Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
stuarta99
Starting Member
11 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-06-04 : 10:08:40
|
| Sorry, I don't know if this is in the right forum or whether anyone can help me.Our current main software in our business is running in Access at the moment and I'm looking at converting it over to SQL, however unsure what to do about a server. At the moment, I have 3 options.1 - Use the current Access server which is a 3yr old Xeon 3Ghz / 2Gb (possibly 2 CPU's). I could upgrade this to 4Gb (although) DDR 333 at best,install SQL2005 and run side by side until the data conversion is complete.2 - Use a newer Dell SC440 Dual core 1.86 and upgrade to 4Gb ram 800MHz and install SQL, convert data then decomission old Access server3 - Most expensive option, but a new Dell 2950 server with Quad core 2.3GHz/4Gb ram, install SQL, convert data then decomission old Access server.The recommendations from the software company are Xeon 2.4Ghz and 2Gb so unsure which of the options above would give us the best performance and value.Also, looking at single processor 2005 Workgroup. Been advised against compact but assuming Workgroup would be sufficient over Standard.I would greatly appreciate in any help and thoughts on this.Thanks |
|
|
dinakar
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2507 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-04 : 10:46:00
|
| Which server you need to choose depends on your current workload and how your current server hosting the Access database is handling the workload. Also you need to consider your future growth. Upgrading hardware is a tough battle to fight with management. So when you have a chance go for the biggest and baddest monster that you can get.Dinakar Nethi************************Life is short. Enjoy it.************************http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dinakar/ |
 |
|
|
dinakar
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2507 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-04 : 10:46:47
|
| Forgot to add, get 64bit system. If you expand your RAM in fugure you dont have to much with memory settings with 32 bit systems having a 3 GB memory limit.Dinakar Nethi************************Life is short. Enjoy it.************************http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dinakar/ |
|
|
|
stuarta99
Starting Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-04 : 10:52:58
|
| well either way, I'm told that SQL will perform a lot better than Access with a total of 44 users, although not all at the same time.Option 1 and 2 currently only have 32bit Server 2003 installed so what level of ram would I ben limited too? 4Gb?If I bought the new one then I would get it with 64bit.Unsure how the different processors levels would effect it though, I'm being told that SQL is more ram dependant. |
|
|
|
dinakar
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2507 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-04 : 10:57:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by stuarta99
well either way, I'm told that SQL will perform a lot better than Access with a total of 44 users, although not all at the same time.
Yes...quote:
Originally posted by stuarta99Option 1 and 2 currently only have 32bit Server 2003 installed so what level of ram would I ben limited too? 4Gb?
You could throw more RAM and in order for SQL to use it you need to much with some settings.. and the additional RAM is still used by SQL for only data caching and not plan caching. So SQL can use it but for limited purposes..quote:
Originally posted by stuarta99If I bought the new one then I would get it with 64bit.
Go for this...option if you can.quote:
Originally posted by stuarta99Unsure how the different processors levels would effect it though, I'm being told that SQL is more ram dependant.
Here are a couple of links I found when I Binged:http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1233009,00.htmlhttp://sqlserver-qa.net/blogs/x64/archive/2007/08/14/1412.aspxhttp://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=sqlserver&seqNum=249http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761(SQL.90).aspxDinakar Nethi************************Life is short. Enjoy it.************************http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dinakar/ |
|
|
|
tripodal
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
259 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-04 : 13:31:30
|
| I have a very simmilar server to your Access box, it handles what I am guessing is way more load that you describe. I also have a pretty big access databases (1.5gb with 15-20 users) on OLD servers.All of the hardware you describe is capable. If I were to guess.You should run some performance counters on your access box now. CPU DISK Network IO.I reccomend you decomission the old server, because it is old.My hunch is that the newer server you already own will be more than powerful eneough to run the converted access database. (unless it is already running something intensive IE:exchange) |
|
|
|
stuarta99
Starting Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 2009-06-05 : 03:39:16
|
| Well my current access databases aren't that big. There are basically 3 applications linked together on the server. One is sing a dbase, which should be converted to SQL in the next release, the other 2 are Access which will go straight to SQL and are 82mb and 208mb. Looking at the prices I've got, to go for option 2 costs £400 more than 1 and 3 costs £600 more than 2. I'm kind of hoping that I can persuade my boss that the extra £600 is worth it with regards performance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Server build