ch
04-09-2002, 02:31 PM
Also posted on Sql 2000 discussion group
I would be interested in hearing thoughts and recommendations on a database server configuration. Thanks
I need to order a database server for a potential 50 GB database. This server is for a testbed and will have large loads (2GBs approx). The applications will slice and dice the data on loads and derive results that will populate other tables. We do not need point in time recovery. Full backups are done weekly and daily diff backups are also done.
Our service group has recommended a compaq 2 Pentium IIIs processor @ 1400Mhz. The quoted system has 4 disk drives. The OS would be mirrored and the database would be on one RAID 5 string. The system would have 1 GB of RAM. This configuration has been evaluated by another party as fitting a file server rather than a database server.
The other advise I am getting is for a 20 drive system with two drives at Raid 1 for the OS, a two drives at Raid 1 for TempDb, 8 Drives at Raid 10 for active DB and a 6 drives at Raid 50 for the archive database. He is also recommending two more processors and 4GB of RAM.
I probably can't afford the 2nd configuration. I need to spend less than $20K. I know the whole issue probably comes down to money, but also I am a firm believer in keeping things simple. I have experience with Raid introducing fragility into the system (problems with driver updates, controller problems, etc. ) I have also been bitten before by having a configuration too complicated for the maintainers. Is it recommended to put the OS and TempDB under a Raid configuration?. What are the thoughts on RAID 50 and RAID 10 versus Raid 5?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
I would be interested in hearing thoughts and recommendations on a database server configuration. Thanks
I need to order a database server for a potential 50 GB database. This server is for a testbed and will have large loads (2GBs approx). The applications will slice and dice the data on loads and derive results that will populate other tables. We do not need point in time recovery. Full backups are done weekly and daily diff backups are also done.
Our service group has recommended a compaq 2 Pentium IIIs processor @ 1400Mhz. The quoted system has 4 disk drives. The OS would be mirrored and the database would be on one RAID 5 string. The system would have 1 GB of RAM. This configuration has been evaluated by another party as fitting a file server rather than a database server.
The other advise I am getting is for a 20 drive system with two drives at Raid 1 for the OS, a two drives at Raid 1 for TempDb, 8 Drives at Raid 10 for active DB and a 6 drives at Raid 50 for the archive database. He is also recommending two more processors and 4GB of RAM.
I probably can't afford the 2nd configuration. I need to spend less than $20K. I know the whole issue probably comes down to money, but also I am a firm believer in keeping things simple. I have experience with Raid introducing fragility into the system (problems with driver updates, controller problems, etc. ) I have also been bitten before by having a configuration too complicated for the maintainers. Is it recommended to put the OS and TempDB under a Raid configuration?. What are the thoughts on RAID 50 and RAID 10 versus Raid 5?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|