"Bruce Lester" <bruce_lester@email.com> wrote in message
news:3mJZb.31040$4o.45286@attbi_s52...
> I am looking for advice on what people recommend for a SQL-2000 EE data
> warehouse server.
>
> The box would be dedicated to nightly ETL from DB2, generated daily
reports,
> and ad-hoc queries. We hope to route most queries through Analysis
> Services.
>
> We have a $ 20k budget for hardware and around 200 potential users (20
> concurrent at peaks) of the data warehouse.
>
> Are people using 64-bit boxes/windows/SQL?
>
> Thanks
>
>

"Chuck Conover" <cconover@commspeed.net> wrote in message
news:1077396476.840571@news.commspeed.net...
> Bruce,
> Let me give you benefit of our top client's experience with hardware
for
> an SQL 2000 server website. Disclaimer: we recommended and set up site 1
in
> June of 2001 for the customer, but did not recommend the hardware for site
> 2; that was done by their internal staff.
>
> Site 1: Total cost $12,000 USD
> web server - Dual 800MHz processors, Single 9GB 10K RPM drive, 2GB
> RAM - Windows 2000 Server
> database/report server - Dual 922MHz processors, 5 Seagate Cheetah
> 18GB 15K RPM drives in RAID 5, 4GB RAM - Windows 2000 server
>
> Site 2: Total cost $80,000 USD
> web server - Dual 2.8GHz processors, Dual Seagate 18GB 15K RPM
> drives in RAID 1, 2GB RAM - Windows 2003 server
> report server - same as web server
> database server - Quad processor 2.5GHz Xeon processors, 4 36GB
15K
> RPM drives in 2 RAID 1 configs, 4 GB RAM - Windows 2003 Enterprise
Edition -
> holds the db logs
> Dell powervault with 6 36GB 15K RPM drives in RAID 5 to hold the
> database
>
> Now the kicker. Both sites run EXACTLY the same speed. They are not
slow,
> they are both very fast, but, much to the chagrin of the customer, they
are
> just the same speed. The key is that both sites obviously have the same
> bottleneck. The slowest component will be the bottleneck of any system.
In
> this case, we believe the bottlenecks are either RAM on the database
server,
> the RAID 5 drives that hold the database or both. For site 2, the
> customer's internal staff was sure that putting the OS one one drive
system,
> the database log on another drive system, and the database itself on the 6
> drive RAID would give a huge speed boost. Like I said, it did nothing for
> speed.
>
> So, they key is to spend your money on RAM and drives, make your drive
> configuration at least a 5-drive RAID, buy the fast 15K RPM drives, and
> don't worry about processor speed much (although I still recommend dual
> processors).
>
> Hope this helps,
> Best regards,
> Chuck Conover
> www.TechnicalVideos.net
>
>
>
> "Bruce Lester" <bruce_lester@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3mJZb.31040$4o.45286@attbi_s52...
> > I am looking for advice on what people recommend for a SQL-2000 EE data
> > warehouse server.
> >
> > The box would be dedicated to nightly ETL from DB2, generated daily
> reports,
> > and ad-hoc queries. We hope to route most queries through Analysis
> > Services.
> >
> > We have a $ 20k budget for hardware and around 200 potential users (20
> > concurrent at peaks) of the data warehouse.
> >
> > Are people using 64-bit boxes/windows/SQL?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
>

"Chuck Conover" <cconover@commspeed.net> wrote in message
news:1077396476.840571@news.commspeed.net...
> Bruce,
> Let me give you benefit of our top client's experience with hardware
for
> an SQL 2000 server website. Disclaimer: we recommended and set up site 1
in
> June of 2001 for the customer, but did not recommend the hardware for site
> 2; that was done by their internal staff.
>
> Site 1: Total cost $12,000 USD
> web server - Dual 800MHz processors, Single 9GB 10K RPM drive, 2GB
> RAM - Windows 2000 Server
> database/report server - Dual 922MHz processors, 5 Seagate Cheetah
> 18GB 15K RPM drives in RAID 5, 4GB RAM - Windows 2000 server
>
> Site 2: Total cost $80,000 USD
> web server - Dual 2.8GHz processors, Dual Seagate 18GB 15K RPM
> drives in RAID 1, 2GB RAM - Windows 2003 server
> report server - same as web server
> database server - Quad processor 2.5GHz Xeon processors, 4 36GB
15K
> RPM drives in 2 RAID 1 configs, 4 GB RAM - Windows 2003 Enterprise
Edition -
> holds the db logs
> Dell powervault with 6 36GB 15K RPM drives in RAID 5 to hold the
> database
>
> Now the kicker. Both sites run EXACTLY the same speed. They are not
slow,
> they are both very fast, but, much to the chagrin of the customer, they
are
> just the same speed. The key is that both sites obviously have the same
> bottleneck. The slowest component will be the bottleneck of any system.
In
> this case, we believe the bottlenecks are either RAM on the database
server,
> the RAID 5 drives that hold the database or both. For site 2, the
> customer's internal staff was sure that putting the OS one one drive
system,
> the database log on another drive system, and the database itself on the 6
> drive RAID would give a huge speed boost. Like I said, it did nothing for
> speed.

>
> So, they key is to spend your money on RAM and drives, make your drive
> configuration at least a 5-drive RAID, buy the fast 15K RPM drives, and
> don't worry about processor speed much (although I still recommend dual
> processors).
>
> Hope this helps,
> Best regards,
> Chuck Conover
> www.TechnicalVideos.net
>
>
>
> "Bruce Lester" <bruce_lester@email.com> wrote in message
> news:3mJZb.31040$4o.45286@attbi_s52...
> > I am looking for advice on what people recommend for a SQL-2000 EE data
> > warehouse server.
> >
> > The box would be dedicated to nightly ETL from DB2, generated daily
> reports,
> > and ad-hoc queries. We hope to route most queries through Analysis
> > Services.
> >
> > We have a $ 20k budget for hardware and around 200 potential users (20
> > concurrent at peaks) of the data warehouse.
> >
> > Are people using 64-bit boxes/windows/SQL?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
>
>