Need to Configure a new Server

[mubs]

I'm helping a small business that needs to (forklift) upgrade their server; currently on NT 4.0 / SQL Server 6.5 on a Dull PwrEdge P2-400 + 384MB + 64/66 Pertec Raid card w/ batt. backup; 2 x 36 MB Seagate 10k Raid 1 for OS/Apps/Swap; 2 x 73MB Seagate 10k Raid 1 for data.

The server will most likely be a Dull 2600 or 4600 (need robust raid and hotswap capability). Will probably keep the raid config similar; split backplane (4+4), (2 x 36 MB Raid 1 OS/Apps/swap), (2 x 146MB Raid 1 data). Dull doesn't say anything about hot spares. Some models of their Raid controllers support Raid 10; would this be better? They business is a paperless medical office, with everything scanned / electronic faxed etc. Multiple users will be working on multiple patient's ingo, scanning EKGs in, calling up past x-rays, etc. I'm concerned Raid 5 may be kinda slow? Any comments?

My gut feel is to go with Microsoft Small Busness Server 2000. They have 17 users now and will not add more users (99.999% certainty), and there's enough headroom in SBS (max of 50). The custom application vendor has assured that the app. is compatible with SBS. This will save them some money.

Any reasons NOT to go with SBS?

 

[CougTek]

Any reasons NOT to go with SBS?

If you know how to use it... (read)

Tests by IT Week Labs show the latest version of the open-source Samba file and print server software is 2.5 times faster than Windows Server 2003 in the same role.

The news comes as many firms are grappling with the consequences of Microsoft ending support for NT4, coupled with uncertainty about when Microsoft will next update Windows. The performance difference between Windows Server 2003 and Samba 3 has increased dramatically compared with Samba 2 and Windows 2000 Server.

Samba provides file and print services to Windows PCs. It enables a Linux or Unix server to work as a file server for client PCs running Windows software. The new version also introduces support for Microsoft's Active Directory for allocating and controlling user access rights.

 

[mubs]

Coug, our hands are tied.

The app is a killer app, and it is 100% Microsoft-centric. No matter how shitty MS' technology may be, what drives business is not the technology, but the apps. I faced a similar issue in an earlier job. The functionality of the app overrides all other issues.

In this partticular case, there is no file sharing at all, and very little print sharing going on; the server is used solely for the app. The app uses SQL Server and ASP. 95% of the users are not even computer savvy; they're app savvy. They just use the app and logout at the end of the day. The business will gladly throw many $k at the hardware to get a beefier server rather than give up the app. In fact, this business is a "showcase" for the app. vendor, and is even featured in MS's website somewhere in healthcare (hard to find). That's how much their practice depends on this app.

The apps vendor currently does not support Win 2003; only Win 2000. We pretty much have to toe the line. Sorry if I keep repeating myself, but that's how much app-driven this situation is.

 

[CougTek]

Well, if you don't have the choice...why ask?

I didn't know it served what, so that's why I suggested Samba. We also use SQL in my company, but the programmer prefers to use MySQL rather than SQL Server. Cheaper and does all we need to do. Sorry to hear your situation isn't as flexible.

You should suggest them to improve their flexibility. Being a slave to a single product is never a good thing. For instance, even if it's very unlikely to happen, what would arrive if Microsoft decides to make a bold move and stop supporting Win2K in order to push customers to Win2K3? You're screwed.

 

[Fushigi]

Regarding the RAID5, with just 17 users I doubt it'd be a performance drain. The type of workload you're describing sounds like about 60-80% read; 20-40% write. RAID5 will be fine in that environment if you choose to use it.

On the servers we use at work, we've standardized on a mirrored set for the OS/app drive. The disk protection for the data side depends on the data size: not very large & we get 2 more mirrored disks; for larger data sets we use RAID5 sets.

I would suggest mirrored 15K 36GB OS/app drives + mirrored 140GB 10K data drives. If >140GB of data will be needed, do a RAID5 array of however many 140GB drives you need. And get at least 2GB RAM to make sure Windows has enough for SQL Server & for caching.

With this technology being so critical to their office, what backup method is being planned?

 

[mubs]

Thanks for the responses, folks.

