SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

DB & Server size

OK – first post and I’ll probably embarrass myself here but there’s no time like the present…. If nothing else, feel free to laugh – I can take it <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’

‘ /> I’ve just started in a new role as SQL DBA for a fairly sizable financial institution here in Oz and I’m running into the normal issues of being asked for my professional opinion on software requirements and then receiving a decision based on what the accountant says. This kinda makes me want to attend a capacity planning meeting with someone who lives on the street – bring him right in there with his shopping trolley and everything – and say that if my recommendations aren’t going to be used, maybe I could just have this bloke come in and abuse people and drink and it wouldn’t waste my time. It seems that some manager has picked up an old magazine and seen the words: "Data Warehouse" and heard somewhere that it is a good thing to have and that we should have one as well. Fine. No problem. The projected size in 5 years is quite small (about 500 Gb) compared to some of those out there. No estimates of users hitting it. No estimates of what will come out of it. Talk was that they wanted to build it using SS2K (SP4) Standard on a W2K3 Standard box with 2 Xeon + 2Gb of memory. No joke. My stance is that if they cannot specify potential usage then they should over-engineer and bomb the box for it to go on – minimum SS2005 Ent on W2K3 Ent with quad processor and min 8Gb of memory. Thoughts? Sob stories to go with it? Criticism is welcome <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’

‘ /> Post-script: Same manager was talking about going to SS2005 and activating clustering with the 2nd box at the DR site but having it turned OFF and then turning in on when there was a problem. I’m not making this up. A lack of planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine.

depending on how much money you want to spend i suggest S2K5 Std Ed + W2K3, both 64-bit,
a 2 socket quad core system, 8G
2 racks of external disks this should be reasonable cost,
yet have 2-3X more power than 4 socket systems of 2 years ago.

Thanks for that! I forgot to mention that the network boys DON’T want to go to 64-bit because: (are you ready for this?) "It’s an unknown quantity. We don’t know enough about it and not many people are using it the moment – so we don’t know anyone we can get help from if it doesn’t work out." Again – I am not making this up. A lack of planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine.

i would consider getting rid of the network boys
are they still on 100Mbit/sec Fast Ethernet
or the older 10Mbit/sec 64-bit is very important for VAS stability
when i do massive downloads on 32-bit, eventually the VAS get fragemented and my network transfer slows from 600KB/sec to 26KB/sec
64-bit OS does not have this problem so maybe another advantage of the 64-bit is they will be afraid to touch it

]]>