Re: SQL Server 2000 Hardware
From: Keith Kratochvil (sqlguy.back2u_at_comcast.net)
Date: 08/10/04
- Next message: Keith Kratochvil: "Re: SQL server 2000 Hardware"
- Previous message: Homer: "SQL server 2000 Hardware"
- In reply to: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: SQL Server 2000 Hardware"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:26:50 -0500
SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition supports 2GB of RAM. If you want to use
more than that you will have to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise. You will
probably want to get at least a dual processor machine. Many of the current
dual processor servers are hyperthreaded so it will look like 4CPUs to SQL
Server (but you will only have to purchase two per-processor licenses if you
go the per processor licesing route). It is generally recommended to have a
RAID volume for your database files, a separate RAID volume for the log
files (if this is a highly transactional system), and a RAID volume for
tempdb. You will of course need a RAID array for the OS partition. You can
probably get by with three -- one for the data, one for the logs, and one
for the OS + tempdb. If you don't have lots of transactions happening you
could probably combine the log with the OS and tempdb partition.
If you want to spend lots of money to insure availability you could go the
clustered route. This will mean that you have to purchase two copies of
Windows that support clustering. You will also need to purchase appropriate
hardware to support clustering. Finally, you will have to go with SQL
Server Enterprise. This adds up quickly.
The alternative is to purchase a redundant machine. Some of the newer
machines have hot-swappable RAID RAM, dual (redundant) power supplies. I
have heard that some of the higher end multiprocessor machines even allow
one processor to fail without bringing down the entire system. I don't want
to tell you which approach to use, but this is often sufficient.
Is this a brand new system that you are rolling out, or are you upgrading
the hardware and rolling it out to more users? I ask the question because
if it is an upgrade you should have some idea of how well your current
hardware performs and where your bottlenecks are.
-- Keith <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:317401c47ec1$e03368f0$a301280a@phx.gbl... > Keith > > I see your point. > > It will be a database with approximately 300 users. It > has to be available 24/7 and reliable, so will require > RAID, but which one? Cluster, I don't know if the shared > info goes down we lose availability? > > Thanks..... > > >-----Original Message----- > >What kind of vehicle do I need to go on a family > vacation? > > > >Difficult to answer? So is your question. > >Win2k3 and SQL Server 2000 will run on some pretty > simple hardware. > > > >You mention that the machine has to be "totally > reliable." > >You have many options. One highly redundant machine or > a cluster of > >machines. How much performance do you need? Will this > be a small database > >server driving a website or will it be a system that has > to support > >thousands of users running various applications? > > > >-- > >Keith > > > > > >"Homer" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in > message > >news:2b6401c47e1a$7cbe9210$a401280a@phx.gbl... > >> Hi can anyone tell me what hardware I would need to run > >> SQL server 2000 on Windows Server 2003. > >> > >> It has to be totally realiable and so would need a raid > >> system or similar? > >> > >> Thanks.... > > > >. > >
- Next message: Keith Kratochvil: "Re: SQL server 2000 Hardware"
- Previous message: Homer: "SQL server 2000 Hardware"
- In reply to: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: SQL Server 2000 Hardware"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
