New computer build for virtualization/WGU studying

Cpl.Klinger

If this is in the wrong place, move it as you see fit.

I start WGU in the spring, and pretty much get dumped right into the meat of the program, so I want to get ahead of the game on upgrading my main desktop for virtualization. I plan on reusing the guts from my current desktop to run a server on it's own (AMD 64 X2 215 Processor, 4GB ram and swapping in a 750GB HDD for the current 2TB drive). What I'm thinking about, in general:

• AMD 6-core processor
• SSD for main drive, a few other HDD's possibly in RAID
• 8-12GB ram

I'm not a computer gamer now, and don't believe I'll have time to be in the future, so no need for a crazy expensive video card. Besides, that's what the PS3 is for. I've also kicked around the idea of a Mac, but I keep thinking that they're just a hole to throw money at. My planned build can be done for sub $1k, which allows me things like a larger monitor and a setup for dual monitors, a Kindle for ebooks, more software, a rack to put equipment on and some entry level networking equipment. And a new chair, to get rid of the monstrosity I have now.

Am I missing anything that I might want/need?

erpadmin

You may be better off getting a few 250GB drives instead of one SSD. In the case of virtualization, you want more spindles, not more space.

My build has 4 x 250 GB drives and 16 GB RAM. I have an i3 processor, and it was a standard HP ML110 G6 box. I didn't upgrade all at once...the initial price was around $755 plus like a buck something for the monitor (I might start getting into the dual monitor stuff later when I get into my SQL studies.)

In my opinion, unless you are a total novice, you may be better off getting a server already built and just replace/add more RAM/HDs later. No one gives a *blank* that you can build your own. If you are a complete novice, that might be different....you may want to spend that extra time building to add to your skillset. However, if you know you've already done it, you will find that the cost will be around the same as if you built your own rig. Also, you don't even need to get everything now. I only started out with 8GB and 2 x 250 GB drives and bought the rest later (and cheaper...as I bought the same exact models. )

~$755 will get you a server with 8GB and two 250GB drives. You can always add on later as finances and your needs increase. But you don't want to go over 250GB per HD because you want performance, not size.

ptilsen

erpadmin wrote: »

You may be better off getting a few 250GB drives instead of one SSD. In the case of virtualization, you want more spindles, not more space.

No spindles is better than more spindles. A 120GB SSD can handle pretty much all lab needs and will give better overall performance than a few cheap drives. Given current hard drive prices, the cost advantage of doing a small RAID isn't even there. Two 250GB SATA drives cost more than a single 120GB SSD right now, and that 120GB is enough to lab 11 servers. Of course, a single drive is the cheapest solution of all, but the performance is arguably worth the small premium for an SSD.

My build has 4 x 250 GB drives and 16 GB RAM. I have an i3 processor, and it was a standard HP ML110 G6 box. I didn't upgrade all at once...the initial price was around $755 plus like a buck something for the monitor (I might start getting into the dual monitor stuff later when I get into my SQL studies.)

erpadmin wrote: »

In my opinion, unless you are a total novice, you may be better off getting a server already built and just replace/add more RAM/HDs later. No one gives a *blank* that you can build your own. If you are a complete novice, that might be different....you may want to spend that extra time building to add to your skillset. However, if you know you've already done it, you will find that the cost will be around the same as if you built your own rig. Also, you don't even need to get everything now. I only started out with 8GB and 2 x 250 GB drives and bought the rest later (and cheaper...as I bought the same exact models. )

This I agree with. I pieced together my own pair of servers, and in hindsight I would have saved a couple hundred bucks and a lot of work to just buy a couple of used Proliant DL1xx G5 or G6.

erpadmin

ptilsen wrote: »

No spindles is better than more spindles. A 120GB SSD can handle pretty much all lab needs and will give better overall performance than a few cheap drives. Given current hard drive prices, the cost advantage of doing a small RAID isn't even there. Two 250GB SATA drives cost more than a single 120GB SSD right now, and that 120GB is enough to lab 11 servers. Of course, a single drive is the cheapest solution of all, but the performance is arguably worth the small premium for an SSD.

At the time I bought my build, I would have disagreed with this. But I keep forgetting about that darn flood that made hard drives slightly more expensive. Prices are bound to stabilize soon though.

Aside from that, what cost savings are we talking about though?

