Servers

HP or IBM?

What is your opinion for those of you that have had experience with either or both?

I've got two quotes here for a major virtualization project. The price is negligible between the two. I'm leaning towards IBM due to the quantitative responses I've received regarding their performance. On the other hand, it says a lot that VMware uses HP servers for their training classes.

Both models we are looking at are fully certified with VMware so that isn't an issue.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

royal

Well, I'm an HP guy and haven't really messed too much with Dell or IBM, so my biased vote is HP!

NetAdmin2436

royal wrote:

Well, I'm an HP guy and haven't really messed too much with Dell or IBM, so my biased vote is HP!

astorrs

couple questions first,

what kind of servers do they use currently?
what are they using for storage?
blades or pizza boxes for the new ones?
how many servers are we talking about (new vs old)?

undomiel

My biased vote goes for Dell! Not that Dell was an option you were giving.

RTmarc

Current servers: Intel
Storage: LeftHand iSCSI SAN (not changing)
Chassis: 2u rack-mount
Number: 50 physical servers down to 7 at Corp (5 offsite for DR)

The two choices on the table are the HP Proliant DL360 and IBM x3650.

Slowhand

One of my prior employers used to purchase hardware exclusively from HP and we never had any unusual or significant problems. I can give a vote towards HP, but that's a biased vote because I've never purchased from or dealt with IBM directly.

astorrs

RTmarc wrote:

Current servers: Intel
Storage: LeftHand iSCSI SAN (not changing)
Chassis: 2u rack-mount
Number: 50 physical servers down to 7 at Corp (5 offsite for DR)

The two choices on the table are the HP ProLiant DL360 and IBM x3650.

For a small environment like that I would stick with HP. They own LeftHand now (as you may or not be aware of) and I would be inclined to buy my VMware licenses through HP as well (they have their own SKUs) that way when you need to phone for support about an issue it's going to be HP's problem all around and you won't end up in a vendor pointing/blame match.

With that said I wouldn't use the DL360 as it's limited to 32GB of RAM and you are likely to hit a memory wall before CPU with VMware. Stick with DL380/385's as they can scale to 64GB (are you planning on virtualizing Citrix/terminal servers? if so stick with AMD).

And I would do up the numbers using HP ProLiant DL580/585's with 128-256GB of memory and 4x4 CPUs and see how that equals out. Depending on the workload and the servers you are virtualizing, you should be able to do it with 3 (Corp) and 2 (DR). Bigger is better with ESX for the most part (assuming the $$$ are comparable).

Are you planning on using SRM for the DR site?

What are you using for switches between the LeftHand and the ESX servers? Do you have them already?

tiersten

IBM as we're a mostly IBM shop. I've always been extremely satisfied with support from IBM Global Services.

jbaello

HP adds more administrative stuff, ILO configuration.

astorrs

tiersten wrote:

IBM as we're a mostly IBM shop. I've always been extremely satisfied with support from IBM Global Services.

Agreed they make great stuff and BladeCenter rocks (and have you seen the x3950 M2!). I just thought the one vendor thing was kind of nice in this case.

jbaello wrote:

HP adds more administrative stuff, ILO configuration.

Everyone has remote management capability these days: IBM RSA, HP iLO, Dell DRAC, etc. and they're all basically at the same feature set level.

RTmarc

astorrs wrote:

RTmarc wrote:

Current servers: Intel
Storage: LeftHand iSCSI SAN (not changing)
Chassis: 2u rack-mount
Number: 50 physical servers down to 7 at Corp (5 offsite for DR)

The two choices on the table are the HP ProLiant DL360 and IBM x3650.

For a small environment like that I would stick with HP. They own LeftHand now (as you may or not be aware of) and I would be inclined to buy my VMware licenses through HP as well (they have their own SKUs) that way when you need to phone for support about an issue it's going to be HP's problem all around and you won't end up in a vendor pointing/blame match.

With that said I wouldn't use the DL360 as it's limited to 32GB of RAM and you are likely to hit a memory wall before CPU with VMware. Stick with DL380/385's as they can scale to 64GB (are you planning on virtualizing Citrix/terminal servers? if so stick with AMD).

And I would do up the numbers using HP ProLiant DL580/585's with 128-256GB of memory and 4x4 CPUs and see how that equals out. Depending on the workload and the servers you are virtualizing, you should be able to do it with 3 (Corp) and 2 (DR). Bigger is better with ESX for the most part (assuming the $$$ are comparable).

Are you planning on using SRM for the DR site?

What are you using for switches between the LeftHand and the ESX servers? Do you have them already?

Actually it is the 380 that I'm looking at. 360 was a typo. I know about LeftHand and HP. The fact that HP owns LeftHand and VMware uses HP in the training lab is the main reason I haven't rubber stamped the IBM servers.

I'll check out the 580s.

Definitely SRM.

I'll be re-purposing the AdTran switches I already have.

seuss_ssues

I cant really comment on the IBM, but I do maintain about 25 or so DL380s and i must say they have been very good machines. We also have the HP extended support or care package (whatever they call it) and even if just a drive goes out we get a replacement same day.

HP vs Dell, personally i couldnt compare them. One of my friends works with about 50/50 dell to HP and they indicated that they buy the dells now because of the price but the HPs held up better.

The new G5s are nice little servers. They use the little 2.5 inch SAS drives which seem to do very well.

astorrs

Any reason you want to stay with Intel over AMD (DL380 vs DL385)? What types of workloads are these VMs going to carry?

jibbajabba

Supermicro :P

astorrs

Gomjaba wrote:

Supermicro :P

Whack.

vCole

I've worked with HP and Dell only.

Both have worked fine and no unusual issues.

bertieb

Gomjaba wrote:

Supermicro :P

hehe v.funny

blargoe

Between the two, definately HP.

UnixGuy

From your question I assume you want to run Windows Operating system ? If so, then I'd say IBM without a second thought.

IBM Hardware is more reliable, more robust, I can't really compare it with HP but that's just my opinion.

But if you really think of a high-end heavy application to run on top of it, then think twice and use UNIX. If so, I recommend Sun Servers.

If you can give me details about the application, I can recommend you a good choice of Sun server.

Virtualization in Sun can be done in two ways:

1. Hardware domains.

2. On the OS level, using Zones and containers.

you can have 100% redundancy in this, 100% uptime guaranteed (if servers were setup/configured properly).

both are tested and have been working for years, no downtime, no crashes, no nothing. You just configure it properly and you can literally forget about it

(now I sound like a sales guy lol)

bighornsheep

If you're deploying the full vmware solution with HA/DRS, vmotion etc.. go for 3850s, they're the "recommended powerhouse" for virtual machines.

http://www-304.ibm.com/shop/americas/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/default/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=-124&storeId=124&langId=124&categoryId=4611686018425207305

tiersten

UnixGuy wrote:

you can have 100% redundancy in this, 100% uptime guaranteed (if servers were setup/configured properly).

If you want that then get an AS/400...

Kasor

HP work very well.

UnixGuy

tiersten wrote:

UnixGuy wrote:

you can have 100% redundancy in this, 100% uptime guaranteed (if servers were setup/configured properly).

If you want that then get an AS/400...

you can achieve that with so many options, I was just recommending Sun's because I'm working closely and I see how excellent the support of Sun is

cnfuzzd

As a point of curiousity, why is everyone seeming to lean towards the amd chips?

Also, the last two big surveys I read suggested that hp and dell were virtually tied in terms of stability while running windows, with IBM a distant third. That being said, we have a client that runs nothing but ibm blades in ibm bladecenters in a server room painted with ibm logos with an ibm mascot outside, and everything has worked beautifully.

John Nickle

astorrs

cnfuzzd wrote:

As a point of curiousity, why is everyone seeming to lean towards the amd chips?

I like AMD chips right now for virtualization because of their support for RVI (formerly nested page tables) which can significantly improve the performance and scalability of VMs used for workloads like Citrix/Terminal Services. The latest versions of VMware ESX and Citrix XenServer are the only hypervisors that currently take advantage of them. In 6-12 months I might prefer Intel chips again (especially now that 6 core CPUs are making the rounds - they're just a bit pricey still)

cnfuzzd wrote:

Also, the last two big surveys I read suggested that hp and dell were virtually tied in terms of stability while running windows, with IBM a distant third. That being said, we have a client that runs nothing but ibm blades in ibm bladecenters in a server room painted with ibm logos with an ibm mascot outside, and everything has worked beautifully.

Dell = IBM = HP in my opinion these days. Especially in rack servers. All get the job done and each has their strengths and weaknesses. All are rock solid for the most part.

Oh and IBM BladeCenter rules. Sorry HP/Dell.

HeroPsycho

HP = better quality than Dell and easier to support.
Dell = cheaper.

I'd personally rather have HP. And while both have something like ILO, what are in Dells aren't in the same league as ILO, sorry.

But in this case, +1 to HP because they own Lefthand now.

astorrs

HeroPsycho wrote:

HP = better quality than Dell and easier to support.
Dell = cheaper.

I'd personally rather have HP. And while both have something like ILO, what are in Dells aren't in the same league as ILO, sorry.

But in this case, +1 to HP because they own Lefthand now.

My thoughts on the whole iLO/DRAC/RSA thing.

* Does it have a GUI console for when it BSODs/PSODs/Kernel panics/etc - check

* Can I power cycle the server - check

* Can I boot a CD/DVD remotely over a WAN link - who cares, it takes eons, that's why they have "virtual hands".

As for quality. My current client (which is in the process of a huge integration effort post acquisition) has over 1,000 Dell servers and upwards of 12,000 Dell clients. Almost 3,000 HP servers and more than 25,000 HP desktops/laptops. No major problems with any of them, at least nothing that makes any particular make/model stand-out. Oh and they also have >$5 million worth of IBM iSeries and pSeries servers.

I'll say it again, each has their strengths/weaknesses but any will do the job.

mattrgee

I've used HP and found them very reliable, I'm currently using IBM and finding them incredibly unreliable! We have an IBM server fail at least once a month, most of which are new. The 8 year old Compaqs are still running sweet however.

Mmartin_47

Article about where my dad works at regarding their virtualization:
http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/utilities/us/detail/news/A622620R93683Y93.html

Mishra

This is a biased thread but I'm a Dell guy. I mostly am concerned about support because all hardware fails the same.

Dell is always on top of things and very helpful. Although they might not be able to answer some questions greatly; you always get SOME kind of answer.

HP's support has been horrible for me. They wouldn't replace a RAID controller I had because they just didn't feel I had enough information. I argued with them for hours and with their supervisor but they wouldn't budge. Dell with a little persuasion has always sent whatever parts out as long as it kinda makes sense. I didn't just have 1 bad experience. I've called in about 3 different HP servers and it took forever to get a tech and they don't ever believe a word you say.

We just got in IBM equipment. IBM has weird rules but for the most part helps out. I just don't like the layout of IBM software in general.

Supermicros have been fine for the little I've dealt with them. Our 3par SAN has a supermicro as it's service controller. They used to have Dell. Pretty interesting.