SQL Server Performance

Advice for new server running SQL

Discussion in 'Performance Tuning for Hardware Configurations' started by KROY, Mar 31, 2005.

  1. KROY New Member

    Hello,
    I'm currently running a ERP application on a HP3000 using Image Database. I have 18 concurrent users and the entire system uses about 6GB.

    My company has decided to go with Microsoft Great Plains. I've been working with the vendor and they are not much help on the server side.

    I have two new Dell PowerEdge 2600's. One will be my new file/printer server and also run terminal server. The other server will be running Great Plains ans SQL server only. Here's the specs on the server:

    PowerEdge 2600 dual 2.4GHz Xeon's
    2 GB RAM
    PERC4/Di setup with two channels
    Split backplane with RAID 1 on both segments

    2 36GB Ultra 320's on one RAID
    2 73GB Ultra 320's on the other RAID

    Windows Server 2003 Standard
    SQL Server 2000
    Great Plains 8.0

    Microsoft recommends RAID 1 for O.S. and RAID 5 for log and data files. This is for up to 15 concurrent user.

    I might have up to 20 users so they said to go with the midpoint recommendation. Here's where I'm confused. Here's the recommendation for 10 to 30 users:

    RAID 1 for OS
    RAID 1 for database log files
    RAID 5 (4 disks) for data files
    RAID 1 for TempDB
    RAID 0 for full and transaction log SQL backups

    I know I'm a novice with SQL but it seems like a huge jump from one recommendation to another. We're talking going from 2 RAIDS and 100GB of space to 5 RAIDs and >200GB's?

    Do I really need 5 RAIDs and 10 SCSI drives?

    My current HP3000 server is fast with no RAID and 4 9GB disks with 10 users on all the time. All my data combined is about 2GB and we add about 200 transactions a day, sales orders, invoices, machine orders combined.

    Just looking for some real world answers.

    Thanks,
    Ken
  2. Luis Martin Moderator

    One point is availability if one disk is gone. With RAID 5 or RAID 10 you don´t have that problem.

    About RAID 5 or RAID 10 you can find a lot of post in our forum with differents oppinions.
    I always prefer RAID 10 instead RAID 5, in a mix application (reads and writes) is faster.



    Luis Martin
    Moderator
    SQL-Server-Performance.com

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important
    Bertrand Russell


    All postings are provided “AS IS” with no warranties for accuracy.



  3. joechang New Member

    your current 2x36 + 2x72 RAID 1 is probably good enough for now,
    put data & temp on the 72, log on the 36,
    OS can go on any set,
    backup to any set, you won't get the greatest backup performance, but thats probablt not a big deal,
    the 2600 should accommodate 6-8 disk total?
    so if you have high disk activity, buy more drives
  4. derrickleggett New Member

    Microsoft is pretty accurate on their recommendations. I'm not sure why you have a big problem with their sizing. You're using approximately twice as many disks to go from max 15 concurrent users to 30 users. You're gaining a lot better performance, and more reliability. The estimate is accurate.

    MeanOldDBA
    derrickleggett@hotmail.com

    When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
  5. KROY New Member

    quote:Originally posted by derrickleggett

    You're using approximately twice as many disks to go from max 15 concurrent users to 30 users. You're gaining a lot better performance, and more reliability. The estimate is accurate.

    Never thought about it that way, "double the users, double the disks."

    I guess I got hung up on the going from 2 RAIDS to 5.

    Thanks for the help.

Share This Page