jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Fri Oct 15 08:44:35 CDT 2010
ROTFL. When I started this client / business (Aug 2004 according to my billing records) I built two servers. At that time the Athlon was king and what I could afford was the 3.8 GHz. So they were single core machines, 4 gigs ram, running Windows 2003 X32 and SQL Server X32. You may believe me when I say I wasn't processing *anything* very quickly. I paid (borrowed) about $5000 out of my own pocket to build these two machines in order to get the business. Over the years I just upgraded those servers, dual cores, new motherboard, 8 gigs ram, then 16 gigs ram, then quad core etc. I am now building a brand new server, pretty much from the ground up. This time the client is paying for the upgrade. The only thing I am bringing over from the last server is my Areca 16 port raid controller and the terabyte drives that hold all of the databases and business files. The new server is a dual socket board for the new AMD Opteron 6000 series processor. I selected the 8 core chips because the 2 GHz version is dirt cheap (275 each ATM). I would LOVE to have the 12 core version of the chip but the price for the entry level 12 core is $750 each and I just couldn't justify it (to myself). The point really is that this is not rocket science and it is pretty darned cheap. 450 Motherboard 275 CPU x 1 250 8 gig DIMM x 1 So $1000 for an 8 core machine with 8 gigs of memory. The motherboard has two CPU sockets so you can drop in another CPU. And it has SIXTEEN DIMM sockets so you can drop in up to 128 GIGS of memory if you can afford it. 450 Motherboard 550 CPU X 2 2000 8 gig DIMM X 8 So right around $3K for a 16 core machine with 64 GIGS of memory. This is the configuration I am aiming for. You have to admit that is a pretty reasonable price for the foundation, and the nice part is that you can get in cheap and add more memory and another core as you get the money. The biggest problem I had was finding a reasonably priced chassis for the motherboard. These motherboards are a "server size" and won't physically fit in the average tower. What I am hoping is that the AMD Bulldozer, which is due out in 2011, will allow me to do a cheap processor upgrade down the road. Rumor has it that they will build chips with 16 cores, so in a few years (after the dust settles and prices drop) I could double my core count again if I need to. I have to tell you, just moving from a quad core to an 8 core makes a world of difference. SQL Server expects to "own" the machine but if you are a poor hillbilly in North Carolina your server has to do more. With the quad core I assigned 2 cores to SQL Server and two to the OS. SQL Server would max out the two cores it was assigned, which indicates it needs more horsepower. With 8 cores, SQL Server gets 6 cores now, and there are times when it uses all 6 cores, though I have never seen it max all 6 out. This is a strong indicator that with my current config, six cores is enough. However I will be dropping in more memory, which may remove a bottleneck and allow SQL Server to use the processors more efficiently, potentially maxing them out. If and when I drop in the other CPU, SQL Server could get as many as 14 cores. I am really beginning to doubt that my jobs require that but for an additional $275 for the CPU, it is nice to know I can go there if I need to. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com On 10/15/2010 8:46 AM, Dan Waters wrote: > Seriously John - make some noise! > > Ya see, I thought you were just a guy who knew how to quickly process > millions of records in SQL Server. ;-) > > Now I know better! :-) > > Keep going! > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Michael > Mattys > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:42 AM > To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server' > Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] The SSD I am using > > No, John, don't be quiet! > Jim was kidding - he was saying you deserve to brag. > My brother and I have to do much of what you're doing and I am interested in > all your experiences in this and the other groups. > > Michael R Mattys > Business Process Developers > www.mattysconsulting.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:07 PM > To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server > Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] The SSD I am using > > Hmm... not my intent. I am building a server. Paid for by my client, not > mine - though it does > reside in my office. I thought there would be interest in how this stuff > performs. When I started > trying to discover how much this stuff would affect performance I didn't > really find much information. > > I'll be quiet now. > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > On 10/14/2010 5:27 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote: >> Boy, you are sure bragging a lot... not that you don't deserve to. ;-) >> >> Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > >