InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comSun, 19 May 2013 13:53:23 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspx[quote][b]bdavey (5/3/2010)[/b][hr]Thanks Lynn, Greg, & Steve. I think I see the error of may ways now. Let me define this a little more.It is a single cluster environment (1 active, 1 passive).It is about 90% OLTP (10% warehouse).It has 2 instances with 150+ databases.The total space consumed, excluding backups, is about 500 Gig.Space is expected to grow at about a 500 Mb/day.We expect to replace our hardware every 5 years.Rack mount is definitely prefered.Not concerned with SLA's at this point.Backup replication & storage does not need to be considered in this purchase.The majority of the growth occurs during normal U.S. business hours.$200k is the very maximum. I would probably scale down from this.[/quote]Your are concerned with SLA or you wouldn't have a cluster.2 Dell R910 with 256GB of RAM each (go with the lowest number of procs) add more later if needed3 years of SAN space(reassess expected growth over time) depending on your infrastructure this could blow your budget or not be a factor.Run raid 10 for all.1TB of for the data lun 250GB for the Log lun10 GB for SQL system (with MSDB moved to data and log luns)20 GB for SQL TempDB1GB for MSDTC LUN1 Idera SQL Diagnostic Manager licenseSat, 17 Dec 2011 07:56:58 GMTKeith Hayshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspx[quote][b]bdavey (5/4/2010)[/b][hr]Thanks Greg. It great to find these predesigned solutions.One question though. Is the "Fast Track" optimized for only data warehouses? We do have a lot of OLTP too.[/quote]Steve is correct - these are designed for huge data loads / query activity.But you may want to ask Microsoft more directly on specifics.We deal with a data warehouse, so it looks like something we will get to.But it does nothing for our AS load.Greg ETue, 04 May 2010 11:59:21 GMTGreg Edwards-268690http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxWith the considerations for DR, one must also include considerations for Business Continuity.200K may seem like a lot of money but it can disappear in a heartbeat with the purchase of a SAN (depending on size), Backup Solution, DR Solution, and Business Continuity Solution. Ideally, you would want something that would not need replaced after five years.Tue, 04 May 2010 11:49:16 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxFast Track is only for data warehouses. OLTP loads vary so widely.It's still hard to guess your load. Maybe Lynn is closed on memory, but 1GB a day/150 databases, isn't a lot. That's like 7MB a day/db, correct? Not a lot of writes.Depending on the batches, transactions, etc., you could have lots of variation on what you need. I'd also consider DR here, since I'm assuming having 150 dbs crash would be bad. I might even lean towards a 3 or 4 node cluster if you can do that, or even 3-4 servers (2 primary, 1-2 backup) with mirroring.Tue, 04 May 2010 10:36:10 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxThanks Greg. It great to find these predesigned solutions.One question though. Is the "Fast Track" optimized for only data warehouses? We do have a lot of OLTP too.Tue, 04 May 2010 10:28:26 GMTbdaveyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspx[quote][b]bdavey (5/3/2010)[/b][hr]Ok Lynn, how about this:If you had $200K to spend on hardware, including storage, for an SQL server setup what would it be?[/quote]I would look at one of the Fast Track Data Warehouse setups Microsoft is promoting.Hardware and SAN are matched for optimal data movement.[url=http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/fasttrack.aspx][/url]Greg ETue, 04 May 2010 06:13:45 GMTGreg Edwards-268690http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxI hope it will help you. I actually got it today morning from a friend of mine. If we had this site, it would have been easy for us when we set up our server. We had to do it the hard way (Experimenting with different HW set ups for IO) before we found one similar to what they had stated.Mon, 03 May 2010 12:38:40 GMTRoy Ernesthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxRoy,Thank you! Very cool site.Mon, 03 May 2010 12:27:49 GMTbdaveyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxHere is a link that might be of interest for you. Since you have around 200K budget, you could take a look at it. It is a [url=http://www.tpc.org/tpce/results/tpce_price_perf_results.asp]TPC Benchmark[/url].Mon, 03 May 2010 12:17:50 GMTRoy Ernesthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxActually, for a database server that needs to host 150+ databases, I'd be looking at a minimum of 64GB to 128GB ram, more would be better.IIRC, our network services group purchased a 16TB iSCSI san for storing backup files (database, file server, email, etc) and dedup software as well instead of a dedicated hardware appliance for around 32K, maybe a bit more.Mon, 03 May 2010 11:18:15 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxThanks Lynn, Greg, & Steve. I think I see the error of may ways now. Let me define this a little more.It is a single cluster environment (1 active, 1 passive).It is about 90% OLTP (10% warehouse).It has 2 instances with 150+ databases.The total space consumed, excluding backups, is about 500 Gig.Space is expected to grow at about a 500 Mb/day.We expect to replace our hardware every 5 years.Rack mount is definitely prefered.Not concerned with SLA's at this point.Backup replication & storage does not need to be considered in this purchase.The majority of the growth occurs during normal U.S. business hours.$200k is the very maximum. I would probably scale down from this.Mon, 03 May 2010 11:14:06 GMTbdaveyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxGregory,How about if we ask is there an existing system? Taking guesses on new servers without any history is hard. Any ideas on how much data/activity this system will see v some other server you have?Adding 1GB a day doesn't necessarily help. Is 1GB being added in 8 hours? 1 hour? 24 hours? The load can be much different.There's no ideal; it's like saying what's the best car? Best for what? A diesel pickup works in some situations better than a Ferrari. Not in others.You want enough CPU, lots of RAM (I'd be thinking 8GB+ these days), and enough disk to handle your needs for 6months to a year, accounting for backups on separate devices. $200k is a lot, at least to me. I would be surprised that a 365GB a year db needs that cost.Mon, 03 May 2010 11:10:57 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxStill not enough. You mention 150+ databases, adding 1GB new data daily. How much space is needed for the existing databases, how much extra disk space do you need based on the growth? When do you need to add storage space or upgrade the SAN, NAS, etc.Do you want rack servers or are you going to use blade servers?It still comes down to "It Depends."What are your business requirements, SLA's, data storage, not just databases but backups, and how many? Are you going to use/need backup deduplication (that alone could add 180,000 to your price tag by the way).Mon, 03 May 2010 10:56:32 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspx[quote][b]bdavey (5/3/2010)[/b][hr]Ok Lynn, how about this:If you had $200K to spend on hardware, including storage, for an SQL server setup what would it be?[/quote]It depends on what it's used for :) There is no one size fit's all approach. And if you plan on clustering, your useable budget just took a big hit.Memory, # CPU's, disk (SAN or otherwise), are all dependant on what the server will be used for.Mon, 03 May 2010 10:53:41 GMTGregoryFhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxOk Lynn, how about this:If you had $200K to spend on hardware, including storage, for an SQL server setup what would it be?Mon, 03 May 2010 10:49:44 GMTbdaveyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxYou want lots of memory, enough CPU for your system load, and a few separate physical disks. These can be DASD or SAN, but you want to have data separate from logs if possible, and a third array for backups. That way you are protected. Be careful of using the SAN and piling the LUNs onto the same physicals.Mon, 03 May 2010 10:48:03 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspx[quote][b]bdavey (5/3/2010)[/b][hr]Hi Lynn,I guess I should have clarified a little more. The stuff you mentioned is what I am looking for. Should I go with a NAS or SAN, how many spindles, how many processors, how much memory, etc.What I can tell you is that we have 2 instances, 150+ databases, and about a Gig of new data per day coming in.Thanks[/quote]And some of that is driven by business requirements and budget.Mon, 03 May 2010 10:43:23 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxHi Lynn,I guess I should have clarified a little more. The stuff you mentioned is what I am looking for. Should I go with a NAS or SAN, how many spindles, how many processors, how much memory, etc.What I can tell you is that we have 2 instances, 150+ databases, and about a Gig of new data per day coming in.ThanksMon, 03 May 2010 10:40:08 GMTbdaveyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxI'll give the short answer: It Depends.To give a more detailed answer we would need to know more about what you are doing. dedicated server? DASD, SAN, NAS? Number of databases/instances? And the list here could go on.Mon, 03 May 2010 10:09:51 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic914790-1550-1.aspxHey Guys,My company is looking to upgrade to 2008 and purchase new hardware as well. Being that I come from a software development backround I was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers as to what is the ideal hardware setup for SQL? I realize this is subjective but I'm looking for what is best and what is reasonable.Thanks!Mon, 03 May 2010 10:01:19 GMTbdavey