SQL Server Performance

Asus P4 vs Compaq DL580?

Discussion in 'Performance Tuning for Hardware Configurations' started by 2710studios, Jun 1, 2004.

  1. 2710studios New Member

    I have a few questions.. WE have the following 2 machines.. Which is going to process sql requests faster?


    Server #1

    ASUS P4C800 DELUXE w/ P4 2.4ghz HT enabled w/ 1 gigabyte of 400mhz memory. RAID 1 w/ SATA 10,000RPM 8MB BUFFER


    vs


    Server #2

    Compaq DL580 w/ 4x 700mhz 2mb cache Xeon Processors, 4 gigabytes memory RAID 5 SCSI 10kRPM Ultra3 Drives


    just curious.. I have run just a few tests, and it seems like the #1 handled requests faster?

    Thanks,

    >SM
  2. satya Moderator

  3. derrickleggett New Member

    It really depends what you are doing. Once items are in cache, the #2 should perform faster overall. It has more RAM and can store more execution plans, data, etc in the cache. It will also be better for parallel operations.

    #1 will be better for short bursts, and physical I/O. This will be especially true on anything that's write intensive. The boxes are extremely different and you cannot really do an apples/apples comparison when you have an apple and a pineapple.


    MeanOldDBA
    derrickleggett@hotmail.com

    When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
  4. 2710studios New Member

    One test for example was calling 3 different table lists.. Seemed to come up alot faster with the P4.. another test involved writing to several tables at once which also seemed to be faster on the p4... I'm sure its an issue of just fine tuning the DL580..

    We are upgrading from a test environment of the p4 to two DL580's with an external storage array.. I ran this test with our current database just installed on one of the dl580's expecting to see better response times with our application and was just supprised I didn't.

    So my next question is, how should i set this new configuration up correctly for best performance, as far as raid / disk configuration.

    Here is the new setup.

    Two Servers (Compaq DL580's)
    4 x XEON Processor 700mhz w/ 2mb cache
    4 Gigabytes RAM
    2 Dual 10/100 NICS
    1 x Compaq Smart Array 4200 RAID Controller
    4 x 18 GIG SCSI ULTRA3 10k RPM

    Storage Array (Compaq 4214 StorageWorks 14 Drive Array)
    2 x SCSI External Ports
    14 x 18 GIG SCSI ULTRA3 10K RPM Drives


    We are wanting to set these up in a fault tollerant cluster arrangement. Any suggestions would be great.

    Thanks,

    >SM

  5. Luis Martin Moderator

    I think you get better performance with P4 because RAID 1.
    Try the same test with Compaq and RAID 1 or 10.



    Luis Martin
    Moderator
    SQL-Server-Performance.com

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

  6. derrickleggett New Member

    4 x XEON Processor 700mhz

    Are you sure about that????

    You would be able to increase the performance by buying multiple controllers and spreading the I/O out across multiple channels on the 580. Also, I would divide my drives accordingly if I could:

    Internal drives:
    2 RAID 1 - OS
    2 RAID 1 - tempdb
    4-6 RAID 10 - log files
    8-10 RAID 5 or RAID 10 - data files
    --Use RAID 10 if you can afford it. It's expensive though.

    If you have Enterprise Edition, max out the RAM on these boxes so you can utilize the full 8gb of RAM with 2003 or 2000 Advanced Server. This is one of the biggest performance boosters for SQL Server.

    The cluster is no big deal and doesn't help you with performance unless you have completely independent databases, in which case you could set up an active/active cluster to utilize both servers.


    MeanOldDBA
    derrickleggett@hotmail.com

    When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
  7. 2710studios New Member

    There are 4 Intel Pentium III Xeon 700/100/2M processors in both servers..

    the ram sockets are maxed out with thier current config, so I will only be able to keep these at 4 gig ram each for now.

    As for an active / active cluster, we do have 2 databases, in order to do an active/active wouldn't we need 2 seperate disk arrays? or could we do it with the 1?

    Thanks,

    >SM
  8. derrickleggett New Member

    That's a shame on the RAM. I had a server/enclosure that was exactly like this one for my production server. We replaced it with the DL 760G2. What a difference. <img src='/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif' alt=':)' /><br /><br />The 4214 has two channels (drives 0-6 and 7-14). I'm not sure if it supports two hosts though. I think you would need another enclosure for this. For performance, you would want to do this anyway. When you make your RAID arrays, you will want to divide the arrays across the channels to spread out the IO.<br /><br />MeanOldDBA<br />derrickleggett@hotmail.com<br /><br />When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
  9. 2710studios New Member

    Ok, got my array in today.. It has 2 Ultra3 Ports on the back, A and B, A is for the first 7 drives, B is for the last 7..

    My question is, what do i need to purchase to make this configuration a fall-over cluster?

    the 2 dl580's and the 4214 array? I have a signle database that i want to have fault tollerant between the 2 dl580's..

    Thanks for the help!

    >SM

Share This Page