DELL PowerEdge T20 Tower Server £97.94 after cashback (£167.94) - ServersPlus
30°Expired

DELL PowerEdge T20 Tower Server £97.94 after cashback (£167.94) - ServersPlus

33
Found 15th Dec 2015
Very decent price for what looks to be a decent little server. I've been looking for a replacement for my HP Microserver.

Intel Pentium G3220 (3M Cache, 3.00 GHz), 4GB (1x4GB) 1600MT/s UDIMM Single Rank, 1x 500GB SATA (7.2k rpm) 3.5" HDD, Intel 82579, 290W PSU, UK Power Cord, 1Yr NBD, Black Tower

FREE delivery needed to get this price: DEC15T20DEL
- nirvanaman
Community Updates
Serversplus Deals

Groups

33 Comments
Good deal voting hot, but NIC at fast Ethernet standard is a little disappointing.

Cabling technology 10/100Base-T(X)
Abbadon

Good deal voting hot, but NIC at fast Ethernet standard is a little … Good deal voting hot, but NIC at fast Ethernet standard is a little disappointing.Cabling technology 10/100Base-T(X)



I'm sure these have an Intel 82579 controller, which is in fact Gigabit.


Edit

It might actually be Intel I217LM, but that's still Gigabit.
Edited by: "topss" 15th Dec 2015
It is unusual in a server today for sure, but if you need a gigabit NIC, amazon will do you one for £5.90 and ebuyer will do you one for £6.87.

Also, 100Mb/s will permit what 2-3 1080p streams at once. Should be plenty for most people i would have though.
Pasanda

It is unusual in a server today for sure, but if you need a gigabit NIC, … It is unusual in a server today for sure, but if you need a gigabit NIC, amazon will do you one for £5.90 and ebuyer will do you one for £6.87. Also, 100Mb/s will permit what 2-3 1080p streams at once. Should be plenty for most people i would have though.


I work in hosting so have seen the results of mixing NIC speeds too many times to do it at home, data tends to back up elsewhere on network causing issues for everything not just the slow device.
Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a gigabit nic instead of the onboard. Not simulataneously.
Pasanda

Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a … Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a gigabit nic instead of the onboard. Not simulataneously.


I was responding to the "Also, 100Mb/s will permit what 2-3 1080p streams at once. Should be plenty for most people i would have though." part of your post.
I can confirm that this has gigabit, here are the full specs:

NO Operating System, DVD-RW, keyboard, mouse or monitor.
CPU: Intel Pentium G3220 Dual Core, 3MB Cache, 3.00 GHz (Haswell) 54W, socket LGA 1150
GPU: Integrated Intel HD Graphics 4600 (DirectX 12(software), DirectX 11.1 (hardware), OpenCL 1.2 and WDDM 1.3 compatible)
1x4GB DDR3 ECC 1600Mhz 1.35V ram, 4x UDIMM slots available, supports 32GB max of 1333/1600mhz ram (model: HMT451U7BFR8A-PB)
500GB Seagate ST500DM002-1BD14 7200rpm SATA HDD
VGA port
2x Displayport ports
4x USB3 ports (2 front and 2 back)
6x USB2 ports (2 front and 4 back)
2x sata3 ports and 2x sata2 ports
Audio: Realtek ALC3220
Network: Intel I217-LM Gigabit Ethernet (10/100/1000)
Chipset: Intel C226
Raid: Intel Rapid Storage Controller 12.0 (software RAID)
1 PCIe 3.0 X16
1 PCIe 2.0 x16 (x4 speed)
1 PCIe 2.0 x1
1 PCI slot
1x serial connector
1x mic and headphone/speakers connector on front
1x mic and headphone/speakers connector on rear
290W PSU + power cord
Weight: 8.49 kg
Dimensions: 36cm (H), 17.5cm (W), 43.6cm (D)
1yr warranty

here is the big thread i made about this server: hotukdeals.com/dea…529
Edited by: "nirvanaman" 15th Dec 2015
Abbadon

Good deal voting hot, but NIC at fast Ethernet standard is a little … Good deal voting hot, but NIC at fast Ethernet standard is a little disappointing.Cabling technology 10/100Base-T(X)


That's a mistake in the Specs on the site - the T20 has gigabit ethernet on-board. I've got one from the earlier Servers Plus offer.
Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a gigabit nic instead of the onboard. Not simulataneously.
Would this be any good as an HTPC ?
I have a very old Q6600 sata 2 based PC and was hoping to take the innards of this to us in my HTPC case which has a microATX PSU.

