I want to build a hypothetical SQL database server system. Altghough in real life questions such as number of users would be a critical factor, let's just assume I have 150 users with about half that many being concurrent users. Here was my original thought but I am open for corrections Unisys Es7000, 16 socket dual core intel 3.4Gz, 128 gb RAM 50 GB HDD, 8TB SAN Raid-10yes, no why?
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Microsoft SQL Server 2008 CTPS
Hello. My name is XXXXXXX. X will be your Primary Care Technician and I can assist you with your question.
Yes. That configuration would support 10x that many concurrent connections.
And the RAID 10 just knocks it out of the park.
Any other ideas?
Is 100% uptime critical?
What you have designed here is the ultimate SQL server, really.
2 is always better than one... not that there's much of a chance that the Unisys Hardware would have a critical failure. It's non-zero, only because everything is... so I don't see how you could put together a better server than that.
(talking about clustering)
I do have one suggestion for the SAN.
If there are enough disks to do this, I would partition a separate LUN on it's own spindles for Database Logs.
Since they are written sequentially.
Yes, and less downtime the better of course.
Am I paying for it?
I mean... does the cost matter?
If I'm paying for it - I think I would have enough confidence in the single Unisys server.
High availability is their niche.
Well, and parallel processing and other things.
Now that I'm thinking about it... technically, too. I'd prefer not to have it clustered if I don't have to because of the added complexity.
I'd have a really hard time justifying clustered Unisys servers for anything but "life critical" applications - and those a few.
and those are few, I mean.
Like an EEG system, air traffic, etc.
20+ Years Experience in Field. MCSE, ICCP, CNE, Greenbelt