Hardware for SPS 2003?

I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram. The
server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.

The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read that
SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move from
WSS to SPS?

Thnaks
Ron.

tedteng
Thu May 19 19:50:06 CDT 2005

The configuration of this server hardware seems ok for signle server sps
while it largely depends on your portal usage.

On ms SPS home page, I remember there is a capacity planning white paper
which may address your concerns.

br

ted

"Capt_Ron" wrote:

> I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram. The
> server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.
>
> The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read that
> SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move from
> WSS to SPS?
>
> Thnaks
> Ron.

ParagSinkar
Thu May 19 21:21:02 CDT 2005

Here are the links Ted is mentioning about

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/office/sps2003/plan/cappisps.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/wss/2/all/adminguide/en-us/stsb07.mspx

Thanks

"Capt_Ron" wrote:

> I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram. The
> server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.
>
> The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read that
> SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move from
> WSS to SPS?
>
> Thnaks
> Ron.

Shane
Fri May 20 16:09:10 CDT 2005

The real question is how stressed out is your server now? What else are you
using it for?

--
Shane Young
http://www.lucruminc.com

I will be presenting at SharePoint Advisor Live!
Stop by and say hello. I will also be at the
http://www.SharePointSolutions.com booth


"Capt_Ron" <monbleau(notthis)@palmbeach.k12.fl.us.NotThisEither> wrote in
message news:8ECE9278-50CA-4715-AB68-206D3B55D86C@microsoft.com...
>I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram.
>The
> server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.
>
> The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read that
> SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move
> from
> WSS to SPS?
>
> Thnaks
> Ron.

Steven
Sun May 22 06:53:48 CDT 2005

I'm not sure what you read, but both WSS and SPS would not be what I would
call CPU intensive. You are not likely to see much stress on the cpu in
either version.


On 19/5/05 18:43, in article
8ECE9278-50CA-4715-AB68-206D3B55D86C@microsoft.com, "Capt_Ron"
<monbleaunotthis@palmbeach.k12.fl.us.NotThisEither> wrote:

> I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram. The
> server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.
>
> The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read that
> SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move from
> WSS to SPS?
>
> Thnaks
> Ron.

Manfred
Sun May 22 07:23:50 CDT 2005

That said I still wouldn't personally have any database system running on
Raid-5.

I would much prefer to see this amount of storage divided into at least two
sets of Raid-1 (with at least the SQL Server on Raid-1).

I'm used to WSS where that would be it. What effect does the Index Server in
SPS 2003 have on the above suggestion? If you are using Index Server for
more than just indexing local drives, what sort of disk system would you
need for it ?


Manfred

"Steven Collier [MVP]" <steven.collier@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:BEB6315C.10AD%steven.collier@mvps.org...
> I'm not sure what you read, but both WSS and SPS would not be what I would
> call CPU intensive. You are not likely to see much stress on the cpu in
> either version.
>
>
> On 19/5/05 18:43, in article
> 8ECE9278-50CA-4715-AB68-206D3B55D86C@microsoft.com, "Capt_Ron"
> <monbleaunotthis@palmbeach.k12.fl.us.NotThisEither> wrote:
>
> > I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram.
The
> > server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.
> >
> > The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read
that
> > SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move
from
> > WSS to SPS?
> >
> > Thnaks
> > Ron.
>

Steven
Sun May 22 16:35:15 CDT 2005

Without much idea of what the content being indexed is like, and how many
searches are being performed against it you couldn't really predict anything
detailed.

In broad terms SharePoint's search engine doesn't make unreasonable demands
that can't be easily met by standard disk systems today. You should start by
reviewing the PAG as this has been tested ...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7CDC1F2D-F550-49E0-
9B74-318DA11BA1B4&displaylang=en



On 22/5/05 13:23, in article ecaVdksXFHA.3164@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
"Manfred" <Malnfred@nospam.com> wrote:

> That said I still wouldn't personally have any database system running on
> Raid-5.
>
> I would much prefer to see this amount of storage divided into at least two
> sets of Raid-1 (with at least the SQL Server on Raid-1).
>
> I'm used to WSS where that would be it. What effect does the Index Server in
> SPS 2003 have on the above suggestion? If you are using Index Server for
> more than just indexing local drives, what sort of disk system would you
> need for it ?
>
>
> Manfred
>
> "Steven Collier [MVP]" <steven.collier@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:BEB6315C.10AD%steven.collier@mvps.org...
>> I'm not sure what you read, but both WSS and SPS would not be what I would
>> call CPU intensive. You are not likely to see much stress on the cpu in
>> either version.
>>
>>
>> On 19/5/05 18:43, in article
>> 8ECE9278-50CA-4715-AB68-206D3B55D86C@microsoft.com, "Capt_Ron"
>> <monbleaunotthis@palmbeach.k12.fl.us.NotThisEither> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a new Dell server with dual 3.2 Xeon with 1MB cache and 4GB Ram.
> The
>>> server has 300GB data storage on a RAID 5 array.
>>>
>>> The server runs Windows 2003, SQL 2000 std, WSS, and IIS. I've read
> that
>>> SPS 2003 is very CPU intensive. Will this cause bottlenecks if I move
> from
>>> WSS to SPS?
>>>
>>> Thnaks
>>> Ron.
>>
>
>