Whats more important for an app/database server?

[tdean]

cpu speed?
mem/mobo speed?
hd speed....

we're building a new server here at work. it will be running some apps with sql and access databases. i was thinking about the new 64 bit amd chip to build this thing around. what do you guys think?

Itchy and Scratchy #1325,Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone; strikes the same rib twice but clearly 2 different notes sound. are we to believe that this is some sort of magic xylophone?

 

[Dev]

That depends... If your db is crunching numbers all the time you should invest in CPU and Memory. If you are storing lots of info, but do few calculations on that info its the HDD that counts. If you are serving apps to many clients its the memory mostly. I have not gotten to try the new AMD 64 bit cpus, but from what I hear they are good sound investments, however if you are running MS-SQL, I think that its a problem since 64-bit support is only available on the Datacenter editions of the server IIRC.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|

 

[tdean]

well, to be honest, its just a database of student names etc (i work at a school). there would probably be 5 apps served from it and 3 of them databases with ~800 student entries. at any one time, the highest amt of people accessing this server would be ~40 or 50.

so, what are you saying about the 64 bit stuff? would i have to use a different version of 2k server? what is it.... dataserver?

Itchy and Scratchy #1325,Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone; strikes the same rib twice but clearly 2 different notes sound. are we to believe that this is some sort of magic xylophone?

 

[Dev]

To be honest I am not sure what Microsoft is doing about the 64-bit stuff, perhaps 2003 Server editions support it, but I don't really know. However, for the W2K there are 3 editions of the Server version namely: Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter edition and the Datacenter edition was the only one supporting 64-bit, but even that was geared towards Intel CPU's and is not available from most regular stores, but usually came custom for the server that was ordered.
However, due to the popularity of the new AMD 64-bit I would be surprised if MS won't support it in the near future (or perhaps already does). I am also remembering hearing about 32bit backwards compatibility for the AMD CPU's, but you should probably ask someone in the CPU forum about that.

On your specific server I would invest most heavily in RAM, then CPU, then HDD, but any system you build nowadays should easily handle that load.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|

 

[jihiggs]

lots of ram and lots of hd speed.

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015

 

[Dev]

lots of hd speed

I disagree, unless the student info is _massive_. In his setup there will be relatively few R/Ws, unless I am mistaken. In fact this server does not need more than a cheap dell server. However since ~40 people connect to this server, ram and CPU becomes most important.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|

 

[schulte]

i wouldnt go with the 64....64 bit o/s are weird in terms of running win apps...
id go with a pentium 4 Hyperthreaded. the p4HT's are hella fast....its amazing the speed on those...a p4HT 2.8ghz runs about 200 bux nowadays on newegg.com.

also important for fast access is a fast FSB (frontside bus). the p4HT supports 800mhz FSB wich is the fastest around...a good p4HT mobo with 800FSB will run anywhere from 100-150

in terms of memory....DDR400 will be much faster than needed...a half gig would be fine, but a gig mite be worth it....usually runs about 90bux/half gig on newegg.com

hard drive....id recomend a wester digital or seagate....7200rpm....120 gigs shud definatly hold all the records u need.....also, id go with SATA instead of paralel ATA..faster......im not sure of SATA drive prices, but i know a WD special edition (good [-peep-]) 120gig 7200rpm drive runs less than 100 bux now on newegg.com

werd...

-schulte

 

[upec]

Access will crash if there is 50 people simultaneously using the database.

 

[tdean]

are you sure? we are very close to that...

Itchy and Scratchy #1325,Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone; strikes the same rib twice but clearly 2 different notes sound. are we to believe that this is some sort of magic xylophone?

 

[upec]

I am sure at least for Access 97. Access is not designed to handle many clients simultaneously.

 

[tdean]

i was actually curious why the developer went with access... wouldnt sql be a better option for a database?

Itchy and Scratchy #1325,Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone; strikes the same rib twice but clearly 2 different notes sound. are we to believe that this is some sort of magic xylophone?

 

[Dev]

SQL would definatly be better, but also harder to design and maintain and I guess the developer thought it easier to do in Access. Perhaps he didn't know how?

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|