All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Question - Two E3's vs One Dual E5
I currently have 2 dedicated servers with Incero.
I've been extremely happy with the network and service there, and I don't have any plans to move.
Each server has a E3-1270v2, 32GB of RAM, and 4 x 4TB drives on a RAID 10 array, running ESXi.
I currently am pretty much maxed out on the CPU and RAM on each server, but I probably don't need to add any more VMs for the next while, and I can move one VM off of the servers if I would need to give any of the VMs additional resources.
I was paying yearly for those servers, and the renewal for both is coming up very shortly.
The pricing has gone up somewhat, which is understandable, but I'm trying to decide if I'd be better off combining both servers into one server with dual E5's, and more RAM, going forward.
The dual E5 server would probably end up being a bit more, but would give me more flexibility going forward. At the same time, I have some VMs that need a decent amount of resources, and I'm wondering if trying to put everything on to one server isn't a great idea.
Does anyone have any recommendations?
Thanks a lot!
Comments
Which E5 are you going to get? If you're maxing out 2 E3s, then 2 E5's would struggle a little as well. You're combining 2 servers into one which means double the IOPs & double the network saturation. Can your RAID 10 setup handle the IOPs and how much bandwidth are you using per server?
How much of the disk space are you using?
Do you hit I/O quite hard, was you looking at any particular E5 model?
Not sure yet about the CPUs, maybe would go with a dual E5-2620 setup.
I am streaming audio with a lot of people tuned in, but the main network usage is between 2 VMs, the one streaming audio, and a cPanel VM. Good point on the network though, I currently have a gigabit connection, might need to upgrade that too.
I probably have roughly half of the storage space available on each server, maybe a bit more than that on one of them.
I am running VDP instances on each server for backup, each of which backs up both servers (which then replicated to a third offsite VDP instance), which may be too redundant, but if I combine them, I would probably only keep one instance, which would reduce the disk usage by a decent amount as well.
I never checked the IOPs on the servers, not even sure if there's an easy way to do that with VMWare, but I haven't had too many issues, from what I can tell so far.
Thanks!
If your looking at a dual E-2620V3 then your actually getting less benchmark rated CPU power than the two E3-1270v2.
You would need to look at the higher end Dual 26xx to be able to match/increase over the raw power of the E3-1270v2.
Hm, good point.
The higher end E5's are going to be a lot more, very possibly may not be worthwhile then.
Is what you're running able to make use of multiple cores and does it do that well? If it's threaded, the E5s will definitely be a good upgrade. The E3s are better for single core applications (I.E. - Minecraft), but the E5s will handle something like a web server much better.
Depends on what you are paying annually at the moment.
for raw CPU power , 2 x 1270 v2 > 2 x 2620 V3.
But as already said, for single threaded apps, 1270 is the better choice. But for "multi-core" optimized apps, more cores of 2620 might be better suitable than 1270.
Yes Incero E5 CPU cost does go up rather quickly when you look at upgrading CPU's.
Have you contacted them to see if they can do you a deal on your current 2 servers? Or they may have something in stock they could offer you on a special.
I am sure they would be happy to keep your custom for another year.
2 x E3 would be better off, you get 2 of everything whereas a dual E5 would be sharing everything, even IF you get a higher benchmark and E5 being more robust.
I have 2 CentOS/cPanel VMs, 2 small Debian VMs running Centova, a Windows 7 VM, and a Windows 2012 VM (using it as a regular Windows machine with a MariaDB database and a broadcasting program, not using the server features much, had an extra license anyway).
Not running a whole lot on the Windows VMs, but I have a few programs there that use the additional cores.
The main "limit" with the E3's is the 32 GB of RAM, where I can add more RAM with the E5's, but like was mentioned, the cores aren't as powerful.
The redundancy is also good, but on the other hand, I don't really have redundant copies of any VMs, so that doesn't really matter.
We run dual E5-2643 V3 CPUs on our Wable nodes. We don't currently have them on the Incero order form, but have deployed them for clients on a custom basis, ~$1600 setup per CPU eeeek (as is current vendor price).
Anyway, my point being; the E5-2643 V3 is the way you get the high cores speed, but with the high RAM ability. It just isn't cheap. On the E5 machines at Incero you have redundant PSUs to diverse PDUs + UPS, vs single PSU/PDU/UPS on the E3s.
yeah i saw those on my wable NY vpses.. E5-2643v3 @3.40Ghz is very nice
US$1,600 setup YIKES !
Setup fees don't scare me as much, I generally plan to keep my servers for a while, and I'm willing to lay out money for the initial setup, if I can keep my yearly/monthly costs reasonable and I know the prices won't go up after putting in a lot of money initially...