Help with new NT compatable server hardware

[braid11 0]

Please help me, I've spent well over 40 hours trying to figure this out. I think many other small businesses may have similar questions.

I own a small business with a small network (wordprocessing/in house office accounting). I would really appreciate some advice on upgrading my hardware, that would be nt 4 server compatable. Sorry this is so long, but I guess defining my current system and needs is important. For the impatient, please skip to my target system and Qs at the end of all this.

 

We currently run a server with 5 workstations. It was assembled in 1997. The basic hardware is as follows:

 

Server

 

WIN NT 4.0 SP4 server

-atrend vx chipset motherboard & P 166 processor and 64 k ram

-adaptec 2940u scsi controller

-4.3 quantum Ultra narrow scssi HD

-3com NIC

-seagate 24000n DAT 4GB tape backup with

execview 6.0

 

-SMC3616tc 12 port hub

 

workstations

 

Win 95 OS

 

-atrend atrend vx motherboards & 133 to 166 processor with 16 to 64 meg ram

 

We only run wordproccesing, client management, and accounting software (it's fairly complicated accounting with time/billing, ledgers for about 18 bank accounts, finacial statemtns etc). The programs are on the workstations, and shared data files on the server.

 

I'm about to install a shared cable internet connection through a router.

 

My problems with the system are these.

 

1. On the workstations, the 2 or 3 programs are usually open, and they often crash (but only rarely does the win 95 os crash.)

 

2. The accounting program runs are slow to processing any type of data.

 

3 The server has rarely if ever crashed. It is on 24/7 for four years. Our data is cricial, as is keeping the system going. If it were to be down for more than a couple hours on a weekday it would be a disastor.

 

I hate the idea of having to change hardware, then be told it will only run with WIN 2000 or XP OS, and then be told the application programs must be upgraded to run on a new os. I don't need nor want state of the art today, but maybe something that was outstanding 1 or 2 years ago.

 

I plan to upgrade the workstaions to NT workstation, on a motherboard based on the sis 630 chipset so all is fully integrated (ASUS cusi m or fx), with 128 meg ram, and put in new 10 gig hardrives (the old ones are slowley crashing and only programs and tiny bits of data files reside on the workstations). I understand this is a reliable setup, on which I could one day install WIN 2k pro or xp if I had to.

 

For the server, I'm having difficulty. The NT compatabilty list at microsoft seems either to only deal with much older hardware, or only tests newer hardware on WIN 2k/XP.

 

I want reliability, redundancy, and speed knowing it is only word processing/accounting. I would like to be able to change the OS to WIN 2k server or xp down the road. I really want value, and although I can stratch the budget if I had to, I think I can stay in the 1000 - 1500 range. I rather take the money home.

 

 

I think I only need a processor of about a P III 700 to 1.0 g. Would ram of 256k - 512.

Can't decide if scsi is neccesary, I understand todays IDE harddrives are faster than my old scsi HD.

 

 

Here's what I'm thinking.

I want reliability, redundancy, and speed knowing it is only word processing/accounting. I would like to be able to change the OS to WIN 2k server or xp down the road. I really want value, and although I can stratch the budget if I had to, I think I can stay in the 1000 - 1500 range. I rather take the money home.

 

 

I think I only need a processor of about a P III 700 to 1.0 g. Would ram of 256k - 512.

Can't decide if scsi is neccesary, I understand todays IDE harddrives are faster than my old scsi HD.

 

TARGET SYSTEM: reliable 24/7 with redundancy

 

Here's what I'm thinking.

 

BX chipset, on a first class motherboard. ASUS CUBX-E or something.

 

256 meg SDRAM at 100 hz.

 

Dual 30-40 gig IDE Harddrives mirrored with a Promise raid ATA 100 card. Maybe go to scsi down the road 3-6 months.

 

D-link busmaster 10/100 NIC

 

Use old tape backup system (seagate 24000n DAT 4GB tape backup with execview 6.0)

 

New 300 watt ATX 19" case

 

UPS of about 1200w.

 

Could someone please advise about the following:

 

1. Will NT 4.0 run on the CUBX-E motherboard. Is there another more modern motherboard (top name board with tons of ongoing support)that NT will run on, that might support PC133 SD RAM without overclocking. I would buy one with even a P IV processor, if I knew that WIN NT would run on it. Than down the road could run WIN 2kxp server. I don't mind spemding an extra 100-200 on the motherboard/CPU combo, if it's NT compatable.

 

2. what make Hardrives are extremley reliable that will be recognized by NT server.

 

3 if anyone runs a good reliable server within my needs, please post or email your full configuration for me.

 

4 I know advertising is not on, but if a dealer wants to advise me here or privatley, thats cool to.

 

Thankyou to anyone who managed to read this, and could please comment.

[clutch 1]

OK, after a brief look over your hardware, it looks like most of it will work. The only thing that I can think of you might have issues with is your ATA controller card as it will need an extra driver during the install process to be seen immediately. Now, if you REALLY want/need top-end reliability and redundancy, then get a SCSI hot-swappable RAID 5 controller/backplane arrangement. That way, you can install the driver for it during boot, and install NT's system partition (better make it 2GB if you want to upgrade and absolutely NEED to keep the existing information in tact) across a group of harddrives. This will also work if you are using RAID 1, but I am just a fan of RAID 5 so that's my opinion .

 

As for servers, I have:

 

At work

 

Compaq Proliant 3000R (2 RAID 5 Arrays in internal cages)

Compaq Proliant 5500R (4 RAID 1 Arrays across the internal and an external cage)

Compaq Proliant DL360 (1 RAID 1 Array)

Compaq Prosignia 200 (No RAID)

Acer 9000 (I think, it's the dual P166 unit that I have for web use) (No RAID)

Dell Dimension XPS 400 (It's acting as our Exchange server until I can get our new server and do some moving about of applications) (No RAID)

 

At home

 

• Server-1 (AD Root)

 

1. Windows 2000 Advanced Server SP2

2. PIII 550 (5x100)

3. ASUS P3B-F

4. 768MB PC-100 RAM (3x256MB)

5. Intel Pro/100 Management Adapter

6. Maxtor 6GB ATA-33 5400RPM Hard Drive

7. IBM 20GB ATA-33 5400RPM Hard Drive

8. WD 120GB ATA-100 7200RPM Hard Drive

9. Matshita CR-586 32X CD-ROM

10. 1.44MB Floppy Drive

11. Generic 14” Monitor

12. Generic Keyboard

13. Logitech Optical Trackball

14. Generic Mid-Tower Case

15. HP 722C DeskJet Printer

16. APC USB UPS

 

 

• Server-2 (Second Server for AD Replication)

1. Windows 2000 Server SP2

2. Celeron 333

3. Diamond Micronics C400 Motherboard

4. 512MB PC100 RAM (2x256MB)

5. Intel Pro/100 Management Adapter

6. Maxtor 20GB ATA-100 7200RPM Hard Drive

7. Acer 50x CD-ROM

8. 1.44 MB Floppy Drive

9. Generic 14” Monitor (sharing the one on Server-1)

10. Generic Keyboard

11. Logitech Optical Trackball (sharing the one on Server-1)

12. Enlight Case

 

Server-1 handles my primary SQL 2000 databases, web/ftp sites, and Exchange server 2000. Server-2 is my backup SQL 2000 server. Generally, these are my test subjects that I use after I get software from a class or before I use it at work. Would I recommend these configurations for commercial use? No, but they have been reliable. When setting up a server, you really only have to ask yourself two things:

 

1. Do I run applications ON it or THROUGH it?

2. How much am I willing to spend on it?

 

If you are running applications ON it (like database engines, email servers, etc), then you will probably get a beefier box that somebody who only runs applications THROUGH it (like simple file and print sharing). Does this shed any light on your situation?

[clutch 1]

OK, I just re-read your post, and noticed one small thing; you want to stay UNDER $1500 for your server? Wow, well, if you want to put a TON of faith into your equipment, then your listing might work out fine. However, all this talk of reliability and redunancy do NOT go hand-in-hand with low cost. The last backup drive I bought was around $800, and that was CHEAP! The cheapest server that I have ever setup with an OS was very recently for a startup company. It has no disk or power supply redundancy, but a sweet ServerWorks chipset and a P3 1GHz processor in it plus 1 20GB and 1 40GB harddrive in it. That baby was $2300 from Dell, and has worked quite nicely so far. But we, at work, have a mission critical application at work as well. It's our ERP system by QAD and that's what the first 2 servers on the list run. It has only come down once due to a capacity flaw in our version of the database software, and it was a "disaster" for about 4 hours. We actually had the software flown in that night to a small airport next to us so I could have it up and running the next day.

 

So, in short, you might really want to see what's more expensive; putting in close to $5000 now or having a meltdown and waiting for parts, not to mention the possibility of reinstalling the OS just to do the restore of your old data.

[braid11 0]

Thanks for the advice, that is helpful. This is a server that applications will run through (ie sharing data files and printers), not on.

 

I see what you mean about reliability/redundancy and cost.

 

I guess I'm not willing to spend enough for the best avaiable. In terms of reliabilty, I was thinking more about name brands that work with NT, and a reputation for not breaking down or crashing.

 

For redundancy and back up, I'm thinking I could recover quickly with a mirrored harddrive, the old seagate back up exec data back up system, and maybe a WR CD ROM for the few crucial data files.

 

The data files are small enough that in the event of disastor, they could be copied onto the workstations, and the work station applications would then read data locally. At least until the server is up.

 

So, for $1500,

 

ASUS CUBX-E& PIII 200

256 K Ram 50

2 40 gig ADA 100 HDs 300

Raid controller card 100

CD ReW 150

NIC card 100

New ATX case 150

 

Old tape back up nil

-seagate 24000n DAT 4GB tape backup with

execview 6.0

 

New APC UPS 500

 

Total 1500

 

Could upgrade motherboard & CPU to PIV and 133hz ram, but I don't know what motherboards work with NT 4.0 I would really like to do this, any idea's?

 

Writing this out really helps, thanks for the bandwidth.

[clutch 1]

Stick with ASUS, as they make some really nice stuff (I use it as well). Maybe try getting a hold of a CUSL2 and a PIII 1GHz proc (or somewhere close). That would be a pretty fast combination to work with. Also, throw as much memory as you can into it. Since it's so cheap, get at least 512MB.

[neuralfx 0]

as far as what motherboards work with NT, it doesnt really work that way, .. any modern motherboard, will *run* NT fine. not going to see a label on the board that says " will work with NT or anything". If you do want to save money, unless you absolutely have to have the special features that a 3com 100$ nic provides, you can stick with a much cheaper nic that works just as well. Im assuming you wont an ethernet nic and not wireless. The CUSL2 as mentioned is a good board, from what i see from your needs i think that would be more than adequate, but if you want a p4 any of the boards should work fine for you, but if your going to spend the extra money for a p4, you might as well get a RAMBUS/or DDR chipset based one, instead of pc133, but i agree with the last poster the CUSL2, and ram .. as a side note, the other day i upgraded a Dell, p3 600, with 128m, running NT4, that was ridiculously slugish to open programs, or even "my computer", to 640megs, and it had a very noticiable impact .. well just my thoughts .. good luck ..

-neural

[braid11 0]

OK, so I'm going to convert to Win2k sever OS on the server, Win 2kpro OS on the work stations. I'll go with Asus cusi-m workstation. I'm stuck for the server motherboard. The cusl and tusl are limited to 512k ram. What would be a good server board for 1gig+ non Rambus ram. Rember, the server only shares data files, and an internet cable connection. Workstations run wordprocessing and accounting applications.

[ok_interested 0]

well all i have to say is i dont know where your getting these old processors all you guys have mentioned ( u guys buying used equipment?) i build comps and i cant find anything below the gigahertz range from my wholesalers.

