4 processor Dell machine for SQL server
-
Any recommendations ?
We are looking to upgrade from a 2-processor machine.
thanks
-srini
-
We use Dell, haven't had any problems. Make sure you max out on the on chip cache, though it drives the price up.
Andy
-
Any of Dell's 4 way boxes are a good investment. I can tell you first hand support is pretty good and they generally don't quibble over getting the box fixed.
Wes
-
We use Dells and Compaqs. Both have been quite well for us and we are considering moving to blade servers in some areas.
Personally I like the Dells but stress them as mouch as possible. We ended up with 1 with a bad Motherboard or the Board burtn out when the memory cards came unseated (this was not done by hand). We had one External device SCSI board prove faulty. Both of these were fixed quickly. We also had a drive go out in a RAID5 which the first replacement they brought the wrong size so it ended up being 4 days for a new one to ship even though we had a 24 hour contract, it was a paper issue and they worked something out with us but I forget what it was. We have 5 Dells my group controls. Everything else is outside our realm of control.
You might also want to consider pricing a 2 Processor Xeon with Hyperthreading with the ability to expand to cut cost. Hyperthreading effectively runs 2 threads on a single process concurrently and appears as two processors on the machine but as SQL can be licensed per processor and if you are licensed for two processors MS has stated it is lincensed based on Physical processor not logical processor.
Edited by - antares686 on 04/21/2003 03:30:35 AM
-
Antares686,burthold and Andy Warren thanks yawl SQL gurus.The tip on hperthreading was good. We actuall use it on one of our other machines. Did some research on my own. The DELL PowerEdge 6650 with the Intel Xeons seems pretty good; beat out IBM and HPQ in Network magazine's review. IntelIOMeter stress testing was used for database testing (67%read 33% write). Now waiting for the Management to approve the $$$
-
I'm going to offer a counterpoint to the Dell...
Our first Data Warehouse server was a Dell 8450 with a Powervault SAN.
The 8450 CPU itself was good, but the SAN was awful, and we are no longer going to buy any significant size servers from DELL.
We have had repeated serious service problems with Dell. The management software for the SAN is awful, rarely works as documented (what little there is), and any significant event usually results in support on the phone for literally days.
We have so far had TWO different events with near simultaneous disk failures on the same raid set, causing loss of data. We do not really believe two disks failed, we believe the management and diagnostic software was simply wrong.
We have had better luck with their PERC3 controllers and PV220 shelves of disks, but even there the first round required a complete, 100% replacement of the disks because the driver software was erronously handling the disk spin up/down, causing high failure rates.
Finally, as we have renewed some server contracts they screwed up the renewal. We would call for service, and be delayed a day or more because THEY had messed up paperwork, leaving us with down servers and no help (and a flat refusal to accept a PO with "if we turn out to be under contract this will be credited").
I love their desktops and laptops, and maybe small servers, but there is more to big servers than big CPU's -- you need storage and a support organization geared around them. Dell doesn't have it.
We're back to Compaq (our sister division feels similarly but they go with IBM for big stuff).
-
Well, that's not a good thing. I usually don't say this but I use to work at Dell in the Enterprise space. At one point service use to be pretty good. If things have changed that much since I left that is very sad.
In the last two big shops I have worked in since Dell have all been Compaq shops. We have had very little issue with Compaq servers at all. I have also worked in an all HP shop and feel that thier servers are just a cut below Dell on the server side but the XP512 is a decent SAN solution. The problem I have with Compaq is third party vendors. We have had real issues with getting orders filled properly with all but CDW to be honest with you.
So, with all that said are there any issues with Compaq so srini_kris can contrast that as well?
Wes
-
thanks again -sk
-
Having worked at number of places around the Washington DC market I always like to look at the computer room before I take a job. If I see Compaqs I know they are serious about what they are doing. If I see any other server I start to wonder. Like in the Mainframe days it was said no one ever got fired for buying IBMs I would not recommend anything other than Compaq for a SQL Server system.
The only serious problem I ever had with a Compaq was getting a replacement RAID array the day after 9/11.
-
We have SQL Server running on Compaq DL580, Dell 6450 and IBM 335x boxes. The Dell was 4x700 with 2K cache, then DL580 is 4x700 with 1K cache and the IBM is 2x2.8 with hyperthreading enabled. All had 4GB memory. They all run against our Hitachi (top of line) SAN with the same HBA cards. No surprise that the IBM is the fastest, the Dell was second and the Compaq a close third. Even though the CPU was never maxed out on any box (average during days was 35%-55%) the extra CPU did make a difference, even in SAN I/O speed. Never had a problem with any of the hardware in two years of running (of course the IBM is only months old).
-
Tom,
Are you running the raid 5 over raid 5 option on your hitachi unit?
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply