Awkwardly Positioned App Server
Pros:
Good capacity for upgrades, solidly built, smaller than some
Cons:
Lacks lights-out-management of their 1U servers, Others build the same in 2U
The Bottom Line:
If it has what you need, and you don't mind Compaq's proprietary philosophy, you couldn't do much better.
|
|
Overall Rating:
|
 |
|
Author's Review
My company, then almost entirely a Dell shop for x86 hardware, came into possession of a half-dozen Compaq DL380s to be used as Linux boxen. We looked at the DL380s when we picked servers before, but opted for Dell 2450 due to their smaller size (2U instead of 3U).
Compared to the Dells, these servers were less deep but taller (3U vs 2U). Their capacity was similar - 4 hot swap SCSI drives, CDROM and floppy, and two 5.25" drive bays. That's one bay more tan you get in the Dell. Memory capacity was the same as the Dells, and both could support Pentium III processors with a 133mhz FSB.
But, at a certain point, the design seemed less attractive. Opening them up to add additional network cards, the innards seemed cramped. Airflow was acceptable, but not fabulous. One good cable and the whole box started getting warm - not a feature you want when it's off in a colo somewhere.
As far as Linux support went, the Compaq embedded video, scsi, and network cards were all supported. Performance on the ethernet device wasn't as good as the Intel-based Dell. There were a few issues with properly autodetecting duplex with a 3com switch. Calls to Compaq about Linux support were answered fairly aptly (claimed drivers were available on Compaq's site, although they weren't, they were built into Mandrake 7.2, so it was moot).
Overall, the on-board RAID adapter was more impressive than I expected, but less than adaquate for serious database applications. Of course, with a maximum disk capacity around 120 gigs, you'd be hard pressed to stress it _too_ much.
With the limitations it has, one begins to wonder where Compaq envisioned selling it. It lacks the small size one would want in a web farm, where its expansion is wasted. It's too small for even a moderate-sized database. It only supports dual CPU operation, so that likely lands it squarely in middleware land. It would be an acceptible application server, too.
Reliability-wise, aside from a disk failure right after arrival (and possible linked to rough treatment in shipping), they've fared pretty well. Nothing but routine maintenance has been required. Incidentally, Compaq's policy for service makes a contract a must-have necessity. Budget 10% of the server cost for this.