SanDisk 120GB SSD for $125 vs.
2 WD Caviar 250 GB drives @ $74 each [$148]

Ok sure, we're talking about the difference of $23, which I concede could be a lot of money depending on where you live....

However, you're still getting more space, and unless you really need blazing performance for something later, you can still benefit from decent performance and MORE space for other things to be used later.

You're not wrong that SSD offers better performance or that it is "currently" cheaper than a few cheap drives. However, unless the OP is going to really utilize SSD for some application that will need that performance, I can't see why one would want to get considerably less storage. (500GB vs 120GB) Just because the 120GB drive is super fast? Especially when the cost difference is only $23?

ptilsen

Why get 250GB hard drives at all? If OP is dedicating the drives to the lab, he will never need more than 100GB. If he uses them for something, he'll probably need more than 250GB. Plus, the SSD can be transferred to be a fast primary system drive if he gets done with the lab.

Obviously hard drives are still better than SSDs for space, even with the flood. No one will dispute that. But to me, SSDs are a clear winner right now for a primary system drive with relatively low space needs, and a big winner for a lab drive that will just be used to run 3-5 VMs simultaneously.

SteveLord

Notice that the OP only mentioned using the SSD for his main drive.

demonfurbie

ive found out a few things about making a system for labbing

more speed on each core less cores seams to work out better with the free vm software out there, so a quad with say 3.3 is gonna work better than a 6 with 2.8
ssd for the os
more ram the better
2 500s hardware raided for the vms
linux as the main os (even for windows labs)

ptilsen

demonfurbie wrote: »

more speed on each core less cores seams to work out better with the free vm software out there

This has been the opposite of my experience. More logical threads (be it a full core or hyperthreading) is generally preferable for underutilized lab VMs. You don't need a lot of horsepower to run lab VMs, but you don't want concurrent actions on multiple VMs slowing each other down, which is exactly what happens when VMs are sharing a core (or a disk, as opposed to an SSD). That said, there is a such thing as more cores than you need. So eight slow cores are probably worse than four or six fast cores.

As with all of these "lab" threads, we're getting out of hand on the hardware. The truth is, a first-gen quad-core with 6-8GB of RAM and a single hard disk is enough to run a lab for the MCITP:EA track. The six-core system OP has in mind will work fine, as would a Core i5 or i7 with HT system. Since OP will use it as his primary system, a used server probably doesn't make sense. A good-sizes SSD for the main drive makes a lot of sense, with slow disks for bulk storage.

Cpl.Klinger

Some good advice, and I guess I needed to clarify my uses better. I do plan on this being an everyday desktop, and the server I mentioned building was simply a way to reuse some existing hardware that might otherwise not have a use anymore. It may run an instance of 2008 R2 as a way of keeping the load on my desktop a tiny bit lighter. I will definitely have to compare the core number/speed of what I had planned to use, and the SSD will definitely be setup as a main drive with other drives setup in some form of RAID for data storage.

onesaint

I just built a Shuttle PC (SH67H3) for the small form factor. The barebones kit and an Intel 2600 ran about $575 with a 16gb gskill kit costing 80$ and two 60GB SSDs an additional $90 each. I watched for deals on the components. I'd like to stripe the two SSDs, but need a card as the Intel H67 raid isn't supported by ESXi. At some point I'll toss in an Intel quad nic as well. It's going behind some Cisco gear and an ASA or Juniper firewall to complete the lab setup.

I own a Mac Pro for daily home use and run VMware Fusion on that, but wanted something dedicated to VMs for certs and school. I haven't put further cash into the mac, other than buying 16GB of ram, when I first got it 3 years back. It's pretty solid, but was $1800 when I purchased it.

demonfurbie wrote: »

ive found out a few things about making a system for labbing

more speed on each core less cores seams to work out better with the free vm software out there, so a quad with say 3.3 is gonna work better than a 6 with 2.8
ssd for the os
more ram the better
2 500s hardware raided for the vms
linux as the main os (even for windows labs)

Demonfurbie, when you say Linux as the main OS, are you running Xen on something or do you mean something like ESXi?

demonfurbie

mint linux with virtualbox

that way the host os takes the least amount of resources

NewManSoon

If you are looking for a bare metal install like ESXi , you might want to check out Proxmox. It has a very nice (but minimal) interface, and sits on top of a Debian install. Supports VNC console to the VM's , clustering , live migration etc.. Uses KVM and Openvz .

If the hardware is supported by Linux, you can install it as long as your hardware supports virtualization and 64bit.

