64 bit servers

[garethEds]

Has anyone bought a 64 bit server recently? Any advice on what I should go for?

 

Naturally it depends on what I am using it for - but I have a budget of £2500 - £3000

 

Gareth

[PeterW]

Pretty much all current mainstream server CPUs are 64 bit.

For your budget you will probably be looking at a dual quad core xeon system with 4-8GB of ram, disk configuration will mainly depend on what you need it for.

[garethEds]

Pretty much all current mainstream server CPUs are 64 bit.

For your budget you will probably be looking at a dual quad core xeon system with 4-8GB of ram, disk configuration will mainly depend on what you need it for.

 

I want to play with virtualisation in Windows 2008 - someone mentioned HYperV so I thought I would start looking into it.

 

All of our current servers are 32bit running a mixture of Windows 2003 and 2003R2

 

I just want to play a bit.

 

GJE

[Michael]

Most newer hardware is 64bit compatible, but the majority of people still operate 32Bit. I haven't seen the need to upgrade to 64Bit Windows.

 

I can highly recommend Core 2 Duo processors and as for memory, either 667 or 800 DDR2; but make sure it has ECC As for hard drives, SATA2 is worth looking at instead of SCSI. The cost/performance is much more favourable. You may also wish to look at RAID depending on your requirements.

[PeterW]

I want to play with virtualisation in Windows 2008 - someone mentioned HYperV so I thought I would start looking into it.

 

If it is just for playing then you don't need to go too crazy just get plenty of ram and a single socket entry level box. However if you are actually going to start using it seriously and start to virtualize you will probably want to do some reasearch into storage requirements etc.

[k-strider]

MS have released a Bare Metal Hyper-V basically 2k8 core with hyper-v on... to run the mmc snap-in manager you will need another 2k8 server or Vista Client.

 

If all you want to do is run Virtual Servers on the box then a Core install of 2K8 is a good idea or the aforementioned bare metal release.

if its just for testing then i guess you don't need to go crazy maybe even a desktop board will do with a quad core intel... but watch out as some desktop boards will max out at 8gb... though some take 16... if you want to use it proper then don't buy the desktop stuff... I guess the key is a lot of RAM since each VS will take 1 - 4 GB depending on its role. disk system will depend on what you want them to do as stated earlier!

 

i think i mentioned in a different thread what our VS host does and has in it

http://www.edugeek.net/forums/windows/30126-physical-virtual-2.html

[synaesthesia]

Anecdotally re the 32bit/64bit thing, it's folly to opt for 32bit systems at this day and age. 32 bit operating systems should by all rights have been long gone 5 years ago with 64 bit being phased in nearly 10 years ago but complacency and laziness has been a major hiccup on the part of software development.

 

More to the point, whats the use of a 32bit server when you can only use up to 4gb (not even that) of memory. You may not need that much now but when you start munching the memory with names like Norton, Vista etc it soon adds up!

[IanT]

Most servers now are 64-bit, we got a IBM xServe which has 2008 64-bit, runs lovely

 

I think the next server version of windows is just going to be 64-bit I heard.

[Soulfish]

Most servers now are 64-bit, we got a IBM xServe which has 2008 64-bit, runs lovely

 

I think the next server version of windows is just going to be 64-bit I heard.

 

Windows Server 2008 R2 is dropping support for 32-bit only CPUs. Windows 7 will still support them however.

[IanT]

Windows Server 2008 R2 is dropping support for 32-bit only CPUs. Windows 7 will still support them however.

 

Thats the one

 

think we got a download of 2008 R2 beta on our MSDN site

[ICT_GUY]

I have a ML350G5, running 200864bit, a few minor problems but on the whole it runs very well. I do need more ram though, but its coping well with 100 pcs on 2 gigs of ram. Like I said it needs more ram. I do however have a second server as a back up domain controller which also does helps with dns and folder redirection.

[localzuk]

I can highly recommend Core 2 Duo processors and as for memory, either 667 or 800 DDR2; but make sure it has ECC As for hard drives, SATA2 is worth looking at instead of SCSI. The cost/performance is much more favourable. You may also wish to look at RAID depending on your requirements.

 

Core 2 Duo would be a poor choice for a Hyper-V server. You should be looking at up to date dual or quad core Xeon processors.

[Michael]

Core 2 Duo would be a poor choice for a Hyper-V server. You should be looking at up to date dual or quad core Xeon processors.

 

You do realise newer Xeons are just Core 2 Duo or Quad with Xeon branding?

[localzuk]

You do realise newer Xeons are just Core 2 Duo or Quad with Xeon branding?

 

Try doing a side by side benchmark test...

[PeterW]

You do realise newer Xeons are just Core 2 Duo or Quad with Xeon branding?

 

This can be complicated it actually depends on which Xeons you are talking about, if you are talking about the 3xxx series 775 single socket range then yes they are just renamed Core2 Duo & Core2 Quad parts.

 

Most people will be using 5xxx series which are the dual socket proper server/workstation chips and a different thing.

[leegcvcc]

Hi, I'd get a HPDL380G5 server. Best selling server world wide and for a good reason! Not a mammoth beast, but a superb server that supports twin quads, up to 64gb RAM, 8 x 2.5" HDD bays. I paid abou £5k for mine, but I have 5460 CPU, 32gb RAM and 8 x 146gb 10k rpm SAS drives, dual controllers for RAID 1 and RAID 10.

 

You could underspec this for your tests and fannying around with the knowledge that you can utilise this server with a bit more cash thrown at it when required. If you are goin to virtualize, you will be spending some serious bucks on a couple of servers anyway.

 

I have been playing with ESXi for a couple of weeks and although costly when you want to virtualise properly, well worth the money. Hyper-v just doesn't cut it quite yet, I'm sure it will given the same amount of development time as VMware have had, but from what I have read, the costs of VMware and hyper-v are fairly similar when all the features are included.

 

Need to look at a SAN if implementing seriously and failover and resilience are to be included. Hope that helps

 

Oh, and to your question I have installed w2k8 x64 but done nothing with it except play with terminal services, but seems fine...though not much of a test!

Edited February 7, 2009 by leegcvcc
Forgot to mention......

[Michael]

Try doing a side by side benchmark test...

 

As PeterW stated (better than I did) the 3xxx series are Core 2 Duo's with Xeon branding. The 5xxx series is when it becomes more noticeable. Quad Core Xeon with 12MB L2 cache, however this is when virtualisation isn't so viable. The price of the X5460 is £1000. It just isn't worth it at all.

 

I highly doubt garethedmondson will go for this with a £3000 budget, so instead of buying lower end Xeon, Core 2 Duo is slightly cheaper and is the same CPU.

[localzuk]

As PeterW stated (better than I did) the 3xxx series are Core 2 Duo's with Xeon branding. The 5xxx series is when it becomes more noticeable. Quad Core Xeon with 12MB L2 cache, however this is when virtualisation isn't so viable. The price of the X5460 is £1000. It just isn't worth it at all.

 

I highly doubt garethedmondson will go for this with a £3000 budget, so instead of buying lower end Xeon, Core 2 Duo is slightly cheaper and is the same CPU.

 

Huh? I bought a HP DL360G5 dual quad core Xeon 5440 server with 16GB ram and dual 146GB hard discs (ok they may be a bit small) for about £3k. Why would you pay £1000 for a processor?

Edited February 7, 2009 by localzuk

[PeterW]

For sure he could get a dual Quad core system with 8GB or more for that kind money depending what kind of disk configuration he wants/needs.

 

Also be aware that Xeon 3500 series (Nehalem) and Xeon 5500 series (Nehalem-EP) processors/systems will be launching next month.