SQL Server Performance

New server for Business Intelligence

Discussion in 'Performance Tuning for Hardware Configurations' started by toso78, Feb 16, 2007.

  1. toso78 New Member

    Hi guys,
    I need your help for a new server that I have to buy for Business Intelligence.
    The Business Intelligence application is Business Objects Release 6.5

    At the moment, I have an IBM xSeries 366 configured as following:

    xSeries 366
    4 Cpu Xeon 3.0Ghz
    8Gb Ram
    2 x Sas 73Gb Raid 1 15k --> OS and application
    4 x Sas 73Gb Raid 5 15k --> SQL Server Databases and data

    Windows 2003 Enterprise and SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition are installed on the server: both of them are 32bit version.

    The server is configured without clustering.

    I have to update Businees Objects application to release XI : I want configure the Business Intelligence infrastructure with clustering.
    I will install SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition 64 bit and Windows 2003 Enterprise 64 bit

    I want to buy new Dual Core HP Proliant DL380 G5 servers configured as follow:

    2 x Dual Core Xeon 5160 3Ghz 4Mb L2
    8 or 16 Gb Ram
    2 x Sas 73Gb Raid 1 15k --> OS and application
    2 x Sas 73Gb Raid 1 15k --> SQL Transaction Log Files

    SQL Data files will be placed on IBM TotalStorage DS4300 SAN with 146Gb FC2 15k disks

    What are your opinioni about this new configuration? About Quad Core cpu?
    At the moment, SQL Server 2000 is using 56% Cpu during SQL schedules jobs.

    Thanks a lot
    Bye
  2. joechang New Member

    BI does not need clustering

    BI usually needs powerful (high-bandwidth) sequential transfer to disk
    ie, don't waste time with a SAN, stick to direct attach SAS (spread over multiple adapters and disks)
  3. toso78 New Member

    I need cluster to avoid downtime if the server crashes...
    In last November one cpu of my IBM xSeries 366 fault, so the server was unavailable for a week...
  4. joechang New Member

    BI can usually tolerate period down time of 1 hr or less
    where as transactions do not want downtime more than 10-15 sec

    for the BI down time window, you could just have an extra system
    but since SQL 2005 Std Ed supports clustering,
    i suppose it is not much of a cost penalty

    however, you will notice the storage components that support clustering are much more expensive than single host storage.
    if the storage cost is not an issue, then cluster

    figure 6 external storage racks of 15 disk can do about 2GB/sec in big SQL queries
    for non-cluster SAS storage, this will run ~$6.5K per rack
    for cluster capability, about $9K per rack
  5. toso78 New Member

    I don't understand why I can't use SAN...
    In the SAN I can have disk performance lower than direct attached storage,isn't it ?
  6. joechang New Member

    i never said you cannot use a SAN
    it is that i seriously dislike SANs

    it is very expensive, it is usually an obsolete computer (the CX700 was the old Prescott based Xeons, i do not know what is in the new CX3 line)

    even worse is that you have to pay for the SAN vendor to send a field engineer to come out to configure it. the rep will probably follow the san vendors standard practice of configuring it for the worst possible performance

    and then even more worse, in many companies, the SAN belong to the network engineer, who knows nothing about storage and databases
    so you will probably have long finger pointing exercises on this

    why do you think you can have lower disk performance on a SAN than DA?
    why do you want to pay more money for lower performance


    there is no substitute period for raw power, both in IO channels and spindles
    i recommend a min of 4-6 SAS controllers, and 4-6 racks of 12-15 disks

  7. toso78 New Member

    joechang can you tell me some vendors model about DA?
    I have never setuped a cluster : with Directed Attached storage how I can have storage shared?
    thanks.
  8. joechang New Member

Share This Page