Windows Server Configurations

[axisbob2003]

Hello all,

It is budget time and questions are arising about what to get in new server technologies.

Was wonder in the Windoze world what most are getting for new hardware. Let's setup some basics most of the databases deployed would be less than 10GB, most number of users would be 50, usually 2 terminal servers hooked in for remote/back office users (shop floor).

What I'm wondering is:
should you buy 2 dual core Xeon processors or 1 Xeon quad core? SCSI vs SAS vs SATA, and is RAID 5 still taboo?

We have been recommending many small drives but how small is small most now are 76 GB.

Also would like opinions on:
What type of Storage devices, most of the people purchasing these systems can't afford the 15K + price tag of SAN solutions, and NAS is out of the question since it's NOT a Block device.
If they are running Workgroup database will a second processor really help? (can't use spin).
How much memory is really needed, if they are running Windows 2003 Standard, they can only see 4GB, and Progress 9.1E and 10.1B 32Bit verison will only see 2GB shared memory right?

Thanks

 

[TomBascom]

You cannot effectively run a version 9 WorkGroup database on a multi-processor box (this is an OS and CPU type neutral problem). Performance goes to hell in a handbasket. It is fixed in 10.1B (the WG semaphore algorithm is replaced internally by -spin 1 starting in 10.1B). Enterprise is not a problem.

"Hardware" RAID5 (implemented in the array or on the controller as opposed to in the OS) is not the great evil that it once was. OLTP performance is probably just fine. You will pay a price for maintenance operations (dump & load, index rebuild, restore from backup and so forth) but if you can afford the extra time there and if you don't have a really heavy transaction load it is probably ok to go with RAID5.

NAS may not be as bad as you think. Especially for a smaller system.

I'd probably buy the single quad xeon on the theory that there is less likeliehood of cache contention -- but actually I'd like to get one of each and run some tests

A WG database that isn't suffering from the v9 problem above should still benefit from multiple processors -- other parts of the system can, after all, be running while the db is.

Any given instance of a 32 bit application can share around 2GB of memory. But you could have more than 1 instance running.

You're talking about some pretty small databases and fairly modest user counts. Unless the application is a real pig you probably don't need a top of the line server.

Personally I wouldn't put a database server on Windows. I'd use Linux. But if you're more comfortable with windows it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[axisbob2003]

Thanks Tom,

As usually very helpful.

Do you have any numbers on how fast or slow drive performance is with a NAS?

Also you said "Any given instance of a 32 bit application can share around 2GB of memory. But you could have more than 1 instance running" what does that mean 1 _mprosv or 1 installation of Progress or Openedge?

So if I have OE 10 installed and I'm running 6 databases can I access 12 GB of memory or just 2 GB. And if I can only access 2GB, if I install OE again can I access the 2 more GB.

I agree Linux is faster than Windoze, but more and more customers are migrating to Windows, since the Linux expertise is not available.

Do you know of a white paper I can show them with hard numbers of increase in speed and better utilization of drive and memory Linux versus Windows?

Finally do you know of a good benchmark to tool to test CPU and disk load with GUI clients, your tool works great for CHui clients.

Thanks again see you on 9/17

 

[paulb@ccs.nl]

There is no need for expensive hardware for an 50-user/10GB database configuration on a Windows server. A dual processor is fine, but an single will also do the job. Whe have installed lots of this configurations without any problem.

Direct Attached Storage with fast disks in RAID-1 or RAID-10 is the best choice for the database. (NAS and RAID-5 are good choices too, but always slower)

We use an database with 8kb blocks, we encounter problems with shared-memory clients above 130.000 cacheblocks (-B), so 1,05GB is the limit for us per database. But following recommendations the cachesize is 10% from your databasesize = 1GB.

You can start 6 database servers with 2GB cache for each of them. Realize that an shared-memory client can connect only one database at a time, because prowin32 also can address a maximum of 2GB memory. Network clients can easily connect to this 6 databaseservers with 2GB cachememory each.

In this situation i should advise a "normal" Windows server with a single dualcore processor, 2 fast SCSI disks (3,5", 15k, 300GB) in RAID-1 and 4GB memory. And an additional GB of memory for each 10GB database.