CP - Dell vs HP server quotes
-
@Dashrender said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Ok he beat me to it... where would this witness VM run? Let's assume these servers are the only servers in the environment.
No witness node required for any of the major players except for VSAN.
-
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Yes, a VM somewhere else is the best option. But often none is "required." But definitely recommended. But certainly can be a much "lower" tier box.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@John-Nicholson said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd 2 Hosts Plus a Witness VM somewhere (how vSAN or HP StorVirtual operate).
Yes, a VM somewhere else is the best option. But often none is "required." But definitely recommended. But certainly can be a much "lower" tier box.
Assuming that you have at least a little local storage in each host, Run the Witness in a VM on LOCAL STORAGE and have it replicated between the two hosts?
Edit:
We had to have this Witness server in order for the HP / LeftHand SAN to have automatic failover capabilities.
-
@scottalanmiller - Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community,
Understatement - Again!
-
@pchiodo said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@scottalanmiller - Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community,
Understatement - Again!
Sad, but true.
-
@DustinB3403 said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I've received two quotes for new server hardware - one from our local reseller and one directly from Dell. As far as I can tell, the two quotes are identical spec-wise but the local reseller is almost $12k more expensive. Here are the two quotes:
Quote from Dell:
2x Dell PowerEdge R430 servers $6,665.60- 2x Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPUs
- 2x 32 GB RDIMM
- Diskless configuration
1x Dell SCv2020 iSCSI SAN $10,303.26 - 14x Dell 1.2 TB SAS 12GB, 10k, 2.5" HD
1x Dell N2048 gigabit switch $1,693.49
TOTAL: $18,662.35
HP Quote from local reseller:
2x HP ProLiant DL360 servers $7,266.00- 2x Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPUs
- 64 GB RAM (unknown configuration)
- Diskless configuration
1x HP MSA 2040 SAN $20,932.00 - 14x HP MSA 1.2 TB 10K SAS 2.5in drives
- includes $5,850 in labor so actual price
is only $15,082
1x Cisco Catalyst 2960-X gigabit switch $2,320.00
TOTAL: $30,518.00
Difference: $11,855.65
Is there any reason why I should choose the HP solution over the Dell solution? I will be running vSphere 6 on these servers. I'm not familiar with managing either server line so either way I'll be learning new management tools. When it comes to support I think I trust my local reseller more than Dell but $12k extra is hard to stomach just for that.
[Edit: CP Code M.]
Support is Dell-Pro-Support either you're bbuying direct from Dell. from VAR. MSP and system integrators or OEMs like Nutanix, SimpliVity or StarWind (grin) add some extra support on top because they own the whole thing. Every hardware issue still ends with DPS unless VAR/SI/OEM will ship a replacement part and own engineer BEFORE Dell will handle that. But... with 4 hours SLA I don't think you need more (for big $$$).
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
What is the point of duplicating the discussion here? I understand that there were some objections to the moderation approach, but since the OP is not part of the discussion, is this anything more than an academic exercise?
The OP said that he wanted and appreciated the broader information so the inability to have an open professional discussion where this originated requires either that the OP be left without the information that he feels is valid (this case) or is needed for completeness (many cases.) So in the interest of a professional level discussion (meaning as professionals we have obligations to honesty, transparency, growth, education, etc.) rather than a Q&A post (the storage and virtualization arenas on SW are not Q&A only like ServerFault) the discussion has to move elsewhere. The decision to remove the open discussion for storage and Virtualization topics on SW was confirmed with SW officially, so those topic groups have nowhere to have those discussions there, and people posting on SW think that they are posting for discussion and professional guidance, which is not allowed there. So even just in the interest of letting the OPs know that we still care and are still trying to help regardless of the mod's decisions to not allow that assistance in that community. Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community, and it's important that posters on SW know that we are still around, still trying to help them.
And in many ways, this is better. Now SW can maintain the "here is the answer to what you asked, no need to dig deeper if you don't want your boss to see" or whatever. But if the OP wants a deep discussion into what they need, rather than what they asked, they can come here. It does make it easy for them to opt in, or opt out of the deeper discussion. Sadly, it leaves casual passers-by on SW not aware that there are potential issues, but casual readers on SW are caveat emptor as far as understanding that what they are seeing is intentionally filtered "advice."
A lot of good quality people (sorry if it sounds offensive but I hope you know what I mean) had indeed either left entirely or spend MUCH LESS time on a SpiceWorks these days. But i thin it's what happens to all the good forums all the time - people migrate from one to another and... It's a natural process
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@NetworkNerd said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I was thinking vSAN required 3 hosts. I guess Starwind does not?
Correct, Starwind does not, only two nodes.
This is exactly correct. Redundant heartbeat network. We'll push witness-capable version with some next minor update (sick of telling people there are so many ways to skin a cat and hang a dog - will do both ways).
