hardware suggestions for server

[bdog]

I am going to be setting up a linux based server for our department. It will serve web pages, NFS shares to three SPARCS, Samba shares to several PC's, FTP, email, and maybe a few other things. I have narrowed it down to a 700 mhz athlon machine with an asus mobo or a dual 466 celeron on a BP6. All other components are the same. The prices between the two are nearly identical. Which setup (athlon or dual celeron) do you think would be better for this?

[SoopaStar]

Personally, i think it would be safer for you to run the Athlon. If I was going to run a server for a Biz, I would want one that I wouldnt have to worry about overheating and stuff on. What happens if the celery's burn out? I think you would be better off with the 700, and then *maybe* using an OC card on the athlon to pump it to 750, just to get the extra "Umph".
Unless you were thinking of doign the dual celeron, and underclocking the 466's and keeping htem at 66mhz bus. Then that woudl be a waste of money. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif If you are looking at staying with EIDE devices, then you could also look into the board that I have, which is the Epox KS6-BS (i think) mobo. Its Dual Pentium II, but doesnt have SCSI..just EIDE. Only downfall is its only UDMA 33 (but 66 isn't fully supported in Linux yet anyways). www.epox-usa.com (http://www.epox-usa.com) is there webpage.
Paul

[smurfin]

Speaking as an admin, and knowing that uptime is the most critical factor, not horsepower...I would reccomend a board and chipset that is designed for server work. Maybe a dual or quad xeon from alr or ibm. You can pick up servers dirt cheap on ebay, I've seen 20k systems sell for 4k and 10k systems(would do marvelous for your task sell for under 1k. When you get a dedicated server board preferably with a raid array(dependable and fast, as well as capable of self repair in event of damage. Personally, my favorite is a IBM quad ppro(you don't really need the horses and a quad pentium pro running 200+ will suprise the hell out of you performance wise) that we serve off of 24/7. It has mirrored arrays and hotswap power supplies. It has not been offline since the day I turned it on 2 years ago(have had one drive go, but the hot spare took over and it never flinched)I think I might have paid 800 dollars for it, maybe a touch more, but I had to put in my own disks. Definately go for something designed for the task, if you have to get a little less horsepower, so be it. For the job you describe a dual 233 would be more than adequate with enough memory of course.

[C5John]

BDOG

I would agree with Smurfin. Put your money into the base component that is designed to be a server. IBM, Dell, Compaq. Start out with Motherboard that can handle SMP processors. Hot swap drives, (do not buy these used, they probably already have multiple years of 24-7 use.) and multiple hot swap power supplies go a long way towards making it 99.9% avail. Xeon processors are probably not required for the use that you described. Good RAID striped disk, or mirrored disk is a given if you are serious.

C5John

C5John

[brandon184]

I like Dell's servers.

Reliable Machines that are powerful at the same time.

With absolutely rock solid tech support.

[bdog]

Thanks for all the replies. I fully understand your opinions on getting a machine that is designed from the ground up to be a server with redundant every thing. However, there are a lot of people at work that don't even think we need it. As such the money they will let me spend is going to be small. That is why I am wanting to stick with basic pc components. Also it is very difficult to buy used stuff since we are a university. Anyway, we basically have a peer to peer network, and I have been trying to get them to get this Linux box so that it can serve web pages, email, and disk space to our sparcs. It sounds really important, but it isn't really mission critical stuff. A day of down time isn't going to hurt that bad. Only a few people will probably have their email on it, and I have a backup machine for the webserver if neccessary.

[SoopaStar]

Well, I would probably go with something that is upgradeable. The athlon i think would be the way for that. Later you could kick it to a gigahertz or something. I would really stay away from celerons as a server...esp. if you thought about oc'ing them. If you are going to run Linux, then power is not the most important thing. One of my jobs has a Novel 4.1 Server running on a Dual P-133 with 32 megs of ram for 30+ computers, PLUS its our webserver! and it runs more than fine (thats unix..but **** close to linux). I think in the long run, a single processor machine would save you money, and the system speed of the Athlon would kick you into high gear. PLUS, when linux fully supports it, you could toss on the UDMA 66 and make that puppy fly!
Paul

[bdog]

Thanks again for the advice Soopastar. I have been leaning towards the Athlon myself. Now all I have to do is get it ordered. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[mac.mccarthy]

Have just finished building a budget server for myself cost are in UK £

Gigabyte GA-6BXD Dual PIII board £95 +tax
Intel PIII 600E £160 +tax
IWILL SIDE-2935LVD SCSI Controller £95 +tax
Quantum Atlas IV 9.1 Gig LVd drives £160 +tax

only fitted one processor for now but nice to know i can upgrade this board will take up to an 800 mhz PIII, the IWILL SCSI was a real bargain, really quick and the adaptec equiv was about 3 to 4 times the price. i fitted 3 drives to give me a stripe set with parity (2000 Server) and they are quick!!

dont forget add on costs like a UPS and make sure you use decent NIC's i used a pair of Intel Pro/100+ Management Adapters, not the cheapest but reliable.

Also dont forget to spend well on a decent case if using SCSI, things can get very hot under the bonnet!!! would never mixed oc celerons with SCSI unless you want to make toast......

Mac