MS SQL Server - Most cost-effective server hardware?

Author

Most cost-effective server hardware?

Mike

2005-08-19, 9:23 am

I am considering building a database server (the first time I've tried to
build a server) and I am thinking about a number of possibilities.

It will be for a web-based application driven by a SQL Server back-end with
up to a maximum of maybe 500 simultaneous users (but in reality probably
around 50-100 most of the time).

What kind of servers are the more cost effective (i.e. power for
databases) - Dual Xeon or Dual Opteron?

Should I only consider SCSI RAID HDs or would SATA RAID suffice?

Is building a server on my own risky and should I look to buy e.g. a Dell
server? Who provides ready built Opteron servers?

TIA.

Mike

2005-08-19, 9:23 am

"Mike" <mike@hello.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6YzjJpFHA.3036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I am considering building a database server (the first time I've tried to
>build a server) and I am thinking about a number of possibilities.
>
> It will be for a web-based application driven by a SQL Server back-end
> with up to a maximum of maybe 500 simultaneous users (but in reality
> probably around 50-100 most of the time).
>
> What kind of servers are the more cost effective (i.e. power for
> databases) - Dual Xeon or Dual Opteron?
>
> Should I only consider SCSI RAID HDs or would SATA RAID suffice?
>
> Is building a server on my own risky and should I look to buy e.g. a Dell
> server? Who provides ready built Opteron servers?
>
> TIA.

I forgot to add my budget is a maximum of £3000 ($5,371) - but I would much
prefer to spend £1500 - £2000 ($2685-$3580).

Geoff N. Hiten

2005-08-19, 9:23 am

The Xeon vs. Opteron debate can get nearly religious. I have used both and
they both work well.. I am not a big fan of SATA drives for SQL server.
SCSI drives seem better under teh type of stress that SQL Server puts on a
disk system. In your case, I would definitely go with a major vendor fo the
hardware. You can get support agreements, proven configurations, and decent
management tools instead of hoping you thought of everything.

Dell is an Intel-only shop, I am unfamiliar with IBM's current offerings, HP
sells Opteron-based systems. If you are looking at a dual processor Opteron
database host, the HP DL-385 is a good candidate.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Mike" <mike@hello.com> wrote in message
news:Oz6YzjJpFHA.3036@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I am considering building a database server (the first time I've tried to
>build a server) and I am thinking about a number of possibilities.
>
> It will be for a web-based application driven by a SQL Server back-end
> with up to a maximum of maybe 500 simultaneous users (but in reality
> probably around 50-100 most of the time).
>
> What kind of servers are the more cost effective (i.e. power for
> databases) - Dual Xeon or Dual Opteron?
>
> Should I only consider SCSI RAID HDs or would SATA RAID suffice?
>
> Is building a server on my own risky and should I look to buy e.g. a Dell
> server? Who provides ready built Opteron servers?
>
> TIA.
>

Mike

2005-08-19, 9:23 am

"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OyVQuXKpFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The Xeon vs. Opteron debate can get nearly religious. I have used both
> and they both work well.. I am not a big fan of SATA drives for SQL
> server. SCSI drives seem better under teh type of stress that SQL Server
> puts on a disk system. In your case, I would definitely go with a major
> vendor fo the hardware. You can get support agreements, proven
> configurations, and decent management tools instead of hoping you thought
> of everything.
>
> Dell is an Intel-only shop, I am unfamiliar with IBM's current offerings,
> HP sells Opteron-based systems. If you are looking at a dual processor
> Opteron database host, the HP DL-385 is a good candidate.

Thanks for the information.

How would a Athlon 64 X2 (Dual Core) CPU cope with SQL Server? How does it
compare to dual-CPU systems?

For example, I have been looking at the following system:

AMD 64 X2 4200 (Dual Core)
MSI K8N Diamond 54G (will find more appropriate motherboard)
Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
Q-Tec 650W Power Supply
ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200

Would this be a decent database server?

Geoff N. Hiten

2005-08-19, 9:23 am

Since you are purchasing now, you would be crazy not to think about SQL
Server 2005 hardware requirements. I definitely like the 64-bit processors
for SQL Server 2005. I have heard some promising hints about the dual-core
processors, plus Microsoft is licensing them as one proc. I would avoid the
SATA drives. SCSI drives are better at queuing and sorting the multiple IO
requests that SQL will generate. Again, the risk inherent in a "roll your
own" system for a first-time builder are quite high. Get with a local
hardware vendor and have them show you the difference between a true
server-grade platform and a built-up PC platform.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"Mike" <mike@hello.com> wrote in message
news:uHNcTfKpFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OyVQuXKpFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> How would a Athlon 64 X2 (Dual Core) CPU cope with SQL Server? How does it
> compare to dual-CPU systems?
>
> For example, I have been looking at the following system:
>
> AMD 64 X2 4200 (Dual Core)
> MSI K8N Diamond 54G (will find more appropriate motherboard)
> Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
> 2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
> Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
> Q-Tec 650W Power Supply
> ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
> 3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200
>
> Would this be a decent database server?
>

Manny Borges

2005-08-19, 9:23 am

Thats assuming the local hardware guys know what a real server platform
looks like ;).

I am a big HP fan myself when it comes to servers. Proliants were about all
I liked about Compaq and now that HP bought them they are even better than
before.

Don't forget to budget other items for your server you may or may not have
like a rack, UPS, power distribution, hot spare drives, and a back brace. My
last proliant that came in weighed 120 lbs(sorry i didn't look at the metric
wieght).

--
Manny Borges
MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security)
MCT, Certified Cheese Master

The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with.
-- Marty Feldman
"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23ccSspKpFHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Since you are purchasing now, you would be crazy not to think about SQL
> Server 2005 hardware requirements. I definitely like the 64-bit
> processors for SQL Server 2005. I have heard some promising hints about
> the dual-core processors, plus Microsoft is licensing them as one proc. I
> would avoid the SATA drives. SCSI drives are better at queuing and
> sorting the multiple IO requests that SQL will generate. Again, the risk
> inherent in a "roll your own" system for a first-time builder are quite
> high. Get with a local hardware vendor and have them show you the
> difference between a true server-grade platform and a built-up PC
> platform.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Mike" <mike@hello.com> wrote in message
> news:uHNcTfKpFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>

Sponsored Links