Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 1234»»»

Best hardware configuration for sql server 2008 enterprise edition Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, April 25, 2011 6:10 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:08 AM
Points: 48, Visits: 46
Hi All,

We are planning to setup a new SQL server 2008 (enterprise edition).

Average data size is 100GB. Every weekend we will delete some data and add some new data to this database, around 10Gb data we will update in every week. Other 5 days in every week we just read and show these data in our application, So our main concern is data read should be more efficient, we are more looks on performance of data Read operation.

Our suggested hardware configuration is given below.
CPU :- 2 Intel 64 bit processor speed 3GHz or more
Hard Disk :- 2 RAID drives (SCSI fiber channel)
1. RAID 1 - for data storage
2. RAID 1 - For OS and SQL server applications
OS :- Windows 2008 64bit
RAM:- 4GB per processor, total 8GB

Please review this hardware configuration and advice me, is this good? what is your suggestions?

Thank you
Jefy
Post #1098369
Posted Monday, April 25, 2011 6:59 PM


SSCarpal Tunnel

SSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:20 AM
Points: 4,321, Visits: 6,114
jefydominic (4/25/2011)
Hi All,

We are planning to setup a new SQL server 2008 (enterprise edition).

Average data size is 100GB. Every weekend we will delete some data and add some new data to this database, around 10Gb data we will update in every week. Other 5 days in every week we just read and show these data in our application, So our main concern is data read should be more efficient, we are more looks on performance of data Read operation.

Our suggested hardware configuration is given below.
CPU :- 2 Intel 64 bit processor speed 3GHz or more
Hard Disk :- 2 RAID drives (SCSI fiber channel)
1. RAID 1 - for data storage
2. RAID 1 - For OS and SQL server applications
OS :- Windows 2008 64bit
RAM:- 4GB per processor, total 8GB

Please review this hardware configuration and advice me, is this good? what is your suggestions?

Thank you
Jefy


So you want to quickly serve up 100GB of data on a server with just 8GB of RAM and only TWO rotating hard disks??? Um, good luck with that?? My LAPTOP has 2 hard drives! If you had 32 or better yet 64GB of RAM you might get away with that, but if you have either large reports that need to read lots of data or random IO requests spread throughout the 100GB of data you are in DEEP trouble with that poor IO subsystem.


Best,

Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru at GMail
Post #1098375
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:48 AM


SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:54 AM
Points: 492, Visits: 481
Hardware requirement and analysis depend on the load of the Server,RAID Level 5 is best for databases and RAID Level 10 is costly but better than Level 5,Fiber channel Card HBA must be include in this specification,increase your RAM and how much processor core in these processors

Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA

My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com


Regards,
Syed Jahanzaib Bin Hassan
BSCS | MCTS | MCITP | OCA | OCP | OCE | SCJP | IBMCDBA

My Blog
www.aureus-salah.com
Post #1098495
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:52 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:08 AM
Points: 48, Visits: 46
Hi,

I can increase RAM to 32 GB per processor, total - 64GB.
Also i can change RAID configuration of DB storage hard disk to level 5 (Minimum space 2TB).

We are planning to use 2 Quad core processors - 64Bit, is it ok?

Thank you
Jefy
Post #1098753
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:22 PM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:31 PM
Points: 82, Visits: 567
It would depend on how many users you have for the application and the kind of reports that you will be running. Since it looks like a reporting database you will need to have better disk arrays to read large data. Remember if you allow users to write reports most of the queries become adhoc. Just increasing memory to 64 gig will itself not benefit much. You should also consider increasing the number of drives to 3 or 4 in Raid 10 configuration and have better partitions.
Post #1099020
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:28 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, June 16, 2014 4:18 PM
Points: 242, Visits: 678
with that amount of CPU/RAM your main contention will be I/O

Don't just grab from the top shelf if you don't require it, you will probably waste money.
Depending on your speed requirements 32 GB, or even 16 GB could be enough memory, and also depending on the speed requirements, 2 physical processors(sockets,not cores) can also be too much. I've seen bigger OLTP databases work well with much less.
Sure, the more the merrier, but pointy heads don't usually agree.

Any level of RAID should work as long as you have enough spindles, and of course, depending on your speed requirement.

You have 10 GB of data movement/week, how fast that needs to be moved around? You can take the whole week to move that or you MUST move that in 5 minutes? These things need to be sized to suit your needs, always having "scalability" on mind.

Is this a SAN or Direct Attached Drives? How many disks you have? How many disks you can get? And the big question, how many disks you need?

There is no straight "always right" answer, these things need to be sized per your requirements and growth expectations.


--
Thiago Dantas
@DantHimself
Post #1099032
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:30 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:05 AM
Points: 21,347, Visits: 15,023
Like the others have said, it really depends on workload as to what would be best.

Definitely increase the memory. Num cpus is negotiable - there is a lot more that goes into that selection than just getting a quad-core. There are dual cores out there that provide better performance than some quad-cores.

How many disks do you have - total spindles not number of arrays?




Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server


SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #1099034
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:08 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:08 AM
Points: 48, Visits: 46
This is not a report data, it is a drug formulary data from all insurance companies, around 100GB data. We need to update 10GB of data every week with in of 2 hours. We are planning to run this update process in every sunday morning 3AM.

We didn't purchase any server. We are going to purchase a server.

We have planned to setup 2 to 4TB disk space with RAID 1 or 5 for data storage.
You are suggesting one RAID controller and configure 3 or 4 drives in this RAID controller with level 5, is it?

Thank you
Jefy
Post #1099118
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:19 PM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:31 PM
Points: 82, Visits: 567
I was suggesting 3-4 logical drives in possibly raid 10 config. One external raid controller should be fine for this. But this increases the cost for sure.

I have seen environments in the past where there were big investments made on processors and memory, but little emphasis was given to the underlying disk sub system resulting in average performance from the whole hardware setup.

Post #1099124
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:24 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:05 AM
Points: 21,347, Visits: 15,023
If possible, get multiple raid controllers and create multiple raid arrays.

OS you could go RAID 1.

Database, I would go at least RAID 5 but RAID 10 may be a better fit for you. Number of disks in your RAID setup will help to dictate RAID level and performance at that RAID level.

IF you get enough disks, such that you can create multiple RAID arrays, you should consider: tempdb and system databases being on a dedicated array, log files on a dedicated array, and data files on a separate array. These would all be in addition to your OS array.




Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server


SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #1099128
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 1234»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse