July 27, 2004 at 8:25 am
Currently looking into getting a new SQL Server 2000 (32bit) box. Fortunatly price not a big set back.
Wanting to get peoples views on best Intel Processor for a datawarehouse with a heavy day and night load.
Any suggestions would be welcolme.
July 27, 2004 at 9:20 am
I don't think you'll get much debate on the subject. If you need to stay with 32bit go with the latest Xeon CPU.
If, as you indicate, you are going to use it for a data warehouse and all that implies (large amounts of data, and large, expensive queries etc...) you would probably be smart to at least look into the Itanium II CPU offerings, of which you'd definately want to go with the 1.5Ghz with 6MB of cache.
/*****************
If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this. -Friedrich August von Hayek
*****************/
July 27, 2004 at 9:24 am
on this front have a look at
http://www.go-l.com/servers/index.htm
to get some inspiration for servers - but i'd advise Xeon 3.2 2mb cache to get best performance
MVDBA
July 27, 2004 at 9:24 am
If price isn't an issue, don't forget to load up on RAM and have a nice disk system as well. Separate logs from data from tempdb from system files and backups.
I'd also get something I could grow into. Doesn't make sense to get a 4 way and put in 4 CPUs, I'd rather get an 8 way with 4 CPUs and 8GB of RAM with room for 8 more.
July 27, 2004 at 10:36 am
I guess I was wrong about the lack of debate. I must say I disagree somewhat with Steve's recommendation to purchase a server with more CPU capacity than you will use. I don't disagree with the idea that you should purchase a server that will allow for growth, but I have found that it is generally not cost effective to purchase a 4 CPU box and load it with 2 CPU's, thinking that you can just pop two more in if you need them down the road.
For example, I used to work at a company that used Dell servers. The 6650 was the 4 CPU 32 bit machine. With 4 CPU's the cost was about $17,000, with two CPU's the cost dropped to about $15,000. While the 2650 (their 2 CPU server) could be had with 2 CPU's for about $5,000. You are clearly paying for the capacity, whether you use it or not. If you think you will use it, it makes sense to spend the additional $2,000 up front. This is true especially when you consider that to purchase the additional processors after the fact would cost almost $4,000--if the processors that you need are still available. Some manufacturers do keep a stockpile of old CPU's around for their customers who decide to upgrade after Intel stops making their chips, but then you wind up paying a pretty hefty premium for outdated chips.
The moral of the story is that you need to do a pretty good job of capacity and load planning and buy what you need, balanced against what your company can reasonably justify and afford.
/*****************
If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this. -Friedrich August von Hayek
*****************/
July 27, 2004 at 11:04 am
I agree with your cost analysis at the low end, but when purchasing > 4 CPU boxes, or even considering it (4 v 8), the cost of entry is so high that you need to think ahead. If I buy a 4 way for $10k because an 8 way will cost me $25k and I need more than a 4 way, can I go back and ask for 25k having spent 10? I'd lose a lot of credibility.
My point is that if we think you might need an 8 or 16 way, buy the base box with capacity because of the lack of upgrading easily. The $$ amounts are so small with 2 and 4 ways that it doesn't matter as much.
July 27, 2004 at 10:17 pm
HP DL740 with 4 / 8 CPU 2.8 Ghz (can scale upto 8 if required), Advance Server cannot scale more than 8GB RAM, Standard Edition limit is 2GB (out of scope), Enterprise Edition can use 8GB on advance server, SAN/EVA - partitions for system databases( I prefer internal storage), tempdb (also prefer internal), logs, data (may need more than 1), backups (may need more than 1).
Thumb rule if using SQL Server to do the backups on disk- Backup partition = 3 * size of data unless you decide to use thrid party backup tools like SQLLiteSpeed or the one from IDHERA, Log partition = if database recovery is simple then patition size can be 50% of data else 150% of data, tempdb = 10% of data, data = current size + expected future growth.
July 28, 2004 at 2:12 am
If you are looking for a multi processor server and high performance then you should not dismiss AMD Opteron.
If you go and buy the Xeon MPs have a massive 4MB L3 cache, most of that cache will end up being used to keep traffic off of the bandwidth starved FSB.
XEON can only just keep up on a Dual system, but when you step up to 4 or 8 way then Opteron leaves it in the dust.
The difference is in the architecture of the platform. Intel's platform use a shared FSB that gets congested in a MP system. In contrast to Opterons GRID like architecture.
And yes we are not even talking 64 bit yet, all this running 32 bit SW
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. -- Aristotles
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply