Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of Yowie8
Yowie8

asked on

SQL Server Hardware Recommendations

Hi People,
I need some advice regarding what hardware to buy for a client.

looking to get a 2012 server standard with SQL server standard. Single server to do all the work.

15-20 users on a 1GB network.
5GB database ( growing around 0.5gb a year)
400 GB file server ( growing about the same)
Exchange to be moved to cloud. ( N/A)

My main focus as I read its the most important is drive array speed and type.
I read that I should have a raid 10 for the DB  but as the server also serves files I am not sure what else I should buy. I feel I need a mirror for the file server, raid 10 for the db but not sure about the transaction file what to do there. and what raid controllers you would recommend.
Customer doesn't have the budget for SAN ( I don't think) .

what's everyone's feelings on server grade SSD's for this , bad idea? lifespan?

Also the amount of RAM and XEON type best for the job.

NIC's how many , should I team them ? which way?

Any brand like HP or dell models and a hash out of drive types and raid controllers would be super.

budget is about $5000- $7000

Yowie8
SOLUTION
Avatar of arnold
arnold
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of Yowie8
Yowie8

ASKER

No Virtualisation.
Mixed load but primarily oltp.

So are you suggesting that I virtualise the SQL server, I can run 2 instances of server for the standard licence? IE one virtual 1 physical?

Briefly, What benefits would I get doing this.

I am wondering about SSD's , what I have read is that I should be using them for the database server at least due to random  and sequential speeds many times better than platter.

Would you need raid 10 if the SSD's are many times faster that magnetic platter disks?  could I get a way with raid 1 on 2 really fast SSD's? for the DB or just go hard and do raid 10.

Also concerned about SSD's in terms of longevity , with OLTP am I going to wear out a SSD quicker? I heard that many drives can suffer after 1,000,000 rewrites.

What processor would be recommended everyone telling me Intel xeon E5-2690 or higher series. for single threaded and licensing advantages..

Most of the transaction data is low, most of the file growth is low but I 'd rather over shoot than under with $7000 to spend..

Id prefer if there was no reason to virtualise that I just install the damn thing on one physical instance.

last thing ,where to instal the SQL server binaries on the OS array?
You'll be spending ~$800 for OS, ~2500 for SQL server
Getting a 2U with dual six/eight core processor and at least 32GB ram should be enough.
With 6 drives. I would stay away from SSDs as unnecessary expense for your functionality.
2raid1 for the hyper-V, and the remaining four in a raid 10 for the virtual machines.

Do you have an existing AD environment where this system will be an additional one?
You could run this system as a physical machine with sql and file server, prioritizing the system for applications including network interfaces.
File server is a low priority resource as compared to sql.
Avatar of Yowie8

ASKER

replacing existing 2003 AD, single server environment.

sorry "2raid1 for the hyper-V, and the remaining four in a raid 10 for the virtual machines."

you initial post has 3 raid 1 and one raid 10.

So does hyper v run like VMware, can I install just the Hypervisor? then 2 virtuals .
IE server12 (AD)as one with file server on one raid.
Then server12 and SQL server on RAID 10 ? and attach another logical raid one for transaction? that's how I am reading your advice.


This is getting a bit overly complicated considering the transaction load.

like I said id prefer not to virtualise and I am not sire why I  at this stage.
The suggestion with the multiple RAID 1, and RAID 10 dealt with a heavy use DB server
where having the transactions on their own volume beneficial.

Yes, hyper-v runs like vmware.
There is no direct path to transition from 2003 AD to 2012.
using a VM with windows 2008 could help in the transition. i.e. windows 2008 DC and windows 2003 DC can coexist in a 2003 AD.  You can then decommission the 2003. Raise the AD level to 2008 and join a new 2012 DC.

2012 added new features/restrictions that may interfere with your intended use if you are using the existing setup as a reference for the new implementation.

Depending on your vendor preference Dell, HP, IBM, etc. you could get the a system with the OS/SQL within the range you outline. No SSDs.
Your budget is unrealistic to guarantee HA.  

To guarantee good throughput and IOPS, put everything onto highly stripped mainstream  RAID10 SSD and few higher frequency intel processor.  Make sure that you have a controller that can absorb the SSD throughput.  

I recommend the following configuration:
> Commodity Hardware with 6 *120GB mainstream SSD (Intel 520 or Intel 720) mounted in RAID 10 with a LSI 9260 RAID controller.  You can add 2 * SSD
> For a start you can pick an Intel E5 4617 type of processor.  
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/processor-specifications.html?proc=64608

You can then count 2000 dollars for CPU, 2000 dollars for IO's and 3000 dollars for the controller and connectivity.   Total: around  7000 dollars.  

Hope this helps.
The current storage capacity required is at least 405GB for file shares and existing database.
Your 120GB SSD x6 does not meet that requirement as well as omitting the cost of software OS and SQL which is outside the budget.

IMHO SSD is an unnecessary expense and is beyond the need.
There is no determinable benefit for the use of SSDs in this case.
Your 120GB SSD x6 does not meet that requirement as well as omitting the cost of software OS and SQL which is outside the budget.
Sorry I missed the 400GB part. Make it 4*240GB disks.

IMHO SSD is an unnecessary expense and is beyond the need.
Mainstream SSD's are actually cheaper than fast SAS on a per dollar/GB basis plus they provide higher throughput and higher IOPS.  As long as they are redundant, I do not see any reason why they can't be used.

There is no determinable benefit for the use of SSDs in this case.

It is hard to say since we can only assume the required level of throughput and IOPS.
A stripped RAID10 with 4 disks will provide a much more comfortable throughput and IOPS for a multi purpose server without a higher price tag.

The following configuration:
> 4 * 240 Intel SSD in RAID10 at 250 each cost about 1000 dollars for above 1GB/sec throughput and a decent 50KIOPS. Add 2SAS 15KRPM at 146GB each that is about 1300 dollars.
> Add to that 2000 dollar for a faster core, 1000 dollars, 500 dollars for a 9260 controller and 800 dollars windows license

and you end up with a 7000 dollars.  

Hope this helps.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of Yowie8

ASKER

I did ask about SSD's so it was good to see the debate.

I have gone for SAS drives in mirror for the os and sql server.
 
and a raid 10 of 4 140gb sas drives for the database

tossing up wether to ad 2 additional 140gb sas drive in raid one for the transaction file.

24gb ram

and a E5-2600 series Xeon 2630 is a 6 core 2.3ghz .
LSI logig 8 port raid controller with 1gb on board and battery backup handling the raid 10 and raid 1 transaction , I will use the onboard controller for the OS mirror.

dual port intel nic in teamed mode ..