Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50

    Moving to co-locate

    hi, i'm planning to buy 2 servers, one for DB and the other for the App server due to increasing costs of rental even when paying for hardware "upfront". Makes it the logical next step for me.

    Plan is to run the DB server, CENTOS with 16GB RAM and SSD in RAID1. Probably go for the E3-1220v3 processor as well.

    App server will be running Windows Server 2012 with 8GB RAM and SSD in RAID1. Not sure on the processor yet.

    Are there any gotchas that are good for me to take into account such as network ports for when I plug the DB into the App server? Anything else you would suggest I look into so i'm as prepared as possible?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    25
    If you have the space in your database server and the budget, do not run RAID1, but RAID 10 instead. You'll see much better performance.

    Depending upon the size of your dataset and your I/O on the database server, running your OS on an SSD and your database on normal drives will speed things up as well.

    I'd always recommend that you do your app->db connections over private IP. You'll usually get much better throughput.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, NY Seattle,WA
    Posts
    4,184
    I'd suggest not getting the E3-1220v3 and going for the E3-1231v3 as it will give you Hyper Threading which will give you better performance.
    ⚡️ PUREVOLTAGE.COM ⚡️Custom Dedicated Servers, Colocation, VPS Contact us: sales@purevoltage.com Skype: Mobile.Jake
    AMD EPYC 7443P RYZEN 7950X3D ⚡️ NVME 10G - 100Gbps We do it all!

    New York City ★ Seattle ★ Los Angeles ★ Chicago ★ Dallas

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Kauai, Hawaii
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_B View Post
    Anything else you would suggest I look into so i'm as prepared as possible?

    Thanks
    Get a server with integrated ipmi/kvm and make sure your provider provides an additional uplink for that and that it's either firewalled or vpn'ed or that you will firewall or vpn it. Having a dedicated ipmi/kvm will reduce your need for, and costs associated with, remote hands.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    327
    IPMI (the ability to see the screen / reboot remotely if the O/S crashes) is very useful.

    As you're not renting you're investing for a much slower hardware cycle (you can't just upgrade after 12 months like you may with a dedicated server) so invest well in your hardware

    Dual PSU's + Raid10 or Raid6 (raid 1 and 5 are both only half way houses, my opinion only of course!)

    What are you doing for a firewall?

    You can have the DB server connected via the webserver and with IPMI you get control even if the webserver has problems.

    Test your hardware before you deploy it, out of box failure is unlikely but not impossible, with no spares it may mean you're off-line for 36-48 hours.

    You could also consider a VM set-up, beef up both servers so at a push you could run both DB and WEB on the same box?

    Good luck!
    ServerHouse | Est 2001 | 3x UK Data centres | Roof access, satcoms | High density | DR as standard
    http://www.serverhouse.co.uk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by hosthaus View Post
    Depending upon the size of your dataset and your I/O on the database server, running your OS on an SSD and your database on normal drives will speed things up as well.

    I'd always recommend that you do your app->db connections over private IP. You'll usually get much better throughput.
    Planning to get the S3700 SSD and it would workout expensive right now in RAID 10 as I would need 4+ disks.. currently runs on 1 x 15k SAS and thats with both the web and db on one box... do you believe the mirroring would be sufficient to allow the SSD to last longer / any benefits apart from increased I/O?
    Quote Originally Posted by Purevoltage View Post
    I'd suggest not getting the E3-1220v3 and going for the E3-1231v3 as it will give you Hyper Threading which will give you better performance.
    this server looks interesting and at a good price: http://www.ebuyer.com/542982-hp-prol...-tv-726042-425. Was planning to get this which already comes with the CPU and then plug in the SSD's... do you normally build from bare bones or suggest I put something like this?

    This will already be hugely more powerful than the current setup and dont want to spend too much on depreciating hardware...

