Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703

    Rack Mount v/s Towers Major Factors

    It is usually seen that COLO's provide racks space in terms of U's plus v/s most commercial Datacenter use tower server only. What are the major factors Considered to use Rack mount v/s Tower servers. Pro's & Cons

    Thankyou
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  2. #2
    When using tower servers it is cheaper to procure a system; however it takes up a lot of floor space hence this is only ideal mostly for providers who own their facility and where space isn't an issue.

    Rack mount servers take up less floor space which is great but it is a tad bit expensive to procure a system.
    Antony Mascarenhas How can I help? antony_m@zysek.com
    Zysek Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Indian Datacenter ¦ Hyderabad & Mumbai
    Web Hosting · Virtual Servers · Dedicated Servers · Colocation · Managed Services

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    405
    Rackmounts are smaller and usually are built with higher quality as your buying direct from a provider.

    Tower servers can (but not always) built from any random computer part that works with the motherboard. There are tower servers built for datacenter usage but most people that do colocate a tower usually just use a normal desktop PC. (From what I've heard and seen).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by AHN-Andrew View Post
    Rackmounts are smaller and usually are built with higher quality as your buying direct from a provider.

    Tower servers can (but not always) built from any random computer part that works with the motherboard. There are tower servers built for datacenter usage but most people that do colocate a tower usually just use a normal desktop PC. (From what I've heard and seen).
    To be honest, there are a lot of dedicated server providers offering desktop systems as servers from what I have seen.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703
    I guess Towers are more power effiecient compared to rack mount
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,531
    Main differences I think are size and redundancy, you can fit loads of 1u's in the same space that would only take a few towers. and redundancy as 1u's commonly have hot swap parts like PSU and hard drives, not really something you see in a tower server. and cost... towers are cheap...
    BotWars.io - Code the AI of your Battle Bot!

  7. #7
    tower hosting advantages:

    - cheap hardware
    - easy to equip with additional hardware
    - flexibility
    - easier shipping
    - same or even less energy consumption
    - good cooling possible

    rack hosting advantages:

    - usually smaller chassis / efficient space usage
    - efficient cooling solutions
    - can be mounted in all common racks
    - brand name hardware in most cases
    - optimized constructions for datacenters

    I'd prefer the tower servers because the disadvantages don't weigh too heavy

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by IPStrada LLC View Post
    I guess Towers are more power effiecient compared to rack mount
    What is this based on? You can find power supplies just as efficient for a rackmount system as you can for a tower. Now, it is true that it is probably easier to find a power efficient power supply for a tower, as it is more standard, whereas with a 1u rackmount system you're dealing with a specialty power supply.

    Simply put, most tower systems will generally allow you to build systems less expensively. This often then sacrifices space taken up, airflow efficiency, and proper rackmount organization. Now, if you properly engineer things, the later two of those aren't really an issue, then it just becomes floor space cost vs. server cost. You'll then see that a lot of providers with really low real estate costs, like many down in Texas, will favor towers, while ones with higher real estate costs, such as in NYC or downtown Chicago, will use rackmounts.

    Personally, I just find rackmount systems easier to deal with. The Supermicro chassis already come with efficient and highly reliable power supplies, hot swap bays, etc. and are easy to work with and give ample flexibility. We can then use proper rackmounts, which in a dedicated server/colocation combined environment lets us standardize on cabinets, no bread racks, which helps in planning, air flow efficiency, and just makes things look better, imho. The extra money we spend on rackmounts is worth it, imho.

    One thing people forget is that even though you're spending more money on a rackmount server, it will also have higher resale value when you're done with it. Most people expect servers to be rackmount, so the demand for tower based servers is lower. In addition, the chassis itself will largely retain it's value, since it could be resold at a later date to house other hardware. That then, in the end, makes them really no more costly.
    Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
    VMware Virtual Data Center Platform

    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,132
    Besides what Karl said, there is another embedded implication, the power density.
    Excluding the low power Atoms that you can fit up to 80 of those babies in a single rack without breaching the maximum cooling allowed (as they would use about 4.4kW); being rackmount isn't really an advantage, as you can't full a rack with even 40x 1U servers as they will probably breach the maximum density that the datacenter allows (or is projected for). Average market numbers are around the 5kW/rack number.

    With newer hardware, that density allows to host a bit more servers, I'd risk to say around 30x CoreDuos or 10-15x Dual Xeons (E5300 based calculation). Yet with old hardware, let's say, a HP DL145G1 or G2 with Dual Opteron 245s; it easily takes 10-12kW per rack on a rack with 40 of these babies.

    Between having the monthly cost of a partially empty rack (of of paying more than one rack to compentate for having one full), and the initial cost of purchasing tower servers which are cheaper than rackmounts; it's just the case of preferences and aesthetic. And, if you are working with high power servers, then there would be so few of them rackmountable allowed on a rack (due to power consumption) that it simply does not matter if you go with them on tower or rackmount - on a 44U 19" rack you can fit 10x tower servers if well arranged.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by iptelligent View Post
    Besides what Karl said, there is another embedded implication, the power density.
    Excluding the low power Atoms that you can fit up to 80 of those babies in a single rack without breaching the maximum cooling allowed (as they would use about 4.4kW); being rackmount isn't really an advantage, as you can't full a rack with even 40x 1U servers as they will probably breach the maximum density that the datacenter allows (or is projected for). Average market numbers are around the 5kW/rack number.
    We routinely fill entire cabinets with 1u servers, and we separate the Atoms out into separate cabinets, which those have excess power. As long as you're using power efficient hardware, thus not Dells or primarily dual socket systems, filling a full cabinet with servers shouldn't be a huge problem in most facilities.

