There are a lot of people who believe that rack-mount servers need to be in a rack. This is because they say that it makes the server more stable and easier to manage. There are a few reasons why this might be true. First, when servers are placed in racks, they are more likely to be protected from damage. Second, when servers are placed in racks, they are more likely to be organized and accessible. Finally, rack-mount servers tend to cost less to operate than traditional server models. However, there is one major downside to using rack-mount servers: They can’t run as many applications as traditional server models can. This means that you’ll need to use multiple applications on your rack-mounted server in order for it to function as a full-fledged computer system.
When you are setting up a personal server for the first time or simply seeking to upgrade or update, you may wonder just what hardware components are necessary versus what is unnecessary. Consider racks for example, do you absolutely have to have a rack for your server? Today’s SuperUser Q&A post has some helpful answers to a curious reader’s question.
Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-driven grouping of Q&A web sites.
Photo courtesy of Tom Raftery (Flickr).
The Question
SuperUser reader GoldieLocks wants to know if it is absolutely necessary to have a rack to place a replacement server in:
Does GoldieLocks really need a rack to place a replacement server in?
Would I be able to just buy this 2U server and sit it under my desk somewhere, or is it a requirement that you absolutely have to have a rack to put it in?
What does a rack give you that sitting on its own somewhere does not?
The Answer
SuperUser contributors TheUser1024 and KlaymenDK have the answer for us. First up, TheUser1024:
Followed by the answer from KlaymenDK:
If you keep it under your desk, it will accumulate dust. The fans of such servers can be rather loud (putting it mildly)! You really do not want that near you all the time! The power consumption might be much higher than that of a SOHO NAS box. Rack-mountable servers are 19 inches wide and might be twice that in length. If you get an old server with parallel SCSI (not SAS), you will not be able to easily put in SATA-HDDs for regular SOHO-NAS Systems. Upgrading parts might be more difficult since they use server hardware (RAM, CPU, HDD, etc. ).
A rack has the advantage that you can mount more than 10 servers in a single rack easily, and if you have them on rails, still be able to access them (slide out, open up, swap parts etc.). Also, the issues of cable management, airflow management, and power distribution come to mind.
Have something to add to the explanation? Sound off in the comments. Want to read more answers from other tech-savvy Stack Exchange users? Check out the full discussion thread here.
This might be the most official site about it: The LackRack
