Performance Question

I have a need to configure a mission critical SQL and Web server and
also looking for possible failover/redundancy
We will be running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition as well as
SQL 2000.
We want to go with 4GB of RAM. We want a SQL cluster environment which
would include having an external direct attached storage system. I
also want a good hardware backup solution.
Minimum Database Server Requirements:
Intel Xeon Processor 2GHz minimum (Dual Processor 3.06GHz, 1M Cache
Recommended)
70+ GB for database and temp database. Additional storage is reuired if
backup copies of the database are stored on the same server.
Raid 0+1 Recommended (4 drives connected to RAID card)
We will start off with about 100 users and grow to about 700-800 users
within the next 1 1/2 to 2 years.
Based on this, and the minimum requirements, could anyone make some
recommendations on what I should be looking at hardware wise to not
only accomodate our immediate needs, but also our future needs.
Thanks for you help!"Charles" <webmail2@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149728115.858242.294110@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have a need to configure a mission critical SQL and Web server and
> also looking for possible failover/redundancy
> We will be running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition as well as
> SQL 2000.
> We want to go with 4GB of RAM. We want a SQL cluster environment which
> would include having an external direct attached storage system. I
> also want a good hardware backup solution.
> Minimum Database Server Requirements:
> Intel Xeon Processor 2GHz minimum (Dual Processor 3.06GHz, 1M Cache
> Recommended)
> 70+ GB for database and temp database. Additional storage is reuired if
> backup copies of the database are stored on the same server.
> Raid 0+1 Recommended (4 drives connected to RAID card)
> We will start off with about 100 users and grow to about 700-800 users
> within the next 1 1/2 to 2 years.
> Based on this, and the minimum requirements, could anyone make some
> recommendations on what I should be looking at hardware wise to not
> only accomodate our immediate needs, but also our future needs.
>
Clustering can be somewhat complicated to implement and manage correctly and
the hardware it requires can be expensive. It can be a great solution, but
a poorly implemented or managed cluster will reduce your availibility
instead of increasing it. And remember, there's no redundancy for your
databases in a cluster, so your storage solution is a single point of
failure.
For clusters your hardware must be certified.
The Microsoft support policy for server clusters, the Hardware Compatibility
List, and the Windows Server Catalog
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=309395
Database Mirroring in SQL Server 2005 provides a cheap and easy way to
achieve complete redundancy for your data and very high availibility. You
don't need external storage or matched, certified servers.
For hardware look at the Dell 2850 or the HP DL385. Both are 64bit machines
with plenty of power for you to grow. For an OS run Windows Server 2003 R2
x64 Enterprise Edition, if you can. It's the best OS for any edition of SQL
2000 or 2005.
David|||> For an OS run Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise Edition, if you can.
> It's the best OS for any edition of SQL 2000 or 2005.
David;
I'm curious about why R2 is the best OS for any edition of SQL 2000/2005. It
seems to me that R2 is primarily a feature pack with many features of little
concern to running SQL Server. I'm very happy with Windows 2003 SP1.
Linchi
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Charles" <webmail2@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149728115.858242.294110@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I have a need to configure a mission critical SQL and Web server and
> > also looking for possible failover/redundancy
> >
> > We will be running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition as well as
> > SQL 2000.
> >
> > We want to go with 4GB of RAM. We want a SQL cluster environment which
> > would include having an external direct attached storage system. I
> > also want a good hardware backup solution.
> >
> > Minimum Database Server Requirements:
> > Intel Xeon Processor 2GHz minimum (Dual Processor 3.06GHz, 1M Cache
> > Recommended)
> > 70+ GB for database and temp database. Additional storage is reuired if
> > backup copies of the database are stored on the same server.
> > Raid 0+1 Recommended (4 drives connected to RAID card)
> >
> > We will start off with about 100 users and grow to about 700-800 users
> > within the next 1 1/2 to 2 years.
> >
> > Based on this, and the minimum requirements, could anyone make some
> > recommendations on what I should be looking at hardware wise to not
> > only accomodate our immediate needs, but also our future needs.
> >
>
> Clustering can be somewhat complicated to implement and manage correctly and
> the hardware it requires can be expensive. It can be a great solution, but
> a poorly implemented or managed cluster will reduce your availibility
> instead of increasing it. And remember, there's no redundancy for your
> databases in a cluster, so your storage solution is a single point of
> failure.
> For clusters your hardware must be certified.
> The Microsoft support policy for server clusters, the Hardware Compatibility
> List, and the Windows Server Catalog
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=309395
> Database Mirroring in SQL Server 2005 provides a cheap and easy way to
> achieve complete redundancy for your data and very high availibility. You
> don't need external storage or matched, certified servers.
> For hardware look at the Dell 2850 or the HP DL385. Both are 64bit machines
> with plenty of power for you to grow. For an OS run Windows Server 2003 R2
> x64 Enterprise Edition, if you can. It's the best OS for any edition of SQL
> 2000 or 2005.
> David
>
>|||"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA2CB8F9-B7D1-43B9-BD1B-B8C402B7E880@.microsoft.com...
>> For an OS run Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise Edition, if you can.
>> It's the best OS for any edition of SQL 2000 or 2005.
> David;
> I'm curious about why R2 is the best OS for any edition of SQL 2000/2005.
> It
> seems to me that R2 is primarily a feature pack with many features of
> little
> concern to running SQL Server. I'm very happy with Windows 2003 SP1.
>
Yes, R2 is SP1 with a supported feature pack. And the x64 Edition is SP1
already, so that's a bit redundant. I could have just said Windows Server
2003 x64 Enterprise Edition.
The Enterprise Edition supports larger memory sizes and has Windows Server
Resource manager for dynamically allocating CPU resources among multiple
instances. And the x64 edition provides 4GB user-mode address space for SQL
Server 2000 sp4, and virtually unlimited memory for SQL Server 2005 x64
edition.
David|||David - Thanks so much for your input. The Dell and HP both sound like
good solutions. I'll check them out. All I need to do now is find a
good backup solution!
David Browne wrote:
> "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AA2CB8F9-B7D1-43B9-BD1B-B8C402B7E880@.microsoft.com...
> >> For an OS run Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise Edition, if you can.
> >> It's the best OS for any edition of SQL 2000 or 2005.
> >
> > David;
> >
> > I'm curious about why R2 is the best OS for any edition of SQL 2000/2005.
> > It
> > seems to me that R2 is primarily a feature pack with many features of
> > little
> > concern to running SQL Server. I'm very happy with Windows 2003 SP1.
> >
> Yes, R2 is SP1 with a supported feature pack. And the x64 Edition is SP1
> already, so that's a bit redundant. I could have just said Windows Server
> 2003 x64 Enterprise Edition.
> The Enterprise Edition supports larger memory sizes and has Windows Server
> Resource manager for dynamically allocating CPU resources among multiple
> instances. And the x64 edition provides 4GB user-mode address space for SQL
> Server 2000 sp4, and virtually unlimited memory for SQL Server 2005 x64
> edition.
> David