    That does bring up one thought though, Rackmounts offer you much greater flexibility location/provider-wise. All facilities will take rackmount systems and all provide rackmount cabinets, etc. Not every facility will offer bread racks and/or may charge a premium for the space/shelves in cabinets.
    Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
    VMware Virtual Data Center Platform

    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
    Posts
    4,615
    Tower servers are not conducive for hot/cold row setups.
    Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
    Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703
    But are they efficient in cooling ?? I mean if u you use Tower does it lower cooling bills ??
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  13. #13
    Tower servers are not conducive for hot/cold row setups.
    We have hundreds of tower-servers in special designed racks using a hot/cold row setup. It works perfectly well (18 C on the one side, something above 22 C on the other side) and we can use normal towers. So this is not true actually, you can do anything with towers what you can do with rackservers - and more.

    But are they efficient in cooling ?? I mean if u you use Tower does it lower cooling bills ??
    No, it doesn't. The chassis has no influence on the power consumption (which influences the cooling bills directly).

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    768
    For those of you using tower servers, do you use regular racks or baker racks? I was in a DC and they used regular racks but their rack rails were more of shelves. I really wish I could find some but I don't know what to search for.
    linveo.com | Shared Hosting | AMD and Intel KVM VPS | Dedicated Servers
    Direct Admin | VirtFusion | TenantOS | 24/7/365 Support

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,944
    Quote Originally Posted by AHN-Andrew View Post
    Rackmounts are smaller and usually are built with higher quality as your buying direct from a provider.

    Tower servers can (but not always) built from any random computer part that works with the motherboard. There are tower servers built for datacenter usage but most people that do colocate a tower usually just use a normal desktop PC. (From what I've heard and seen).
    You can use desktop hardware in rackmount systems too. I like tower servers because they are much easier to add accessories, easier to cool, and, depending on the facility, easier to replace parts like power supplies.

    You can put server equipment in a tower case.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    199
    From what I can last remember is looking at an webcam from the Giga-Internation website. The webcam was showing the servers and all the servers there were Towers

    So you probably go on there site and see the webcam to see how they place their servers

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703
    yes i saw same on joe's datacenter too. From what it seems is that they are dell optiplex (towers).
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    199
    Ok is there any difference from the tower I have at home and the tower they use it data centres?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,132
    Quote Originally Posted by mash-e1 View Post
    Ok is there any difference from the tower I have at home and the tower they use it data centres?
    Normally not.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by iptelligent View Post
    Normally not.
    then it will be very hard to maintain 100% uptime

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by mash-e1 View Post
    then it will be very hard to maintain 100% uptime
    Why is that?
    linveo.com | Shared Hosting | AMD and Intel KVM VPS | Dedicated Servers
    Direct Admin | VirtFusion | TenantOS | 24/7/365 Support

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703
    Why would u think so ?? Datacenters have better everything to manage servers include alarms if something goes wrong, which residence does not have.
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by IPStrada LLC View Post
    Why would u think so ?? Datacenters have better everything to manage servers include alarms if something goes wrong, which residence does not have.
    He is talking about the tower, not the DC.
    linveo.com | Shared Hosting | AMD and Intel KVM VPS | Dedicated Servers
    Direct Admin | VirtFusion | TenantOS | 24/7/365 Support

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    355

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by IPStrada LLC View Post
    yes i saw same on joe's datacenter too. From what it seems is that they are dell optiplex (towers).
    We use a wide range of different hardware. We actually have more supermicro servers than anything else. The web cam that you were referring to showed a combination of both our internal dedicated and colo servers. We have done some changes and now separate the two facilities. From my own experience the failure rate of rack mount servers as compared to desktop servers is about the same. The difference is when a desktop unit fails its much easier to get a replacement part fast. Computers regardless of what form factor have one thing in common the number one thing to fail is the moving part. Hard drives, fans, ect. The power supplies and hard drives seem to be the things that go first. We really don't have a high number of cpus and motherboards go bad.
    Joe Morgan @ Joe’s Datacenter, LLC- www.joesdatacenter.com
    Affordable & Reliable Dedicated Servers | VPS | Colocation in the Midwest

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    355

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by mash-e1 View Post
    then it will be very hard to maintain 100% uptime
    Unless your doing a cluster or a high availability setup with load balancing I don't think you can truly guarantee 100% up time on the hardware. Most places when they give a up time statistic are referring to the network and power infrastructure. Now there is a big difference between the desktop unit sitting on the floor under your computer desk and the one sitting on a rack with ups power and monitored environmental controls hooked into a mix of different bandwidth providers. Most datacenters are built and maintained to have 100% up time or at least that's the goal. Most residential houses and internet service providers are not. Also most datacenters have staff there who are trained to deal with failure of equipment and have the parts and resources there needed to get the thing running again in the event of a failure.
    Joe Morgan @ Joe’s Datacenter, LLC- www.joesdatacenter.com
    Affordable & Reliable Dedicated Servers | VPS | Colocation in the Midwest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Good rack mount case?
    By JoeBannon in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-06-2006, 02:23 PM
  2. What are the major factors affecting site speed?
    By DannyITR in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-02-2003, 12:01 PM
  3. Rack mount ATX or EPS
    By krisdv in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2003, 02:51 AM
  4. rack mount cases
    By ntwaddel in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-04-2002, 10:36 PM
  5. Half Rack and Mid Towers
    By archangel777 in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-10-2001, 08:47 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
  •