which server?
- Started
- Last post
- 13 Responses
- kinetic
work is thinking of buying a dell server to host stuff...ive heard dell has bad support for servers. is this true?
i could go searching around through all the companies site waying out performance options...but i want opinions from people who have used the servers, what are the advantages/disadvantages.
$5000 budget on this one..looking at dual processors with a RAID setup.
any help / opinions on this is much appreciated
cheers :)
- kinetic0
anyone?
- zanetate0
Proliants are pretty dependable and priced pretty well too, I think.
- jevad0
fuck dell - seriously fuck them - they are shit - go hp
- kinetic0
why do you say that jevad?
- jevad0
cos we have had their shitty fucking poweredge fisher price servers pop on us so many time - I have lsot count...proliant is the way to go - they care about teh quality of the build and have excellent customer supprt.
fuck dell
- kinetic0
cool man, thanks for the heads up
any other recommendations?
- sparker0
What are you doing with it? Is it a Linux web server or a MS Exchange box, NFS, Novell, SAP, Citrix or what?
I would say, IBM servers are the way to go, unless you want to build it yourself...which would get you everything you want under the price of a out of the box brand name.
- Rickbass0
I'd say, why buy? If you're going to spend $5000 on a server that'll be out of date in a year or so, you should check out something like www.rackshack.net. They do the Dell dual Xeons starting at about $200 per month, with 400Gb transfer all the way up to 1000Gb for a $270.
- Rickbass0
I might also ask why you need that kind of power? Unless you're hosting big, big message boards or equally intensive scripts, you're not going to die with something a little lower down the scale.
- sparker0
first off, why buy? because hosting a server in house is much more control oriented than paying someone to do it for you. if it breaks, then you are the one that takes care of it right then, if you want to install something, then it is up to you to handle that, if you want to do this or that, then the box is all yours.
if you have the money to put in servers, than it is better to do it yourself than to pay someone you may or may not be able to communicate with in time of a emergency.
in-house is always better than co-location or host costs.
besides, 5 grand doesn't get you very far paying a hosting company for anything of usefullness.
plus, don't you want to the satisfaction of handling things yourself? maybe i've been an admin for too long now, but i wouldn't trust someone else with any enterprise level server...
and, as far as power...buying upscale equipment means it lasts longer in the end...if you buy top of the line equipment right now, you won't need to do any replacements (save for hardware failures) for a long time...beats buying a new server every year or paying a hosting company a fee everytime you need a new box.
- kinetic0
buying to have control. this box will have a hell of a lot of flash com connection running, so we want total control over it.
we need something fast and powerful. this machine is going to be flexin all day and nite :)
- sparker0
then get a linux server...
- preston0
first off, I don't know shit about servers.
but apparantly my university design lab has had good experience with Apple XServes in terms of maintenance. Although they dont have anything fun on them, like flash comm. server