would be around 10 hosts.

[JackCPickup]

I think there would be around 10 hosts.

 

Running how many VMs?

[mavhc]

with modern SSDs and fancier hypervisors a SAN doesn't make as much sense for many situations. What I'd check is how much upgrades would cost for each.

 

Also why is the total storage so different? And who's putting 2TB 7200 drives in anywhere, just go straight to 8TB, all a bit weird really

[browolf]

Running how many VMs?

 

oh i mean 10-12 vms in total

[PotNoodleTech]

There's only one option for no SAN so I picked that. Could go with 3 servers with no SAN.

 

It depends on your budget - for me I can restore entire VM's so fast from Veeam that getting a dead VM / Dead host back up and running is fast and easy. No need to add vast extra cost and complexity for a "what if it happens once every 5 years" scenario.

 

If a host dies, restore the VM's onto another host. Just make sure you have enough HDD space on the other hosts to cater for your entire VM count.

[SVM]

I would also go with 2 hosts with local hard drives. We have 2 hosts running Hyper-V, with around 32 VMs and Hyper-V replica between the 2

[sluggster66]

What's your budget?

[browolf]

What's your budget?

 

30-40k

[JackCPickup]

30-40k

 

I recommend getting in touch with Scale Computing, you can spend substantially less and get something properly redundant. I can pass a Regional Managers info if you'd like.

[PotNoodleTech]

£10k on a pair of refurbished Dell 730XD chock full of 500Gb SSDs = one superfast super reliable system. Spend the other 20-30k on classroom stuff? (chromebooks?)

[yac2016]

Agree you could do this setup way cheaper, no need for a SAN either.

 

Saying that in Staffordshire we have a couple of companies who have charged 50K plus for primary school servers over 5 years!

[sparkeh]

Personally I would lean toward something like:

• Using Hyper-V: unless you really, *really* want those extra VMWare feaures you will save a ton of cash that can be spent elsewhere.
  
• No SAN
  
• x2 servers specced to cope with your entire VM count with replication between them.
  
• Veeam to backup.
  

[yac2016]

Personally I would lean toward something like:

• Using Hyper-V: unless you really, *really* want those extra VMWare feaures you will save a ton of cash that can be spent elsewhere.
  
• No SAN
  
• x2 servers specced to cope with your entire VM count with replication between them.
  
• Veeam to backup.
  

 

This seems like the best solution these days, saves loads of cash. I like Veeam but Altaro is just as good and cheaper. £350 per host with unlimited VM's per host. takes 15 minutes to setup.

[smarties11]

£10k on a pair of refurbished Dell 730XD chock full of 500Gb SSDs = one superfast super reliable system. Spend the other 20-30k on classroom stuff? (chromebooks?)

 

Hi,

 

Is there any particular supplier you'd recommend for this type of setup?

[PotNoodleTech]

Hi,

 

Is there any particular supplier you'd recommend for this type of setup?

 

Server Source - Europe's Leading provider of Refurbished Dell PowerEdge and PowerVault servers

 

Dell PowerEdge Servers

 

Just picked up a Dell R720XD from ITInstock chock full of 3TB drives for my new backup server. Bargain!

[sluggster66]

I recommend getting in touch with Scale Computing, you can spend substantially less and get something properly redundant. I can pass a Regional Managers info if you'd like.

 

 

I looked at scale and they were a little higher than the top end of your budget. Also the lack of an ideal backup solution didn't help.

 

We went with Starwind HCA with 11.2 TB usable, really interesting tech.

[nicholab]

I think the answer is too identical servers with storage spaces direct (server 2016) to create a hyper converged environment. Some how you might be able to get them to come back with this solution. It what I would now do with ICT direct hardware.

[browolf]

Over priced/powered - it's probably how we ended up with 8GB fibre channel switches last time...

 

This Storage spaces direct thing seems pretty cool!

[nicholab]

Over priced/powered - it's probably how we ended up with 8GB fibre channel switches last time...

 

This Storage spaces direct thing seems pretty cool!

 

It almost worth asking the companies to all come back with designs based on storage spaces direct.

I would also be tempted to go down to two DC two file servers for the whole network and put print on a separate machine.