Hardware for Database Server

[Facin]

Well, it looks like I have been given the responsibility for picking out the newest PC Database server for my company. We are a pretty big company, but all mission critical stuff is done on IBM AS/400. All of our internal stuff is on MS SQL Server. While I have programmed for and administered SQL databases for over 5 years now, I am not really familiar with what is the best hardware setup for something like this. I was looking for any pointers in terms of CPU's, amounts of memory, and the such. We order all our Servers from Compaq (and for some reason all our desktops from Dell... can't explain), so regardless of what some of you may think of Compaq, that is what I have to work with (I know there home stuff is generally poor, but their servers are actually quite nice). I have between $16K and $19K, although the company is wanting me to stay with the lower number.

Anyway, it has to be a Rack mounted, but other than that I have free rein. I have been looking at dual Xeon 900MHZ w/2MB cache. These are quite pricey, but I thought that the cache would really help. Would it be better to go with a quad of 700MHZ processors w/512k cache? Also, I was going to get about 1Gig of mem. Would it be better to go with lesser processors and more memory? The hard drives are going to be Ultra SCSI-3 10K RPM, so that shouldn't be a problem. Anyway, I just wanted to know where the balance should be between processors/cache/and main memory.

Thanks for any input.

 

[Facin]

Okay... quick update:

It looks like these are some options:

1) 2 900MHZ w/2MB Cache Xeons, 1 GB Main Mem ($17,865)

2) 3 700MHZ w/2MB Cache Xeons, 2GB Main Mem ($16,731)

3) 4 700MHZ w/1MB Cache Xeons, 3GB Main Mem ($16,140)

Thanks for any help.

 

[vetteguy]

Well for a database server, the more memory the better. Also higher cache on the processor will give you good results. You would probably do fine with the 700 Xeons with the higher amounts of memory. How hard is this server going to be hit all day? If it's not constantly under a lot of load you might not need quad processors. I've always bought Compaq Proliant servers and have had good results. Their service is really good too. (You can call at 3 AM if you need to and guaranteed there is someone there who knows how to fix your problem). Hope this helps.

 

[bigshooter]

If you are going to spend over $15,000 on a server, I really wouldn't recommend asking this here. I don't want to offend anyone and I do know there are some people on here who probably are db experts, but I guarantee there will be at least one or two "build your own and use dual athlons" posts. If this server is important at all, I would recommend giving the specs of the database and what it will be used for to a consultant that specializes in this and have them help you. Maybe you should get two dual prcessor servers and cluster them and get an external raid array. I have absolutely no idea, because configuring db servers for performance is not my specialty (but then I don't really have one yet either ).

 

[Adul]

compaw should be able to provide help in this area. It really all depends on the load and how much traffic is expected on this server. The kind of queries you'll be running and stuff.

 

[Windogg]

Compaq is my top choice for enterprise servers.

Windogg

 

[Thor86]

Check out SuperMicro.

We've had great success using their 4U rackmount server cases that support up to 4 processors, triple redundant, hot-swappable power supplies, hot-swappable internal cooling fans, hot-swappable hddisk bays

Specs for our SQL 2k server are:

4 gigs of ECC ram
4 P3-Xeons running @ 700mhz with 2megs cache each
1-10Krpm 18 gig for OS
4-10Krpm 18 gig for DB (software RAID 5-win2k)

Order of priority would be RAM, CPU cache, # of CPU's, CPU clock speed, and then Storage requirements/speed/redundancy.

The price range you quoted is about what we purchased this system for back almost a year ago. You should be able to get something similar for a little cheaper by now depending on stock availability.

 

[AMDPwred]

From the 3 options you posted I would say #2. That seems to be the best price/performance of them all. A 2MB Cache would be great for a DB server and I doubt you would need 4 CPUs unless this server will be getting alot of hits during the day. Just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Facin]

Thank you all for your help. I still haven't made my decision yet. I have been trying to read up on it as much as possible.

I would love to consider SuperMicro, but unfortunately my company is pretty stiff on this issue and only works with Compaq on there servers. I kinda understand then on this even if Compaq may be overpriced.

Anyway, I am leaning toward the second config, but I think I am going to up the memory, change all of the drives to 15K RPM drives and only take 2 CPU's.

Again, Thainks.

 

[TheCollective]

What is wrong with and AMD based server. Check Anand's latest server upgrade article.

 

[ChrisIsBored]

I could build you a dual Palomino 1.2Ghz with a Tyan Thunder K7 board, 3G RAM, SCSI drives (RAID?) in a 4U rackmountable chassis for way cheaper than you're going to get it from Dell or any other place like that...

 

[jtallon]

No one in the history of the world has EVER said "gee - this server is just TOO fast". Get the fastest processors, most memory, and fastest drives you can get in your budget

 

[Beau]

Agreed with an AMD/Tyan based system. Very robust and inexpensive compared to a Px Xeon system. You may find the Appro 1U series to be desirable. The are also quite affordable. IIRC, I got a quote for a Dual Athlon MP 1500 + with 1gb ram and a Raid 5 setup for arround $2300. Not sure what the current pricing is though. These are the servers that the forums run on, BTW.

 

[Sunner]

To those suggesting AMD boxes: get real.

This doesn't exactly sound like it's gonne be a server running his personal homepage or something.

For real business use, the major OEM's are the only way to go.
When I buy servers for work, I dont really buy AMD or Intel, I buy Compaq, if Compaq starts making AMD based boxes, I'll be glad to considder them, as long as they carry the usual Compaq quality and service, but building a server yourself, or buying it from "the shop on the corner", thats just plain dumb in a situation like this.

Oh and your own idea sounded good to me, 15K RPM disks is a good investment for most servers these days IMO, it's not much more expensive, but quite a bit faster.

 

[MysticLlama]

Here is what I actually just spent 20 straight hours installing day before yesterday...

Compaq G2 DL380
2U Rackmount
5x 36.4 10k Drives RAID 5 (127GB Formatted)
2x 10/100 built on NICs
10/100/1000 add-on NIC
20/40GB DAT
2.2GB RAM
Dual 1.26GHz 512k Tualitins

It really is a screaming fast server. And we're into it for only around $12k. Depending on your needs as far as storage vs. rackspace vs. CPU speed, etc., you may want to take a look at these.

XEONs are awesome for databases as far as scaling to extreme multiple users, but the 1.26s are quite a fair margin faster, and they hold a big lead over the coppermines due to the 512k a cache.

This of course is a great server for MS SQL, Compaq and MS have a good working relationship as far as drivers, testing, etc.

PM me if you want any more details about it.

 

[Facin]

Once again, I thank all of you for your input. I am a huge fan of AMD, but Compaq does not make servers as of yet with AMD stuff. Give it a few years and a couple more chipset revisions and I am sure you will start seeing AMD's 'Hammer processor in Compaq machines. Anyway, my company only does business with Compaq on their servers. Regardless of what you say about Compaq's home stuff, their quality and service with regard to servers is incredible... it is their real bread and butter.

Anyway, I was considering going with the faster processors w/ less cache for significantly less, but the more I read about it, the more I see the 2MB of onboard cache as being a huge performance boost to SQL server, esp. when matched with a decent amount of RAM. I think having the fastest possible memory interface right down to the 15K harddisks would end up being more important than the 3 processors, so I went with that (plus I had forgotten to add a few things like the 2000 server software and the redundant powersupply). Once I had done that, I came up a little cheaper, but pretty much even.

Our server maintainer apparantly likes RAID 0+1 better than RAID 5, so we are going with two pairs of disks. One for the Operating system and programs, the other to store the SQL stuff on. The databases aren't huge, but there are some pretty complex quiries we run off them.

Thanks again for all of your help.

 

[Sunner]

Facin, I'll give you a somewhat practical example.


At work, we once benched a Sun 420R box with 4 x 450 MHz UltraSPARC's, and 4 GB of memory, against a single Compaq ML530 with a 933(I believe, might have been +/- 66 MHz) Xeon, running IBM DB2.

The ML530 was faster at single querys, quite a bit faster in fact, but when we really pushed it, the 420 could really show off, the throughput was significally better than the ML530, of course the 420 is quite a bit more expensive as well

The moral, if any, is that a box with lots of memory, and several CPU's, will show higher throughput, than a box with a single more powerful CPU, and less but faster memory.