Please start any new threads on our new site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.

 All Forums
 General SQL Server Forums
 Database Design and Application Architecture
 Optimal Hardware for SQL Server 2008?

Author  Topic 

andrewhopkinson
Yak Posting Veteran

63 Posts

Posted - 2009-12-31 : 13:55:23
Hi, I am installing a SQL Server 2008 that is mostly for an OLAP database running reporting services, 6-10 gigs in size with a max of 30 concurent users. I am considering getting a single CPU quad core server with 8 gigs of RAM running Server 2008 x64. We also have available a 2 CPU quad-core with 4 gigs of ram running 32-bit Windows 2003. I am only considering the new single CPU machine because of the licensing per CPU issue. Can someone tell me if there is a significant difference between the two server setups, i.e. single CPU with high RAM vs dual CPU with lower RAM? Thank you.

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

38200 Posts

Posted - 2009-12-31 : 14:49:54
I'd go with the first system too. It's 64-bit, has more memory, and 2008 OS. Those three things are what I care about on a new server. The first system has 4 CPUs (virtual), so that's not too shabby especially for a small database like you've got spec'ed out.

Tara Kizer
Microsoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Server
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/

Subscribe to my blog

"Let's begin with the premise that everything you've done up until this point is wrong."
Go to Top of Page

andrewhopkinson
Yak Posting Veteran

63 Posts

Posted - 2009-12-31 : 15:58:15
I read somewhere that SQL Server tends to be harder on the CPU then RAM. I've never actually seen it peak out over 2 gigs, but I've seen a dual CPU system peak. Then again, I guess the more physical RAM you have, the less paging the server has to do?
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

38200 Posts

Posted - 2009-12-31 : 17:03:10
I don't think what you read is correct. SQL Server is designed to be a memory hog, so the more memory the better.

Tara Kizer
Microsoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Server
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/

Subscribe to my blog

"Let's begin with the premise that everything you've done up until this point is wrong."
Go to Top of Page

andrewhopkinson
Yak Posting Veteran

63 Posts

Posted - 2010-01-04 : 14:19:12
Good to know, thank you!
Go to Top of Page

tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess

38200 Posts

Posted - 2010-01-04 : 15:02:35
You're welcome.

Tara Kizer
Microsoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Server
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/

Subscribe to my blog

"Let's begin with the premise that everything you've done up until this point is wrong."
Go to Top of Page

behrman
Yak Posting Veteran

76 Posts

Posted - 2010-01-09 : 11:48:30
If there would be more connections in your environment, more processors are better. This means that two 1.6 GHZ processors will likely the better than a single 3 GHZ processor. It can help prevent a situation in which a single connection ties up the system. The multicore processors are great also. However, dual-core processors are not quite as fast as two separate processors, they are certainly cheaper to purchase and potentially cheaper to license software.

So you may need to test in your real environment, whether you need more processor or ram, but more memory and faster or more processors are always preferable.

RAQ Report: Web-based Excel-like Java reporting tool
Go to Top of Page

andrewhopkinson
Yak Posting Veteran

63 Posts

Posted - 2010-01-11 : 15:51:40
Actually, I discovered that we have a special licensing agreement that allows us to afford the per server model with unlimited CALs, therefore I will probably go for the beefier system.
Go to Top of Page
   

- Advertisement -