Fushigi,

Their data size is ~ 30GB now. Based on past data growth, I believe 140GB would easily see them through the next 4-5 years (planned lifeterm of new equipment). You've confirmed my design that mirroring would still be best for them. Your point on the 15k OS set is well taken; I'll check SR again for heat characteristics -- it's been a long time since I looked at that.

With this technology being so critical to their office, what backup method is being planned?

Spoken like a true corporate IT person!

Backups are made nightly to an HP DLT1, with tapes rotated off site (goes home with one of the doctors). There are 3 sets of 5 tapes each that are rotated. It's been difficult to get them to this point! Drives in the mirrored sets (OS as well as data) have crapped out before. The difficulty has always been finding drives that match enough to be part of the set (Hyper Microsystems has saved my butt a couple of times). For that reason I'd prefer to have a hot spare; I don't have enough experience with RAID to know what controls use of the hot spare. Is it the Raid Controller (I'd think so)?

What's your opinion on Raid-10 and Raid-50?

Coug:

There were two main questions I asked: the hardware config, and the choice between SBS vs Win2k Server + SQL Server. There is a choice there, no? The question was never intended as an open ended "What OS shall I use?", or a Win vs Other-OS debate. If I gave that impression, I need to improve my communication skills.

We all hate to bash MS, but I don't think they'd be dumb enough to declare Win2k dead tomorrow. This app vendor (ISV) is very important to MS for they've showcased what can be done, and this app. vendor has concrete evidence of ROI (my client is proof enough).

 

[Fushigi]

I've speced PE2650s with 4 36GB 15K drives so that particular chassis has no problem from a power & heat standpoint.

I haven't dealt with RAID 10 or 50 so I can't comment on them. Every setup I've dealt with has been either mirrored or RAID5. We use RAID5 on our AS/400s; one of my machines has 65 drives in 8 RAID5 sets and has no disk performance issues. Of course, they're all 15K drives, but I max out my system bus before I out-do the combined throughput.

On a side note, we just added 8GB RAM to that machine yesterday morning, bringing it to 14GB total. I'm hoping system performance will be noticeably better as that's all I could get budget $ for until we buy a new machine next year.

Sounds like a good enough backup plan to me as long as there's a backup person when that doc goes on vacation and >1 set of tapes is offsite at the same time.

The Dell PERC RAID cards are OK. Somewhat slow when booting and, as I understand it, not the fastest at rebuilding when a drive does get replaced. But they work.

 

[Mercutio]

mubs, if you're doing Email, Exchange is probably more of a headache than it's worth. SBS is a good value for the money, if you're using all the products, but IMO exchange is a pain in the ass with a fairly high learning curve. I'd strongly suggest looking into something else, like Mercury Mail Server or Samsung Contact (nee "HP OpenMail", which was free and the frickin' Cadillac of mail servers IMO).

And yes, Dell PERC cards are pretty unexciting.

 

[mubs]

Thanks for getting back to me, Fushigi, and for your suggestions, Merc.

Fushigi, from a cost point-of-view, I've got a tentative ok for the PE 4600. It comes with a min. of 512 MB, which is what I'll buy it with, then add Crucial Dimms (4 at a time), so total will be 2.5GB, which is more than plenty for them. I read up on Raid-10 at the SR tutorial, and it looks very good. Dulls price for the 146GB 10k is exactly twice the price of the 73GB 10k, so I'm leaning towards getting 4x73GB for data and Raid-10-ing them. This configuration will tolerate two simultaneous drive failures so long as the failures are not in the same mirror set.

Merc, the only components I'll be installing off the SBS CD (if going that route) will be W2k and Sql Server 2k. That's all we need, and SBS's pricing is more attractive than buying the two separately.

The PE 4600 has decent embedded raid - Perc3/Di (128MB, battery-backup, 2xinternal channels, i960) as an option for $300. Since you guys are so terribly excited about Dull's raid controllers, what do you suggest I use instead? I'd like it to have 2 internal channels, support Raid 1, 5 and 10, have battery backup, and be 64/66. I'd be terrified of visiting mfr. websites and deciding that way; your practical experience with the product, drivers and support would be invaluable.

Many thanks!