Budget 41-50k Server for 20 clients

G

GANESH KACHAM

Recruit
Dear Friends,

Kindly help me in buying some good server any brand which should support 20 systems for office use. My application would be MS Office, Internet Browsing, and few accounting packages like Tally & Focus.
I am looking for Dell/HP branded one. Please suggest me the good and efficient model or the configuration for the same. Also suggest the best brand if not the above brands.


Guys, kindly tell me if the below server suits for my office to support 20 systems? The quoted price is 39500/-

HP ProLiant ML10 v2

Intel® Xeon® E3-1220v3 (3.1GHz/4-core/8MB/69W)
4 DiMMs Slots
8 GB RAM
DVD
3LFF(3.5inch) Non Hot Plug SATA
HP 1TB Non- hot plug LFF SATA
HP Smart Array B110i SATA RAID Controller
1x 350 Watts Non-Hot Plug
1-Port Ethernet Server Adapter (X1)
HP iLO (Firmware: HP iLO 4)

Immediate response is highly appreciated.

thanks in advance
Ganesh
Director
TAKKAIAH AND CO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,

The issue is not about whether or not it will support 20 systems, but how do you want it to work with 20 systems.

Do you need to run the following on the server

1. Active Directory / Domain Controller Role
2. File Server Role
3. Terminal Server/Remote Desktop Role

If the answer is yes to all three, then no, this is not enough.

If you plan to run only the first 2, then this should be more than enough, just beef up the server a bit.

Additionally, if you plan to run additional services like SQL/etc, you may need an upgrade.

Coming to cost, yes the cost is good. We buy Dell T20 as I don't like HP that much. But of late, HP seems to be much improved.
 
Hi,
Have to agree with vivek on the matter, wanted to throw in the IBM x3100 m4 as a contender. have had it for about a year, super reliable, Hot swap is possible. To break it down, you can't use 1 server to host 20 desktops but 1 server to serve 20 desktops.(File Server or data storage).

Beef up the RAM, see if you can get hold of a few sticks from eBay.com, they're crazy cheap there.

Hope this helped.
 
GANESH KACHAM said:
Dear Friends,

Kindly help me in buying some good server any brand which should support 20 systems for office use. My application would be MS Office, Internet Browsing, and few accounting packages like Tally & Focus.
I am looking for Dell/HP branded one. Please suggest me the good and efficient model or the configuration for the same. Also suggest the best brand if not the above brands.


Guys, kindly tell me if the below server suits for my office to support 20 systems? The quoted price is 39500/-

HP ProLiant ML10 v2

Intel® Xeon® E3-1220v3 (3.1GHz/4-core/8MB/69W)
4 DiMMs Slots
8 GB RAM
DVD
3LFF(3.5inch) Non Hot Plug SATA
HP 1TB Non- hot plug LFF SATA
HP Smart Array B110i SATA RAID Controller
1x 350 Watts Non-Hot Plug
1-Port Ethernet Server Adapter (X1)
HP iLO (Firmware: HP iLO 4)

Immediate response is highly appreciated.

thanks in advance
Ganesh
Director
TAKKAIAH AND CO.
Click to expand...

vivek.krishnan said:
Hi,

The issue is not about whether or not it will support 20 systems, but how do you want it to work with 20 systems.

Do you need to run the following on the server

1. Active Directory / Domain Controller Role
2. File Server Role
3. Terminal Server/Remote Desktop Role

If the answer is yes to all three, then no, this is not enough.

If you plan to run only the first 2, then this should be more than enough, just beef up the server a bit.

Additionally, if you plan to run additional services like SQL/etc, you may need an upgrade.

Coming to cost, yes the cost is good. We buy Dell T20 as I don't like HP that much. But of late, HP seems to be much improved.
Click to expand...

@vivek.krishnan
Ex. Server with 2 Lan Ports; if clients connection is divide equally, will effect the speed. (10 Clients to on lan port of the server and 10 to other lan port via 2 switch, each for one lan port of the server)
 
You're better of with a managed switch (it'll be expensive) connected to the 2 server ports.
To answer your question: Imagine you had only 2 of the 20 clients active, each on the same switch, now you're choking that one server port where you could have put a full size 24-port switch that you could plug into both the ports. That is taking into consideration that both the ports are allowed to work simultaneously. You could use 2 switches to build your network but like i said you're better off with a full size switch.
Technically speaking, the speed is not dependent on which switch goes where but the load of the network. If it is something like a file server, then chances are you will never see the choking effect at all but heavy use like a thin client will significantly slow down your server. So depending on your requirement, the speed will be affected.
 