  7. #7
    Intel S3700 is good hardware but probably overkill. Raid 10 ssd with 10% overprovision on Samsung 850 pro should give excellent performance at a far lower price.
    IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
    Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
    ★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
    Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50
    ok thanks, am i right in thinking that this can only take 2 HDD? http://www.ebuyer.com/542982-hp-prol...-tv-726042-425

    The space I need is very small ~ 20GB ~ so size is not really an issue at all.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Coventry, UK
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_B View Post
    ok thanks, am i right in thinking that this can only take 2 HDD? http://www.ebuyer.com/542982-hp-prol...-tv-726042-425

    The space I need is very small ~ 20GB ~ so size is not really an issue at all.
    The HP looks fine, also comes with ilo, check your datacentre wont charge anymore for an additional port for it.. If running RAID I would personally look to be adding a proper hardware RAID controller rather than the: "Dynamic Smart Array B120i" listed in that server.. You would be better using software RAID than that..

    Obviously four disks in RAID 10 is always going to give better performance that two drives in RAID 1 however the majority of E3 servers from Dell/HP etc tend to only offer two disks in E3 servers.

    Your SSDs are also likely to be 2.5" and those are 3.5" drive bays, alot of standard 3.5" -> 2.5" adapters dont work in server caddies so that is something to bear in mind.

    Have you looked at Supermicro kit? Might be worth giving boston.co.uk a call/email if you are in the UK, there tends to be a bit more flexibility with Supermicro kit in terms of drive bays sizes etc.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by UK Servers View Post
    The HP looks fine, also comes with ilo, check your datacentre wont charge anymore for an additional port for it.. If running RAID I would personally look to be adding a proper hardware RAID controller rather than the: "Dynamic Smart Array B120i" listed in that server.. You would be better using software RAID than that..



    Obviously four disks in RAID 10 is always going to give better performance that two drives in RAID 1 however the majority of E3 servers from Dell/HP etc tend to only offer two disks in E3 servers.



    Your SSDs are also likely to be 2.5" and those are 3.5" drive bays, alot of standard 3.5" -> 2.5" adapters dont work in server caddies so that is something to bear in mind.



    Have you looked at Supermicro kit? Might be worth giving boston.co.uk a call/email if you are in the UK, there tends to be a bit more flexibility with Supermicro kit in terms of drive bays sizes etc.

    I'm a big supermicro rig fan. Throw in an LSI RAID card with a BBU and you'll enjoy the performance increase it will offer you - magnetic spin drives or SSD.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Venice Beach, CA
    Posts
    14
    Where will you be colocating your servers... somewhere close to you? Owning and operating your equipment is a big responsibility, in addition to being 24x7. Who will support your hardware if/when there is an issue? Firewall? Switch? What if one of those devices fail? Make sure you're ready for the unexpected.

    When leasing a dedicated or virtual, the data center / host provider is responsible with SLA's. Sometimes it's worth spending the extra money for having piece of mind that your hardware is taken care of.
    -> Xfernet - Complex Enterprise solutions have never been so simple!
    -> 100% Uptime - Managed Hosting, Cloud, Dedicated Servers & Colocation - OnApp Partner
    -> Los Angeles, CA - Chicago, IL - visit us @ www.xfernet.net

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Xfernet-LA View Post
    Where will you be colocating your servers... somewhere close to you? Owning and operating your equipment is a big responsibility, in addition to being 24x7. Who will support your hardware if/when there is an issue? Firewall? Switch? What if one of those devices fail? Make sure you're ready for the unexpected.

    When leasing a dedicated or virtual, the data center / host provider is responsible with SLA's. Sometimes it's worth spending the extra money for having piece of mind that your hardware is taken care of.
    its a concern but i'm based in London and will look for colocation nearby... yes things can fail but with RAID 1 I can at least add some redundancy. I also plan to have a spare which can be swapped out (need to find out if the DC will do this for me). I wont believe I need a switch for the 2 servers and will use software firewall like now for the moment...

