2

What is the value to use a "server" CPU versus a regular variety( eg. Intel E5500 series vs. i5, or i7)- I'm not asking for these specifically, just why would I buy a "server" CPU and a "Server" motherboard over a regular one? ECC seems to be one reason, but that can be found on a regular motherboard as well. RAID can also be found on regular board. Everything "Server" costs 2x the price. (Ref: Newegg.com)

Target: small web server that needs to run 24x7 with less that 300 users a day, small load.

JoeJoe
  • 193

5 Answers5

5

Here are some reasons off the top of my head;

  • Multiprocessor support - if you want 2, 4, 8, 16 or more CPUs you need to use a Xeon or Opteron.
  • Larger memory support - want more than a handful of memory slots, you'll be needing a Xeon or Opteron.
  • More cores/threads - want 8/12/16 cores plus hyperthreading, you know what you'll need.
  • Performance under multiuser load - same again.
  • Need lots of IO, like 4-way QPI - take a guess.

and finally, the most important

  • Reliability - Xeons and Opterons (in particular 7500-series Xeons) just stay up longer through a variety of RAS features.

I'm sure there are more but these leapt out.

Chopper3
  • 101,808
1

On the whole you will find the difference is more notable the other way around.

If you put standard kit into a 24x7 environment with load, heat, friends - you will see more failures. The 'twice the price' will normally be reflected in a lack of hardware grief and a happiness to run within an industrial environment long term.

If it IS going long term into a racked environment, if it IS going to be relied upon, and if you getting to it to work on it is going to be grief (server remote administration out of band is a serious plus iLO/DRAC etc.) - server. Otherwise - regular variety will be fine.

It's all about your time - where it is going - and how much pain you are going to get if it stops working.

ZerosAndOnes
  • 36
0

Well I think for your needs a normal machine will do. I have setup lots of email and web servers on non server hardware. But yes if you would want things like Dual SMPS, Chasis options like rack mount etc etc I think one needs to go for a Server hardware. One main thing is expansion slots for memory is less on a normal machine. If one needs memory in the likes of 16GB definitely server hardware is the only way to go.

proy
  • 1,249
0

All my PERSONAL servers that run my consulting business run off home-built systems using "consumer" grade motherboards and other hardware. At one point, running Server 2003 x32, one of the servers was up for 10 months without issue (AMD Athlon X2). This system has 6 hard drives (at least 4 brands of drives) all small (160 GB or less) and they've been running ESSENTIALLY non-stop since May of 2006 (well, there have been two breaks when I moved).

Now I will agree that server quality components SHOULD be more hardened and less prone to failure. For ME, that's fine. Further, I could (obviously) build systems to act as servers for my clients. But I won't. I recommend they purchase name brand systems with - what I CANNOT and WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO OFFER - 24x7x365 Warranties with 4 hour on-site response time. As I point out often - if the server is designed to service your clients and/or generate business for you, it's UNWISE to be running a generic system at your own location. A better option would be at a Datacenter someplace - a place with redundant internet connections, backup power, and techs available to service hardware 24x7.

Multiverse IT
  • 1,815
0

Server stuff mostly just gives you a small improvement in reliability and possibly a few extra features. I feel that if you choose to run regular equipment, it makes sense as long as it is redundant. Like load balancing, clusters, raid, active/active failover... all that good stuff. That way it doesn't matter so much if something fails. Plus you get extra capacity and pay less for it.

Save the expensive hardware for the really sensitive stuff. Make everything else disposable.

Ryan Babchishin
  • 6,430