HP ML110 G5
HP recently had a special offering for an ML110 G5 hardware bundle, that consisted of the following parts:
- Intel Xeon 3065 2.33Ghz 4MB L2
- 512MB ECC RAM
- E200 SAS Controller (8 Ports, 128MB BBWC)
- 2x 160GB 7.2kRPM SATA Disks
For less than 400 CHF. As i needed a machine to run SBS2008 at home, and my current one wasn’t 64bit capable, this seemed like a good buy, especially because the E200 with BBWC alone is worth around 300 CHF.
Of course, i needed more RAM and disk space. I also ordered 4x 2GB memory modules (with ECC) from a third party memory manufacturer (Transcend) – priced at around 80 CHF each. I also ordered 4x Western Digital 1TB disks that are optimized for 24 hour use, priced at around 180 CHF.
This brought me to a total price of around 1500 CHF. I had two 160GB disks that i didn’t have any use for (except throwing them at people i don’t like).
1500 CHF is a lot of money for me, but for a company it’s nothing – still, this is ideal for experimentation. The free ESXi supports the E200 SAS controller, making it easy to build a test lab based on VMware – also, Windows Server 2008 x64 and Hyper-V also run flawlessly on the machine.
The machine is also very quiet, making it possible to use it in a normal appartment or in your office.
You get what you pay for still applies – the machine has no remote management features, only a single network port, forcing you to use the same port for management and virtual machine traffic, which can be acceptable in a test environment. HP’s System Insight Manager is not supported on this machine, either.
The case is very small, resembling a normal HP client minitower. The mainboard supports ECC memory, which is becoming more and more important with todays memory sizes. Unfortunately, it only offers four memory slots with a maximum capacity of 2GB per stick, maxing the machine out at only 8GB of RAM.
The integrated E200 SAS RAID Controller has a 128MB BBWC card, that allows it to use it as a write cache, and enables licensing to use RAID5. In my case, i used RAID10. The disk performance is better than anticipated, even though i’m using slow consumer drives, the performance for running VMs is acceptable.
The machine has three x8 PCI-E slots and a single PCI slot. One of the x8 slots is used by the E200 controller.
This offer is still available under HP Part# 470064-639, and there are still some companies that are selling it for the lower promotion price.
I’m currently running SBS2008 directly on the hardware, with not virtualization in-between. The performance is good, but i’d still never use such a setup for a production deployment at a customer – the management options, hardware flexibility, redundancy etc. just aren’t fit for production.
Update: I was asked about Linux compatibility on this machine. See the official HP Linux compatibility list. The E200 SAS RAID Controller is supported by the cciss driver, which is in the vanilla linux kernel. So most distributions will be able to install on this box – support is another matter, though.
There is no easy way to get official support for non-corporate versions of Linux, like Ubuntu. My usual way in those scenarios is to run Linux as a VM under ESXi, but that doesn’t work with the ML110 as ESXi is not supported (but works).
fark.my:
HP ML110 G5 û Lukas Beelerââ¬â¢s IT Blog û Blog Archive…
Quiet server that might just the choice for you to put in your apartment….
16. October, 2008, 05:55Paul:
“E200 with BBWC alone is worth around 300 CHF” was in 2k6.
23. October, 2008, 04:43Today you can buy it for less than 100 CHF (street price). No wonder since these servers were sold around 700 CHF (G4) in the same configuration (512 M, E200i, 2x160GB SATA) for two years now.
BTW I wonder why they have this /very/ low price now. Anyway, bought 10.
Lukas Beeler:
Paul, i have no idea where you get your prices from, but Part# 411508-B21 is nowhere to be seen for near 100 CHF:
http://www.toppreise.ch/index.php?search=411508-B21&sRes=OK
23. October, 2008, 07:44Paul:
Lukas,
I have to apologize. I did not re-check the information.
One year ago I had the bright idea to buy ML110 G4 (750 CHF at that time), sell the E200 on ebay and the ML110s as cheap office-PCs to customers.
When I checked the prices at ebay it was around 50-100 CHF. Today its 250 US$ and up. Maybe I try the path now :)
Another question:
23. October, 2008, 11:22I tried to install ESXi 3.5 (VMware-VMvisor-InstallerCD-3.5.0_Update_2-110271.i386.iso) on a test ML110 G5 but no matter which disk config I use (size, number of disks etc) with the E200 the install always stops around 45% with a (not specified) “fatal error”.
You wrote you managed to install? Have you got a tip what to do?
Lukas Beeler:
Hi Paul,
Okay. I just wondered, maybe the prices were lower from some other sources.
I did two things before trying to install ESXi:
Upgraded the memory to a maximum of 8GB
Changed the BIOS Settings for the “NX Bit”, in order to enable x64 virtualization
I didn’t have any issues with installing ESXi.
My assumption would be that you’re still running the baseline 512MB memory. You need at least 1GB to install ESXi successfully.
23. October, 2008, 12:41Paul:
I had 1 GB. Just changed that “NX Bit”* and now it works like a charm. Thanks for your help!
* for others that google for “ML110 G5 Trouble ESXi”:
23. October, 2008, 14:09Advanced | Advanced Processor Options | No Execute Mem Protection = [Disabled]
Phil:
hey, all the specs for this server and the g5 version says max capacity is 3TB – I see you have 4 x 1tb drives in it. did you encounter any problems.
7. January, 2009, 15:48thanks for any info on this
HULK:
best server, on Intel Xeon 3065 2.33Ghz 4MB L2
28. February, 2009, 11:29850cc:
I installed ESX 3.5 U3 on my machine, with 8GB RAM, E200 and 3 X 1TB SATA. When i copy files to and from the machine it is ok. But when i copy files between vm’s or copy files via the datastore browser i only get about 5MB/s. If i deploy a vm via a template in VC it takes ages to create that new machine.
Could somebody with similar machine do a test with Filezilla Client and Server and let me know what speeds he gets ?
Would be a great help. I a am the onlyone with slow performance i can call HP
Luc
16. March, 2009, 07:43Paul:
I experience the same on a 4GB Win2k3 server (4x750GB RAID5 + Spare) and an 8GB Win2k8 server (4x160GB RAID5 + Spare).
16. March, 2009, 09:40IMHO the E200i controller is in matters of performance pure trash.
Lukas Beeler:
Paul:
In my experience, the RAID5 levels of the E200 are rather slow. But you also to think that these are SATA Disks, which have poor random access performance anyway.
There’s a reason why i chose RAID10 and described the performance as “acceptable” ;)
Regarding Spam: You’re right. I’m not always that cautious when approving comments, and the spam is getting better and better.
850cc: Regarding the performance issues you mentioned. I’ve noticed the same when using ESXi, but the symptoms didn’t appear using Server 2008 / Hyper-V – i didn’t do more with ESXi since none of our customers use it. Also, i had some very strange issues with my E200 before i upgraded the firmware to the latest version. You might try using another NIC in order to to evaluate if the problem is with the Disk or NIC.
16. March, 2009, 10:38Paul:
Lukas,
you don’t work for HP, do you?
The performance of the e200i controller is on subground level. There is not much about the SATA drives attached to it. Each of them allone has a much better performance.
My 4GB Win2k3 server (4Ãâ750GB RAID5 + Spare) has 4x “Samsung Spinpoint F1 , 3.5″, 750 GB 7200rpm , 8.9ms , 32MB cache”. To copy a 3GB file on the RAID 5 takes full 6 minutes!!!
My laptop uses a ST9250421ASG (Seagate Momentus, 2.5″, 250 GB 7200rpm, 16MB cache) drive. Copying the same file locally takes 3:30 minutes. On a power optimized laptop drive!
Now tell me again about the SATA drives attached to the e200i…
to 850cc:
16. March, 2009, 11:44unlike workstation esxi always reserves the full disk space you assign. That might be 100GB and so it takes ages to “prepare” the virtual disks. Only solution is to exchange the e200i to sth. better.
Lukas Beeler:
Paul,
No, i don’t work for HP. In fact, i work for an IBM BP ;)
I’ll reformat my ML110 to a RAID5 and test the results you’ve got.
16. March, 2009, 12:15Paul:
Lukas,
I guess you did not took the time to test? Or are the results THAT bad that you don’t wish to publish ;)
2. April, 2009, 12:10Lukas Beeler:
Paul,
No, just lazyness. I hope to do this this friday. I’ve been busy – i’ve even written new blog posts ;)
2. April, 2009, 12:16Paul:
…Lukas,
I guess it is still copying ;)
Just teasing, you’re not an HP-man.
But I was still very curious if I have been wrong in all my doing (7 servers at 5 customers sites with same “performance” [doesn't matter, these are servers for 2-5 workstations]). And in case I was I was even more curious to get to know your solution.
Just as you “saved my live” with the ESXi installation on HP110/G5 by giving a simple hint.
Thanks, Paul
4. April, 2009, 13:36Oscar:
Hi Paul,
I just want to ask you about your first problem installing ESXi. Installation stops at exactly 44% each time, telling about possible “bad sectors”. I have 1GB installed and the 250GB SATA disk. I am using ESXi 3.5 Update 3 because Update 4 does not recognize the SATA disk. I changed NX bit and VT, but this doesn’t help. Some ideas? Thanks in forward for any one who could help me.
Oscar
12. May, 2009, 00:13Paul:
I am sorry, I got no other hint or challenge when installing.
I used it on a G4, yours may be G5. For me it was just that NX-bit.
You already have tried to verify the CD-ROM and that the CD-drive can correctly read the image?
BTW how would the software not recognize SATA disks? AFAIK the E200i does not tell the OS which types of HDDs it’s operating on.
HTH, Paul
12. May, 2009, 09:54wahyu:
Can i use ML 110 G5 for Hyper-V using Windows Server 2008 Standard?