You're better of with a managed switch (it'll be expensive) connected to the 2 server ports.
To answer your question: Imagine you had only 2 of the 20 clients active, each on the same switch, now you're choking that one server port where you could have put a full size 24-port switch that you could plug into both the ports. That is taking into consideration that both the ports are allowed to work simultaneously. You could use 2 switches to build your network but like i said you're better off with a full size switch.
Technically speaking, the speed is not dependent on which switch goes where but the load of the network. If it is something like a file server, then chances are you will never see the choking effect at all but heavy use like a thin client will significantly slow down your server. So depending on your requirement, the speed will be affected.
 
gcbeldar said:
Assume all 10+10 clients are connected to 2 Lan Ports of the Server. Theoretically, is available bandwith is doubled ?
Click to expand...
Only if the server allows for simultaneous operation of both LAN Ports, a quick google search of your server and the operation of full duplex should give you an answer. Generally all server ports allow dual operation but i may be wrong. Since each port is connected to one switch, load balancing & port bonding is what you need. Load Balancing helps with the unmanaged switch, which i assume you will be using, whereas port bonding nearly doubles your bandwith.

Check this link out and read all the different techniques that you could use to achieve a full duplex connection bandwith without bottlenecking your clients because of the switch:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/3217...otherboard-how-can-i-get-double-the-bandwidth

FYI: If you put a cheap switch, you are bottlenecking you're entire network there itself. More is given on routers, switches and managing traffic in the above link.
 
Why do you need to have 2 LAN connections unless you are utilising the full throughput of a single NIC continuously? If you are using Tally/File Server/RDS, you wont need to use more than a Gigabit connection, especially for 20 connections.

Secondly, do not get a managed switch and use VLANs unless you have the needed IT infrastructure. It is not required and may end up being a big issue to troubleshoot.

Rather, if you are using Windows 8/10 and Server 2012/2012 R2/2016, use SMB3 multichannel to improve speeds. We see both NICs utilised.
 
vivek.krishnan said:
Why do you need to have 2 LAN connections unless you are utilising the full throughput of a single NIC continuously? If you are using Tally/File Server/RDS, you wont need to use more than a Gigabit connection, especially for 20 connections.

Secondly, do not get a managed switch and use VLANs unless you have the needed IT infrastructure. It is not required and may end up being a big issue to troubleshoot.

Rather, if you are using Windows 8/10 and Server 2012/2012 R2/2016, use SMB3 multichannel to improve speeds. We see both NICs utilised.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to have 2 Lan connections with 2 switches ?
Theoretically, client load is divided among the 2 Lan Ports of the server.
It is better to have 2 switches of 16 port for a Dual Lan Server ?
 
gcbeldar said:
Why do you need to have 2 Lan connections with 2 switches ?
Theoretically, client load is divided among the 2 Lan Ports of the server.
It is better to have 2 switches of 16 port for a Dual Lan Server ?
Click to expand...

Actually, it is never divided.

Plus, he is talking about using one switch, albeit a managed switch, which is expensive and the use of vLANs to create 2 sets of users. However, its complicated and is usually nothing more than a hindrance where none is needed.
 
vivek.krishnan said:
Actually, it is never divided.

Plus, he is talking about using one switch, albeit a managed switch, which is expensive and the use of vLANs to create 2 sets of users. However, its complicated and is usually nothing more than a hindrance where none is needed.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.

If you give us a brief idea of the kind of work your server will be handling or the load/traffic you would have, would narrow down the best option for you.

All my suggestions are expensive :p. If you do want to utilize the bandwith to its utmost maximum just use an unmanaged switch with proper static IP's and port bonding, should do the trick. But more on that if you tell us what work you intend to do.
 
@Clutchtime My office server is a dual Xeon E5 build. Runs 6 VMs. 128GB DDR4 RAM. Full flash, with HDDs only for the file server. I dont use vLANs, even though I can run them, having got managed switches.

The main reason - lack of good support staff. And cost. One of my IT guys actually replied he had no idea what is NAT. The cost of chaps who managed such servers, and such switches if nothing short of astronomical - I was like WTF when I got the quotes from a third party.
 
vivek.krishnan said:
@Clutchtime My office server is a dual Xeon E5 build. Runs 6 VMs. 128GB DDR4 RAM. Full flash, with HDDs only for the file server. I dont use vLANs, even though I can run them, having got managed switches.

