Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
rjswider
Starting Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 2003-03-12 : 12:20:10
|
| I'm sizing a server to be used to hold a relatively low-traffic (<400 transactions/day)BizTalk related SQL DB. It will also be housing a data-warehouse database for sales reporting, etc. Both the actual BizTalk server and the data-mining front-end will be on other servers. So this is DB only.**at this point, let me point out that, yes, I know one is transaction based, and the other is not so much, but I'm being 'convinced' that I need to use a single box, not two...**My question is this: Faced with the option to use a beefy Xeon 2.8Ghz with a 512kb L2 Cache, or a P4 1.8Ghz with 1MB L2, which is the 'better' option? I know it depends on a lot of things. I know MS and Compaq recommend high cache in DB deployments, but I don't know which requirements factor into that need. From what I've gotten, you can't get a Xeon with >512k cache, you have to drop to the P4. Will the extra 'horsepower' of the Xeon be lost if I can't feed it instructions fast enough? (i.e. can't cache enough to keep it moving)Sorry for the length of the post, thanks in advance for any input.Rob |
|
|
chadmat
The Chadinator
1974 Posts |
Posted - 2003-03-12 : 12:37:07
|
| How much activity on the Data Warehouse? SQL Server should be able to handle 400 average transactions a day on the minnimum hardware requirements (in it's sleep).Are these DBs currently on other hardware, and are there any bottlenecks on their current system? Is it the consolidation that is worrying you? What makes you think you will even be utilizing the full potential of the box?-Chad |
 |
|
|
rjswider
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2003-03-12 : 13:15:15
|
| I'm sure it won't be taxing the box in the short term. I have to build a certain level of box just to get the redundancy options I need. Whether I go with higher cache/slower proc. or vice versa it costs roughly the same. So, all other things being equal, I'm not sure which to choose.I'm not so much 'worried' as I am cautious. The BizTalk DB it will be housing is for a government mandated policy (HIPAA, in case you've heard of it). Basically, it's secure EDI for the healthcare industry. This info gets processed and stored in the DB, among other things. The problem lies in the fact that we really don't know how many partners or transactions we'll have in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc. At first, obviously, very little, but it may scale up very quickly. If it does, we can't afford to have it down or afford ANOTHER server to migrate it to.The Data Warehouse project is similar. The developers are still in the process of designing the data-structure and what info it will need to hold. It's also likely we'll move some smaller databases from a development box into production on this one. It will start being used internally for 30 or so users, but MAY eventually end up as the back-end to a website for 1000s of clients.To answer your question, ultimately, I don't see us reaching the limits of any reasonable server. However, I'm dealing with a lot of unknowns. Rather than ask which is 'better', maybe it's more appropriate to ask, what is it that necessitates the higher L2 cache? Is it size of records, number of records, volume of transactions, number of users? I know the answer to that is 'yes', but I'm just looking for a general idea of why one would choose one over the other.~Rob |
|
|
|
MichaelP
Jedi Yak
2489 Posts |
Posted - 2003-03-12 : 13:57:45
|
| I'd probably go with a Dual Xeon box that is quad processor capable (or better). I'm pretty sure that a quad processor P4 system doesn't exist, yet. That will allow you to scale the box up to 4, 6 or 8 processors as needed. The cost will be fairly high initally, but when you need the extra horsepower, just drop 2 more processors and some more ram in the box, and you just "doubled" your power.You'll also want to think about failover clustering as well. From what I understand, it's much easier to get the failover cluster setup initally. Trying to take a stand alone box and put it in a cluster could be dangerous. Needless to say setting up a Failover cluster is not cheap, but if your system needs to not go down, it's the way to go. We've got a setup like that in our datacenter and it's great.BTW 400 transactions a day could be done on a PocketPC methinks :)Michael<Yoda>Use the Search page you must. Find the answer you will.</Yoda> |
|
|
|
rjswider
Starting Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 2003-03-12 : 15:44:09
|
| :) Yeah, a PocketPC would work initially, but what would I play Solitaire on then?!Thanks for the info. I looked at the clustering stuff, and it's just way out of price range for now. And with MS's licensing the way it is, it's already going to cost us $25,000+ per processor. Time was that you could get SQL for a song compared to Oracle... Looks like that song is now being controlled by the RIA :)Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
aiken
Aged Yak Warrior
525 Posts |
Posted - 2003-03-13 : 14:24:37
|
| Also remember that the 2.8Ghz Xeon has hyperthreading, which whill make it appear to be a quad processor box to SQL Server, and which can improve performance by something between 7% and 30% (read the pages before and after that one to get more perspective).I've just picked up a new box, and I opted for dual 2.8 Xeons, but for my purposes, disk IO is more of an issue, so the real focus was on SCSI channels and total spindles.Cheers-b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cache v. Proc. Speed