Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6

    Unanswered: New Server Hardware Configuration suggestions needed

    Hi All,

    Let mw give you an idea of the current configurations:

    Intel Quad Core 2.6 Ghz (Normal Desktop processor)
    3 GB RAM DDR2
    2 Hard drives - 160 GB Each
    OS: Win server 2003
    SQL: Sql 2005

    Databse: 5 Lac records (will add 5 Lac every 3 Mths)
    Size : 25 GB
    Client MAchine: 40 Desktop access this database.
    Client OS: win XP pro.
    Connectivity: Front end application access thru ODBC drivers
    Network: 100 Mbps LAN; Two D-Link switch to support this. Normal LAN wire.

    Now my company does not want to spend huge amount on new hardware, but is interested in cost effective solution which can support for another 2 Years.

    Any suggestions wherein we could change the hardware or software configuration.

    Thanks a ton for all your valuable comments.

    EL!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    696
    is that 160GB going to be mirrored (RAID 1), or two separate usable spindles (160X2)?

    If so, split out your DB logs and/or tempdb onto the separate spindle from your mdf files.

    Personally, I would opt to mirror the drives.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Is this an upgrade? If so, how come you only have 5 thousand records now but will add 5 thousand every 3 months? Also, how come your database is 25GB with only 5 thousand records? Are the rows very wide?
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,434
    Provided Answers: 10
    lac = One hundred thousand.
    George
    Home | Blog

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Ta.

    Still applies - 25 GB is enormous for 500k rows.
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    5,800
    Provided Answers: 11
    Depends on the size of the rows.

    My only question is how are the 5 lac records input? is it a batch at the end of the quarter, or will they be input manually a few thousand per day? if they will be inserted a few thousand per day, you will likely want a second physical drive array to house the transaction log, and keep that disk activity away from the people reading the database.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6
    Well,

    The Database has 5 Lakh records. Some records are manually saved in to the system and few are done using the software utility which adds a lot daily.

    Each record has data as well as resume text also saved with it. My application is a HR based software. All emails that are received and resumes downloaded from Online databses are then either maually or using automation is added into the SQL DB.

    160 GB is two Seperate drives. (160 X2).

    Any suggestions now?

    Thanks a ton!

    EL!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Is a lac the same as a lakh?

    These two disks - are these for the binaries & OS too?
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6
    2 HD - 160GB

    One HD : 2 Partition 80G (C) and 100 GB (D)
    Second HD: 2 Partition 110GB (E) and 50 GB (F)

    C: For OS
    D: SQL DB Backup
    E: SQL MDF FIles are stored here
    F: Other Backup

    Thanks!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,434
    Provided Answers: 10
    80G for OS?
    George
    Home | Blog

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    6
    George, What do you suggest?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    11,434
    Provided Answers: 10
    This really isn't my area, that was just an outside observation... Seems quite high to me, that's all.
    George
    Home | Blog

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by el235
    George, What do you suggest?
    Is there a specific problem you are trying to solve? If your current configuration works, why change it? If it doesn't work, where are you seeing issues?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    5,800
    Provided Answers: 11
    According to wikipedia, Lac = Lakh. It's a north/south thing.

    From the description given, I would have to say the power of the server is fine. You are not going to see the CPU work very hard, provided the application is designed properly. I do have an issue witht he disks, though. It seems you are not going with any kind of redundancy on the disks. I would very much recommend that you at least mirror the two physical drives. Remember, these drives are going to be spinning at 15,000 RPM every minute of every day for probably 3 years or so. Any failure of the disk could destroy part or more likely all of your database.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Agreed re disks. Also, apart from separating binaries from everything else, there isn't really much gained TMK splitting a single disk into logical volumes.
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •