Help! - Server Requirments

Kenny

When we first purchased NF about four years ago, we were told that, as a rule, Navision will run better with a large number of smaller disk drives than on one or two large drives. I can understand this, based on reads/writes per disk.

Also, we were told that multi-processor systems seem to run slower than single processor models. I didn't understand this, but several users backed this up with benchmarked tests.

We are now looking to upgrade our system - the processing speed is just too slow. Currently, we run an older RS/6000 580H system, using 512mb of RAM on a single 56mhz processor with an IBM SSA disk subsystem (currently 12 drives). The database is 8gb and growing, and we support 90 users (around 70 most of the time).

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the single processor theory (if it still exists) and offer any suggestions as to what we might do to increase performance.

Thanks very much!

---

[This message has been edited by Kenny (edited 26-02-2001).]

horrigan

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kenny:
When we first purchased NF about four years ago, we were told that, as a rule, Navision will run better with a large number of smaller disk drives than on one or two large drives. I can understand this, based on reads/writes per disk.

Also, we were told that multi-processor systems seem to run slower than single processor models. I didn't understand this, but several users backed this up with benchmarked tests.

We are now looking to upgrade our system - the processing speed is just too slow. Currently, we run an older RS/6000 580H system, using 512mb of RAM on a single 56mhz processor with an IBM SSA disk subsystem (currently 12 drives). The database is 8gb and growing, and we support 90 users (around 70 most of the time).

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the single processor theory (if it still exists) and offer any suggestions as to what we might do to increase performance.

Thanks very much!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean to say you were running Navision on a machine on a 56MHz chip? Yikes!

Regardless of how you configure your new server, the system will run MUCH faster (assuming you give it enough RAM, which you have been doing.)

---

Tim Horrigan, NCSD
<Horrigan@AOL.com>

Currently in search of new employment!

Certified as a Solution Developer and an HR/Payroll Specialist!

Kenny

RISC Chip technology is totally different than Pentium (Intel) based units. It's unbelievable how fast a 56mhz chip runs. Still, this technology is outdated (the most powerful RISC chips now run in the 800mhz range).

We also run a test system, which is Intel based. It appears that the smaller RISC chip (56mhz) performs comparably to a 300-350 mhz Intel PII chip. I know that's hard to believe - we have had to prove it to several folks here as well!

Running base Navision Financials is no problem for us - but we are running the Wholesale Distribution package which makes many additional writes when posting sales orders and/or shipments.

We know we need to upgrade, but need to know more about how the multi-processors effect the system.

Thanks for your input.

[This message has been edited by Kenny (edited 27-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Kenny (edited 27-02-2001).]

cbradney

The native server program is not multiprocessor capable, and is ANSI C code. For this reason, you gain no real benefit from more than one processor, although on an NT system its often nice to have one processor for the box to handle the system loads and one for the Navision process. You only gain a real benefit from multiple processors whenyou move to MS SQL, but that in itself slows the system down, and also you are running RISC and hence cant run MS SQL. Im sure an 800mhz RISC box would be quick.. RISC running ANSI C should be quick! Don't forget though that most of the processing is done on the client end.

---

Craig Bradney
Technical Manager
Deloitte Navision Solutions & Services
Australia
Tel:+61-2-93227796
craig_bradney@deloitte.com.au

[This message has been edited by cbradney (edited 19-03-2001).]