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 |
|
nic
Posting Yak Master
209 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-01-22 : 16:00:33
|
| Hi,I am in the process of buying a new sql server and wanted to get some input. We have a web based application which communicates with a sql server database. Unfortunately I can't say "money is no object" since we are a smaller company so I need to make the most cost effective purchase given our needs. Core info:# of users: ~ 300 concurrent (workflow app so clients will be accessing the product throughout most of the day. FYI, this is a auto/home insurance rater used by insurance agents)# of sql tables: ~ 200 or so# of sql sprocs: ~ 150 or solargest table: ~ 30 million recordsaverage table: ~ 300,000 recordsUnfortunately given our company size/resources I don't know if we'll be able to cluster or mirror the db right now. We'll be dependent on database backups in case of failure etc.That being said here is the server I'm currently looking at:Dell PowerEdge 2950 IIIQuad Core 3.16GHz Processor4 GB of memoryWindows 2003 R2SQL Server 2005 (single socket/processor license)Integrated SAS/SATA RAID 1/RAID 1 Hard drive configurationDisk 1: 450GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI Disk 2: 450GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI Disk 3: 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSIDisk 4: 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSIHere are a few points/questions:1) I went with the fastest single processor solution since this will enable us to only need one SQL Server processor license, but still give us the most bang for our buck.2) I thought a RAID 1/RAID 1 configuration would be good, since it is a fairly cost effective solution to provide redundancy and still split the data and log files across physical disks a) first RAID 1 would contain a C and D drive C drive (40 GB): OS D drive (410 GB): SQL data file b) second RAID 1 would contain an E drive E drive (146 GB): SQL log fileBy separating the data and log files on different physical disks, I should gain some performance. Since there will only be two RAID physical partitions, I'll need to have drives C and D on one RAID. Is that ok? I'm not sure how else to configure. Any ideas?tempDB - I've read ideally you should have this on a separate physical disk too. I'm not sure if this will be possible so should I have it on the first or second RAID (or also split the data/log across disks)? This server is ~ $12,000 (including licenses/OS etc).FYI, in the beginning, I may need to host the website on this server to but in a few months will plan on moving it to its own server. I know to some of you this is not a great server but I need to weigh costs vs benefit. I am very open to suggestions and/or recommendations on alternate approaches.Once again I appreciate any guidance.Thanks,Nic |
|
|
mcrowley
Aged Yak Warrior
771 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-23 : 09:29:33
|
| I would reverse the drives, and give the large drives to the Data files as the E:\ drive, and leave the logs, and OS/pagefile on the C/D drives. Otherwise, you should be fine. You may face threading problems at peak usage, but the 4 cores should be able to handle your projected user numbers. Even with the Web Server on the same box. That is, unless there are significant application design problems. |
 |
|
|
AndrewMurphy
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2916 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-26 : 13:28:02
|
| Putting your web server onto a different machine from your SQL server would be preferable....maybe utilising your current one. Would also give you qan element of security by allowing a firewall / physical seperation to be made between your web front end and your company critical data. |
|
|
|
Michael Valentine Jones
Yak DBA Kernel (pronounced Colonel)
7020 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-26 : 14:19:14
|
| You should consider adding more memory to the server. This will help to reduce the IO and CPU load by keeping more data in memory.If you upgrade to more memory, you will have to install Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition, instead of Standard Edition, to support more than 4 GB of memory if you are using 32-bit Windows. If you use 64-bit Windows, you won't need Windows Enterprise Edition, so that is probably more cost effective. You will be able to use SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition either way.CODO ERGO SUM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
new server recommendations