Edited by: "scav" 15th Dec 2015
Pasanda

Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a … Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a gigabit nic instead of the onboard. Not simulataneously.



I think they were replying to this part of your post:

Also, 100Mb/s will permit what 2-3 1080p streams at once. Should be … Also, 100Mb/s will permit what 2-3 1080p streams at once. Should be plenty for most people i would have though.



The point being made if I'm not mistaken is there would be other PC's etc on the network with Gigabit connections and this (irrelevant now that the fact it has Gigabit has been established) might affect the overall network speeds.

Edited by: "topss" 15th Dec 2015
scav

Would this be any good as an HTPC ?I have a very old Q6600 sata 2 based … Would this be any good as an HTPC ?I have a very old Q6600 sata 2 based PC and was hoping to take the innards of this to us in my HTPC case which has a microATX PSU.


this has a proprietary psu so you can only use this psu with this motherboard.
nirvanaman

this has a proprietary psu so you can only use this psu with this … this has a proprietary psu so you can only use this psu with this motherboard.


thanks for that
Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a gigabit nic instead of the onboard. Not simulataneously.
Pasanda

Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a … Not sure what you mean my mixing nic speeds. I was suggesting using a gigabit nic instead of the onboard. Not simulataneously.



There seems to be an echo in here.
Taking the tower as is would it make a good HTPC ?
Anyone have experience of using it as one or know what the noise levels are like ?
Abbadon

There seems to be an echo in here.



Odd. No idea how that happened.

In response to the earlier comment from topss. If this 100Mbs server communicate at 100Mbs and all the other devices on the network have Gigabit Nics, it should make zero difference. The server will communicate with the switch at 100mb/s and all the other devices will communicate with the switch at 1Gbs (as long as the switch is capable of recieving 100/1000mb/s of course). The server will be slowest link in the chain, but it won't pull the other devices down with it. The other devices will be able to talk to each other at their maximum speeds.

As you say, it's a redundant point as it seems the server has a gigabit nic anyway.

[EDIT] To illustrate my point, if your switch has speed indications on the port LEDs, and a mixed environment, all the devices will indicate whatever the top speed they are capable of communicating at. They do not all get pulled down to 100mbs if one of the devices is only capable of that.
Edited by: "Pasanda" 15th Dec 2015
Pasanda

Odd. No idea how that happened.In response to the earlier comment from … Odd. No idea how that happened.In response to the earlier comment from topss. If this 100Mbs server communicate at 100Mbs and all the other devices on the network have Gigabit Nics, it should make zero difference. The server will communicate with the switch at 100mb/s and all the other devices will communicate with the switch at 1Gbs (as long as the switch is capable of recieving 100/1000mb/s of course). The server will be slowest link in the chain, but it won't pull the other devices down with it. The other devices will be able to talk to each other at their maximum speeds. As you say, it's a redundant point as it seems the server has a gigabit nic anyway.[EDIT] To illustrate my point, if your switch has speed indications on the port LEDs, and a mixed environment, all the devices will indicate whatever the top speed they are capable of communicating at. They do not all get pulled down to 100mbs if one of the devices is only capable of that.



I think you may be a tad confused. I wasn't claiming anything. Was just trying to explain to you which part of your comment the other poster was replying to.
scav

Taking the tower as is would it make a good HTPC ?Anyone have experience … Taking the tower as is would it make a good HTPC ?Anyone have experience of using it as one or know what the noise levels are like ?


I got one in the previous Servers Plus promotion, I'm not sure about it as an HTPC for the following reasons :
- Size, it's pretty big
- No audio over Displayport/HDMI - see this thread on Dell forums
- Noisier than other recent servers, mine has a noticeable hum, something I've not been aware of from comparable servers (HP Gen 8 / N54L or Lenovo TS-140). It could be vibration from the hard disk, and it's not loud, but could be annoying.
topss

I think you may be a tad confused. I wasn't claiming anything. Was just … I think you may be a tad confused. I wasn't claiming anything. Was just trying to explain to you which part of your comment the other poster was replying to.



