On 2/25/2010 6:23 AM, Tim H wrote:
> Seemed to be hear a lot lately. Thank you everyone!
>
> In a previous thread of mine "priv1.edb maximum size", I explain that I have
> a customer who's exchange has maxed. I now have the go ahead to build a new
> server.
> Their current is a Dell PowerEdge 2800 SBS Standard
> Two - 2.8GHz single core processors
> 4GB RAM
> 3 - 136GB SCSI Drives in RAID 5
> 12GB C: OS Partition
> 272GB Drive D:
> This is a machine shop manufacturing company with 15 users. Some of the CNC
> machines pull data from the server.
>
> Question
> Based on the info provided does it appear that the new server should have
> Dual Processors or is that overkill?
>
> Here is what was quoted 9 months ago; (but I am second guessing myself)
> Intel Server with Server Board S5500BC (Dual CPU board)
> 2 - Intel E5520 2.26GHZ CPU's
> 8GB RAM
> 3 - 1TB WD SATA Drives in RAID 5 (Partitions: 100GB, 400GB, 1.3TB)
> SBS 08 Standard
>
> Your thoughts? I don't want to kill them with cost so I really want to know
> at what point should a company be using Dual processors? Now with
> multi-core is it necessary?
>
>
My contrarian opinion - I prefer to buy an older enterprise box for the
price of a RAID card. I'd buy a PowerEdge 2800 for a new deployment
today. In fact, I did just that a couple of weeks ago with a HP DL380,
8GB RAM, and (6) 146GB 15K RPM drives for $500 or so. The servers are
not really CPU-limited under SBS workload conditions.
That PowerEdge box would handle SBS 2008 without difficulty as those
Xeons are 64-bit. Bump up the RAM to say 8GB and add some storage. I'd
go with (2) 146GB drives for system volume in RAID 1, and a RAID 10
volume of (4) 300GB drives (this will survive a drive failure with zero
performance loss). The performance will be crazy-fast as long as you
enable write-back cache.
I never run RAID 5 on system volume. Being that I am in data recovery
business, I make a lot of money fixing RAID 5.
You may find it cheaper to buy another identical used box with this
config than to upgrade it by parts. A spare server never hurt anyone.
Please don't run RAID5 in an environment where people don't pay
attention to drive failure alarms. Such people usually get to meet me
with a sad story and eternal hope that their controller saved them by
shutting off the drive before it really died.
There are white papers available for high availability configuration of
Exchange. They key to remember is that transaction logs go onto separate
a array from the database array.
You can also throw in a couple of large SATA drives into that server for
less frequently accessed files in case 600GB of space is insufficient.
Software mirror them. Always a good place to store backups and such in
addition to the offsite ones.
My solution would cost your client about $500 or so in parts. A new
server will cost significantly more. The choice is yours to make. I'd
rather get paid that cash to me than to Dell or HP.

--
Leonid S. Knyshov
Crashproof Solutions
510-282-1008
Twitter: @wiseleo
http://crashproofsolutions.com
Microsoft Small Business Specialist
Please vote "helpful" if I helped you