Oh and it is 100% FREE with an active community as well

petedude

demonfurbie wrote: »

mint linux with virtualbox

that way the host os takes the least amount of resources

Really? I would've thought Ubuntu would come in with a smaller footprint than Mint. I like the latest Mint's interface better, though. This whole cell-phone-like interface deal that all the majors are pushing is really starting to annoy me. (And I need to try developing some programs on a test Mint install to see if it works as well for me as Ubuntu did on that score.)

I did not know VirtualBox had VMWare beaten in the memory usage category. Will have to look.

As to the OP's question--

6-core desktop processors now? I must have been living under a rock. . .

I dunno. If you have to have an excuse to build a new system and WGU is that excuse, sure. I think most students could get by on a 2 or 4 core processor with 4GB of RAM and a fast 160GB SATA hard drive. You probably only need to build three small VMs for most M$ exams, and could probably squeak by with a 1GB RAM each or slightly less for those.

demonfurbie

petedude wrote: »

Really? I would've thought Ubuntu would come in with a smaller footprint than Mint. I like the latest Mint's interface better, though. This whole cell-phone-like interface deal that all the majors are pushing is really starting to annoy me. (And I need to try developing some programs on a test Mint install to see if it works as well for me as Ubuntu did on that score.)

mint is ubuntu with a different x11 same core and same package management

I dunno. If you have to have an excuse to build a new system and WGU is that excuse, sure. I think most students could get by on a 2 or 4 core processor with 4GB of RAM and a fast 160GB SATA hard drive. You probably only need to build three small VMs for most M$ exams, and could probably squeak by with a 1GB RAM each or slightly less for those.

some of the server labs require upto 5 vms running at once

SteveLord

8 gigs of DDR3 is ~$35. Too cheap to pass up.

joshmadakor

Since we are talking about computers for our virtual environments...I just ordered parts for a new machine for virtualization. I have one at work, but I want one at home too. My target overclock is 5.0Ghz.

Parts ordered are as follows:

i72600k
16gb mem
2x 120GB Intel 510 Elmcrest SSDs
(other stuff)
Newegg parts list

Watercooled with this:
Reservoir: XSPC Dual 5.25" Bay Reservoir - Laing D5 / MCP655 w/ Blue LED Light - Clear / Silver / Black - FrozenCPU.com (with D5 Pump)
CPU Waterblock: http://www.frozencpu.com/products/10698/ex-blc-734/EK_Supreme_HF_Universal_CPU_Liquid_Cooling_Block_w_LGA_2011_Hardware_-_Rev_3_-_Full_Copper_-_Electroless_Nickel_Plated_EK-Supreme_HF_-_Full_EN_Nickel.html
Radiator (3 120mm fan, 360): Black Ice GT Stealth 360 Radiator - Black - FrozenCPU.com
Non-conductive coolant: Feser One Non Conductive Cooling Fluid - 1000 ml - UV Blue (F1-0001) - FrozenCPU.com
Tubing: PrimoChill PrimoFlex PRO LRT Tubing 1/2"ID 3/4"OD with 1/8" Wall - 10ft Retail Pack - Clear (PFLEXP10-34) - FrozenCPU.com

onesaint

demonfurbie wrote: »

mint linux with virtualbox

that way the host os takes the least amount of resources

Minimal host resources is understood. I'd like to see how ESXi stands up to mint or Cent6 footprint wise. Maybe I'll do some installs and see.

joshmadakor wrote: »

Since we are talking about computers for our virtual environments...I just ordered parts for a new machine for virtualization. I have one at work, but I want one at home too. My target overclock is 5.0Ghz.

Parts ordered are as follows:

i72600k
...

You might be aware, but the 2600K doesn't support VT-d. Just FYI.

joshmadakor

onesaint wrote: »

You might be aware, but the 2600K doesn't support VT-d. Just FYI.