 

 

next i would recommend AMD over any intel as they are much faster and cheaper and if you ever have to, they overclock alot higher

 

just my two cents.

[clutch 1]

If you want stability, stick with Intel CPUs and Intel-based motherboards. Also, you should never, ever overclock any server (or workstation for that matter) that contains mission critical data. It shouldn't even come up as a possibility. A server should be designed around stability as well as speed, and Intel delivers on both.

[Brian Frank 0]

As much as I do like AMD, right now I wouldn't trust them in a critcal server. Your data makes the machine, not the parts--as they just sit there without anything. I'm not anti-AMD by any means, but Intel has been doing the server scene longer than AMD has. By this, I believe Intel should have stability to a T. Extra speed is worthless if you compromise your data. I would overclock a critcal machine, or any work machine, the same time hell froze over.

[ok_interested 0]

Quote:

.....and if you ever have to, they overclock alot higher

just my two cents.

well just to quote myself.. maby youguys missed the first few words where i said if you ever have to..

OF COURSE< i wouldent overclock a criticle system.. all im saying is down the road when the system gets old and you are going to replace it. its nice to know that you can take those parts home, and overclock them to get more performance out of it,( good luck doing that with your old intel stuff) and use it for some home system where reliability isnt that important.

as for intel being more reliable well thats a matter of opinion. from what ive seen processors dont account for a great majority of system crashes or problems, they tend to be more related to other components ..mostly Harddrives in my experience,


all i know is most systems ive been selling lately have gone with AMD whether its a cheapo DURON system which is way faster then celleron. or a more expensive DUAL Athlon MP system which is hellll of a lot cheaper then dual pentium xenons.

all i know is you get more for your money with AMD , why pay for intel's advertising campaign , thats all your doing when you pay extra to buy intel chips. the added cost of the chips does in no way reflect on the better performace or stability of their product, and choosing them without any reall basis on facts dosent make much sense.

also dont you guys remeber the recent problems with those awful intel chipsets in intel based high end boards ( high end at the time ) that were recently all recalled, due to the ram problems they had, intel really screwed up there, they even ended up having to give people free replacement ram to make up for their blunder, well i cant remeber an AMD chipset ever being recalled.

again my two cents,, of course others can try and tell you otherwise, but when it comes down to it they cant deny the price/performace gained with AMD is far higher then intel.

[braid11 0]

Now that I've been convinced to go upgrade the OS, a new motherboard will be chosen. The problem is finding one that will take advantage of up to 1 gig of ram or more. It looks like it must either

 

1. AMD Athlon XP 1600 with 512-1gig DDR SDRAM, on a motherboard like like the Giga-byte GA-7XDR+ (onboard 2 x UDMA ATA133 promise raid), Asus A7V266E, MSI KT266Pro2, or

 

2. Intel PIV with 512 - 1 gig RAMBUS on the i850 chipset, on probably the ASUS P4T-E.

 

The RAMBUS is just so expensive, so I looked at the i845 chipset on the ASUS P4B, but read lots of negative things about PC133 RAM with the PIV processor.

 

So I thought AMD, as above, for a less expensive RAM solution. I thought they were getting reliable enough for mission critical applications like a small file server. But now I'm not so sure. Should probably just buck up and do the Pentium/RAMBUS route.

 

In either case, my application is simple enough that I don't need dual processors, or a specialized serverworks based motherboard.

 

Thanks very much for the guidance.

 

Tom

[ok_interested 0]

did you read my above post.. you know my opinion. already..

 

like i said most the systems i build now are AMD, and you would be amoung the majority of my usuall customers which have all switched completely to amd. not only would your amd choice be faster and cheaper, but also just as reliable.

