Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server?Virtualization of parts ?

[Guest markm75]

We are in the process of rebuilding our old server.. previously it was

a xeon (single core i think) 2.8ghz.. with 4gb ram.. was using around

3200mb of ram.

 

It ran x86 server 2003.

 

Now we are building the new one.. which i'm guessing i'll probably put

x64 for sure.

 

***I was thinking of the Harpertown Xeon quad core 2.33ghz processor

(single cpu)..

 

***4gb memory...

 

Here is what it will do: (4 total servers, 40 workstations, 35ish

users)

File serving (member server only)

Live Communication Server 2007

Great Plains Dynamics 10.0

System Center Config manager

System Center Virtual Machine Manager

Sql 2k5 default instance (vmm and sccm)

Sql 2k5 dynamics instance

Sql 2k5 OCS instance

Trend Micro antivirus central point

UPS shipping software

**Maybe virtual server 2005 (virtualize a few above?)

 

It runs a raid5 4 disk array.

 

Would this CPU be enough for these tasks.. would i be better off with

the 2.83ghz one.. or maybe two quad core 2.33's?

 

I guess if i choose to use virtual server, i may want to expand to 6gb

of memory? Does it make sense for restore ability, to virtualize say

Live Server 2007 and System Center Config Manager on this same box for

instance (with SQL 2005 on those virtual server instances too)?

 

Thanks in advance

[Guest markm75]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server?Virtualization of parts ?

 

On Dec 1, 11:03 am, markm75 <markm...@msn.com> wrote:

> We are in the process of rebuilding our old server.. previously it was

> a xeon (single core i think) 2.8ghz.. with 4gb ram.. was using around

> 3200mb of ram.

>

> It ran x86 server2003.

>

> Now we are building the new one.. which i'm guessing i'll probably put

> x64 for sure.

>

> ***I was thinking of the Harpertown Xeon quad core 2.33ghz processor

> (single cpu)..

>

> ***4gb memory...

>

> Here is what it will do: (4 total servers, 40 workstations, 35ish

> users)

> File serving (member server only)

> Live Communication Server 2007

> Great Plains Dynamics 10.0

> System Center Config manager

> System Center Virtual Machine Manager

> Sql 2k5 default instance (vmm and sccm)

> Sql 2k5 dynamics instance

> Sql 2k5 OCS instance

> Trend Micro antivirus central point

> UPS shipping software

> **Maybe virtual server 2005 (virtualize a few above?)

>

> It runs a raid5 4 disk array.

>

> Would this CPU be enough for these tasks.. would i be better off with

> the 2.83ghz one.. or maybe two quad core 2.33's?

>

> I guess if i choose to use virtual server, i may want to expand to 6gb

> of memory? Does it make sense for restore ability, to virtualize say

> Live Server 2007 and System Center Config Manager on this same box for

> instance (with SQL 2005 on those virtual server instances too)?

>

> Thanks in advance

 

I guess if i do virtualize these roles.. i should probably put the vhd

for these 3 on a seperate physical, single volume drive?

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

In article <c6ccba43-0cda-499f-8055-bac996cd2458

@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

> We are in the process of rebuilding our old server.. previously it was

> a xeon (single core i think) 2.8ghz.. with 4gb ram.. was using around

> 3200mb of ram.

>

> It ran x86 server 2003.

>

> Now we are building the new one.. which i'm guessing i'll probably put

> x64 for sure.

>

> ***I was thinking of the Harpertown Xeon quad core 2.33ghz processor

> (single cpu)..

>

> ***4gb memory...

>

> Here is what it will do: (4 total servers, 40 workstations, 35ish

> users)

> File serving (member server only)

> Live Communication Server 2007

> Great Plains Dynamics 10.0

> System Center Config manager

> System Center Virtual Machine Manager

> Sql 2k5 default instance (vmm and sccm)

> Sql 2k5 dynamics instance

> Sql 2k5 OCS instance

> Trend Micro antivirus central point

> UPS shipping software

> **Maybe virtual server 2005 (virtualize a few above?)

>

> It runs a raid5 4 disk array.

>

> Would this CPU be enough for these tasks.. would i be better off with

> the 2.83ghz one.. or maybe two quad core 2.33's?

>

> I guess if i choose to use virtual server, i may want to expand to 6gb

> of memory? Does it make sense for restore ability, to virtualize say

> Live Server 2007 and System Center Config Manager on this same box for

> instance (with SQL 2005 on those virtual server instances too)?

 

You need to consider your other PROBLEM's and not just CPU.

 

SQL - needs one array for Data, one array for Transaction logs

O/S - should be on its own array

Files - should be on their own array

 

With a Quad Core CPU (Active Caching), your bigged hit will be the weak

Disk setup you have listed.

 

I have a very nice Dual CPU, Quad Core server with 4GB RAM, 12 Disks,

setup as I describe above, supporting 150 users that hammer the

database.

 

We have a third party SQL server that only provides WEB/SQL data

connections that is screwed because the third party built the entire

thing on a single array, and everything is fragmented badly - 50K

fragments for the database files alone.....

 

You also need to understand how your applications (transactions) are

written when you are 8 cores for them to use - you will end up with more

blocking until the transactions are written with that in mind.

 

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Guest markm75]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server?Virtualization of parts ?

 

On Dec 1, 11:13 am, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:

> In article <c6ccba43-0cda-499f-8055-bac996cd2458

> @e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, markm...@msn.com says...

>

>

>

>

>

> > We are in the process of rebuilding our old server.. previously it was

> > a xeon (single core i think) 2.8ghz.. with 4gb ram.. was using around

> > 3200mb of ram.

>

> > It ran x86 server 2003.

>

> > Now we are building the new one.. which i'm guessing i'll probably put

> > x64 for sure.

>

> > ***I was thinking of the Harpertown Xeon quad core 2.33ghz processor

> > (single cpu)..

>

> > ***4gb memory...

>

> > Here is what it will do: (4 total servers, 40 workstations, 35ish

> > users)

> > File serving (member server only)

> > Live Communication Server 2007

> > Great Plains Dynamics 10.0

> > System Center Config manager

> > System Center Virtual Machine Manager

> > Sql 2k5 default instance (vmm and sccm)

> > Sql 2k5 dynamics instance

> > Sql 2k5 OCS instance

> > Trend Micro antivirus central point

> > UPS shipping software

> > **Maybe virtual server 2005 (virtualize a few above?)

>

> > It runs a raid5 4 disk array.

>

> > Would this CPU be enough for these tasks.. would i be better off with

> > the 2.83ghz one.. or maybe two quad core 2.33's?

>

> > I guess if i choose to use virtual server, i may want to expand to 6gb

> > of memory? Does it make sense for restore ability, to virtualize say

> > Live Server 2007 and System Center Config Manager on this same box for

> > instance (with SQL 2005 on those virtual server instances too)?

>

> You need to consider your other PROBLEM's and not just CPU.

>

> SQL - needs one array for Data, one array for Transaction logs

> O/S - should be on its own array

> Files - should be on their own array

>

> With a Quad Core CPU (Active Caching), your bigged hit will be the weak

> Disk setup you have listed.

>

> I have a very nice Dual CPU, Quad Core server with 4GB RAM, 12 Disks,

> setup as I describe above, supporting 150 users that hammer the

> database.

>

> We have a third party SQL server that only provides WEB/SQL data

> connections that is screwed because the third party built the entire

> thing on a single array, and everything is fragmented badly - 50K

> fragments for the database files alone.....

>

> You also need to understand how your applications (transactions) are

> written when you are 8 cores for them to use - you will end up with more

> blocking until the transactions are written with that in mind.

>

> --

>

> Leythos

> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

> spam999f...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

 

12 disks.. what sort of case do you have those in.. the one we have

been buying is a 2u rack mount that holds 8 removable.. hence we

really cant go beyond 8, unless i get something different.

 

How does all this change if i look to virtualize each role.. i'm

leaning more towards virtualizing each role.

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

In article <e48f7f98-dffc-4b1d-acee-

1e316c071a9e@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

> 12 disks.. what sort of case do you have those in.. the one we have

> been buying is a 2u rack mount that holds 8 removable.. hence we

> really cant go beyond 8, unless i get something different.

 

IBM 3800, we also use Chenbro cases for white-box servers.

 

I never buy 2U servers unless I'm doing a web server that only needs a

MIRROR.

> How does all this change if i look to virtualize each role.. i'm

> leaning more towards virtualizing each role.

 

A database, unless you want to kill performance, needs a proper drive

setup.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Guest markm75]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server?Virtualization of parts ?

 

On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:

> In article <e48f7f98-dffc-4b1d-acee-

> 1e316c071...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, markm...@msn.com says...

>

>

> > How does all this change if i look to virtualize each role.. i'm

> > leaning more towards virtualizing each role.

>

> A database, unless you want to kill performance, needs a proper drive

> setup.

 

I do have one mirror for the OS.. the data was on raid5.. for

virtualization.. i figured i'd create another mirror.. if i had 5

virutal servers running.. i'd run 3 on the raid 5 and 2 on the mirror

set...

