SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
The Fastest SQL server in the worldI have been asked to make the fastest SQL server in the world. I need your help. I am thinking about using AMD Opteron in a dual config, and Xiotec storage. Please leave all feedback. The following is what my client is looking at.From the client:
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:07 PM
To: Chris Simon
Subject: Fastest SQL Server on Planet
Chris, We have a requirement to improve the analysis hardware. We are using SQL to process our data with about 500000 records. I did some research in October and I came up with a combination of a SAN cx500 with 8Tb of space and Two Dell Poweredge 7250’s with 16gb of ram. Is there any other technical solution that will perform better then this one? Please recommend a good solution for processing about 500000 records as fast as possible. We are not concerned with fail over protection or redundancy. The raw data is available at anytime, we only care about getting the record processed as fast as possible. If you have any questions please let me know. I look forward to hearing form you.
My notes From Phone Conversation Run SQL faster than anything faster on the planet. No Data Redundancy, just don#%92t care. They want pure speed.
Looking at Dual Machines with, Quad Itaniums, 16GB of Memory each, fiber/ Gigabit connection to an EMC CX 500 SAN, with 8 Terabytes of Total storage, Broke down as follows
1st Shelf- Level 1
1 Terabyte of storage
QTY. Sixteen (16) 15,000 RPM, 73GB SCSI drives 2st Shelf- Level 2
2 Terabyte of storage
QTY. Sixteen (16) 10,000 RPM, 146GB SCSI drives 3rd Shelf- Level 3
Last 4.8 Terabytes
QTY. Sixteen (16) 350GB ATA (Did not want SATA because of current High Failure, but would reconsider when told about RAID version of WD SATA) Then a simple print client server that the users can hit. A EMC CX 500 SAN, can have up to 8 shelves, so expansion is a plus.
(moved from Analysis forum)
I believe SQL Server 2000 (64 bit) may help you in this record to keepup the speed of transactions, you can find relevant information from these links:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/plan/ssmsam.mspx link I’m sure other members also vent their opinions in this regard. HTH Satya SKJ
This posting is provided â€œAS ISâ€ with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing.
500000 records per what? If they have 2 weeks to process them, they aren’t going to need that kind of server. I presume you/they mean it as a transactions/second figure? Sorry to be pedantic – but it does matter. Tom Pullen
DBA, Oxfam GB
This configuration wouldn’t even come close to being the fastest SQL Server in the world. lol A CX500 is at best a medium size SAN, so the disk IO performance you’re going to get out of this wouldn’t compare to a faster SAN. Further, as mentioned before, a 64 bit OS would speed things up considerable for several reasons: 1. The memory utilization on this type of server is much more efficient.
2. The overall throughput and processing algorithms are faster. On the disk side, consider the following: 1. If you are going to stay with the CX series you could:
–Upgrade to the CX900 series which would give you far more cache.
–Use all 15k drives, which will perform faster.
–STAY AWAY from SATA, ATA, etc drives. The CX only support SATA and Fiber btw, so not sure where you’re getting your information. 2. There are WAAAAAY faster SAN configurations.
–Faster disks than current configuration.
–RAID types make a BIG difference. Now, pay attention to what Tom said. What do the REALLY need.
1. What processing needs to be done?
2. Can the current processing be tuned?
3. Where are the current bottlenecks???
4. What are the clear, common sense business needs. Nothing I’ve read so far indicates common sense has been used MeanOldDBA
[email protected] When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
need to be more specific about what this is going to be used for.
transaction processing? Opteron might be good for this
DW? Itanium is probably best here
Analysis? must have Itanium SAN is good for transaction processing
SCSI disks are better for DW in that you can achieve very high sequential transfer at a reasonable cost,
Most SANs are pathetic at sequential transfer performance, except in extremely expensive configs
I want Itanium. [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’‘ />]<br /><br />Most SANs are pathetic at sequential transfer performance, except in extremely expensive configs<br />–Of course it doesn’t help that most "SAN engineers" think 800 disk RAID 5 configs will give great performance and can be used for anything.<br /><br />MeanOldDBA<br />[email protected]<br /><br />When life gives you a lemon, fire the DBA.
800 disks in one more SANs will give good performance, even in RAID 5.
my budget is $20K, willing to deal?
Now, that’s really interesting. Let me just add my $0.02 cents:<br /><br />What is "the fastest SQL Server" anyway? And, even more interesting, what is "the fastest SQL Server" worth, when you put poorly designed databses on it and use poorly designed apps to access it? Wanna bet how easy you can bring it down to its knees? And that a good schema and app on a mid-range box will outperform this toy [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-5.gif’ alt=’‘ />]<br /><br /><br />–<br />Frank<br /<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidesql.de>http://www.insidesql.de</a><br />
Agreed with frank. For a good performing DB you need to bring in good database designers/DBAs. Throwing money at it is not a long term solution. 500000 records is not a lot. If your DB needs cutting edge hardware to run fast, unless you redesign things you are going to be continuously pouring money into hardware as the database grows.
Can you elaborate a bit more on the ‘analysis’ side of the requirement, number of tables, row sizes, etc.?
Everyone seem to thing 500K is pretty tame for such a beast.
Thus what kind of processing do the client want to perform and how often. Sounds like in the end it will be a balancing act, fast box, fast disks, good database design/optimized but then network cards cannot handle throught put again.
Sun v40z dual core + RAID 0
Set DB to read only mode.
Win64 + SQL 2005 64
Truthfully – if you want the fastest SQL server in the world you would go to NEC or the Itanium alliance for the Itanium 2 server – it is a mixture of mainframe and supercomputer technology. From what I have heard it still holds the speed record for its processing speeds – and compared to HP or any other competitor, respectfully using only 32 CPU compared to its competitors 64 CPU – well, NEC doesn’t really have any competitors. But don’t listen to me, go to their site and do some research!
Now as for juicing a server that can handle a hugh database – couldn’t help you, I’d let the guys in the white jackets that develop these technologies tell you.