[clutch 1]

Which is fine, and it is your opinion. However, so many people have had issues with playing games and getting relatively simple hardware like video and sound cards to run in a stable manner with Via-based products (and they are the major MB-chipset supplier for AMD, from what I have read), that I can't imagine even installing a hotplug split-backplane SCSI RAID controller on it, or Fibre controller, 10/100/1000 controllers into an AMD system. And it appears that I am not entirely alone in this thought process, as I have yet to see a major server vendor produce any server based on AMD processors as of yet. AMD can't even get any on-board high-temp shutdown process to work properly as of yet, while Intel has had it working for the last several years (system might lock-up or slow down in case of cooling failure rather than blowing the CPU), so while I applaud their increase in perceived value in the desktop arena, they have to big shoes to fill for server-class computing. But, if you can show me a major vendor that produces them (Compaq, Dell, etc) or even if ServerWorks produces a chipset for them (which I doubt), then I would be very interested in seeing it as I am about to buy another server for work. This one, however, is budgeted at $25,000...

 

[clutch 1]

OK, as for mentioning "server" and "overclock" in the same sentence to a new person building a server, I don't think it's such a hot idea hence the response.

 

As for CPUs not being responsible for the majority of crashes, what CAN be responsible for a large amount of crashes is a poor chipset that has compatibility issues with the hardware that's installed. I've seen simple driver updates make SCSI controllers have total fits (one actually scrambled the drive letters on a system and rendered it inoperable) on really nice equipment that was expressly designed for high-availibility applications, so when I hear about this week's "4-in-1" driver coming out and STILL not resolving a problem with a mainstream video card, I have to wonder about reliability when it comes to a server.

 

As for the issue with the recall, I believe you are referring to the MTH (Memory Translator Hub) that was used in the i820 chipsets to make them run SDRAM. That was more of a marketing decision since RAMBUS was hell-bent on making everybody pay a premium for technology that they (allegedly ) stole from open source memory infrastructure groups. The MTH was an afterthought so the systems could use cheaper memory subsystems, but it didn't work well.

 

And now, as for "performance" being better than Intel, tell that to a person that keeps crashing because of a simple driver issue. Oh wait, you just did, as I had repeated issues with Via-based systems when we tested them in telephony products. AMD has some great processors, but nobody came come up with a mission-critical backbone for it, period.

 

Now, I was just advised by another patron of this board that Cyrix is indeed the way to go, and after extensive research I have to agree. Here is their new ultra-modern facility, complete with gas pumps courtesy of www.somethingawful.com:

 

Click above image for more marketing information!

 

So, you have your choices, and good luck with them.

[ok_interested 0]

firt off the cyrix article was really funny, thanks for the link

 

also i have also heard of a few via problems. but i havent used any via chipset based boards for any criticle systems.. usually server systems ive been building go with dual MP boards that use the AMD chipset, and really i havent had any problems with those.

 

and yup that was the recall i was refering to, all i know is it pissed off a bunch of people i know and since then they have stuck to amd. it seems all it takes is one bad experience with pretty much any company and people do their best to avoid it.

 

i think RAMBUS is what seems to have started all the screwups at intel, and i think most board manufacturers are starting to notice this, thus the SDRAM and some DDR RAM boards that are now being offered. however they also seem to have their problems.

 

the one good thing going for AMD is the abundance of chipsets to choose from.. of course some may see this as a negative aspect, but when you look at it the more choices you have the better off you are, in picking the right one for the job.

 

with chipsets like VIA and Nvidia's Nforce, i usually sell those boards mostly for for gaming or homesystem, as for servers theres always the AMD chipset, ( havent had problems with those) , or even to some extent the Ali chipset

of course there are others but i havent really used them.

 

like you guys have mentioned alot of it depends greatly on the compatiblity of the cards going into a particular system and the drivers running those cards. in conjuction with alot of other variables, like OS's , apps etc.

 

as for the heat issue with AMD, (whereby if a heatsink falls of your chip is toast) from what i have read this is more due to motherboards which are not correctly implementing their failsafe system. this is somthing that newer boards will take care of ( i think there already is a few out there and definatly more to come), assuming your using a AMD MP or Xp chip, (which is basically all i can get from whosalers anymore, since amd no longer sells the regular athlons) this however is somthing that Intell is ahead of in terms of saftey in case the heatsink were to ever fall off your cpu, expecially since they had this protection since their PIII , whereby amd has just recently released theirs.

