mibuso.com
Home› SQL General

Hardware Setup for Nav 4 sp3

NatJNatJ Member Posts: 22
edited 2008-06-18 in SQL General
Hello

I am about to upgrade my server with the following specs
OS: Windows Server 2003 x64
DB : Microsoft SQL 2005

2 x Intel XEON 3.6GHZ
16 GB RAM
Intel SRCU42X Dual-channel, Ultra320 SCSI RAID Controller 64-bit/133MHz

I am trying to decide on HDD configuration and came up with this

2 x 146GB - OS & SQL Server Partitioned <mirror>
4 x 73GB - SQL & NAV databases <RAID 10>
4 x 73 GB - Log files SQL & NAV <RAID 10>
1 x 146GB hot spare

Any comments on the above config?

thank you for your help

Nat

Comments

  • Marije_BrummelMarije_Brummel Member, Moderators Design Patterns Posts: 4,262
    This is not exactly a new machine is it?

    HDD is THE MOST important component.

    If you upgrade I would go for more disks.

    Put the logfile on a RAID1 and use as many disks in RAID10 for the data.

    Are you sure you can connect all these disks to a single controler? Watch out for the read/write cache distribution
    Marije Brummel | Freelance Business Central Specialist
  • NatJNatJ Member Posts: 22
    Hi Mark

    Thanks for a reply. No the server is not new, its a couple of years old. Currently it has
    OS - Windows 2003 Server X86
    - SQL 2005 Server
    4GB RAM
    2 x 148GB HDD - OS & SQL <MIRROR>
    2 x 73GB HDD - Nav & SQL DB <MIRROR>
    2 x 73GB HDD - Log file <MIRROR>

    The server is REALLY SLOW! I am hoping that an upgrade in the OS to WIndows 2003 x64, RAM & Raid 10 may do the trick?!

    So you are suggesting i go with ;
    2 x 146GB - OS & SQL Server Partitioned <MIRROR>
    6x 73GB - SQL & NAV databases <RAID 10>
    2 x 73 GB - Log files SQL & NAV <MIRROR>
    1 x 146GB hot spare
  • bbrownbbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    11 drives is a rather odd number. If there is extra bay space, I'd drop the hot spare and add 2 more drives to the RAID 10.

    Option 2:

    Go external with an SAS Array.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • krikikriki Member, Moderator Posts: 9,115
    Other :
    the disks should be RPM15000.

    For extra speed : you will need to do some SQL-tuning (if not done yet).

    PS : you didn't give any info about DB-size, peak no. of concurrent users, peak no. of transactions per second.
    Regards,Alain Krikilion
    No PM,please use the forum. || May the <SOLVED>-attribute be in your title!

  • Marije_BrummelMarije_Brummel Member, Moderators Design Patterns Posts: 4,262
    Well it will help, that is for sure.

    I would not go for external SAS I think. In that case it might be more efficient to buy a new box.

    It also depends on how critical your business is. What is your failover scenario? Do you have a 4 hour support contract of 24 hours or non at all.

    The newer the server the easier the hardware support.

    Is it an old ML530? That has 12 slots as far as I can remember. A couple of my customers are using that machine.
    Marije Brummel | Freelance Business Central Specialist
  • David_SingletonDavid_Singleton Member Posts: 5,479
    NatJ wrote:
    ...
    2 x 146GB - OS & SQL Server Partitioned <MIRROR>
    6x 73GB - SQL & NAV databases <RAID 10>
    2 x 73 GB - Log files SQL & NAV <MIRROR>
    1 x 146GB hot spare

    Hmm one question to add. Is it possible to use a 146Gig drive as a hot swap to replace a 73 gig drive?
    David Singleton
  • bbrownbbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    I believe it is, but it will only use 73 GB of it. If you build an array with mismatched drives the system will use the space from each drive the size of the smallest drive.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • David_SingletonDavid_Singleton Member Posts: 5,479
    bbrown wrote:
    I believe it is, but it will only use 73 GB of it. If you build an array with mismatched drives the system will use the space from each drive the size of the smallest drive.

    Thanks that helps a lot, I have a client with 73 and 146 drives in a box, and room for just one hot spare, so if that can be a 146 then even though its a minor issue, but makes life easier.
    David Singleton
  • bbrownbbrown Member Posts: 3,268
    David Singleton wrote:
    bbrown wrote:
    I believe it is, but it will only use 73 GB of it. If you build an array with mismatched drives the system will use the space from each drive the size of the smallest drive.

    Thanks that helps a lot, I have a client with 73 and 146 drives in a box, and room for just one hot spare, so if that can be a 146 then even though its a minor issue, but makes life easier.

    I'm just taking a guess here based on what I know about arrays with mismatched drives. Never actually done this myself. I would think you would need to designate it as a global hot-spare. I assume the 73 and 146 drives are different array sets.
    There are no bugs - only undocumented features.
  • NatJNatJ Member Posts: 22
    Ok i had to do some investigation

    the database size is around 20gig

    I used performance monitor and over 2 days Transactions/per second i averaged out .48

    Maximum concurrent users 33

    regards

    Nat
  • NatJNatJ Member Posts: 22
    bbrown wrote:
    I believe it is, but it will only use 73 GB of it. If you build an array with mismatched drives the system will use the space from each drive the size of the smallest drive.

    This is totally correct!
  • David_SingletonDavid_Singleton Member Posts: 5,479
    NatJ wrote:
    bbrown wrote:
    I believe it is, but it will only use 73 GB of it. If you build an array with mismatched drives the system will use the space from each drive the size of the smallest drive.

    This is totally correct!

    Perfect, thanks to both of you.
    David Singleton
Sign In or Register to comment.