    I'm having a hard time choosing the actual server, is there really a big difference between HP / supermicro / other when you are using the same CPU, SSD and RAM?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Coventry, UK
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_B View Post
    I'm having a hard time choosing the actual server, is there really a big difference between HP / supermicro / other when you are using the same CPU, SSD and RAM?
    As a dedicated server provider Supermicro gives us more flexibilty, the components are much more standardised. We can take a case, swap out the motherboard and CPU with that of a completely different generation and not have any issues. With Dell/HP you would need to scrap the machine and buy a new one for the next generation architecture.

    You will find more support/advice available on the internet for Dell/HP/Supermicro/Intel than other smaller brands as there is more of it is use, so I would stick with the mainstream brands listed. HP will generally be slightly more expensive than Dell. Dell you would buy direct from Dell and should be able to negotiate massive discounts on upgrading the server spec listed on their website. HP would generally be through a reseller for a single server and there will be little/no room for negotiating price. Personally I would go with Supermicro, it should just about be the cheapest option and offer you the most flexibility.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_B View Post
    its a concern but i'm based in London and will look for colocation nearby... yes things can fail but with RAID 1 I can at least add some redundancy. I also plan to have a spare which can be swapped out (need to find out if the DC will do this for me). I wont believe I need a switch for the 2 servers and will use software firewall like now for the moment...

    I'm having a hard time choosing the actual server, is there really a big difference between HP / supermicro / other when you are using the same CPU, SSD and RAM?
    Since we are also London based, how have you thought about getting your hardware from?


    Also, in terms of colocation i suggest you check up on serverspace.

    They have pretty good damn deals for a 1U.

    Good Luck

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    UK, Major Cities
    Posts
    501
    On this kind of solution, I would also vouch for Supermicro. Their servers are more customizable and generally cheaper. They are also more readily available from server companies, and are easier/cheaper to 'fix' if they break down. Dell/HP servers are very proprietry, so you may find yourself spending a fortune on random custom cables/rackmouts/risers etc. to fit one of the many models of chassis they offer. It can become very annoying, especially if you only have a few servers.

    Performance doesn't vary with brand at all from experience, as long as the spec is right. Dell/HP servers do -look- a bit 'prettier' but they perform just as well as Supermicro's.

    You needn't worry too much about 2.5" in 3.5", as the drives will fit into the server one way or another. Definitely 100% recommend a RAID10 or RAID1 SSD array with a card -with- BBU, especially for your DB server, LSI mentioned before is a cost effective solution. 3ware is also good. The BBU will cache any data between your drives in the event of a reboot/powerfailure, so you do not lose anything and avoid corruption. With colo, you will need to set up proper alerting/monitoring yourself, so you know the health of the drives and when to replace them. Make sure you get all the cabling/riser included as they can be expensive if bought separately.

    Not to set you astray, but it seems a bit overkill to colo for 2 servers? They seem to be standard builds so would it not be safer/cheaper and more convenient to continue rental? You will need to keep parts spare and manage your own vlan network/firewall and will need to maintain the hardware yourself (or paying for remote hands). I'm all for colo, but as you said you don't need specialist hardware/switching/networking, it would make sense to rent? Unless you have plans for something custom in the future. There are plenty of great DC's and hardware providers in/around London so do shop around.

    Each server will generally have 2 network ports, its good to utilize them both, one main and one backup, so you would need 4 cables/4IPs/4Network drops.

