Server for small local business, which one to get?

D

d3v

Member
Reaction score
8
Location
Nottingham, UK
Hi there, a small roofing company that I've been supporting for the last 5 or so years has grown to turning over 1m a year and now requires a server to cater for about 6 people.

The main function will be sage payroll accounting.

What is a good server to buy for £1000 or less?
 
Honestly, if it's JUST for Sage then pretty much anything at all will do. ServersDirect and ServersPlus have some great bargains at the moment. If there's no real prospect of growth I'd go with with an i3 or i5, 4x500GB SATA in RAID10. HP ML310, Dell T20 or similar. Server 2012R2 Foundation or Essentials. Essentials is easier to set up but Foundation is cheaper. Just make sure you have a good backup.
 
Guys I need advice as I've not really setup any sort of server except many years ago which did not turn out to be succesful!

I've proposed to the business owner the following...
Lenovo TS140 the description does not make it clear if it comes with hard drives. If not, I'm guessing two 1tb drives in RAID1 is the way to go?

and a NAS box for backups? I said the NAS can be physically situated off-site, say at his home, and that it can be setup to create regular backups of the server, can this be done? Would that Buffalo NAS box be up to the job?

What about remote admin of the server, as I do not want to be travelling back and forth to sort out little issues every other day! Does MS Server 2012 have the ability built-in or is there a software or hardware required to gain full remote server access?

 
Usually .servers are sold bare bone, or with minimal specs. Meaning, typically you choose the CPU(s), RAM, RAID controller, power supplies, NIC options, drive cage type (hot swap or not), HDDs.

Hard to tell from that server reseller you linked above.

You want to think of what OS to have, and if you want to setup a domain (active directory) or not. Like..with server essentials...it's made for a domain. So because of that, it is alrealdy running a little bit "heavy". I don't like having one big drive spindle/volume for a server. I like having a drive/spindle for the OS, and another for the data shares. And I don't mean a pair of drives...in a 1TB RAID 1...and then partition that 1TB RAID into two partitions...because that is the same spindle. 4x drives. Pair of smaller ones up front RAID 1. Pair of larger ones on the back end RAID 1...for the data.

For "just MAS90"...yeah one would think a big fancy server is not needed. But once you have something like Server Essentials....you have:
*Active Directory...a windows domain, and all that runs with that..DNS, DHCP, managing the computers and users, group policies
*File and Print sharing
*User Folder Redirection....users Documents and Desktop folders are redirected to the server. Quite a load here.
*WSUS managing clients
*RWW portal (remote portal)

Usually, a client will grow. Spec them a server that is barely able to run that you think they just need now....and in a short amount of time...it's been outgrown, filled up, runs too slow because it's running too much, etc.

I'd still pitch SAS drives as an option, with some education about expectations of performance. I'm not a fan of SATA drives in servers...they're for desktops. Quite bluntly...7,200 rpm on servers sucks...unless you're running something really light in workgroup mode. Save a couple of hundred bucks up front to spec a server with SATA drives...and then pay some tech several extra hours every couple of months of overtime rates to cover the greatly increased time it takes to manage the server, run updates, reboots, install stuff, etc. And then have unhappy, complaining staff about how sssslllllooooowwwwwwwwwww the network is. I really can't see the savings.

Versus...spend a little more up front for a good server grade disk system....spend less on support over the next 5 years, and have happier staff.

Are all the workstations "pro" versions of Windows?

Also, for disaster recovery, "OEM" WIndows licenses aren't fond of that. Know how Windows wants to reactivate if you clone it to new hardware? Well, image based D/R for servers is the same way. We always do volume licensing for servers OS's. I don't think it'a an option for server Foundation. But with Essentials it sure is. I recall hearing that Microsoft loosened up activation of OEM servers with Server 2012....I'm not sure of the details but I don't want to be spending half a day trying a dozen different Microsoft techs during a clients 911 with me trying to restore a server.

Yes you have options for remote access. RDP...servers have supported that since 2000. And remote web portals such as Server Essentials has. In addition, if you're supporting businesses, having an RMM is a good thing.
 
Your server RAID config should really be OS-RAID 1 and then a DATA-RAID 5. Considering your cost restrictions, this is cheaper than a RAID 10 in regards to available space. My .02.
 
I don't mind RAID 5 for file hosting volumes....but for database driven apps, you want good fast "write" volume...and I'd take RAID 1 for that for a small office. RAID 10 for sure for larger clients...but this isn't there yet.
 
Pixelated Tech said:
Your server RAID config should really be OS-RAID 1 and then a DATA-RAID 5. Considering your cost restrictions, this is cheaper than a RAID 10 in regards to available space. My .02.
Click to expand...
No way on RAID5 with 1TB or larger drives. It's just not safe - linking to an article I read in 2009 that explains it well (tl;dr Another drive will fail before you can even rebuild the array). RAID6 or RAID10 are much safer.

On the other hand, if storage requirements are small, a RAID5 of 250GB drives is fine.
 
It's not a backup, but you also want to prevent downtime. That means building a RAID that won't fail unless there is an extreme situation. There is more to keeping a business running than just not losing data.
 
Last edited:
Yeah on fake RAID and more entry level hardware RAID controllers, especially with SATA drives (which I stay away from both)...I've seen RAID 5 builds taking a good portion of a day or more. On middle weight and higher servers, with SCSI and SAS and good hardware controllers...rebuilds on RAID 5 is fine (as everything is better on true server grade hardware).

Years ago RAID 5 was quite common, as back then those server grade SCSI drives were wicked expensive...RAID 10 was a huge luxury on a high budget back then. I've done hundreds of servers with RAID 5 and didn't have problems. But again...didn't do it on fake RAID controllers or SATA. But with the cost of HDDs so much more affordable now...yeah RAID 10 is my preferred setup for a data volume. Or I'd just stick with RAID1/RAID1 on entry level servers for small offices.
 
@omnichad
I respect your opinion, but I was responding to the OPs point. Server w/ RAID for under 1000. My .02 cents was given. No, RAID isn't a backup (which was my point), but all RAIDs have a chance to fail in full which is why a solid DR plan needs to be implemented no matter the size of your infrastructure. RAID + Cloud or onsite backup.
 
Again, the point with not using RAID5 isn't about the quality of the server hardware. Or how slow a rebuild is. It's about the MTBF of the drives in the RAID. Based just on MBTF, another drive is likely to fail during a rebuild of one lost drive - meaning a potential restore from backup when it isn't necessary - and not having to do that restore and have the downtime.

RAID6 just adds one more parity drive to allow for that second drive failure. If you're aiming for under 1,000 a simple mirror is much cleaner and rebuilds quicker if you have to go to the backups.
 
omnichad said:
Again, the point with not using RAID5 isn't about the quality of the server hardware. Or how slow a rebuild is. It's about the MTBF of the drives in the RAID.
Click to expand...

AGAIN...with servers...for businesses (not home hobbyists)....if you stick with true enterprise server grade hardware, the likelihood of problems goes way down. MTBF of over 1.2 million hours on enterprise drives. You say above..."isn't about quality of server hardware or how slow a rebuild is". Yet on reply #10...you completely contradict that by stating " Another drive will fail before you can even rebuild the array" and linking to an article that talks about entry level RAID on SATA disks. So..which is it? Gotta pick one here..can't have both.

With todays massive SATA disks...on fake RAID controllers...yes RAID 5 is not smart....rebuild times would be painful. While I don't see the chance of a second drive failing before a rebuild is complete...technically, on paper, the "chance" is higher than true enterprise grade hardware since fake RAID and SATA is MUCH slower. So it may take another day or two. My experience with RAID 5 rebuilds on true server hardware is quite extensive...I've hot swapped an insane amount of SCSI drives over the decades, and watched them rebuild in hours just fine. Can't say I've ever seen a second drive fail in a RAID 5 volume before the fresh replacement finished rebuilding.

Without even thinking for a second, I would take enterprise hardware level RAID 5 over consumer/desktop level (take any RAID you vote for).
 
I used MTBF when I meant URE (unrecoverable read error) or BER (bit error rate) - which just about guarantees an unrecoverable read error within about 12.5TB of data reads on consumer drives (e.g. rebuilding a 5x3TB RAID5). You're right that the risks are about a 10-fold decrease on enterprise drives due to manufacturing tolerances. Unless it's a WD RE4 from a few years ago - they were terrible. And if you phase out consumer RAID5 about 5 years ago, we're getting close to the same for enterprise by now with drive sizes getting larger.

Fake RAID vs hardware RAID isn't even in consideration for reliability of a rebuild, because the error rate is averaged based on usage not the actual clock time.
 
yeoldcate thanks for the insightful post before the thread derailed slightly to a discussion on everyone's favorate RAID, lol.

I didn't see your post before I decided on what to get, what I ordered is...

Screenshot_2016_09_02_19_30_18.jpg



I forgot to order a switch, can you recommend one that will suit to serving 6 desktop PC's?

edit: why isn't my 640x480 Jpg picture showing up??


Server\Tower Lenovo 70A50022UK TS140, Intel Xeon E3-1226 V3 (3.3GHz,
8MB L3 Cache, 1600MHz), 1x4GB
DDR3-1600 uDIMM, 1 x 1TB 3.5" DC
SATA, 4x3.5" DC SATA, RAID100


Server\Hard Disks Western Digital WD10EFRX WD 1TB Red 64MB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s
Internal Hard Drive for 1-5 Bay NAS

Server\Memory Lenovo 0C19499 ThinkServer 4GB DDR3L-1600MHz
(1Rx8) ECC UDIMM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

callthatgirl
Outlook Classic Search vs New Outlook Search
Replies
0
Views
201
callthatgirl
callthatgirl
HCHTech
Automating certificate deployment for RDP over VPN
Replies
11
Views
2K
sits
S
thecomputerguy
One of the worst customer service experiences I have ever had.
Replies
18
Views
1K
Markverhyden
Markverhyden
HCHTech
Hot-Desking setup
Replies
0
Views
628
HCHTech
HCHTech
britechguy
Suggestions for a revised "Storage Topography" for a client
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
YeOldeStonecat
YeOldeStonecat
Back
Top