OK Bud. A little defensive there, but no harm, no foul. I hope we're all just trying to be as informative as we can for the readers.
scav

Taking the tower as is would it make a good HTPC ?Anyone have experience … Taking the tower as is would it make a good HTPC ?Anyone have experience of using it as one or know what the noise levels are like ?



It might be able to play video files, but that's not what it's made for. Ideally, this would serve the media to another computer acting as an HTPC. The HTPC would ideally have far less storage, be smaller, and somewhat better video and audio hardware. Again, ideally, you might want to leave the server powered up, but your HTPC only needs to be on when you're watching stuff.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy... If you wanted to drive to the local shops, you could take a tractor, and it might get you there, but you'd be better with a small city car. That's not great, but it'll do. Use the tractor for things that tractors are good at.

[EDIT]
The other thing about using this for a server, is that you can then use the tiny players to play content on your TV's, such as the Now TV boxes, or the native apps that come with modern TV's like the plex apps. That's how i do it, and then have a HTPC on the main TV in the lounge, where audio and video are most important.
Edited by: "Pasanda" 15th Dec 2015
Pasanda

It might be able to play video files, but that's not what it's made for. … It might be able to play video files, but that's not what it's made for. Ideally, this would serve the media to another computer acting as an HTPC. The HTPC would ideally have far less storage, be smaller, and somewhat better video and audio hardware. Again, ideally, you might want to leave the server powered up, but your HTPC only needs to be on when you're watching stuff.I'm trying to think of a good analogy... If you wanted to drive to the local shops, you could take a tractor, and it might get you there, but you'd be better with a small city car. That's not great, but it'll do. Use the tractor for things that tractors are good at.



I may have to rethink my setup.
I currently use an old Q6600 PC with 2 USB tuners and Windows 7 MCE. Usual download gubbins going on as well. My video card is a DVI GT6000 and audio output is from a separate sound card with optical and jack socket connections to the plasma. I am not bothered about display port sound problems if I just fit a DP to HDMI converter and grab sound from my own sound card.
I also use an Amazon FTV Kodi in other rooms so if this setup proves too noisy I may just move it upstairs and put the FTV in the living room leaving me with one empty big space under the TV !
Not bad - they've knocked £10 off the price from last week when buying the version without a HDD was (to me) the better option. Few of the diskless version around now (T20-9179).
Pasanda

Odd. No idea how that happened.In response to the earlier comment from … Odd. No idea how that happened.In response to the earlier comment from topss. If this 100Mbs server communicate at 100Mbs and all the other devices on the network have Gigabit Nics, it should make zero difference. The server will communicate with the switch at 100mb/s and all the other devices will communicate with the switch at 1Gbs (as long as the switch is capable of recieving 100/1000mb/s of course). The server will be slowest link in the chain, but it won't pull the other devices down with it. The other devices will be able to talk to each other at their maximum speeds. As you say, it's a redundant point as it seems the server has a gigabit nic anyway.[EDIT] To illustrate my point, if your switch has speed indications on the port LEDs, and a mixed environment, all the devices will indicate whatever the top speed they are capable of communicating at. They do not all get pulled down to 100mbs if one of the devices is only capable of that.



I know this is all redundant now but without getting into war and piece here.

Networks are not simply pipes, if you have a 100Mb server on same network as lots of Gb PCs then you try to send say a large movie file from a PC to the sever things are not as simple as target only has 100Mb of bandwidth so traffic only flows at 100Mb.

The PC sends data to switch/router as fast as it can and usually "although to what degree depends on quality of said switch/router" you will then fill up a buffer on switch/router before it starts rejecting packets from the source PC.

You will then get a lot of in and out of buffer writes, retries from source PC to switch/router, retries from switch/router to server and generally lots of performance gimping activity going on inside all 3 devices in your route. All probably invisible to you if you don't monitor your network traffic.

This can really slow down all traffic passing through that switch/router and the performance of both sending and receiving devices.

Doesn't matter what you have set in your IP stack, buffers or QOS settings this sort of thing can and in real world does mess performance up across networks and on devices on those networks.
I have had about 5 power edge servers, my main development server is a PowerEdge 1400SC it's been on 24/7 about 15 yrs on the same set of Raid 1 18gb SCSI Raptors.

I don't know if they are still built as strong rock solid machines.
Abbadon

I know this is all redundant now but without getting into war and piece … I know this is all redundant now but without getting into war and piece here.Networks are not simply pipes, if you have a 100Mb server on same network as lots of Gb PCs then you try to send say a large movie file from a PC to the sever things are not as simple as target only has 100Mb of bandwidth so traffic only flows at 100Mb. The PC sends data to switch/router as fast as it can and usually "although to what degree depends on quality of said switch/router" you will then fill up a buffer on switch/router before it starts rejecting packets from the source PC. You will then get a lot of in and out of buffer writes, retries from source PC to switch/router, retries from switch/router to server and generally lots of performance gimping activity going on inside all 3 devices in your route. All probably invisible to you if you don't monitor your network traffic.This can really slow down all traffic passing through that switch/router and the performance of both sending and receiving devices.Doesn't matter what you have set in your IP stack, buffers or QOS settings this sort of thing can and in real world does mess performance up across networks and on devices on those networks.



I don't think that's relevant.

The fact we're talking about a server here, reinforces the point your making, because it would be the natural bottleneck for all traffic. But your assertion would be incorrect if it were, say, the HTPC running at 100mb and the server running at a Gb. Two truths remain: The single 100mb on a network of 1000mb would not drag the performance of the 1000mbs down, to any real, tangible or noticeable extent. It would serve them more slowly, and yes it might, possibly need to buffer more, and housekeeping traffic would increase. But none of that would have any real world effect. Secondly, as i originally wrote, a movie server with a 100gb nic should be able to happily stream 3 * 1080p films at high bandwith simultaneously. If you are trying to do more than that, well, you should know better than to use a 100mb nic.

I think you're using irrelevancies disguised as practical truth. No one could argue that you are wrong, but the advice has little real world meaning.

Edited by: "Pasanda" 16th Dec 2015
Pasanda

I don't think that's relevant. The fact we're talking about a server … I don't think that's relevant. The fact we're talking about a server here, reinforces the point your making, because it would be the natural bottleneck for all traffic. But your assertion would be incorrect if it were, say, the HTPC running at 100mb and the server running at a Gb. Two truths remain: The single 100mb on a network of 1000mb would not drag the performance of the 1000mbs down, to any real, tangible or noticeable extent. It would serve them more slowly, and yes it might, possibly need to buffer more, and housekeeping traffic would increase. But none of that would have any real world effect. Secondly, as i originally wrote, a movie server with a 100gb nic should be able to happily stream 3 * 1080p films at high bandwith simultaneously. If you are trying to do more than that, well, you should know better than to use a 100mb nic.I think you're using irrelevancies disguised as practical truth. No one could argue that you are wrong, but the advice has little real world meaning.



Not much point in arguing with you I feel, but I work in hosting, manage large estates of mixed P, X and I series servers and know what I am talking about. I am right and you are wrong but never going to convince you of that so bailing out of this pointless conversation.

I voted your deal hot, server has Gb port anyway, so doubly no need to get defensive.
Abbadon

Not much point in arguing with you I feel, but I work in hosting, manage … Not much point in arguing with you I feel, but I work in hosting, manage large estates of mixed P, X and I series servers and know what I am talking about. I am right and you are wrong but never going to convince you of that so bailing out of this pointless conversation. I voted your deal hot, server has Gb port anyway, so doubly no need to get defensive.



I Head up the Technology Division of a large organisation and have the expertise of a networking team to call upon which, just for clarificaitons sake, is exactly what i did. Sorry.

Shall we get our respective willies out next?
Edited by: "Pasanda" 17th Dec 2015
Received the T20 next morning after ordering at 3:40pm.
Powered it up and slapped Win7x64 on using a Dell recovery pen drive I had laying around at work.
Popped the Server2008R2 video, chipset and USB drivers on and all looks good.
I have to say it is SO much quieter than I expected in fact I would say it makes less than half the sound of our existing Q6600 based HTPC. How it behaves when under load and in summer remains to be seen.
£97 after cashback is a bargain!
The Q6600 was a great chip for it's day, but hell it runs hot compared to todays CPU's.
Win Win7x64 installed is there any way to configure the RAID or is it only possible with Server2012 ?
Never realized networking was such a fascinating subject (yawns)...
Posting the same question on a couple of these T20 threads:

I got the Xeon version of the T20 Did anyone get Esxi working....I am new to VMs but wanted to play....just installed ESXi 6.0 on a USB and all seems to install - but I get a DHCP error on the home screen...any advise or pointers appreciated
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text