    Someone mentioned Boston as a source earlier, they are a helpful/trustworthy hardware provider. If you throw your requirements around to a few, you can get different quotes/best price - the market is pretty competetive so you can play off providers for a good deal. They may also assist you with questions about colocation, or recommendations, and will usually help you out with building a proper solution while keeping price down.

    edit: Also consider racking a KVM, they are expensive bits of hardware but ridiculously useful for management. Your colo provider generally will allow use of theirs for a limited time/or cost per hour. It may be overkill to buy a KVM just for 2 servers however it depends on your usage requirements.
    Last edited by codu; 01-16-2015 at 08:02 AM.
    - Colin Dunn | Systems Administrator
    I think CentOS is a pretty cool guy. eh runs mah server and doesnt afraid of anything...
    ^ That sig/meme is so old, I just don't have the heart to change it. I hope the cool kids around still get it... 2008 was a good year!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by UK Servers View Post
    As a dedicated server provider Personally I would go with Supermicro, it should just about be the cheapest option and offer you the most flexibility.
    thanks for the advice
    Quote Originally Posted by Aveechi View Post
    Since we are also London based, how have you thought about getting your hardware from?


    Also, in terms of colocation i suggest you check up on serverspace.

    They have pretty good damn deals for a 1U.

    Good Luck
    I haven't decided yet, not fussed - I will look for the most appropriate equipment and then look for the best price. Some chassis already have built in components so I need to decide if I want that or assemble it from scratch. What do you do?

    Quote Originally Posted by codu View Post
    Not to set you astray, but it seems a bit overkill to colo for 2 servers? They seem to be standard builds so would it not be safer/cheaper and more convenient to continue rental? You will need to keep parts spare and manage your own vlan network/firewall and will need to maintain the hardware yourself (or paying for remote hands). I'm all for colo, but as you said you don't need specialist hardware/switching/networking, it would make sense to rent? Unless you have plans for something custom in the future. There are plenty of great DC's and hardware providers in/around London so do shop around.

    Each server will generally have 2 network ports, its good to utilize them both, one main and one backup, so you would need 4 cables/4IPs/4Network drops.
    really great explanation for the hardware, thanks! I'm a .NET contractor in London so there is a certain amount of useful learning involved with the co-location. The reason I have 2 servers is not due to the resource usage but because i've rebuilt my site and forum in ASP.NET MVC (huge job if anyone has plans of their own!) and so need a windows server but still keeping the MySQL backend... not the easy choice.
    When I checked even paying up front for the extra RAM, SSD and RAID 1 the costs were so high it didn't make sense to rent. The monthly would have been double colo fees and I would be paying about £1k upfront in addition...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    UK, Major Cities
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_B View Post
    really great explanation for the hardware, thanks! I'm a .NET contractor in London so there is a certain amount of useful learning involved with the co-location. The reason I have 2 servers is not due to the resource usage but because i've rebuilt my site and forum in ASP.NET MVC (huge job if anyone has plans of their own!) and so need a windows server but still keeping the MySQL backend... not the easy choice.
    When I checked even paying up front for the extra RAM, SSD and RAID 1 the costs were so high it didn't make sense to rent. The monthly would have been double colo fees and I would be paying about £1k upfront in addition...
    Experience with proper racking/maintenance of servers and colo is definitely useful. Out of interest, whois your provider? Those prices seem ridiculously high.
    - Colin Dunn | Systems Administrator
    I think CentOS is a pretty cool guy. eh runs mah server and doesnt afraid of anything...
    ^ That sig/meme is so old, I just don't have the heart to change it. I hope the cool kids around still get it... 2008 was a good year!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by serverhouse View Post
    You could also consider a VM set-up, beef up both servers so at a push you could run both DB and WEB on the same box?
    I agree. Check out Proxmox or VMWare ESXi and run both Windows and CENT OS on the same box. Save yourself on colo fees and give yourself the flexibility to start/stop/backup/restore/download backups/test the servers. IPMI remote control is nice and you should of course have it. It is just not nearly as flexible as running Proxmox. You can easily download a backup image to your home lab. Moving to the next box 2 years from now is as easy as moving a complete OS image backup file and clicking restore. I would never consider going back to bare-metal now. Spend the difference of 2 servers on an E5-26xx with dual power supplies. You can start with 1 CPU and upgrade it if you need more speed. Ram is considerably more expandable on E5 class servers. I have been down the E3 route and it was just too limiting for my desire to tinker.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    417
    +1 Proxmox

    Simply love it.