 

again you people here obviously are informed and know what your doing thats one of the reasons i even come here is for informed advice, so i doubt you would be the kind of people that would be suckered into paying extra for intel unless you absolutely had to. It just suprises me sometimes how some people have formed opinions in their minds that intel is better no matter what, and they pay the extra price even though an AMD system would have been much better for their needs.

[clutch 1]

AMD has had a long history of dealing with thermal issues since their processors tend to run a bit hotter than what Intel is willing to release. While I am not a huge fan of Tom's Hardware, here is a followup article on their first one showing what happens when their units overheat. While this may not seem like something that would happen in a workstation, try using 10 1U dual-processor servers in a rack and see how much heat is generated (hence a reason why you don't see them from mainstream server vendors). Also, that link show's that it was more AMD's fault (as I would believe) since they are the ones that have to not only fabricate the internal workings of the CPU to be read, but write the guidelines for mainboard and chipset manufacturers to use in order for that function to work.

 

While you may have been working with desktop class systems, server class is a whole different world. AMD may be getting the last bugs ironed out in desktop systems (for which I have hoped a prayed for a long time), but they have quite a ways to go in servers. They are fast and cheap for desktops (well, the motherboards are a bit more expensive than Intel counterparts it seems) but I simply want stability at this point. The systems are already running so fast anyway that I just want the thing to run when I install new equipment. My Via board (Apollo Pro 133a chipset, their "Top-of-the-line" at the time) wouldn't use my USB UPS, didn't work in standby, let alone hibernate, and hated my GeForce2 Ultra. Yet, my Celeron 300a@450 in my old BX-based motherboard didn't have any of these issues and actually ran faster in some situations running Windows 2000 Pro (and the Apollo Pro had my P3 800 in it). Now, I read about infinite loop errors and wonder when they are going to get their act together.

 

So, now you have my reasoning. Been doing this for a while, and while I wait for someone to dethrone Intel from the server/high-end workstation front, I will continue to use and recommend their hardware.

[three 0]

anandtech went with amd for some of their servers didn't they?..

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1456

 

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1305&p=5

 

aceshardware has a nice article up too, they went a different route

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000240

[clutch 1]

Check out the configs, and you'll see an interesting pattern from the Anandtech peeps; all of the heavy number crunchers (database and forum servers) are running Intel platforms. Those would be "mission critical" applications. Since they have several "cheap" AMD servers that run in a load-balanced configuration (load balancers on Intel platforms as well since there were no 1U AMD mobos, probably due to heat buildup) they can act in a redundant fashion. So, they followed the example I listed.

 

As for the other link shown, that's Sun and they've been "Mission-Critical" and "High Availability" for a LONG time now. But then again, try pricing one of those bad boys out some time...

 

[three 0]

here is their explanation http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1401&p=4

Quote:

Although our last server upgrade consisted of a large migration to Socket-A platforms using AMD Athlon processors, a need for multiprocessor support for our single Forums database server kept the Athlon out of the running for this upgrade.?With the AMD 760MP chipset still four or five months away from being readily available, the only remaining option was to pursue an Intel based solution.

[clutch 1]

At the time, that is correct. However, you will be hard pressed to find anyone that would do it now. Compaq sells AMD processors in their workstations, but not in their servers. Ever wonder why that is?

[three 0]

i'm probably wrong here, but i would assume that their choice in sticking with intel on a server base platform is due to the fact that the amd platform is still relatively new and probably also the fact that it is limited to 2 cpus whereas a 'mission critical' database usually consists of numerous processors? the point is that amd is not a bad alternative and depending mainly on what your budget is i guess. but if you are just a soho user i think amd would be the way to go.

 

btw, amd does have 1U rackmount solutions :

http://www.einux.com/AServ1U1200.html

 

and here is a benchmark comparing AMD to Pentium3 dualies as servers:

http://www.einux.com/A1300SBenchmarks.html

 

oh yah, and we all remember the supercomputer used by boeing:

 

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2696507,00.html

Quote:

Boeing on Wednesday bought a 96-processor supercomputer based on the Linux operating system and Advanced Micro Devices processors for use in designing the new Delta IV rocket that launches satellites into space.

i would consider that 'mission critical'

[clutch 1]

I think that the point that I am making is that Intel has built solid technology for a long time, and is very reliable. AMD, on the other hand, has not. They are just getting their act together (which I have repeated) and do not try to sell their regular processors as server class or enterprise class. As for my personal opinion, I wouldn't load MS Money on any of the current AMD platforms, let alone any ERP system or anything that I would (as the thread starter pointed out) classify as "crucial" to my business. Oh, and one more thing, has anybody here run NT 4 Server on any of these chipsets from AMD being mentioned? I have on the ones I brought up (BX, i815, i820, etc), but I haven't seen anyone mention that they are running their accounting databases on it.

 

As for the 1U system, I wonder who has 10 of those bad boys stacked and running anything major on them. Must be one helluva sauna in that rack.

 

Speaking of a sauna, it would appear that "overheating" is still a major concern with respect to that custom server being built for Boeing. But, if you will build a completely custom chipset I am sure that they can get it to work just fine. But, as I have stated before, AMD procs are known for heat, and this heat can kill a server over time. I just want to see someone using a 2 way AMD server (I would rather see a 4 or 8 way box, but alas AMD can't seem to do that yet) to its limit for months at a time, and then speak of how durable it is. You don't have to go far to get that kind of information from Intel admins.

 

Mission Critical servers can (and in my case do) run dual processors at times. I run SQL server 2000 and SMS 2.0 on my admin server, and I will be ordering either another duallie or a 4 way unit for our ERP system (not sure if the Progress DB software scales that well to 4 processors for our application) and the SQL box not only maintains our SMS system, but it also handles our ePolicy orchestrator (McAfee), a couple of website databases, and website logging databases. As I have jobs running almost constantly in one thing or another on this box, it's pretty important for us. No issues, no worries. The 1U server with dual 866 processors runs quite cool, and the only problem I had was one of the 3 power supply fans was generating false failure codes (which the server alerted me to via email). I simply called Compaq and a tech drove out with another power supply and changed it. We have actually had our ERP databases running on a Compaq Proliant 5500R with a 400MHz Xeon in it, and it has worked really well. We are just outgrowing it at the moment, and plan on combining the file sharing of the ERP application with the database and EDI handling of it into one server (hence the possible need for a 4-way unit).

[three 0]

i know you know more (alot more) about networking and hardware then me clutch, but all i am saying is since he wanted something within the price range of 1500 that amd would be a good solution. as for heat and stacking 10 1U cases, well, I don't think he's needing that much as it would definetly be overkill. the only thing i have run is a ftp server on my tbird and it has never failed me yet. at work for workstations, i build only amd systems since my boss is very budget concious, although he has not been dissapointed in my decisions. as long as you get decent hardware and have a capable guy around to administer it, you shouldn't have any problems.

[clutch 1]

I understand and appreciate your point, and I do hold out hope for AMD in the future (especially for the nForce chipset that will also power it), I just know that when a person is a solitary admin it's much easier to buy once and then "forget" about the server than to have to deal with simple issues like heat buildup/cycling and component compatibility, let alone server stability. So many of our members here are desktop tweakers and host what they consider to be servers, but are actually PCs running copies of a server OS on them. Many of these people don't even realize the amount of tweaking and adjustment that they perform on a new installation to "bring out the best" of his/her installation, as this is second nature. When setting up a server, searching for drivers and hardware that are compatible with the OS, hardware, and one another is the LAST thing you want to mess with. This is like my love of IBM harddrives; I use them in my personal workstations and wouldn't give them up, but I have had one die on me and another die on a friend while many here have had the same issues. Therefore, even with a RAID setup I still can't really recommend any of their ATA offerings to low-end server builders since they *seem* to have a QC issue at hand. AMD has some kick-a$$ processors, that's for sure. I just don't believe that they are *quite* up for the challenge of production servers yet.