Redundant Server at Lower Spec

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim
  • Start date Start date
J

Jim

Guest
We are deploying a server setup: two live servers and one redundant server
for complete redundancy. Both are Windows 2003 SP2. Both are going to be
quite high spec, eg, HP DL380 Proliant 3.0 GHz dual or quad core, 4gb ram
etc. What we do is switch the hard drives from the live to the redundant
server if there is a hardware problem. Not a particular cost effective
method but it is bolt and braces.

What I am thinking is that I will buy a lower spec DL380 for the redundant
server. Instead of a 3.0 GHz, I will buy a 2.0 GHz server. Question is: will
the OS accept this should I switch the hard drives? I know all is good when
switching on the same spec, I need to know whether there will be a problem
when using different specs.

Thanks.
 
Re: Redundant Server at Lower Spec

Jim <zjimz@live.co.uk> wrote:
> We are deploying a server setup: two live servers and one redundant
> server for complete redundancy. Both are Windows 2003 SP2. Both are
> going to be quite high spec, eg, HP DL380 Proliant 3.0 GHz dual or
> quad core, 4gb ram etc. What we do is switch the hard drives from the
> live to the redundant server if there is a hardware problem. Not a
> particular cost effective method but it is bolt and braces.

Have you tested this and demonstrated that it works?
>
> What I am thinking is that I will buy a lower spec DL380 for the
> redundant server. Instead of a 3.0 GHz, I will buy a 2.0 GHz server.
> Question is: will the OS accept this should I switch the hard drives?

Probably not.

> I know all is good when switching on the same spec, I need to know
> whether there will be a problem when using different specs.
>
> Thanks.

Instead of this, why not use AD (you don't mention whether you are) and DFS
for files? This will also protect you more from physical drive failure.

You really don't want your disaster recovery to consist of opening up a
server & unscrewing a hard drive, even if your Windows install *will* work
on dissimilar hardware, which it is unlikely to do.
 
Re: Redundant Server at Lower Spec


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23b%23QQwdtIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Jim <zjimz@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> We are deploying a server setup: two live servers and one redundant
>> server for complete redundancy. Both are Windows 2003 SP2. Both are
>> going to be quite high spec, eg, HP DL380 Proliant 3.0 GHz dual or
>> quad core, 4gb ram etc. What we do is switch the hard drives from the
>> live to the redundant server if there is a hardware problem. Not a
>> particular cost effective method but it is bolt and braces.
>
> Have you tested this and demonstrated that it works?

Yes

>>
>> What I am thinking is that I will buy a lower spec DL380 for the
>> redundant server. Instead of a 3.0 GHz, I will buy a 2.0 GHz server.
>> Question is: will the OS accept this should I switch the hard drives?
>
> Probably not.

That is my question, I need a bit more than a probably. As I know it works
no problem at all with the same spec I wanted to know whether it would with
a slighly different spec.

>
>> I know all is good when switching on the same spec, I need to know
>> whether there will be a problem when using different specs.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Instead of this, why not use AD (you don't mention whether you are) and
> DFS for files? This will also protect you more from physical drive
> failure.
>
> You really don't want your disaster recovery to consist of opening up a
> server & unscrewing a hard drive, even if your Windows install *will* work
> on dissimilar hardware, which it is unlikely to do.
>

It's only a question of popping SAS drives out and inserting in new server,
2 min job. I am using AD, and do already have a DFS. This is a spec required
by a provider using an Oracle db.
 
Re: Redundant Server at Lower Spec

Processor speed won't matter at all however different makes of processor
(Intel / AMD) would probably matter (although I've done that too with
minimal issues)

The main issues you may find when moving drives from one server to another
are different driver requirements, especially disk controller, NIC & system
board chipset.

Having said that you'll probably be OK using HP kit as they tend to use the
same components between models of a similar age.

The main thing is that the transferred drives boot up on the new hardware,
if they do it's easy enough to sort out NICs and IP addresses etc, if it
blue screens on boot then you've got a much longer job to sort it out with a
repair install and re-patch.

The only safe way is to test it, if it works there's no problem if it
doesn't there is :)

Peter Lawton

"Jim" <zjimz@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dKqdnU9_hLnOjLbVRVnyjgA@pipex.net...
>
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:%23b%23QQwdtIHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Jim <zjimz@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>> We are deploying a server setup: two live servers and one redundant
>>> server for complete redundancy. Both are Windows 2003 SP2. Both are
>>> going to be quite high spec, eg, HP DL380 Proliant 3.0 GHz dual or
>>> quad core, 4gb ram etc. What we do is switch the hard drives from the
>>> live to the redundant server if there is a hardware problem. Not a
>>> particular cost effective method but it is bolt and braces.
>>
>> Have you tested this and demonstrated that it works?
>
> Yes
>
>>>
>>> What I am thinking is that I will buy a lower spec DL380 for the
>>> redundant server. Instead of a 3.0 GHz, I will buy a 2.0 GHz server.
>>> Question is: will the OS accept this should I switch the hard drives?
>>
>> Probably not.
>
> That is my question, I need a bit more than a probably. As I know it works
> no problem at all with the same spec I wanted to know whether it would
> with a slighly different spec.
>
>>
>>> I know all is good when switching on the same spec, I need to know
>>> whether there will be a problem when using different specs.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Instead of this, why not use AD (you don't mention whether you are) and
>> DFS for files? This will also protect you more from physical drive
>> failure.
>>
>> You really don't want your disaster recovery to consist of opening up a
>> server & unscrewing a hard drive, even if your Windows install *will*
>> work on dissimilar hardware, which it is unlikely to do.
>>
>
> It's only a question of popping SAS drives out and inserting in new
> server, 2 min job. I am using AD, and do already have a DFS. This is a
> spec required by a provider using an Oracle db.
>
 
Back
Top