-
I see no reason to overpay for the solution from HP in this case. Dell offer seems pretty okay and I think it is exactly the case when you get what you pay for. We've been using Dell for a while and I did not have any major issues with their hardware. Even when we requested some assistance, we have got decent support from them. And I would also prefer VSAN more than a dedicated box, for that matter.
-
So, pointed out that a physical SAN is likely not the solution needed and to look at other options such as vSAN, and to be really sure if he still wants a SAN thay physical is the way to go - as it's likely not.
I expect vendors have stepped in. Said you need a SAN, and the OP is set. By highlighting and having him question it I was hoping to help the OP reason that a physical is the wrong direction...
But, as he specifically asked 'which SAN is better', the posts were removed as it's... Not helping towards answering the question of which SAN is better. Very limiting as neither are better for the use case and more the wrong questions was asked IMO.
Anyhow, I used to be very active years ago then took a job with an MSP for a year. In that time, it was hard to be active and I sort of died out on the forums. In the last year I am back with a SMB so have more time to be active again... In my year out I can see the SW community really has changed a lot in the wrong direction. To have posts removed as they are not answering directly enough, when answering cam help convince the OP to do something wrong, is bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
@Kelly said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
What is the point of duplicating the discussion here? I understand that there were some objections to the moderation approach, but since the OP is not part of the discussion, is this anything more than an academic exercise?
The OP said that he wanted and appreciated the broader information so the inability to have an open professional discussion where this originated requires either that the OP be left without the information that he feels is valid (this case) or is needed for completeness (many cases.) So in the interest of a professional level discussion (meaning as professionals we have obligations to honesty, transparency, growth, education, etc.) rather than a Q&A post (the storage and virtualization arenas on SW are not Q&A only like ServerFault) the discussion has to move elsewhere. The decision to remove the open discussion for storage and Virtualization topics on SW was confirmed with SW officially, so those topic groups have nowhere to have those discussions there, and people posting on SW think that they are posting for discussion and professional guidance, which is not allowed there. So even just in the interest of letting the OPs know that we still care and are still trying to help regardless of the mod's decisions to not allow that assistance in that community. Otherwise, it looks like those of us who want to help have abandoned that community, and it's important that posters on SW know that we are still around, still trying to help them.
And in many ways, this is better. Now SW can maintain the "here is the answer to what you asked, no need to dig deeper if you don't want your boss to see" or whatever. But if the OP wants a deep discussion into what they need, rather than what they asked, they can come here. It does make it easy for them to opt in, or opt out of the deeper discussion. Sadly, it leaves casual passers-by on SW not aware that there are potential issues, but casual readers on SW are caveat emptor as far as understanding that what they are seeing is intentionally filtered "advice."
Just wow! I knew I had seen the SW community begin to be less and less helpful but when I see moderators asking to sticking to the original question at hand, that's the most blatant example of total uselessness!
OP: "So folks, should I shoot myself in the left foot or the right foot. Which foot do you think would be best"
RESPONSE: "Sorry, I'd ask why you need to shoot yourself in the foot at all but since that wasn't really your question, I'll have to wait for someone else to recommend a foot."
MIND = Blown -
@DustinB3403 said in CP - Dell vs HP server quotes:
I've received two quotes for new server hardware - one from our local reseller and one directly from Dell. As far as I can tell, the two quotes are identical spec-wise but the local reseller is almost $12k more expensive. Here are the two quotes:
Quote from Dell:
2x Dell PowerEdge R430 servers $6,665.60- 2x Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPUs
- 2x 32 GB RDIMM
- Diskless configuration
1x Dell SCv2020 iSCSI SAN $10,303.26 - 14x Dell 1.2 TB SAS 12GB, 10k, 2.5" HD
1x Dell N2048 gigabit switch $1,693.49
TOTAL: $18,662.35
HP Quote from local reseller:
2x HP ProLiant DL360 servers $7,266.00- 2x Xeon E5-2630 v3 CPUs
- 64 GB RAM (unknown configuration)
- Diskless configuration
1x HP MSA 2040 SAN $20,932.00 - 14x HP MSA 1.2 TB 10K SAS 2.5in drives
- includes $5,850 in labor so actual price
is only $15,082
1x Cisco Catalyst 2960-X gigabit switch $2,320.00
TOTAL: $30,518.00
Difference: $11,855.65
Is there any reason why I should choose the HP solution over the Dell solution? I will be running vSphere 6 on these servers. I'm not familiar with managing either server line so either way I'll be learning new management tools. When it comes to support I think I trust my local reseller more than Dell but $12k extra is hard to stomach just for that.
[Edit: CP Code M.]
Unless that OP is restricted to 1U hosts, I would go with the quote from Xbyte for Dell 730xd with same specs as in quotes is
Multiply by 2, add Starwind's vSAN and a couple 10Gb NICs and he's done. Especially if only 2 hosts. Same(ish) price, way more reliability, better performance all around. I'd post that reco on SW but would likely get banned lol.
The one thing not mentioned is if there are other hosts connecting to the SAN.
