FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-26-2012, 07:27 PM
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> We've had a number of servers fail, and it *seems* to be related to the
>> motherboard.
>
> I too have had bad experiences with SuperMicro motherboards; never had one
> last more than three years.

These are with AMDs, but we have a good number of 48-core servers that
have been pretty good (with a few exceptions); there are more problems
with the 64 core servers.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-26-2012, 07:58 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

Dne 26.6.2012 15:40, Rafał Radecki napsal(a):
> Hi all.
>
> I am working for a hosting provider in Poland. We are currently
> searching for an universal, extensible hardware platform which we
> would like to use in our server infrastructure.
> The platform should have:
> - possibility to install up to 32GB of RAM and at least 4 slots for it;
> - at least 6 SATA ports;
> - the possibility to use SAS disks;
> - at least one 1Gb/s network interface and the possibility to add another one;
> - size of 2 or 3U;
> - hot swap for disks.
> We are looking for a solution in which we would be able to deploy a
> basic server with for example 2 SATA disks, 8GB of RAM, 1 NIC, 4 cors
> and to be able to use the same enclosure and motherboard and extend it
> to deploy a more heavy-duty server with for example 6 SATA disks, 24GB
> of RAM, 2 NICs, 8 cors.
> Which manufacturer can you recommend and why? We are looking for
> something rather not expensive but reliable which has a good support.
> All servers will be based on CentOS5/6
>

Cisco UCS? ) Kidding, too pricey for these requirements. Your
requirements are quite low and almost every desktop motherboard is ok
nowadays. If your infra is built with failure in mind, you can go
Google way. No special HW, just HA sw solution.
Regards,
David Hrbáč
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-26-2012, 08:15 PM
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

David Hrbáč wrote:
> Dne 26.6.2012 15:40, Rafał Radecki napsal(a):
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I am working for a hosting provider in Poland. We are currently
>> searching for an universal, extensible hardware platform which we
>> would like to use in our server infrastructure.
>> The platform should have:
>> - possibility to install up to 32GB of RAM and at least 4 slots for it;
>> - at least 6 SATA ports;
>> - the possibility to use SAS disks;
>> - at least one 1Gb/s network interface and the possibility to add
>> another one;
>> - size of 2 or 3U;
>> - hot swap for disks.
>> We are looking for a solution in which we would be able to deploy a
>> basic server with for example 2 SATA disks, 8GB of RAM, 1 NIC, 4 cors
>> and to be able to use the same enclosure and motherboard and extend it
>> to deploy a more heavy-duty server with for example 6 SATA disks, 24GB
>> of RAM, 2 NICs, 8 cors.
>> Which manufacturer can you recommend and why? We are looking for
>> something rather not expensive but reliable which has a good support.
>> All servers will be based on CentOS5/6
>
> Cisco UCS? ) Kidding, too pricey for these requirements. Your
> requirements are quite low and almost every desktop motherboard is ok
> nowadays. If your infra is built with failure in mind, you can go
> Google way. No special HW, just HA sw solution.

I do not think you want any desktop m/b, not for a hosting provider
server. Spend a bit more and get server-class machines. That's right, you
*did* mention 2 or 4 U servers. Really, for what you want, you can get in
a 1U box. The Penguins I mentioned were, I think (I didn't order them)
under $10k or $12kUSD, or the Dells, were all under $20k each, maybe under
$15kUSD.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-26-2012, 08:32 PM
Patrick McEvoy
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

On 06/26/2012 08:40 AM, Rafał Radecki wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I am working for a hosting provider in Poland. We are currently
> searching for an universal, extensible hardware platform which we
> would like to use in our server infrastructure.
> The platform should have:
> - possibility to install up to 32GB of RAM and at least 4 slots for it;
> - at least 6 SATA ports;
> - the possibility to use SAS disks;
> - at least one 1Gb/s network interface and the possibility to add another one;
> - size of 2 or 3U;
> - hot swap for disks.
> We are looking for a solution in which we would be able to deploy a
> basic server with for example 2 SATA disks, 8GB of RAM, 1 NIC, 4 cors
> and to be able to use the same enclosure and motherboard and extend it
> to deploy a more heavy-duty server with for example 6 SATA disks, 24GB
> of RAM, 2 NICs, 8 cors.
> Which manufacturer can you recommend and why? We are looking for
> something rather not expensive but reliable which has a good support.
> All servers will be based on CentOS5/6
>
> Best regards,
> Rafal Radecki.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

We have a few machines where I work from Pogo Linux which work really
well, http://www.pogolinux.com/

Patrick




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-26-2012, 08:34 PM
John R Pierce
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

On 06/26/12 1:15 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> That's right, you
> *did* mention 2 or 4 U servers. Really, for what you want, you can get in
> a 1U box.

the decision of 1U vs 2U is largely driven by disk and IO card requirements.

a 1U Intel server can take up to 4 3.5" or 8 2.5" hotswap drives, 2 CPU
sockets (4 to 24 cores total), 18 or 24 dimms, and has 1-2 PCI-E slots

a 2U can take as many as 12 3.5" or 24 2.5" drives, the same CPU/memory,
and typically 4 PCI-E slots, although I've seen more.

3U/4U stuff is generally quad socket and a lot more expensive.


