Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Desktop HW vs Enterprise HW
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Desktop HW vs Enterprise HW

Today I have two servers at Hetzner, one 3770 with 16 GB RAM and 2 x3 TB HDD, and one 2600 with 32 GB RM and 2 x 3 TB HDD.
Both servers is running Windows Server 2012 R2 as main OS and Hyper-V for VMs.
The second servers is running most VMs.

For €11/mo more I can upgrade the second server to a E3 1245v2 with ECC, iNIC and Enterprise HDDs.

Is it really worth it to upgrade?
On my second server I already had a Enterprise HDD with few hours on it.
The first server had brand new HDDs when I got it.

At home I have two servers, and I have always used desktop hardware on them, without any issues.
So, will I be better off spending the extra €11/mo?

The servers has mostly private VMs on it, low usage.

Comments

  • TarZZ92TarZZ92 Member
    edited April 2015

    the processors are quite the same. (benchmark/performance wise) regarding the 2600 that's quite old, i would avoid it

  • myhkenmyhken Member
    edited April 2015

    TarZZ92 said: 2600 that's quite old, i would avoid it

    But it's working for what I'm doing with the server. Has been up for the last 80 days, no issue still.

  • TarZZ92 said: the processors are quite the same

    After saying that...

    TarZZ92 said: 2600 that's quite old, i would avoid it

    Seriously?
    Contradictory.

    Thanked by 1deadbeef
  • AmitzAmitz Member

    @yomero: No. You misunderstoodled his post. Read it again. ;-)

  • TarZZ92TarZZ92 Member
    edited April 2015

    @myhken

    Its old and you will get much better performance from the ivy bridge, the 2600 isn't terrible but would not be my first choice. The 3770 is a great for encoding too.

    • performance

    (Silly auto correct on tablet)

  • You are running a shit OS on these servers. I don't think it would matter much if it's enterprise hardware or not. The probability to get instability because of the OS is much higher than the probability to get instability because of the non-enterprise hardware.

    Thanked by 2DomainBop doughmanes
  • rds100 said: You are running a shit OS on these servers

    what an idiotic comment. WS2012R2 is one of the best current OS for servers. it's features are great and has quite a lot of enterprise stuff.

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • @TarZZ92 let's agree to disagree :)

  • ehabehab Member

    @myhken said:
    The servers has mostly private VMs on it, low usage.

    if its low usage spare the extra for other encounters :)

  • TarZZ92 said: WS2012R2

    Metro UI on server is just... stupid. Other than that I do agree that it's not a shitty OS.

  • eLohkCalb said: Metro UI on server is just... stupid. Other than that I do agree that it's not a shitty OS.

    it's simply disabled :)

  • Amitz said: @yomero: No. You misunderstoodled his post. Read it again. ;-)

    Well, unless you are being sarcastic, I still don't understand =P

  • yomero said: Well, unless you are being sarcastic, I still don't understand =P

    my comment was obvious.

    when i say regarding i am clearly talking about the 2600

    "regarding the 2600 that's quite old, i would avoid it"

  • rds100 said: You are running a shit OS on these servers.

    I use Windows Server 2012 R2 so I can use Hyper-V. My webservers are all running CentOS 6.x, my FTP servers and VPN server is also using CentOS. And my OwnCloud is using CentOS 7.
    But I use Windows as main OS for it make it so much more easy to manage.

    And I have never had any issues with Win2012R2. And actually, what different do it make if I'm using Windows or Linux on this hardware? Will the hardware be better if I change to Linux? ;) My question was about hardware, not software.

    Thanked by 1TarZZ92
  • ratherbak3dratherbak3d Member
    edited April 2015

    If your set-up is running everything fine, I see no reason to give yourself an extra expense. Desktop hardware has come a long way, the comparison of desktop vs server grade is completely different to what it once was.

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • myhkenmyhken Member
    edited April 2015

    I got me a E3-1245v2 with ECC RAM, Enterprise HDDs and iNIC. The S.M.A.R.T data seems good on both disk, but both disk has around 1.9 years on them.
    On my old 2600 dedicated my OS disk has also 1.9 years on it, but my DATA disk is a Enterprise disk that is almost brand new.

    So what to do? Keep the old one, or transferring all data to the new one?

  • @myhken

    Great choice!

    for data migration i suggest CIFS/SMB

    what make and model are the HDD's? (toshiba drives are quite reliable as are seagate 4TBs)

  • myhkenmyhken Member
    edited April 2015

    TarZZ92 said: TarZZ92

    It's Seagate Enterprise (ST33000650NS) 3 TB disks on both servers, and the normal disk on the old server is also a Seagate disk.
    On my second server, with the brand new disks (that I'm not going to upgrade now) it's Toshiba disks.

    Personally I don't like Seagate, most of my personal disks that has failed has been Seagate, and also at my customers. Latest Seagate disk that died was at a customer now last weekend. Did make me lots of money setting the computer up again with all software and new HDD etc, but too bad for the customer. It was a Acer computer, but they did use a Seagate disk.

  • The ST33000650NS appears to have good reviews (and they are quite expensive £170 in some cases) it appears in most cases that the 5900 drives are more reliable (backblaze 4TB seagates report extremely low failure rate. but i would prefer Toshiba or HGST drives anyday.

  • So then we are back to the basic question I have. Is it worth it for me to pay €120+ extra per year for the E3 1245v2 server contra the i7 2600 server.

    The servers main purpose is function as my personal backup server, then running 6-7 Hyper-Vms there two is FTP servers and one is a Owncloud server (also backup).
    No live websites on the server at all.

  • I would say yes, for not much more your getting "server grade" hardware, including a much newer CPU. However it depends if there was any issue with the old server for your usage.

  • No issues at all, the server has worked perfect the 80 days I have had it (or maybe 90). But I have seen people here on LET again and again say that desktop hardware is s**t and you have to use "server grade" hardware.
    Then I saw the offer on Hetzner for "just" €10/mo extra. But this is a server I have no income on at all, but it's important since it store my personal backups (of course I also have a online storage for the same backup, but still), it hosts some files I share on one of my FTP servers, but still, no income at all.

    So the €10/mo will come on top of the €27/mo I already pays for the server. (+ flexi pack and /29 subnet = around €20/mo)
    So using around €47/mo or €57/mo on a server with no income....would you still go for the E3?

  • myhken said: So then we are back to the basic question I have. Is it worth it for me to pay €120+ extra per year for the E3 1245v2 server contra the i7 2600 server.

    The answer is simple :). YES!

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • earlearl Member

    I would stay with the 2600.. just cause its enterprise grade doesn't mean it wont fail.

    for 10 euros a month i would much rather get another dedi like the ks2 or pay 5 euros more for the ks3..

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • @earl yea...you make it hard to decide. Don't need more servers. Actually I'm using my second Hetzner server to store a replica of my backup files from the first server. I also store Hyper-V export files there. Since the server has 6 TB of disk space, and all of my websites only used 60 GB, I have allot of free space on the second server.
    But that server is the server I make my money on. So I also store Hyper-V export files from this server on the i7 2600 server, just in case.

    Hmmmm....Hetzner will be mad on me if I cancel the E3...did buy and cancel some servers in the start, to press the price down. They don't like it....but thats three months ago.

  • Get a second server for redundant backups and let it fail whenever it likes.

  • earlearl Member

    @myhken said:
    earl yea...you make it hard to decide. Don't need more servers. Actually I'm using my second Hetzner server to store a replica of my backup files from the first server.

    Yeah I know how that feels.. I didn't mean to suggest for you to get another server, just pointing out that for 10 or so euros you can get a whole dedi instead of just an upgrade.

    Honestly if you're fine with the performance then I don't see the need to upgrade, It's not like it's a special one time sale that hetzner is offering.. you can always get it again if and when you actually need it.

    Thanked by 1myhken
Sign In or Register to comment.