Do I *need* a new server? 1

[benlinkknilneb]

We're getting ready to start using SQL Server in our plant. Currently, we have a file server for everyone to use. We are considering running SQL Server on a partition of the file server because it appears to have plenty of CPU to spare; will we be ok for a small operation (~85 users), or should we go ahead and get a server dedicated to SQL?


Ben

There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

 

[mrdenny]

A dedicated SQL Server will be much better. SQL uses lots of RAM, and lots of CPU power.

How much RAM is in the machine? How much data are you going to be storing in the database?

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[benlinkknilneb]

I think that particular machine has a gig of RAM. We currently use Lotus Notes (which has its own dedicated server) and we're looking at moving a lot of our number-intensive data into SQL so we can do statistics on it. We have to develop the applications that drive the use of the SQL database (front-end stuff for users and whatnot) as we go, so it will grow pretty slowly (there are only 3 of us who write code here). We keep < 500 GB of data storage for all of our systems overall, and if we can get by in this initial stage without buying a new server, the people who write the checks will be VERY happy with us.

Ben

There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

 

[mrdenny]

With only a Gig of RAM I would say no way that SQL should be on that machine. I would definetly recomment another server.

Keep in mind that most of the cost you will see when installing a SQL Server will be for the software licenses. The hardware costs are much lower than the software.

You'll be amased how fast your databases will start to grow after you get started.

If you are going to be doign large number crunching you'll want a seperate server so that the file server doesn't slow down.

It will also be easier on you if you buy the server now. It's easier to buy now rather than upgrade later.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[benlinkknilneb]

We're looking at 100 users max (in several different databases) once all the apps are ported.

The statistical stuff will be run as needed; the design is that the actual calculations will take place on the user's PC; we just have to pull the data from the server when they request it, and then they can massage it with front-end apps all they want (.NET). I'm not planning to do much of the calculating server-side.

The "minimum requirements" listed @ Microsoft seem awfully small compared to what you're telling me:

166 MHz CPU
64 -> 128 MB RAM

Judging from that, the file server should run it fine; I know that more RAM is always a good thing but is it really necessary to have so much to get started with?

Ben

There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

 

[mrdenny]

The min requirments from Microsoft will get SQL running. It won't get it running fast or well.

Keep in mind that if you do decide to change to a new database server later, you'll need up update everyone's client with the new version of the app.

I always recommend running SQL Server on it's own box. It just makes life much easier that way.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)

 

[benlinkknilneb]

Thanks for your help, mrdenny, I appreciate the input. Doesn't look like I'll be able to convince them to buy me a box (budget constraints), so I guess I'll just have to keep moving the server in mind.

Ben

There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

 

[SQLBill]

If you have SQL Server on a box with other apps, expect it (SQL Server) to run slowly.

I have SQL Server and Backup Exec on the same server (4 processor) and only one user database on SQL Server. Backup Exec is only used to copy the SQL Server backup files from disk to tape. When the database gets to 170GB everything slows down noticably.

We are currently 'building' a new server for SQL Server and once we move it over, we will leave Backup Exec on it's own server.

-SQLBill

Posting advice: FAQ481-4875

 

[mrdenny]

no problem.

Hopefully you can get a new box next year. Just make sure it gets budgeted for when they start doing the budgets.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

(Not quite so old any more.)