Need help choosing Server Hardware

Hi,
I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked to
choose the hardware myself.
First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option. But
also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
(possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
calculations are all done in stored procedures.
Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
John
huh ? well barnes and nobles thought it was good enough + 2 years ago
when it was still in early Beta so risk wich risk ? ,,,,,
Well first tip use a seperate Web and SQL server this is much better
scalable
for business servers i would go for the poweredge series of DELL maybe two
2850 `s ' one with 2 gb ( for the webserver ) and the other one with as
much memory as fits in the budget for the sql database
regards
Michel Posseth
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
> to choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option.
> But also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>|||Your not going to get a one line answer, as database sizing and web server
sizing are entirely different things and you've not hinted at whether you
expect different servers, raid clusters, resilience, failover, SAN/NAS
storage, lots of web traffic - only that you expect the database to be quite
busy. You've neitehr said if your 100 mill records are 1 bit large, or 1
meg each split across many tables, 1 user per hour or 100,000 per second -
and of course it all counts.
This is not a simple job, and if I was you I would be going back to whoever
asked you to chose the hardware and tell them you need to speak to the
hardware vendor, as they can normally help you make some initial estimates
and suggest appropriate hardware. Dont be fooled by your company being
small, for a high performance database you will easily spent $10,000.
A bit of light reading to get you started
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...re_planning.asp
Regards
John Timney
ASP.NET MVP
Microsoft Regional Director
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
> to choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option.
> But also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>|||"John Timney ( MVP )" <timneyj@.despammed.com> wrote in message
news:uZnMnzg5FHA.3188@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Your not going to get a one line answer, as database sizing and web server
> sizing are entirely different things and you've not hinted at whether you
> expect different servers, raid clusters, resilience, failover, SAN/NAS
> storage, lots of web traffic - only that you expect the database to be
> quite busy. You've neitehr said if your 100 mill records are 1 bit large,
> or 1 meg each split across many tables, 1 user per hour or 100,000 per
> second - and of course it all counts.
> This is not a simple job, and if I was you I would be going back to
> whoever asked you to chose the hardware and tell them you need to speak to
> the hardware vendor, as they can normally help you make some initial
> estimates and suggest appropriate hardware. Dont be fooled by your
> company being small, for a high performance database you will easily spent
> $10,000.
> A bit of light reading to get you started
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...re_planning.asp
> --
> Regards
>
Thanks, I will look at the URL.
BTW-There will probably be about 10 users, who will all together, probably
run less than 20 different scenarios per week. So not a lot of load. And
the records will be over 4 tables.
Thanks again,
John|||My 2 cents:
1. By the fastest disk you can find.
2. A single processor will obviously be slower than 2, 4, etc. This
factors out to exponentially slower calculations.
3. $10,000 isn't even nearly adequate unless your willing to wait, and
wait, and wait, and wait.....
4. Given the limited information you've provided I'd assume a 4 processor
machine with 4 GB of ram would still be painfully slow.
5. I agree with waiting on SQL 2005. Let everyone else experiment for 6
months. Microsoft has done their due dilligence but I'd wager there are
things out there waiting to nail people. I'm already seeing things in the
news groups about why things aren't working (Security is enable by default),
patches bringing servers down (Saw that one today in the setup newsgroup),
etc.
"John" wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
to
> choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option. Bu
t
> also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>
>