--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-26-2012, 08:42 PM
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

John R Pierce wrote:
> On 06/26/12 1:15 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>> That's right, you
>> *did* mention 2 or 4 U servers. Really, for what you want, you can get
>> in a 1U box.
>
> the decision of 1U vs 2U is largely driven by disk and IO card
> requirements.
>
> a 1U Intel server can take up to 4 3.5" or 8 2.5" hotswap drives, 2 CPU
> sockets (4 to 24 cores total), 18 or 24 dimms, and has 1-2 PCI-E slots
>
> a 2U can take as many as 12 3.5" or 24 2.5" drives, the same CPU/memory,
> and typically 4 PCI-E slots, although I've seen more.
>
> 3U/4U stuff is generally quad socket and a lot more expensive.

Heh, heh. We have a cluster of 22 servers. One has "only" eight cores. 11
more, I think, have 48 cores, and the latest 10 have 64 cores; I think
that's 12 core dies ("chips"). Everything except the first are all 1U.

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-27-2012, 12:18 AM
KevinO
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

On 06/26/2012 12:03 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> We've had a number of servers fail, and it *seems* to be related to the
>> motherboard.
>
> I too have had bad experiences with SuperMicro motherboards; never had one
> last more than three years.
That runs counter to my experience; I've run several 24/7 for years and just
retired one that was still running flawlessly after more than 12 years.

Apparently, YMMV

--
KevinO


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-27-2012, 02:59 AM
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

>> John R Pierce wrote:

J> The SuperMicro Intel stuff seems just fine. I'd be more leary of AMD.

>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:39:06 -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us said:

M> We've had a number of servers fail, and it *seems* to be related to the
M> motherboard. In fact, I just got the pass, and asked the secretary to
M> call Fed Ex today to ship another one back to the vendor.

Second that. We bought three servers, and two failed due to motherboard
problems. A third one has performed beautifully for around 5 years.

We had warranty support, but not directly from SuperMicro. The reseller
didn't return our calls, and after a short time their phone was disconnected
because they went bankrupt. No more warranty for us, too bad, so sad.

Another thing to consider is the BIOS software; it was old when we bought
the server, too old to handle drives > 1Tb 18 months after said drives
had hit the market.

I'd also second the "don't buy Sun/Oracle" recommendation. Oracle isn't
interested in anything but Fortune 50 business, and it shows.

--
Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company

Linus Torvalds surfs the web using nothing but netcat.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-27-2012, 04:21 AM
John R Pierce
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

On 06/26/12 7:59 PM, Karl Vogel wrote:
> I'd also second the "don't buy Sun/Oracle" recommendation. Oracle isn't
> interested in anything but Fortune 50 business, and it shows.

its a shame, really, as Sun had some nice kit prior to the buyout.

re: Oracle's interest... they are only interested in getting your money,
EVERYthing else is secondary, and thats true even if you're a global
fortune 50 size company. I work for one and we get atrocious support.



--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 06-29-2012, 03:56 AM
"Luke S. Crawford"
 
Default Universal server hardware platform - which to choose?

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 03:03:23PM -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> > We've had a number of servers fail, and it *seems* to be related to the
> > motherboard.
>
> I too have had bad experiences with SuperMicro motherboards; never had one
> last more than three years.

The problem with supermicro is that the end user assembles them;
If you use ESD protection, this is fine. If you dont? go buy a dell
or something.

The big problem is that many of the smaller assembly houses also
don't believe ESD is a big deal. If there is carpet on the workshop
floor? run. If you see techs working without a wrist strap? walk.

I've assembled hundreds of supermicro servers with and without ESD
protection, and the behavior is fairly reproducable. Yeah, the
problems don't always show up right away? but they come.

I remember when I first figured this out; we had been having about
1 in 3 of our supermicro servers not pass burn-in. Then, in production,
we'd lose things like RAID cards and ethernet ports all the time. I'd
spend days swapping out parts and RMAing stuff, just to get one server
built. I mean, I didn't really believe that the factory was sending
me broken shit, and there was noticable static in the office. (I
always 'took the power supply pledge' before touching anything)
Anyhow, I read a study by adaptec (we were using adaptec hardware
raid in everything, and they were failing like crazy) saying that
nearly all customer RMAs, upon inspection, were due to esd damage.

Well, the boss ended up ordering something like 70 servers (rather than
the three every two weeks he was ordering before) - I talked him into
letting me blow $200 on ESD protection, just to see if that was
the problem, and instead of having 1 out of 3 die as before? all of them
passed burn-in on the first try.

Properly assembled supermicro kit (both AMD and Intel) is just
as good as the dell stuff. I have one server that's been chugging away
for something like ten years now. (I need to get rid of it; Dual
socket 604 xeons. It's a space heater, and it doesn't get me much by way
of compute power. I've got all customers off of it, but my own personal
vps? I haven't had time.)

But yeah, you've gotta get someone to assemble it that gives a shit.
I mean, me? I know that it's my pager that is going off at 4am if
something breaks. It's me that's going to have to fumble around with
spares. I give a shit.

As it is, I'd rather assemble my own servers, than trust someone for
whom a down hardware is not that big of a deal to assemble my stuff.

Assembling a superserver, if you don't fuck it up, takes about five
minutes. Burn in is trivial when they pass... and when they don't
pass, which is extremely rare, I know I screwed something up.


On the other hand... I have a very low opinion of dell support
(granted, I'm pretty hard to please in that department.) but
from what I've seen? all the big names ship okay stuff from the factory.
They have proper esd precautions in the factory. So yeah; if you
aren't willing to go with the table mat, the wrist strap,
and the monitor, well, order the server from dell and don't open it.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:47 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org