IBM x235 or HP ProLiant ML370?

[CougTek]

My business partner needs a too expensive box and he has to choose between the two servers mentioned in this thread's title. Both have very similar equipment, except for the L2 cache amount of the Xeon processors. The HP has an option to get Xeon with 2MB of L2 cache while the IBM only offers 512K L2 cache variety. The IBM costs several thousand less with the desired configuration.

The box will serve for roughly 30 folks entering data simultaneously. My B.P. says he needs that much computing power and that his P.O.S. software won't run correctly on Opteron-based system (a shame, this is).

I told him that he would be just as well with the IBM, but many others told him to go with the Hewlett crapper. I haven't had first-hand experience with both IBM and HP serious boxes for something like 4 or 5 years, but back then, IBM was just as good, if not bettar.

Opinions?

 

[Howell]

I would think the manufacturers would let him take a trial run on the boxes. Especially considering the expense involved.

 

[Fushigi]

Given the choice I'd go IBM, but then I'm biased. I would say, though, that IBM is trickling their midrange & mainframe technologies into their PC servers. While it may or may not add to performance, it will in general boost reliability.

These are nothing current, but we had some old Compaq servers that would die and literally have to be re-partitioned when certain NT4 updates were applied (the RAID arrays would get toasted). That alone told me Compaq's are too proprietary for their own friggin good. But that was pre-HP.

Here we use Dell servers, and they suck. Well, the storage systems (Perc RAID cards) suck royally; the rest of the box is OK.

 

[Mercutio]

I mostly work with low-end Dell and IBM servers. The biggest boy I've played with in recent memory was an x225 (Xeon 2.4, 2GB RAM). I thought it was a really nice machine, but I have to say that the feature I liked the most was the slim redundant PSU and the "feel" of the case, and neither one of those things is worth basing a ~$3000 decision on.

I don't have *much* of a problem with Compaq servers - they aren't like their desktops - but I'm not really impressed by them either. I don't have normal contact with any, and I haven't for several years, but I've had mixed experiences with them in the past; I had bad, BAD experiences trying to move several of them from one location to another, for example, but I've also had the experience of having a full rack collapse on me and find that all the Compaq stuff continued working during and after brusing the hell out of my back.

So, putting aside my Compaq-apathy, the big question is, does your Customer's app need extra L2 cache? 'Cause "several thousand less" + IBM always sounds like a winner to me.

 

[CougTek]

Thanks guys for confirming my feeling.

I learned that the server will be use as a terminal server host for the 30 or so other users. Excel, two database softwares, basic internet and the like. He can't use an Opteron-based server or one of the database software vendor won't support him because they don't recognize AMD systems as suported platform (stupid morons).

His co-workers told him that HP support was superior to IBM's. Whatever, he won't need support for the hardware anyway.

He'll get the IBM.