Hardware Specifications

Is there any documented

hardware specification for Analysis Services 2005/2000? This is one question asked frequently to me by people implementing AS 2005. I could not find any documents on this. It would be great if any recommendations are available on this.

Thanks,

S Suresh

Such information is often provided by hardware vendors.

For instance;
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/software/microsoft/sqlserver2005.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
www.dell.com/sql

You can also take a look at the existing case studies like Project REAL http://www.microsoft.com/sql/solutions/bi/projectreal.mspx
see what are the data sizes and what hardware used.

Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Hardware specification query

Hi
I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be running
two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both on
the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
seperate array for the transaction logs.
I'm thinking of the following:
Dual Xeon (dual core)
7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
A couple of questions:
Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
decrease in performance?
Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID 5?
Thanks in advance
Robbie
Robbie,
From your proposal, it looks like you are blessed with adequate resources.
In fact, for two applications, each with about 20 users, you have proposed
an incredibly 'robust' server.
I'd keep the Logs on separate RAID1 arrays for the optimal performance. If
the db size and storage requirements allow, the databases might be faster
and more 'robust' on the same RAID10 array (instead of separate RAID5
arrays).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM95gc49GHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be
> running two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
> Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
> software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both
> on the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
> seperate array for the transaction logs.
> I'm thinking of the following:
> Dual Xeon (dual core)
> 7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
> RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
> RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
> transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
> A couple of questions:
> Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
> decrease in performance?
> Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID
> 5?
> Thanks in advance
> Robbie
>

Hardware specification query

Hi
I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be running
two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both on
the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
seperate array for the transaction logs.
I'm thinking of the following:
Dual Xeon (dual core)
7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
A couple of questions:
Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
decrease in performance?
Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID 5?
Thanks in advance
RobbieRobbie,
From your proposal, it looks like you are blessed with adequate resources.
In fact, for two applications, each with about 20 users, you have proposed
an incredibly 'robust' server.
I'd keep the Logs on separate RAID1 arrays for the optimal performance. If
the db size and storage requirements allow, the databases might be faster
and more 'robust' on the same RAID10 array (instead of separate RAID5
arrays).
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM95gc49GHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be
> running two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
> Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
> software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both
> on the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
> seperate array for the transaction logs.
> I'm thinking of the following:
> Dual Xeon (dual core)
> 7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
> RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
> RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
> transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
> A couple of questions:
> Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
> decrease in performance?
> Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID
> 5?
> Thanks in advance
> Robbie
>

Hardware specification query

Hi
I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be running
two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both on
the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
seperate array for the transaction logs.
I'm thinking of the following:
Dual Xeon (dual core)
7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
A couple of questions:
Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
decrease in performance?
Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID 5?
Thanks in advance
RobbieRobbie,
From your proposal, it looks like you are blessed with adequate resources.
In fact, for two applications, each with about 20 users, you have proposed
an incredibly 'robust' server.
I'd keep the Logs on separate RAID1 arrays for the optimal performance. If
the db size and storage requirements allow, the databases might be faster
and more 'robust' on the same RAID10 array (instead of separate RAID5
arrays).
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Robbie Niblock" <robbie@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM95gc49GHA.924@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I am specifying some hardware for an application server. It will be
> running two SQL applications - both applications will have about 20 users.
> Throughput will be relatively low with regards to transactions. Both
> software vendors would prefer their own server, but I'd rather keep both
> on the same box. Both software vendors state specifically that they need a
> seperate array for the transaction logs.
> I'm thinking of the following:
> Dual Xeon (dual core)
> 7GB RAM (1 GB for OS, 3GB for App1, 3 GB for App2)
> RAID1(2 x 74GB15k SCSI) for OS, RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App1 database,
> RAID5(3x146GB 15k SCSI) for App2 database, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App1
> transaction logs, RAID1(2x36GB15k SCSI) for App2 transaction logs.
> A couple of questions:
> Could both transaction logs sit on the same RAID array without any real
> decrease in performance?
> Would I be better going RAID 10 for the database files as opposed to RAID
> 5?
> Thanks in advance
> Robbie
>