We have been migrating from physical to VM, from a bunch of HP DL to Dells.
I guess it depends on your budget and current setup, but wouldn’t sticking with VMs give you better flexibility with performance and storage scaling, plus scheduled backups or whatever high availability setup you have for your other VMs?
I’m just wondering, would it be money better spent on a VM host upgrade rather than rolling a new box? Maybe spend the money on some SAN/NAS thing with 10gb connectivity or dump more RAM in, etc.
And actually looking at something like a Dell PowerEdge R340 type machine may be a better and cheaper alternative.
I was totally hot on HP up until the Gen8 when I had to switch to Dell because the value for money spent was so much better. I just couldn’t justify staying with HP plus they moved/spun off their warranty group overseas which made it harder to justify paying foreign companies for our highly-regulated US systems to be serviced.
All good points.
So......our contract right now is with Lenovo, so might be stuck with them, but not in stone. If Dell can be justified that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
We have 10Gbe in the office and a SAN, excess data and backups go there.
As for the VM thing, we had some issues the other day which required the whole server get a restart, which knocked out the print server and a few other things for the entire office for about 15-20 minutes. Since this will be used for condition monitoring of all of our plants, I think the path may lead to its own dedicated box. It was before and what you listed above is probably what shifted it to vm in the first place, I don't know.
As for the current server VM it's in, I can't remember specs off hand, but IT guy said it's a has ddr3, so that puts it at several years old at least.
Also talking with the condition monitoring guy, might get 3 of the same boxes, one for each region. Good for spare parts I guess.