The main reason - lack of good support staff. And cost. One of my IT guys actually replied he had no idea what is NAT. The cost of chaps who managed such servers, and such switches if nothing short of astronomical - I was like WTF when I got the quotes from a third party.
Click to expand...
Lol I second that, asked the guy who sold me my macpro to setup it up with my existing setup of 2 VM's and a bunch of other stuff, quoted 50k for just the service part. :p
Couldn't stomach any of that so i became a techy ;)
 
@GANESH KACHAM Go for a used one... I know someone who deals in enterprise grade systems all over india.
http://www.zacocomputer.com/
Company: Zaco Computers
Contact: Zameer Kazi
Email: Zameer@zacocomputer.com
He is owner of the firm, one of the largest in India that deals in Second hand Server hardware.

The server you've listed will work well for a Domain Controller (DC) & File Server nothing more, but still at this point you need to think about data backups & redundancy. not having a plan here will kill your business.

If you are planning on doing Remote desktops etc. you need more CPU & RAM, a Dual Socket CPU with atleast 16Gb Memory.
from what i am estimating you need about 300+ mb per user on idle use add about a few more for browser,Tally & Office etc. it should be around 500mb per user/ session so thats 10gb + 2gb for windows.
Also its not recommend to have a Domain controller & a remote desktop server on the same system so you'll need to create a vm on the DC so 16 gb should be your bare minimum.
Use a regular 24 port Switch, you don't need anything fancy like a managed switch. with what you've listed out in the OT your files ain't going to be that big to cause any sort of network bottleneck. It will help though if your server has dual LAN's then you can do NIC Teaming.
As for what brand, you can take your pick, you will have people siding one brand than the other always. its a matter of preference, I've used Dell in my entire rack.

@vivek.krishnan Thats the problem with IT guys in India (me being one)... my previous employer where i used to work at an non-IT position, their IT team used to come to me to ask for my assistance in troubleshooting issue & talking advice...& back then though i wasn't even a certified guy, just knowledgeable. although in all honesty, this is a field where everyone will not always know everything.

P.S. on a separate note, If you do need some help getting things setup & working in, send me a message. I am an freelancer, I do these things daily.
 
Also don't ignore software licenses required. Windows Server standard alone costs in the range for 40-50k and you have to buy CAL's separately which would escalate the cost even higher. You could go for the cheaper Essentials edition if it suits you.
Alternatively you can go with Linux but I don't think Tally supports it.
 
considering cost of hardware,software and management[labor] , how would it fare for this kind of user[20 machines with some storage] to opt for a cloud service like AWS or Azure? is there anybody using cloud virtual machines for small/medium business here?
 
@all4music I have, but its not viable, atleast in my opinion. I haven't seen any scenario where Cloud computing is a good idea...
Yes i agree that for Websites / web applications it is great but for VM's its not.
Moving to cloud is only viable if: You work for limited fixed hours e.g. 5 hours even more than that is not viable.

In one of the recent projects i was working on for an foreign client, required 1 VM that would support 300 users (100 simultaneous). We were supposed to have this 24/7 operational for 3 shifts.
The VM was 16 Cores with 56GB RAM 800GB HDD It was costing us $2.87/ hour OR $66.7 per day of 24 hours use which would be approx $ 2000. also needed 1TB storage for around $200/ month
Still didn't include internet cost that was $10 for 100gb i believe + extra charges here & there.

With that cost in mind, I purchased a Dell PowerEdge R710 with 2 x Xeon E5645 (6 Core) @2.4 Ghz 98Gb Memory & H710 (6GBPS) RAID controller which was for $900/- +purchased 4 SSD's of 500gb for like $800/- This server also included 1 year free replacement of any issues on parts.

Now You tell me whats cheaper having to pay $2000+ per month on the cloud or having physical hardware for $2000/- only.
 
Whoa guys, we've touched the skies from his initial budget of 39,500 :D
Just keep it simple. Tally and file transfer, the HP Server is enough. One switch with 24-ports and whatever software packages you want. If you feel there is a bottleneck just use NIC Teaming and connect both Ethernet ports of the server to the switch, should ensure maximum performance . If you and only if you wish to future proof yourself, max out the RAM(test and 1 stick at a time over a month and see if you actually gain benefits at the client end). That's about it.
 
Back
Top