ASE Database forum - hardware choice for ASE

Author

hardware choice for ASE

Stefan Lobet

2005-04-06, 8:03 pm

Hi all,

We're about to buy a new server for our main ASE database.
Because of budget limitations, we'll have to decide between either a dual
processor with very fast CPU's (3GHz Xeon with 4MB of L1 Cache), or a quad
processor with slower CPU's (2GHz Xeon with 512KB or 1MB of L1 Cache). I'm
sure it depends on many factors, but in your view, which would be the
preferable option? I would lean towards the quad processor (four online
engines...), but then again I'm no expert.

We're running ASE 12.5 on Windows 2000 Server. And at about 20GB, our
biggest database is not very big.
Your opinions are appreciated!

Stefan Lobet

Stefan Lobet

2005-04-08, 7:02 am

Since no responses so far :(, here's a bit more information about our
environment.
The server will have 4GB of RAM regardless of the number of CPU's. The
database that it will be running is the consolidated database in a
replicating environment of about 150 remote databases (all ASA). We've also
made sure that the disks are configured nicely (OS, data and log on separate
RAIDs etc).

We are currently using SQL Remote but since that's nearing end of life we'll
probably migrate to Mobilink sometime in the next 12 months.

As before, all feedback welcome.

Stefan Lobet

"Stefan Lobet" <stephane.lobet@pretpret.com> wrote in message
news:4253f983$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're about to buy a new server for our main ASE database.
> Because of budget limitations, we'll have to decide between either a dual
> processor with very fast CPU's (3GHz Xeon with 4MB of L1 Cache), or a quad
> processor with slower CPU's (2GHz Xeon with 512KB or 1MB of L1 Cache).
I'm
> sure it depends on many factors, but in your view, which would be the
> preferable option? I would lean towards the quad processor (four online
> engines...), but then again I'm no expert.
>
> We're running ASE 12.5 on Windows 2000 Server. And at about 20GB, our
> biggest database is not very big.
> Your opinions are appreciated!
>
> Stefan Lobet
>
>

Michael Peppler

2005-04-09, 10:10 am

And of course something that's at least as important is the IO subsystem,
which hasn't been taken into consideration here at all.

Michael

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:31:18 -0700, Mark A. Parsons wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I vote for 4 cpu's with the max amount of L1 cache and as much RAM as you
> can get.
>
> 4 x 2GHz => 8GHz total
> 2 x 3GHz => 6GHz total
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah ... not *that* easy to compare ... or is it? (It'll
> really depend on your workload.)
>
> 4 cpu's gives you more room to play with performance issues ... more
> processes running in parallel whether you have multiple sybase engines ...
> or some jobs (eg, backupserver/sybmultbuf, monserver, OS processes, DBA
> scripts) running out in the OS ... easier to 'balance' processing between
> dataserver processes and other OS processes.
>
> Curious ... what's the current system consist of? My guess is that even
> with *just* 2GHz chips you're still going to see an improvement over what
> you have now.
>
> If you do go with the higher GHz chips ... make sure you've got some
> really good cooling capabilities on the box ... the higher the GHz and the
> heavier you hit the chips (eg, only 2 cpu's doing all the work) the more
> heat you're gonna generate. If you can't keep those chips cool you can
> literally burn them out over time. Nothing wrong with 4 'slower' cpu's
> running at a slightly cooler rate (smaller GHz rating ... work spread
> across 4 chips as opposed to 2).
>
>
>
>
> Stefan Lobet wrote:
>

--
Michael Peppler [TeamSybase] mpeppler@peppler.org - http://www.peppler.org/
Sybase DBA/Developer
Sybase on Linux FAQ: http://www.peppler.org/FAQ/linux.html

Mark A. Parsons

2005-04-09, 8:26 pm

I vote for 4 cpu's with the max amount of L1 cache and as much RAM as you can
get.

4 x 2GHz => 8GHz total
2 x 3GHz => 6GHz total

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... not *that* easy to compare ... or is it? (It'll really
depend on your workload.)

4 cpu's gives you more room to play with performance issues ... more processes
running in parallel whether you have multiple sybase engines ... or some jobs
(eg, backupserver/sybmultbuf, monserver, OS processes, DBA scripts) running out
in the OS ... easier to 'balance' processing between dataserver processes and
other OS processes.

Curious ... what's the current system consist of? My guess is that even with
*just* 2GHz chips you're still going to see an improvement over what you have
now.

If you do go with the higher GHz chips ... make sure you've got some really good
cooling capabilities on the box ... the higher the GHz and the heavier you hit
the chips (eg, only 2 cpu's doing all the work) the more heat you're gonna
generate. If you can't keep those chips cool you can literally burn them out
over time. Nothing wrong with 4 'slower' cpu's running at a slightly cooler
rate (smaller GHz rating ... work spread across 4 chips as opposed to 2).

Stefan Lobet wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Since no responses so far :(, here's a bit more information about our
> environment.
> The server will have 4GB of RAM regardless of the number of CPU's. The
> database that it will be running is the consolidated database in a
> replicating environment of about 150 remote databases (all ASA). We've also
> made sure that the disks are configured nicely (OS, data and log on separate
> RAIDs etc).
>
> We are currently using SQL Remote but since that's nearing end of life we'll
> probably migrate to Mobilink sometime in the next 12 months.
>
> As before, all feedback welcome.
>
> Stefan Lobet
>
> "Stefan Lobet" <stephane.lobet@pretpret.com> wrote in message
> news:4253f983$1@foru
ms-1-dub...
> I'm

Michael Peppler

2005-04-09, 8:26 pm

Mark A. Parsons

2005-04-09, 8:26 pm

Right.

And I'd vote for more disks before I'd vote for fewer disks.

Michael Peppler wrote:

> And of course something that's at least as important is the IO subsystem,
> which hasn't been taken into consideration here at all.
>
> Michael
>
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:31:18 -0700, Mark A. Parsons wrote:
>
>
> --
> Michael Peppler [TeamSybase] mpeppler@peppler.org - http://www.peppler.org/
> Sybase DBA/Developer
> Sybase on Linux FAQ: http://www.peppler.org/FAQ/linux.html

Stefan Lobet

2005-04-11, 7:25 am

OK thanks people, this confirms my "suspiscions".
Our current system is a quad-cpu machine (500Mhz Pentium) with 1GB of ram.
It's about five years old and nearing its end of life. Not sure about the
IO subsystem but the server will be a HP proliant (ML series I believe) and
we'll have some highly spec'ed RAID cards in there (I've been told by our
server guru).

Thanks for your input.

Stefan

"Mark A. Parsons" <iron_horse@no_spam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:42584124.765CCAB3@no_spam.compuserve.com...
> Right.
>
> And I'd vote for more disks before I'd vote for fewer disks.
>
> Michael Peppler wrote:
>
subsystem,[color=dar
kred]
you[color=darkred]
....[color=darkred]
DBA[color=darkred]
between[color=darkre
d]
even[color=darkred]
what[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
more[color=darkred]
can[color=darkred]
cpu's[color=darkred]

The[color=darkred]
We've[color=darkred]

on[color=darkred]
life[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
our[color=darkred]
http://www.peppler.org/[color=darkred]
>

Sponsored Links