That's really too bad. I wonder why Intel decided on that...
I think I should be okay with VMWare though

Cpl.Klinger

It sounds as if memory is really the crux of the whole problem. I've found 8GB packages of RAM available in the type I need for the current computer I'm using. So it sounds to me that rather than spend a lot of money to upgrade the whole machine, I might be able to get away with RAM. But then again, I'm only running a Athlon II X2 215 (2 cores at 2.7 GHz). Plus, I see a lot of folks running labs on Intel processors and I know a lot of servers run on them anyway. I'm not a die hard AMD fan by any stretch, but I've used them for a while and haven't had any issues. I'm beginning to think a visit to Frys is in the offing to look at some items first hand. Either way I'll have till Summer to get a build done and running.

joshmadakor

Intel is far ahead in the game right now--top end AMD vs top end Intel. I don't have a problem with AMD myself, in fact this machine will be the first Intel build I've done. However AMD's top end is not that great, as you can see here: PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

Another thing to keep in mind, when you get a lot of VMs running concurrently, disk IO may become an issue, depending on what you're doing.

MentholMoose

Cpl.Klinger wrote: »

It sounds as if memory is really the crux of the whole problem. I've found 8GB packages of RAM available in the type I need for the current computer I'm using. So it sounds to me that rather than spend a lot of money to upgrade the whole machine, I might be able to get away with RAM. But then again, I'm only running a Athlon II X2 215 (2 cores at 2.7 GHz). Plus, I see a lot of folks running labs on Intel processors and I know a lot of servers run on them anyway. I'm not a die hard AMD fan by any stretch, but I've used them for a while and haven't had any issues. I'm beginning to think a visit to Frys is in the offing to look at some items first hand. Either way I'll have till Summer to get a build done and running.

Dual-core is fine for labbing. Upgrade to 8GB RAM, add a disk or two (or an SSD if you want some extra speed), and you should be fine. Nowadays I do tons of labbing on my laptop... with 8GB RAM and a 160GB SSD, the dual-core i5 CPU is fine (it does have hyperthreading, though). I did my MCITP: SA and EA on a desktop with a quad core Intel Q9550 and the CPU was almost never taxed, rather it was the hard disks that ran out of steam nearly every time. I did the MCITP: VA and EDA7 with a dual-core desktop and it was also fine.

A while ago I setup a little lab running VMware ESXi 4.1 on an old desktop that BARELY met the minimums specs to even install ESXi... a SINGLE core AMD CPU (circa 2006 but was 64-bit and had the correct CPU extensions), 2GB DDR RAM (the minimum for ESXi 4.1), and a 40GB SSD (budget-oriented Kingston-branded Intel). One of the onboard NICs (the NVIDIA one) even worked out of the box! With the RAM overprovisioned by over 100% (3 2003 R2 x64 VMs with 1GB RAM each), ESXi had to do extreme RAM swapping and compression which caused obvious slowness, but it was still usable. I got a complete vSphere lab on it... one VM serving as the DC, one doing MS SQL 2005, and one running vCenter 4.1, and probably could have run a few more VMs with a larger SSD (more RAM would have been nice, too ).

SteveLord

Indeed, memory and hard drive speed/spindles.

Cpl.Klinger

This makes things more palatable. I can cut my whole budget down to about $400 total (8GB ram, SATA expansion card for more ports and a few disks). I may even be able to use the 750GB external I have now and save some there. I really wanted to focus on the networking equipment side, so I can be prepared when CCNA and the likes are in the works for me. Thanks for the help guys!

dave330i

Cpl.Klinger wrote: »

This makes things more palatable. I can cut my whole budget down to about $400 total (8GB ram, SATA expansion card for more ports and a few disks). I may even be able to use the 750GB external I have now and save some there. I really wanted to focus on the networking equipment side, so I can be prepared when CCNA and the likes are in the works for me. Thanks for the help guys!

For CCNA, you don't need hardware. A simulator will work.

Cpl.Klinger

I know for CCNA they work fine, but further down the road hardware helps. Besides, I like to learn on the actual thing by doing the work on the actual thing. I just do better and understand better that way.

petedude

dave330i wrote: »

For CCNA, you don't need hardware. A simulator will work.

With the hardware we're looking at in the list above, I'd have to think router emulators would do the trick (e.g. GNS3). IIRC, the Cisco exams are slowly but surely including the web management interface in their exams and it would pay to have something to simulate a physical Cisco box connected to the LAN.

demonfurbie

i tired running a lab on a core 2 duo intel and i had issues running more than 2vms even on low settings in a lab type envrioment

make sure if you do go amd its real cores not simulated cores the new bulldozer cpus are really had the amount of real cores (8 core is really 4 real cores with a simulated core on each)

i would say intel is the best bet but its all budget for me some of the amd apus look nice

as for ccna stuffs go you can get a nice system to run the vms you can run the router/switch sims quite well