New server recommendations

[Nathan Igo]

I have a client that I am trying to get to replace their server to bring everything up to standards and improve the office. Their current server is a Dell Poweredge with an E5-2630, 32GB ECC RAM and 3TB of data in non raid, a redundant PSU and Server 2012 r2. It was a total overkill when they bought it and was never setup correctly.

Even though they don't actually need a server and can get by with a simple NAS, they think they need one so I want to replace the entire thing to get them actually legal (they do not have enough CAL's currently) and improve the network speed. The current box does not have link aggregation and they easily saturate the connection with the file shares with only 18 employees.

All the server has to do is basic AD, which I will be linking to Azure, and file storage. I am looking for a 2u or 4u solution to handle that with either a 10GB sfp port or link aggregation and at least 8 drive bays to fill out the storage.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

For that small of a load...a 2U should be more than enough. Hyper-V...and have 2x guests....1x for the DC/Infrastructure, the other for SQL. If that 3TB was way overkill...what is their current space consumption? R10 on SSDs....and I'd go with 64 gigs of RAM. Forecasting for the future. Any chance of hybridizing with O365? Moving file storage to SP/Teams? Folder redirection being replaced by OneDrive?

 

[SAFCasper]

For 18 employees you may want to consider going with Windows Server 2019 Essentials then you don't have to worry about CAL's. It's capped at 25 users though, so keep future growth in mind.

As for hardware - we are a Dell shop so probably looking at a PowerEdge R340.

The R340 is 1U but has a chassis option with 8x 2.5" drive bays. If that's not quite enough Dell have a thing call BOSS (Boot Optimised Storage Solution). This is is basically a PCIe card for 2x M.2 SSD's which you can put in RAID1 and boot from. The idea is to use 2 small 240GB SSD's and install the host OS here, leaving you all 8 drive bays free for larger storage drives.

Don't know your storage requirement

I'm also going to argue that 64GB RAM is total overkill. Fileservers don't use much memory and neither will AD for 18 users. RAM is easy to upgrade in the future if required, so personally I would stick with 32GB here to begin with. You will get a better idea of actual memory usage from looking at the existing setup though.


PS.
Something to keep in mind if going 10GB. If the switch will be in the same rack get a SFP+ card in the server and use a DAC cable. Easier and cheaper than using RJ45 optics. Only downside is they max out around 5m in length.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Without knowing the specs of the SQL database, I'll maintain 64 gigs is not overkill.
Leaving 8 gigs for the H-V host, 8 gigs for the DC, I typically like SQL servers to start at 24 or 32 gigs...but again, we don't know the actual size of the database or log file activity. RAM is cheap. Installing RAM at a later date is substantially more expensive than spec'ing the server with more than adequate RAM in the first place. Going back to "fix/upgrade" a previously under spec'd server always costs way more.

Knowing the SQL database activity also can help plan hard drive arrangement. Think about those spindles.

 

[marley1]

Our standard build is going to be T340 or R.
We do single Xeon 8 core or higher
64gb
SSD in raid 1 or 10
5 year

Hyper V, O365 standards

 

[SAFCasper]

Without knowing the specs of the SQL database, I'll maintain 64 gigs is not overkill.
Leaving 8 gigs for the H-V host, 8 gigs for the DC, I typically like SQL servers to start at 24 or 32 gigs...but again, we don't know the actual size of the database or log file activity. RAM is cheap. Installing RAM at a later date is substantially more expensive than spec'ing the server with more than adequate RAM in the first place. Going back to "fix/upgrade" a previously under spec'd server always costs way more.

Knowing the SQL database activity also can help plan hard drive arrangement. Think about those spindles.

I would agree if they were actually running SQL. Go re-read the opening post


"All the server has to do is basic AD, which I will be linking to Azure, and file storage."

"Even though they don't actually need a server and can get by with a simple NAS..."

 

[Nathan Igo]

Sorry for the late reply and thank you for all the responses.

I think the OP may have been worded a little weird but basically all they need is a NAS that can do active directory. At max capacity in this new office they will have a total of about 29 employees which is why I am trying to stay away from essentials which was mentioned.

There is also no SQL database and I probably wont even run the different services in VM's since its just AD and file shares. I reached out to a rep and got a quote for what looks good but still complete overkill but will probably run with it. The total came out to $6k for a 2U Xeon 4110, 64GB RAM, 2x 512 SSD in raid for boot, 3x 4TB enterprise drives in RAID 5 with 2019 standard and 20 cals. Also includes redundant PSU and dual SFP+ ports with load sharing and 8 hotswap bays for future storage expansion.

In the move I snuck in a Ubiquiti 48 port POE switch so the 2 SFP+ ports will fit perfect and more than fix the bottleneck they currently have with their 10/100 card on the current "server". They bought it as a refurb and the mobo slot was hotglued closed and a pci card added that was only 10/100.

Is there anything I am missing or does the price sound high for the parts?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Sorry I must have had another tab open for a different thread somewhere where there was a SQL server so crossed threads.

RAID 5 has slow writes....how much storage do you need?
Also, I'm a fan of giving the users fast disks. The OS boot volume..sure the helps you a few times a year after hours when you're doing Windows updates. But Mon-Fri...9-5...the disks that get used by the staff...are whatever disks are on the data volume. The OS volume doesn't come into play here...so they never get to see the benefit of the SSDs. Data volume should be SAS or SSD...not 7,200rpm spinners.

 

[SAFCasper]

Agreed. At minimum I'd want to upgrade that to 4x 4TB drives in RAID10 for better performance.

I'd also be very keen on those drives being SAS even if it means using NL-SAS (7,200rpm). I just don't trust SATA in servers even for supposed "enterprise" hard drives.

SSD would be ideal but at 8TB useable requirement it's going to get expensive fast.