Yair
Sun Apr 30 08:32:30 CDT 2006
First, thanks for your replies dwb, I really appreciate it :)
"dwb" <parc_erom_tey@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OxoYVo$UGHA.5808@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yair Nissan wrote:
>
> > What would you propose except for more memory for sql server? Which
> > configuration would you recommend for the web server?
>
> Well, it's kind of a "how long is a piece of string" question isn't it
> - buy the best your budget allows.
I was hoping to avoid this answer since everything is this business is "the
best your budget allows" ....
I'll try to rephrase my question again, for such a system, what would you
consider to be a sufficient configuration, with the lowest cost?
The system was originally written using .Net framework 1.1 and SQL Server
2000. We made some patches to convert it to a .Net 64 bit and SQL Server
2005 (fully tested and working), so as a matter of fact we don't have to
use the 64-bit technology, I just thought that since we're setting it up
from scratch (we are going to buy the new servers) we should use the latest
technology possible, plus I prefer the process memory management of the 64
bit server. If there's a 32 bit configuration which would be suffient and
much cheaper we would go for it ...
>
> I can't honestly give you an exact answer - it depends on how your
> application works - ie is it CPU intensive, or memory intensive - you
> mention it caching requests, so presumably that puts some load back
> onto the IIS server to check and maintain that cache.
>
> For SQL , more memory is always going to help - for IIS you may never
> use all the memory but get bogged down on the CPU.
>
> Have you been able to do any performance testing on your environment so
> far - perhaps in development or a test area to get a feel for how many
> requests it can handle and where the issues start to show themselves?
> >
> > "dwb" <parc_erom_tey@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:egwiJJ$UGHA.5884@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > > Yair Nissan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am trying to decide on a hardware configuration for a system.
> > > > The system includes one main DB (SQL Server 2000 / 2005), IIS and
> > > > several very low resources consuming applications.
> > > >
> > > > The system is very simple - a client makes a request to a web
> > > > service, the web service runs a set of up to 2 SELECT queries and
> > > > one UPDATE on two specific tables in the DB, formats the data and
> > > > returns a response to the client. A heavy set of the UPDATE and
> > > > INSERT is made on a daily basis at off-pick hours. A small amount
> > > > of INSERT occurs every now and then. The DB itself contains only
> > > > three tables which are heavily indexed. Most of the queries are
> > > > done on a single table which has about 2.5 million rows, and is
> > > > growing by about 20,000 rows daily.
> > > >
> > > > The tricky part is the volume of requests to the IIS : we are
> > > > expecting about 200 millions requests per day. We have a caching
> > > > mechanism implemented in our web application which reduces access
> > > > to the DB by about 25%.
> > > >
> > > > The low resources applications would probably run on the same
> > > > server as the DB.
> > > >
> > > > I originally thought of two servers : one 2*XEON with 4GB RAM
> > > > running Windows 2003 Standard x64 with SQL Server 2005 x64 for
> > > > the DB - and a quad of XEONS with 8GB RAM running Windows 2003
> > > > Enterprise x64 acting as the IIS.
> > > >
> > > > Any recommendations and insights would be more than welcomed.
> > >
> > > My initial thought would be you might get better performance having
> > > the SQL box as the higher spec - especially on the memory front -
> > > the more SQL has in memory the faster it's going to be.
> > >
> > > The IIS box (but not IIS) might be a bottle neck, but it depends on
> > > how complex the formatting etc you mention is.
>
>
>
> --
>