Need help choosing Server Hardware

Hi,
I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked to
choose the hardware myself.
First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option. But
also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
(possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
calculations are all done in stored procedures.
Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
John
[vbcol=seagreen]
huh ? well barnes and nobles thought it was good enough + 2 years ago
when it was still in early Beta so risk wich risk ? ,,,,,
Well first tip use a seperate Web and SQL server this is much better
scalable
for business servers i would go for the poweredge series of DELL maybe two
2850 `s ? one with 2 gb ( for the webserver ) and the other one with as
much memory as fits in the budget for the sql database
regards
Michel Posseth
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
> to choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option.
> But also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>
|||Your not going to get a one line answer, as database sizing and web server
sizing are entirely different things and you've not hinted at whether you
expect different servers, raid clusters, resilience, failover, SAN/NAS
storage, lots of web traffic - only that you expect the database to be quite
busy. You've neitehr said if your 100 mill records are 1 bit large, or 1
meg each split across many tables, 1 user per hour or 100,000 per second -
and of course it all counts.
This is not a simple job, and if I was you I would be going back to whoever
asked you to chose the hardware and tell them you need to speak to the
hardware vendor, as they can normally help you make some initial estimates
and suggest appropriate hardware. Dont be fooled by your company being
small, for a high performance database you will easily spent $10,000.
A bit of light reading to get you started
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp
Regards
John Timney
ASP.NET MVP
Microsoft Regional Director
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
> to choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option.
> But also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>
|||"John Timney ( MVP )" <timneyj@.despammed.com> wrote in message
news:uZnMnzg5FHA.3188@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Your not going to get a one line answer, as database sizing and web server
> sizing are entirely different things and you've not hinted at whether you
> expect different servers, raid clusters, resilience, failover, SAN/NAS
> storage, lots of web traffic - only that you expect the database to be
> quite busy. You've neitehr said if your 100 mill records are 1 bit large,
> or 1 meg each split across many tables, 1 user per hour or 100,000 per
> second - and of course it all counts.
> This is not a simple job, and if I was you I would be going back to
> whoever asked you to chose the hardware and tell them you need to speak to
> the hardware vendor, as they can normally help you make some initial
> estimates and suggest appropriate hardware. Dont be fooled by your
> company being small, for a high performance database you will easily spent
> $10,000.
> A bit of light reading to get you started
> http://www.sql-server-performance.co...e_planning.asp
> --
> Regards
>
Thanks, I will look at the URL.
BTW-There will probably be about 10 users, who will all together, probably
run less than 20 different scenarios per week. So not a lot of load. And
the records will be over 4 tables.
Thanks again,
John
|||My 2 cents:
1. By the fastest disk you can find.
2. A single processor will obviously be slower than 2, 4, etc. This
factors out to exponentially slower calculations.
3. $10,000 isn't even nearly adequate unless your willing to wait, and
wait, and wait, and wait.....
4. Given the limited information you've provided I'd assume a 4 processor
machine with 4 GB of ram would still be painfully slow.
5. I agree with waiting on SQL 2005. Let everyone else experiment for 6
months. Microsoft has done their due dilligence but I'd wager there are
things out there waiting to nail people. I'm already seeing things in the
news groups about why things aren't working (Security is enable by default),
patches bringing servers down (Saw that one today in the setup newsgroup),
etc.
"John" wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked to
> choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option. But
> also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>
>

Need help choosing Server Hardware

Hi,
I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked to
choose the hardware myself.
First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option. But
also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
(possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
calculations are all done in stored procedures.
Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
John>> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it),
huh ? well barnes and nobles thought it was good enough + 2 years ago
when it was still in early Beta so risk wich risk ? ,,,,,
Well first tip use a seperate Web and SQL server this is much better
scalable
for business servers i would go for the poweredge series of DELL maybe two
2850 `s ' one with 2 gb ( for the webserver ) and the other one with as
much memory as fits in the budget for the sql database
regards
Michel Posseth
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
> to choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option.
> But also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>|||Your not going to get a one line answer, as database sizing and web server
sizing are entirely different things and you've not hinted at whether you
expect different servers, raid clusters, resilience, failover, SAN/NAS
storage, lots of web traffic - only that you expect the database to be quite
busy. You've neitehr said if your 100 mill records are 1 bit large, or 1
meg each split across many tables, 1 user per hour or 100,000 per second -
and of course it all counts.
This is not a simple job, and if I was you I would be going back to whoever
asked you to chose the hardware and tell them you need to speak to the
hardware vendor, as they can normally help you make some initial estimates
and suggest appropriate hardware. Dont be fooled by your company being
small, for a high performance database you will easily spent $10,000.
A bit of light reading to get you started
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rc_hardware_planning.asp
--
Regards
John Timney
ASP.NET MVP
Microsoft Regional Director
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked
> to choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option.
> But also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>|||"John Timney ( MVP )" <timneyj@.despammed.com> wrote in message
news:uZnMnzg5FHA.3188@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Your not going to get a one line answer, as database sizing and web server
> sizing are entirely different things and you've not hinted at whether you
> expect different servers, raid clusters, resilience, failover, SAN/NAS
> storage, lots of web traffic - only that you expect the database to be
> quite busy. You've neitehr said if your 100 mill records are 1 bit large,
> or 1 meg each split across many tables, 1 user per hour or 100,000 per
> second - and of course it all counts.
> This is not a simple job, and if I was you I would be going back to
> whoever asked you to chose the hardware and tell them you need to speak to
> the hardware vendor, as they can normally help you make some initial
> estimates and suggest appropriate hardware. Dont be fooled by your
> company being small, for a high performance database you will easily spent
> $10,000.
> A bit of light reading to get you started
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rc_hardware_planning.asp
> --
> Regards
>
Thanks, I will look at the URL.
BTW-There will probably be about 10 users, who will all together, probably
run less than 20 different scenarios per week. So not a lot of load. And
the records will be over 4 tables.
Thanks again,
John|||My 2 cents:
1. By the fastest disk you can find.
2. A single processor will obviously be slower than 2, 4, etc. This
factors out to exponentially slower calculations.
3. $10,000 isn't even nearly adequate unless your willing to wait, and
wait, and wait, and wait.....
4. Given the limited information you've provided I'd assume a 4 processor
machine with 4 GB of ram would still be painfully slow.
5. I agree with waiting on SQL 2005. Let everyone else experiment for 6
months. Microsoft has done their due dilligence but I'd wager there are
things out there waiting to nail people. I'm already seeing things in the
news groups about why things aren't working (Security is enable by default),
patches bringing servers down (Saw that one today in the setup newsgroup),
etc.
"John" wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm ussually just told what I will be working with, but today I was asked to
> choose the hardware myself.
> First off, it's a small company, so a $10,000 server is not an option. But
> also, a $500 box isn't going to cut it either.
> Basically, I am builing a web app which generates from 10-100 million
> records per calculation (yes, that's the spec). I'm using SQLServer 2000
> (possibly 2005 if my employer wants to risk it), and ASP.NET. The
> calculations are all done in stored procedures.
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Thanks in advance,
> John
>
>|||"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
...
> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
Hi,
One of the partners has decided to go with hosted server.
Thanks again for the input.
John|||The choices remain the same, whether you host it yourself or not. You will
still need to identify the correct specifications of the hardware you
require to manage the transaction quantity you will generate.
--
Regards
John Timney
ASP.NET MVP
Microsoft Regional Director
"John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
news:eR$HxWl5FHA.2020@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "John" <pls@.dontspamme.com> wrote in message
> news:eo1Vabg5FHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
> ...
>> Comments, suggestions, and URLs are much appreciated.
> Hi,
> One of the partners has decided to go with hosted server.
> Thanks again for the input.
> John
>sql

Need hardware suggestions for SQL 2000 server

I am running McAfee ePO and SQL Server 2000 on a dual Xeon 900Mhz box
currently. It is slow. I am going to be ordering 2 new servers, 1 for
ePO and 1 for SQL Server 2000. Anybody have any suggestions for the
SQL Server's hardware specs. Thanks,
Chris"czidak" <czidak75@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115925307.753935.292720@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> I am running McAfee ePO and SQL Server 2000 on a dual Xeon 900Mhz box
> currently. It is slow. I am going to be ordering 2 new servers, 1 for
> ePO and 1 for SQL Server 2000. Anybody have any suggestions for the
> SQL Server's hardware specs. Thanks,

Not w/o knowing a lot more.

Where's your bottleneck? I/O? CPU? Not enough memory?

Have you checked the code? Using cursors? etc.

> Chris|||Currently whenever I Navigate through ePO to make changes or apply
changes it hangs. Checking Task Manager the following processes are
hogging processor and memory.

mmc.exe (epo app) Processor - 50% Memory -28 MB
sqlservr.exe Processor - 1% - 50% (only high for a second at the end
of a transaction Memory-1.5GB currently (starts off at 60 MB when
server is 1st booted up.)

The server has 2 GB of RAM and the virtual memory settings are set at
2046 - 4096

Thanks,
Chris|||Also, the ePO application does not run any better right after a reboot,
so I don't think the issue is the amount of memory that sqlservr.exe
can use.

Hope this helps,
Chris

Need an easy way to replicate SQL Server Database

Dear Sir/Madam,
Hello,
I'm a MCSA and administrator of a large scale company, we have two
member server (with the same hardware configuration) that both have SQL
Server.
On one of these servers we have a SQL database that it stored more than
600,000,000 characters and everyday 700,000 characters added to it.
I really don't have information about SQL Server , Databases and how to
replicate them.
Would you please guide me that how can I easily replicate this important
database in these both servers, to have a redundant databases?
Yours Sincerely,
Ahmad Reza
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Ahmad,
there are various options for redundant databases. The classical one for
your situation is not actually replication, but is log shipping. There is
plenty of information in books on line about how to set it up (quite
straightforward). To use it out of the box, you'll need enterprise edition
of sql server, but if you have standard then there are scripts on the
resource kit to do it. There are other options and in a previous post
Michael Hotek lists his selection in this order which I agree with:
1. Transactional with queued updating
2. Merge
3. Transactional
Please post up any further questions.
Regards,
Paul Ibison
|||I would suggesting looking at the information in SQL Server 2000 Books on
Line. The types of replication available in SQL Server 2000 are documented
there as well as how to set them up.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
|||I would also add that the word "easy" doesn't come into play here. Is it
complicated? No. Is it complex? Yes. You need a good understanding of
what a SQL Server is, what it does, and how it operates before even
attempting replication. If you don't start there, it is a very quick route
to blowing up an environment. That is NOT due to replication. It is due to
the way that data reacts and is handled in a distributed environment that
introduces many added challenges that simply don't exist on a single
machine. If there is a way to accomplish what you need without using
replication, my strong recommendation is to use the other solution.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com

Need advice on hardware for SQL 2005

Hello,
I would appreciate if someone can give some advice on hardware for building
up SQL 2005 cluster. We will have 4 database of 50 GB each. How many
processors, memory,... do I need? My preference is to go for HP servers
Thanks in advanceIt is hard to say, it depends on several factors, specially your budget.
And probably you already know about this, but just in case:
- A 64-bit system is highly recommended.
- The hardware you select must be on the Microsoft Windows Catalog and
Hardware Compatibility List under the cluster category
(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx)
See Before Installing Failover Clustering on BOL at
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/instsql9/html/a655225d-8c54-4b30-95fd-
31f588167899.htm
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Slimo" wrote:

> Hello,
> I would appreciate if someone can give some advice on hardware for buildin
g
> up SQL 2005 cluster. We will have 4 database of 50 GB each. How many
> processors, memory,... do I need? My preference is to go for HP servers
> Thanks in advance
>
>

Need advice on hardware for SQL 2005

Hello,
I would appreciate if someone can give some advice on hardware for building
up SQL 2005 cluster. We will have 4 database of 50 GB each. How many
processors, memory,... do I need? My preference is to go for HP servers
Thanks in advanceIt is hard to say, it depends on several factors, specially your budget.
And probably you already know about this, but just in case:
- A 64-bit system is highly recommended.
- The hardware you select must be on the Microsoft Windows Catalog and
Hardware Compatibility List under the cluster category
(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx)
See Before Installing Failover Clustering on BOL at
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/instsql9/html/a655225d-8c54-4b30-95fd-31f588167899.htm
Ben Nevarez, MCDBA, OCP
Database Administrator
"Slimo" wrote:
> Hello,
> I would appreciate if someone can give some advice on hardware for building
> up SQL 2005 cluster. We will have 4 database of 50 GB each. How many
> processors, memory,... do I need? My preference is to go for HP servers
> Thanks in advance
>
>