 

In terms of databases and VS.. what is typically done here.. is it ok

to have a sql server inside a virtual machine.. also.. on the virtual

servers.. is it typically setup the way a real server would be.. ie:

c drive for OS.. another D for data.. then an E say for logs.. or does

this even matter in the virtual sense..

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

In article <63e4b289-c7fe-43e7-8bbc-4b2572756654

@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

> On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:

> > In article <e48f7f98-dffc-4b1d-acee-

> > 1e316c071...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, markm...@msn.com says...

> >

>

> >

> > > How does all this change if i look to virtualize each role.. i'm

> > > leaning more towards virtualizing each role.

> >

> > A database, unless you want to kill performance, needs a proper drive

> > setup.

>

> I do have one mirror for the OS.. the data was on raid5.. for

> virtualization.. i figured i'd create another mirror.. if i had 5

> virutal servers running.. i'd run 3 on the raid 5 and 2 on the mirror

> set...

>

> In terms of databases and VS.. what is typically done here.. is it ok

> to have a sql server inside a virtual machine.. also.. on the virtual

> servers.. is it typically setup the way a real server would be.. ie:

> c drive for OS.. another D for data.. then an E say for logs.. or does

> this even matter in the virtual sense..

 

Personally I see no benefit to VS, it's an extra waste of resources, has

it's own set of problems, and if the machine can handle all the

instances of SQL as VS then you might as well just not VS and set them

up on the server alone. You are going to have to learn how to manage the

memory between them.

 

You could run the entire thing on a single drive if you wanted to, but

that would not be good by any means/measure.

 

Databases belong on a single array, alone.

 

Transaction logs should be on another array, but you could put them on

the OS drive if only the OS resides on it.

 

Your users data/files/profiles belong on another array.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Guest markm75]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server?Virtualization of parts ?

 

On Dec 1, 9:28 pm, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:

> In article <63e4b289-c7fe-43e7-8bbc-4b2572756654

> @e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, markm...@msn.com says...

>

>

>

>

>

> > On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:

> > > In article <e48f7f98-dffc-4b1d-acee-

> > > 1e316c071...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, markm...@msn.com says...

>

> > > > How does all this change if i look to virtualize each role.. i'm

> > > > leaning more towards virtualizing each role.

>

> > > A database, unless you want to kill performance, needs a proper drive

> > > setup.

>

> > I do have one mirror for the OS.. the data was on raid5.. for

> > virtualization.. i figured i'd create another mirror.. if i had 5

> > virutal servers running.. i'd run 3 on the raid 5 and 2 on the mirror

> > set...

>

> > In terms of databases and VS.. what is typically done here.. is it ok

> > to have a sql server inside a virtual machine.. also.. on the virtual

> > servers.. is it typically setup the way a real server would be.. ie:

> > c drive for OS.. another D for data.. then an E say for logs.. or does

> > this even matter in the virtual sense..

>

> Personally I see no benefit to VS, it's an extra waste of resources, has

> it's own set of problems, and if the machine can handle all the

> instances of SQL as VS then you might as well just not VS and set them

> up on the server alone. You are going to have to learn how to manage the

> memory between them.

>

 

I like the idea of having one "role" encapsulated in a VS

environment.. it can be easily ported to another server or backed up

all in its own piece.. so if there is any issues with that host's

hardware, it can be moved instantly almost.

 

> You could run the entire thing on a single drive if you wanted to, but

> that would not be good by any means/measure.

>

> Databases belong on a single array, alone.

>

> Transaction logs should be on another array, but you could put them on

> the OS drive if only the OS resides on it.

>

> Your users data/files/profiles belong on another array.

>

When you say this.. are you referring to the virtual drives..ie:

create virtual server.. then create a C, D, E drive inside it (c=OS,

D= Databases, E=logs).. or are you saying create one virtual

harddrive, store that "image" on one array, then create another

virtual harddrive, store that vhd on yet another array and so on?

 

Cheers

[Guest Leythos]

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

Re: Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

 

In article <83fe429c-ffbb-4dde-8fe8-4f07805c6774

@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

> When you say this.. are you referring to the virtual drives..ie:

> create virtual server.. then create a C, D, E drive inside it (c=OS,

> D= Databases, E=logs).. or are you saying create one virtual

> harddrive, store that "image" on one array, then create another

> virtual harddrive, store that vhd on yet another array and so on?

 

No, I'm saying don't do a VS, purchase more servers instead, and

properly configure the arrays for what you want to use them for.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)