26. May, 2009, 10:37Stefan Müller:
Hi Lukas
My question is the same as Phil’s. Can you confirm that the 4x1TB setup works fine on your ML110 G5? For I tried to install 2×1.5TB disks and they were not recognized at all by the system.
Thank you very much for your response!
21. July, 2009, 10:21Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 Live Migration & Failover Clustering » Lukas Beeler’s IT Blog » Blog Archive:
[...] i needed two machines that were able to support running Hyper-V Server 2008 R2. One of them was HP ML110 G5, about which i wrote a few months back. Unfortunately, i could use only one of them. So my next [...]
31. July, 2009, 19:53Lukas Beeler:
Hi Stefan,
I can confirm that the 1TB drives work without issues. I do not have any 1.5TB drives that i could try.
1. August, 2009, 01:35Paul:
Lukas,
I guess you’re never going to test the speed as it’s 4 months ago you ‘promised’ it.
BTW there is not much use in testing the speed as the E200i does NOT qualify for a production environment at all!
I wrote in April about my 4x750GB RAID5 /w hotspare.
Well, the whole server LOCKED UP when a single drive failed.
Neither was the hotspare used to ‘rebuild’ the RAID5. Nor did the RAID5 array work with just 2 disks (as it’s supposed to do!).
I already wrote I consider the E200i a piece of crap. That was before a server was failing even though /2/ failsafe startegies (RAID5, HotSpare) had been applied!
I began to remove the E200i from customers servers.
I recemmended your fellow readers to do the same for production environments. BTW a Win2k3 Software RAID5 is MORE failsafe and MUCH faster than the E200i.
Paul
23. August, 2009, 10:09Lukas Beeler:
Paul,
You’re almost right – i’ve forgot to post about here. I’ve tested Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 on a ML110 and for that i’ve decided to set it up with a RAID5, in order to test the performance.
And you’re right – the performance was absolutely horrible. But the RAID10 performance on the E200 was kinda okay, though not great.
Your stories with the failed Array sound certainly bad. And they could be true – i’m glad i don’t have one of these controllers in production use anywhere. You might want to switch to IBM ;)
23. August, 2009, 10:38Paul:
Mate,
my story is not a ‘could be true’ story. It just happened 3 weeks ago.
BTW, I lost no data. After a hard reset of the server it accepted the 4th disk as replacement. At least that worked with HP.
An (IMHO) professionial controller just had not needed a reboot. I have never seen such behaviour before. HP is not serious for me anymore.
Regarding your ‘use IBM instead’: Which controller would you suggest as a replacement for the E200i?
Pricing/Availability/Sources?
Thanks, Paul
23. August, 2009, 12:05Lukas Beeler:
Paul,
I’m sorry, i didn’t mean to sound condescending – it’s just that i’m not sure that the behaviour you described will exhibit in every case. I’ve seen enough issues with entry-level storage, but they’re not all that common.
Regarding IBM’s RAID Controllers, the ServeRAID 8k/8k-i that was shipped in the old x3650 line of products was a horrible POS. It needed several firmware iterations till it worked right and a few of the released iterations broke your whole RAID if you installed them. It was a complete mess for several years. The ServeRAID 8k’s were OEM’d from Adaptec.
Now, IBM has pretty much switched everything over to LSI controllers. There are currently two entry-level controllers, the ServeRAID BR10i, an LSI Fakeraid Controller that can only do RAID 1/0/10 and the ServeRAID MR10i, which is a real controller with 256MB BBWC and support for SSDs, RAID6, etc.
The biggest disadvantage of the LSI controllers is the configuration for the MR10i (which sucks) and the application for all the controller (MSM, which i wrote about in my x3650 M2 review).
I can’t really recommend any hardware or controller anymore. They all suck on different levels and have different issues.
23. August, 2009, 12:44javad:
hi
27. October, 2009, 07:28I have 1 server HP-ML-110, this server has a NIC (for network), I need to another NIC for working, I Inquiry about NIC for this server than some IT Corporation, they introduced ‘Intel NIC’ that is 150$, I check Mainboard and saw, I can use a Normal NIC for example (D-Link NIC) with 10$,
so, I want you help me to choose NIC ./
Thanks,
Lukas Beeler:
javad,
I suggest you to use a PCI-E based NIC with a server chipset – these are more expensive than el-cheapo NICs from D-Link and similar vendors, but you’ll less likely have issues with drivers and such.
27. October, 2009, 07:51HP’s E200 controller really sucks » Lukas Beeler’s IT Blog » Blog Archive:
[...] long time ago, i wrote a review of the HP ML110. In the comments, Paul indicated that the Performance of the E200 controllers was pretty bad, and i [...]
7. November, 2009, 23:10Lukas Beeler:
Paul,
I finally did those benchmarks i promised:
http://projectdream.org/wordpress/2009/11/07/hps-e200-controller-really-sucks/
7. November, 2009, 23:11