MS SQL Server with RAID - should I get a Server or Desktop ?

Crazy_Eddy

Crazy_Eddy

Staff member
Super Mod
An organisation I know is looking at getting a Server.

Nothing will be assembled, only branded - most likely a Dell.

Usage : an MS SQL database with ~7 users accessing it, and a Tally server.

Key requirements :

- RAID 1 array

- Reliability

Does this warrant getting a Server or is a Desktop enough?

I'm guessing a Hardware RAID card would be helpful here, but AFAIK only Servers come equipped with those.

Another plus point with a server would be Redundant PSUs.

Any other pros with the Server that I'm overlooking?

Thanks in advance! :)
 
Crazy_Eddy said:
An organisation I know is looking at getting a Server.

Nothing will be assembled, only branded - most likely a Dell.

Usage : an MS SQL database with ~7 users accessing it, and a Tally server.

Key requirements :

- RAID 1 array

- Reliability

Does this warrant getting a Server or is a Desktop enough?

I'm guessing a Hardware RAID card would be helpful here, but AFAIK only Servers come equipped with those.

Another plus point with a server would be Redundant PSUs.

Any other pros with the Server that I'm overlooking?

Thanks in advance! :)
Click to expand...

Meager requirements to call for a server setup. A decent enough desktop would work fine. However, I am not sure how many h/w vendors would sell you a h/w RAID ready box or even customize one for you. Another issue with desktops is the PSU, would they give you a beefier PS?U to handle the excess load?

If branded and reliable stuff, and priority support are critical factors I'd suggest the Dell Poweredge 110/310 at approx 300/600 USD with their Perc100 controller card (Software RAID) included. Decent enough for your requirements.
 
sarang said:
I am not sure how many h/w vendors would sell you a h/w RAID ready box or even customize one for you.

Another issue with desktops is the PSU, would they give you a beefier PS?U to handle the excess load?
Click to expand...

Yep doesn't look like Desktops - even Business versions - come with a H/w RAID controller.

The PSU shouldn't be a worry, its usually a decent ~300W, which should be ok considering there's no dedicated GPU card.

If branded and reliable stuff, and priority support are critical factors I'd suggest the Dell Poweredge 110/310 at approx 300/600 USD with their Perc100 controller card (Software RAID) included. Decent enough for your requirements.
Click to expand...

They got a sample quote for the Poweredge R410 with a Perc H700. Was just looking at where I could cut out the fat.

Will look at the x110/310 also.

Any idea on the cons with Software RAID?

asingh said:
Is the SQL server for dev. work or you will map a production application to it.
Click to expand...

They'll be using a production app with it.
 
a hardware RAID would be efficient one as it would reduce the load on the OS for software RAID configuration. i think HP provides some datacenters for small and medium organisations in this range.
 
Crazy_Eddy said:
Yep doesn't look like Desktops - even Business versions - come with a H/w RAID controller.

The PSU shouldn't be a worry, its usually a decent ~300W, which should be ok considering there's no dedicated GPU card.

They got a sample quote for the Poweredge R410 with a Perc H700. Was just looking at where I could cut out the fat.

Will look at the x110/310 also.

Any idea on the cons with Software RAID?

They'll be using a production app with it.
Click to expand...

No issues with the S/W raid except lower performance. Its cost effective. For as small setup as you mentioned it should be fine. R410 might be an overkill for <10 user SQL Server/Tally setup? You are not gonna run any BI/mining are you?
 
No nothing, its just a simple hotel management system.

That too I guess the performance hit is usually if its running parity checks like in RAID 5.

What about flexibility/reliability? Software RAID I hear tends to be a bit flaky.
 
m-jeri said:
Ok one thing.

For a 7 user scenario why MS SQL Server?. MS Access will do the work r8?
Click to expand...
At times multiple concurrent connections cause MS-Access to halt. Also placing the DB on network drives (centralized location) can cause the pipes to choke.
 
^^^

Last thurs i did a feasibility study between SQL server and MS access for a medical device(standalone/network mode). Not HIS/RIS system.

Its a very moot idea to implement using SQL server when very few users are accessing the database. Seen system reports with 30~50 users. no issues/bottlenecks at all.

And also if that is a revenue generating project MS Access means less cost. part of office suite. Also better GUI support. no drop tables.

For us at any time no more than 5 users will be accessing the specified medical device. so it MS access is chosen. Thats why asked the @op regarding this. 7 users....

Also i seen another system available to me and there was this stress test 10 concurrent user access. it was pass. dont think the system halted. atleast no log was generated.
 
@m-jeri: Correct observations. However a little perspective is in order here.

1. If the s/w is already developed I doubt the OP or the organization who's calling the shots on the choice of DB

2. For people complaining about cost factor whole comparing Access/MSSQL there's always SQL Express which BTW works wonderful in my experience.

3. Scale is a serious pain in the wrong place when dealing with access DBs. The architecture is designed for a really small system and if the org grows beyond a few tens of users access will start showing its colors. Laboratory conditions and real-life scenarios are a lot different.

4. For any serious business a DB that can scale, can be extended to beyond a single box if needed, can be safely externalized, has industry standard authentication/authorizations semantics built OOTB is a must and I'd hardly dare recommend anyone an MS-Access DB on these grounds.

I'd rather go out on a limb and say build around MySQL if cost is still such a concern.
 
m-jeri said:
^^^

Last thurs i did a feasibility study between SQL server and MS access for a medical device(standalone/network mode). Not HIS/RIS system.

Its a very moot idea to implement using SQL server when very few users are accessing the database. Seen system reports with 30~50 users. no issues/bottlenecks at all.

And also if that is a revenue generating project MS Access means less cost. part of office suite. Also better GUI support. no drop tables.

For us at any time no more than 5 users will be accessing the specified medical device. so it MS access is chosen. Thats why asked the @op regarding this. 7 users....

Also i seen another system available to me and there was this stress test 10 concurrent user access. it was pass. dont think the system halted. atleast no log was generated.
Click to expand...
mjeri, am saying it from a large scale perspective. Though the OP has not told us the scale of the backend requirement and/or the application size -- MS - Access hardly stands much of a chance. It is not a proper client server architecture DB. Also I had done quite a bit of research some time back regarding MS-Access as a centralized DB. I noticed that when the tables structures are really large and when you get near the threshold of 2GB, the DB starts to show performance gaps. When this happens options drastically are not available, and a migration to a more formal RDBMS system is needed. Also MS-Access has this weird way to choke the network pipes. I clearly remember a situation where filters were not applied on the server but on the client side. So the full, unfiltered load is sent down the pipes and to the client.

Of course for RAD and low cost factor MS-Access does the job. :)
 
-= Use commodity hardware, high end servers are not worth the price.

-= Altogether Avoid raid(hardware or software), hardware raid is expensive. And software raids have to be rebuilt everytime a disk fails which causes lot of downtime. Instead, I would advice you to invest in a dedicated ssd for running database.

-= Backup,Backup & Backup: make sure you have atleast 3copies of your data at any point of time, out of which atleast one of them has to be off-site. And decide frequency of backup based on how often the data changes.
Just my two cents:cool2:
 
@sarang

I agree.

But just because its a DB we dont have to go fo MS SQL always, thats all i was saying :). And I was talking abt implementing that back end for a US modality scanner, For a leading brand in USA/EU. So usage limits and constraints were considered. MS Access is a very robust one for small scale one.

@asing.

Yeas. for large scale MS Access is a very bad choice.

He told its a 7 user, Accounting back end. :S.

Anyways this has gone too much to S/W choice rather than the h/w query it meant.eeeek. sorry to @op.
 
Back
Top