Old servers VS new desktops ?

hi

i'm newbie to virtualization. i'm studying cisco & linux using gns3 & kvm.
i have a laptop, but, it can't handle the GNS3 labs. so, i'm in need of a new machine.
i won't use so many services, it will be just for home labbing.

i was thinking of buying 1 or 2 used dell server (1950) or smth.
but they use ddr2 ram which is expensive now.

or should i just order a desktop with 3770k (i7) with 16gb ddr3 ram ?

would like to know difference between server motherboards & desktop motherboards ?

Thanks..

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Akaricloud

You'll probably get real mixed suggestions on this topic. Personally for a lab environment I would go the desktop route for a few reasons:

1. Noise/power/space. Personally I wanted something small, quiet and power efficient that I can leave on 24/7. A couple of 1950s are going to be very loud, have a high power draw and be really awkward space wise unless you have a rack.

2. Upgrades. There isn't much you can do to upgrade an old server like a 1950 whereas a desktop can be quite easily upgraded.

3. Warranty. For my lab I bought a $500 dell, added $40 of ram and a SSD. The best part? -It all has at least a 3-year warranty. If your 1950 fails a week from now you're just out whatever you paid for it.

Now the drawback is reliability. You're not likely to have dual power supplies or hot swappable components but that's not to say you should expect any more problems. My view is that this isn't really a huge drawback in a lab environment. My dell desktop has been running ESXi flawlessly with quite a few servers virtualized on it since the day I got it.

You will definitely want to make sure the processor you choose is VT-X compatible which most recent i7s are.

KenC

No question for a lab environment, go with the desktop. Plenty of memory and SSD drive (two or more even better) - enjoy.

netsysllc

Go with a desktop, get as many cores as you can. 16GB of ram or more and SSD drives. I got the i7 with hyper threading so i would have 8 cores. I have a dell server and a super micro server. the dell would cost me $400 to double the memory and i only would have 2 cores. The super micro would cost me $300 to get a new cpu that supports vt-x and i am limited to 8GB still

elderkai

Another vote for desktop and another vote for an SSD. You could go cheaper than the 3770k, too. An i5 would suffice.

JayTheCracker

thanks for the quick replies guys, i'll just choose desktop with i5 & ssd then.

another quick question.
the new macbook air (with ivy bridge i5 and 8gb ram) which will cost me around 1000 usd. can she handle the heavy virtualizations too ?

dave330i

JayTheCracker wrote: »

thanks for the quick replies guys, i'll just choose desktop with i5 & ssd then.

another quick question.
the new macbook air (with ivy bridge i5 and 8gb ram) which will cost me around 1000 usd. can she handle the virtualizations too ?

VMware Fusion should work. Best to double check with VMware.

blargoe

I would only use a server if I had one already available to me at no cost. Otherwise, desktop (loaded with a much memory as it can handle, at least 4 cores) all the way.

ptilsen

I still like the server route because you get two or three and the labbing capabilities are really there to do anything. You can lab different hypervisor clusters on different SANs, throw on all sorts of servers for different certification tracks, even run production VMs for services in your house. Yes, you have to have space, cooling, and electricity. But cheap, powerful, reliable servers are all over eBay, so cost is not a factor.

The desktop route is better if you have limited space and really need to keep expenditures down to just your main PC. But the difficulty of labbing clustered hypervisors on SANs is a real limitation in my opinion.

MentholMoose

You can do the same thing with desktops. Setting up a desktop as a SAN/NAS is no different than with a server, and Hyper-V, XenServer, KVM, and ESXi can be installed on many desktops with no problem.

ptilsen

Right, but a desktop isn't necessarily any cheaper than a used server. I'm comparing getting servers to using a desktop, which is what OP asked. Regardless of what form they are in, I am advising getting multiple systems. With how cheap two- and three-year-old servers go, that seems to be the way to go. The overall experience is going to be better than buying multiple desktops, and OP was looking at just using one desktop, which does make doing hypervisor and SAN labs much more difficult.

Akaricloud

I don't really see how multiple systems is easier. Now that we can nest hypervisors so flawlessly, one box is often a much simpler solution.

jibbajabba

Old server are like old cars - they cost next to nothing but cost an arm and a leg to run.

You mentioned the old Dells ... they are cheap - yes, but they draw so much power it is unreal .. even if you don't care about that - they are extremely loud - bear in mind - server are passive cooled... So you mostly have a row of fans at the front, blowing (cold) air to the back and they are extremely powerful as they have to be able to cool CPUs and RAM and disks etc.

Inside is normally a "shrout" - a plastic cover to force the airflow through / over those components ...

I had a couple of Dell, HP and Supermicro server from my old job and they intended to bin them ... I put them in the garage and you were able to hear them from outside with closed door.

If server is what you want - then you probably have to go with a newer generation or a garage with a small cabinet - there are 10-16U cabinets on wheels which are noise reduced ...

It all depends on your circumstances - in my case I ended up selling CPU and RAM on eBay and binned the server because half the town went dark when powereing them on (well not quite, but you get the picture)

NotHackingYou

I don't think the 1950's support virtualization with the low level hypervisor (Running ESX-I). The 2950's do but IMO I would do a desktop with 16GB of Ram, i7 and an SSD.