    Hardware Raid 10, backups 4 days a week, hasn't even burped in 70 days.

    Well worth learning.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    271
    Buying your own hardware will only save you money in a years time - if you have no problems with hardware. I would always rather rent a dedicated server, as others have said - it is a lot easy. Your data center will maintain the servers, they will have 24/7 technical support if their is a problem or failure on your server.

    Most importantly, if there is a problem, you did not just spend over £1000 on two servers- you have money for your business and other problems to come down the line. Sure you will be paying out monthly fees, but that gives you time to progress with your plans and make up for your loses.

    Either way if you go with colo or dedicated, look into visualization if your primary reason for having two dedicated machines is just software.
    Byte32 - Hosting & IT Services
    http://www.byte32.com
    Providing UK based I.T services - Get in touch with us!
    CentOS/Cloudlinux cPanel, LAMP & BIND setups - Web & application development

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by byte32 View Post
    Buying your own hardware will only save you money in a years time - if you have no problems with hardware. I would always rather rent a dedicated server, as others have said - it is a lot easy. Your data center will maintain the servers, they will have 24/7 technical support if their is a problem or failure on your server.

    Most importantly, if there is a problem, you did not just spend over £1000 on two servers- you have money for your business and other problems to come down the line. Sure you will be paying out monthly fees, but that gives you time to progress with your plans and make up for your loses.

    Either way if you go with colo or dedicated, look into visualization if your primary reason for having two dedicated machines is just software.
    I agree. You have to consider that dedicated hosts have real expenses. They'll target 6 - 14 months return on investment for their hardware purchases. I would say 10 months is a good rule of thumb. Hardware obviously lasts a lot longer than that, so if there were no other expenses, we'd all be rich, but we're not.

    So realistically, you can expect to save money so long as you need the same hardware for two years and you barely ever need to change it or touch it. Also this assumes you don't make common mistakes like overpaying for bandwidth, making long term commitments that you end up not needing down the road, etc.

    The optimistic numbers say one year, but all the unanticipated costs, that dedicated hosts budget for and new-to-Colo clients do not, extend that out to two years realistically.

    Colo has a lot more risks and opportunity costs that should not be ignored when making the decision to Colo vs rent. For the right customers, Colo is a no brainer good idea. If capital is tight, or you don't understand your needs very well or your needs might change rapidly, dedicated rentals are the obvious choice.
    IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
    Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
    ★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
    Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Purevoltage View Post
    I'd suggest not getting the E3-1220v3 and going for the E3-1231v3 as it will give you Hyper Threading which will give you better performance.
    Exactly one reason Colo is a big risk. If you don't understand the hardware you're buying, you're making a commitment up front that you have to live with for a couple years. If you rent, you can correct these mistakes once you realize you've made them.

    I agree the 1231 is a much more appropriate choice, performing far better for nearly the same money.
    IOFLOOD.com -- We Love Servers
    Phoenix, AZ Dedicated Servers in under an hour
    ★ Ryzen 9: 7950x3D ★ Dual E5-2680v4 Xeon ★
    Contact Us: sales@ioflood.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    50
    I took peoples suggestions on board and ended up going with renting - at least until I grow further. I paid upfront for an upgraded CPU and RAM for the DB server and bought my own Windows Server license for the web server to save on the monthly costs. Paid upfront for the year which also cut costs! In the end the break even point would have been 7 years against buying up front with the current hardware so a good deal and also I dont need to worry about replacement parts if something fails...
    Last edited by Phil_B; 03-12-2015 at 11:54 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 02:21 AM
  2. Looking to co-locate.
    By JMele in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 07:15 PM
  3. Where do YOU Co-Locate?
    By Amish_Geek in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-03-2004, 07:30 AM
  4. When did you go co-locate
    By M7I in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-02-2003, 06:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •