?
Solved

Regarding Blade server soltuion

Posted on 2008-11-06
3
Medium Priority
?
661 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-05
Hi,

We need to required the blade server solution for our new office, where maximum 250 capacity, and we required up to 400 user exchange servers, we dont want to purchase and use the any SAN/NAS or DAS device as a external storage due to cost effective reason and blade server having the limitation of disk storage and my problem is that how we can configure the exchange server with blade solution when we need required 300 gb data with RAID1.
 I have seen the VMware ESX training video and consultation that there is no benefit of blade server without SAN when you have exchange, sql and Oracle type data.
I am also attach the no. of server XL which I need the solution in Blade server, please help me to finalize the server BOM,  
I need to also required your great help to finalize the blade server vender,  Can you please provide the good links or share you blade server comparison chart, it would also great help me finalize the Server  Vender.

Regards,
Naresh Verma


blade-server-soution.xls
0
Comment
Question by:sitg
3 Comments
 
LVL 4

Accepted Solution

by:
philtpaik earned 1050 total points
ID: 22902627
Naresh, sorry to burst your bubble, but you will not be able to implement what you want proposed in a blade solution without adding a storage device. If the Excel sheet you attached was just for reference and you can live with 2 drives (i think 146GB is max per drive at the moment), you can get by. If space isn't the issue, you dont lose much by not using a SAN...unless you choose to virtualize your environment, which might be something to think about...

When I was faced with this issue about a year ago, I decided to go the blade/san/vmware solution. It was pricey to start off and needed some convincing to management on my part. Today we have 13 fully populated Blade Chassis (202 blade servers) with 64 ESX hosts. I converted 200+ existing servers to VMs and also created an additional 200 new VMs. I have room for another 200+ VMs. The other 140ish servers are used for servers that hog up a lot of resources.

Regardless of physical or virtual servers, blade servers make life so much easier. Not only are we saving more than half of what our expense should be, my trips to the datacenter are now decided on my schedule not the servers...

Here is a quick breakdown of what you will probably save on.
Human Resources
Power & Cooling
Space
Hardware
Additional equipment like a smart power strip, cabinets, KVMs, port density on core switches, etc...

Of course every environment is different and you will need to analyze cost on your own.

We have a mix of IBM, HP, and DELL. I would definitely recommend the DELL over all of them. HP comes a close 2nd, and IBM is dead last. IBMs are the most expensive and in my opinion the worst. Design is seriously flawed. You can only work on 1 blade server at a time through the console. If you want a 2nd hard drive in the IBM you lose the space to add any daughter cards. The only thing nice about the IBM is that you can order the blades with Solid state drives.

Not sure I supplied the answer you were looking for...The best thing you can do at this moment is call the vendors you are interested in and have them present to you. Ask to see the management piece since this is probably the most important piece for you.

Good Luck ^^
0
 
LVL 3

Assisted Solution

by:bertgeysels
bertgeysels earned 450 total points
ID: 22904635
If I understand correctly, you are looking for blades, but you don't want a SAN or NAS.
Because most blades only have place for 2 SAS disks (HP BL480c can have 4 disks), and the max disk size at the moment is 146GB (250GB if you would use SATA), you are going to need extra storage. If you don't want SAN/NAS, HP has also Storage blades, that provide space for 6 extra disks for 1 blade:
http://h18006.www1.hp.com/storage/bladesystem/index.html

But like philtpaik is suggesting, you should examine the possibility of virtualisation (with ESX) and with a SAN, because your list contains several servers for which a complete physical blade has to much resources. It would be more efficient to virtualise those.
A SAN gives you also more flexibility to grow.
0
 
LVL 56

Expert Comment

by:andyalder
ID: 22913873
You might look at IBM's Bladecenter S since it has 12 internal LFF disks as well as the blade's own disks.
0

Featured Post

New feature and membership benefit!

New feature! Upgrade and increase expert visibility of your issues with Priority Questions.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

The 6120xp switches seem to have a bug when you create a fiber port channel when you have a UCS fabric interconnects talking to them.  If you follow the Cisco guide for the UCS, the FC Port channel will never come up and it will say that there are n…
Usually shares are where we want them for our users and we tend to take them for granted. There are times, however, when those shares may disappear causing difficulty for your users. One of the first things to try is searching for files that shou…
In this video, Percona Director of Solution Engineering Jon Tobin discusses the function and features of Percona Server for MongoDB. How Percona can help Percona can help you determine if Percona Server for MongoDB is the right solution for …
In this video, Percona Solutions Engineer Barrett Chambers discusses some of the basic syntax differences between MySQL and MongoDB. To learn more check out our webinar on MongoDB administration for MySQL DBA: https://www.percona.com/resources/we…
Suggested Courses

850 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question