Server Build Suggestions
Hello,
I have two Dell PowerEdge 1750's:
Dual 2.8GHz Processor
73GB SCSI (2) - for RAID1
1GB memory
Running Windows Server 2003 with IIS/MS SQL 2000 (database is only about 500MB) and Reporting Services.
My question is - how far should I go with expanding each?
Right now, we're supporting about 100 users and its about to jump up to 500 in the next two months and could grow up to 1000 quickly.
Should I now consider going to some type of cluster technology or fill up each box with 4GB of memory? Thanks.
I have two Dell PowerEdge 1750's:
Dual 2.8GHz Processor
73GB SCSI (2) - for RAID1
1GB memory
Running Windows Server 2003 with IIS/MS SQL 2000 (database is only about 500MB) and Reporting Services.
My question is - how far should I go with expanding each?
Right now, we're supporting about 100 users and its about to jump up to 500 in the next two months and could grow up to 1000 quickly.
Should I now consider going to some type of cluster technology or fill up each box with 4GB of memory? Thanks.
Zuhir Elgmati
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/pe1750/en/it/8w545c60.htm#1043527
ASKER
zuhairHmaty,
I was not asking how to upgrade a machine. Please re-read the question.
I was not asking how to upgrade a machine. Please re-read the question.
hi there
well increasing the memory would not suffice the issue. if ur going to get such high user addition its better that u should go for another server which would act as a global catalog server and which would do the user authentications when the domain controller is busy.
u can also make a sub domain and assign a domain controller with the existing domain controller as the root domain controller and create all the users in that domain.
for data redundancy please try to implement raid4 or 5 buy adding a additional disk to the existing server.
u can go for clustering also but for that u need windows2003 enterprise edition which would let u do clustering.
pls update with specific requirements so that we can discuss better options
bhanu
well increasing the memory would not suffice the issue. if ur going to get such high user addition its better that u should go for another server which would act as a global catalog server and which would do the user authentications when the domain controller is busy.
u can also make a sub domain and assign a domain controller with the existing domain controller as the root domain controller and create all the users in that domain.
for data redundancy please try to implement raid4 or 5 buy adding a additional disk to the existing server.
u can go for clustering also but for that u need windows2003 enterprise edition which would let u do clustering.
pls update with specific requirements so that we can discuss better options
bhanu
hi there
sorry for the mixup i did not read that u already have two servers.
well u can go for clustering only if u have windows2003 enterprise or data centre edition
please read this article on microsoft webiste
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/technologies/clustering.mspx
bhanu
sorry for the mixup i did not read that u already have two servers.
well u can go for clustering only if u have windows2003 enterprise or data centre edition
please read this article on microsoft webiste
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/technologies/clustering.mspx
bhanu
ASKER
Actually, all authentication is done through SQL - which is where all username/passwords are stored.
I do plan on implementing RAID5 - thank you.
Also, this is an ASP.NET application - clients will be generating reports through SQL Reporting Services.
So, you think as long as I have the bandwidth to support the incoming requests, I should be okay? What other information can I provide?
Thank you for your response.
I do plan on implementing RAID5 - thank you.
Also, this is an ASP.NET application - clients will be generating reports through SQL Reporting Services.
So, you think as long as I have the bandwidth to support the incoming requests, I should be okay? What other information can I provide?
Thank you for your response.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Clustering would be the best option as you can add more "juice" in terms of more servers if needed. Its the way to go!
With the existing 100 users....
1) What is your "peak hours" bandwidth?
Depending on the real world use of the systems you may find the server's resources are adquate but that traffic (getting things from the server to the network) is an issue.
Real world use (load) might surprise you if you look at it.
(Using screen refreshes as a measure) There's a big difference between 100 people logged in and they (on average) refresh 3 times a minute and having 100 people logged in but they (on average) only refresh only once in 3 minutes.
2) During the peak use hours what percentage of your server's resources are being used?
Are you pushing 80-90% or is it bouncing around down near 30-40%. (It's the idea, not the numbers.)
That should give you an idea how much 'umpth' you need to support 500 or 1000 users.
.
1) What is your "peak hours" bandwidth?
Depending on the real world use of the systems you may find the server's resources are adquate but that traffic (getting things from the server to the network) is an issue.
Real world use (load) might surprise you if you look at it.
(Using screen refreshes as a measure) There's a big difference between 100 people logged in and they (on average) refresh 3 times a minute and having 100 people logged in but they (on average) only refresh only once in 3 minutes.
2) During the peak use hours what percentage of your server's resources are being used?
Are you pushing 80-90% or is it bouncing around down near 30-40%. (It's the idea, not the numbers.)
That should give you an idea how much 'umpth' you need to support 500 or 1000 users.
.
Another machine would provide a greater improvement than increasing the memory. Also, you should consider a SAN for large scale storage, which can improve performance