Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 11:00:00 -
[1]
If you had the choice of two boxes, which would you choose to run SQL Server 2000?
1) Dual Celeron 350, 512MB RAM, 2x IDE33 6GB 2) Celeron 900, 512MB RAM, 1x IDE133 20GB
Thoughts? I am not sure how nicely SQL Server scales with SMP. I figure 2 disks will help the Data/Transaction log files though.
23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC |
Fooball
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 11:55:00 -
[2]
SQL Server Scales up perfectly on SMP. However if you are after performance, get more memory so it can build all kinds of on memory indexes and such. It really does matter when the load goes up.
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 11:59:00 -
[3]
Cool, I will dig it out of the loft later on and have a go.
Having SQL Server 2000 run multiple queries on market data, everything you jump into a new system, kind of makes it a bit laggy.
23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC |
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 12:25:00 -
[4]
i'd use the single celeron, because 2 CPU license of sql server is stupidly expensive.
|
TauTut
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 12:30:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gunstar Zero i'd use the single celeron, because 2 CPU license of sql server is stupidly expensive.
Gotta love 'per CPU' licensing.
This should be in 'out of pod' .. no? -TT
|
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 15:17:00 -
[6]
Originally by: TauTut
Originally by: Gunstar Zero i'd use the single celeron, because 2 CPU license of sql server is stupidly expensive.
Gotta love 'per CPU' licensing.
This should be in 'out of pod' .. no?
Try Oracle's dual core formula - it gives me a headache.
|
Freya Selene
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 15:31:00 -
[7]
Originally by: FireFoxx80 If you had the choice of two boxes, which would you choose to run SQL Server 2000?
1) Dual Celeron 350, 512MB RAM, 2x IDE33 6GB 2) Celeron 900, 512MB RAM, 1x IDE133 20GB
Thoughts? I am not sure how nicely SQL Server scales with SMP. I figure 2 disks will help the Data/Transaction log files though.
Think i would go for option 2. The main reason due the HDD having a higher transfer rate. But it all depends what OS your going to run and how high your DB trafic/use will be.
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 17:21:00 -
[8]
Noone responds to my OOP posts
k, assuming I have a dual-processor licence *cough*.
This is mostly for market data and possibly killboard analysis. Maybe even webstats at a later date. As for traffic, not sure yet, depends how popular it is.
23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC |
Bahnny
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 17:30:00 -
[9]
I'd use #2.
I use 1ghz/512/sata's for mssql servers.
|
Taketa De
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 17:44:00 -
[10]
If you want to get out of your licensing issues... I'd go with an opensource DB like Firebird or Postgress. These two are equivalent to professional DBs in most repsects and people use them a lot profesionally (although Firebird, while extremly low mainenance dosn't currently scale with MP systems so single processor would be better for that).
|
|
Rantor
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 17:48:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Rantor on 24/12/2005 17:54:17 I would like to mention that in most cases good programming / db creation is the MOST important factor in system performance.
If database fits to memory - choose more memory. Huge databases with high "disk read" load - choose parallel disk arrays. High CPU load - check your program design/algorithms/db design and indexes TWICE, then choose to move to multiprocessor systems.
Anyway, #1 option in your post is my choice due to better system responsiveness and ability to make parallel array out of two disks.
PS. Do profiling on your DB together with "performance" MMC snap-in (CPU/hard disk workload) while stress-testing your application before you buy a new box. This way you will know your bottlenecks better.
|
|
Chribba
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 11:19:00 -
[12]
I would agree with previous poster, go with option 1, striped volumes across multiple disks makes wonders in high-load databases. But a key performance option is the RAM, you should seriously concidder getting as much RAM as you can.
EVE-Search runs on an AMD64 XP3200 with striped drives and 4GB ram, the db is about 3.5GB, and giving mssql more RAM boosted the performance a lot, it uses about 2.3GM of RAM and the queries and such are pretty heavy but with all that RAM it works wonders.
But of course it depends on what type of load you will have, many indexes, heavy queries etc.
EVE-Files | EVE-Search | Get Email if thread updates |
|
BAteh
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 11:39:00 -
[13]
Chribba did you turn on the 3gb switch in boot.ini for that system?
FireFoxx80: ms sq server reqquirements go for 900Mhz ;)
|
Fooball
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 11:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Chribba I would agree with previous poster, go with option 1, striped volumes across multiple disks makes wonders in high-load databases. But a key performance option is the RAM, you should seriously concidder getting as much RAM as you can.
Yeah I've seen some charts on Oracle. It starts to really purr happily when you got some 3x more RAM than what the database is on disk.
Seriously, you can never fit enough RAM on most of the database servers. Stupid people whine "omg our server is too slow we have to buy a new one" and spend 10k EUR on a new one when 1K EUR memory chips would have done the trick
|
w0rmy
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 11:57:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Chribba I would agree with previous poster, go with option 1, striped volumes across multiple disks makes wonders in high-load databases.
Youd slap disk that old into a raid0 array?
CRAZY!
|
Fooball
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 11:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: w0rmy Youd slap disk that old into a raid0 array?
You see all kinds of weird stuff when you do things.. The best sofar have been the RAID5 made from... PCMCIA compactflash cards.
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 12:03:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Deakin Frost on 25/12/2005 12:04:12 I'm basing this reply on the idea that these two setups are as-is and can't be mixed (switching parts).
All depends on how much data you have. For small databases, you'll fare better with the 900mhz Celeron and one disk, since SQL Server will be able to keep most indexes (tables with PK are clustered indexes) in memory.
It's hard to judge what database size does the cut between the two setups, that depends all on how large the tables are and how much each will be queried. For instance, if you have a 10 gigabyte database of which 100megs get only queried while the rest plays record archive, optimizing the system for mad IO doesn't make too much sense. On really large board queried databases, the dual disk setup will be handier, since the disk subsystem will be a bottleneck.
The Celeron 900 may be overall faster than dual Celeron 350, but if the disk subsystem can't keep up filling the IO requests, a fast CPU doesn't do squat. Also, the dual CPU setup, albeit slower, maybe be able to work through a request queue faster, if tables are properly indexed and queries are specific enough.
That the disks on your dual CPU setup are ATA33 may be negligable, under the condition that both disks have DMA transfers activated and possess over comparable seek times and data transfer rates compared to the single disk setup. Keeping each disk on a seperate IDE channel is suggested though, otherwise they'll have to share the IDE channel bandwidth. The random IO incurred by the database server will kill any platter to cache transfer rates. The latency difference for transfers from cache to memory is zilch between ATA33 and ATA133, if the disks can't get decent transfer rates. Index scans, which makes 99% of SQL Server's queries (unless you lack indexes incl. the primary key), are random IO by their nature.
For the dual disk setup, I'd suggest to stripe it in RAID0, be sure to make proper backups on a daily matter. The log file only matters if you write a lot, otherwise, it's near negligable.
If you have a chance, you should write a crappy benchmark application that continously calls all sort of queries needed to be done on multiple threads against the database.
|
|
Chribba
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 12:19:00 -
[18]
Originally by: BAteh Chribba did you turn on the 3gb switch in boot.ini for that system?
Actually I've ran it both with and without the option, but for now I run without.
Originally by: w0rmy
Originally by: Chribba I would agree with previous poster, go with option 1, striped volumes across multiple disks makes wonders in high-load databases.
Youd slap disk that old into a raid0 array?
CRAZY!
I would do anything to not be like everyone else
EVE-Files | EVE-Search | Get Email if thread updates |
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2005.12.25 12:58:00 -
[19]
I would have thought using a BP6 with RAID would be weird enough?
We'll see, I've got most of the queies I want sorted out, and the Index Analyser has been run a few times. Just need to go dig out box without looking too unappreciative of xmas presents.
23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |