Upgrade to SSD or RAID HDD

Gim.E

n00b
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
16
I am researching some options for updating one of 2 Dell servers for hosting a database application. I have a Power Edge 600C (Celeron 1.8 GHz with 1 GB Ram) Windows 2000 OS and a Power Edge SC1430 (Xeon 3.0 GHz with 3 Gb RAM) Windows 2003 R2 OS.
The 600 uses IDE and SC1430 uses onboard SATA controller.

I have run the DB app on both of these machine and neither one performs at an exceptable level for endusers, i.e. blocking problem when one user runs a long process. Based on performance monitoring, it's a problem with the disk being a bottleneck.

Researching this problem has given me some options, and I'm looking for some help in making the decision or some other suggestions.

1) 3 15K RPM drives with PERC 5i controller in RAID 5
2) 1 intel SDD (SLC) with Adaptec 5405 controller (are there others?)
3) 1 intel SDD (MLC) with Adaptec 5405 controller (are there others?)

I'm not concerned with overall space on the drive as the DB file with logs is around 5 Gb with another 1 for the application. The application is supporting 15 concurrent users.
 
So would you recommend something like the intel X25-E? What type of controller? The Adaptec is a RAID controller. Do I need a RAID controller to run one drive?

I am kind of new to hardware tech.
 
So would you recommend something like the intel X25-E? What type of controller? The Adaptec is a RAID controller. Do I need a RAID controller to run one drive?

I am kind of new to hardware tech.

The onboard controller on the SC1430 should suffice. No need to get a dedicated RAID controller unless you're worried about power loss, which in that case you should probably have a UPS too. Only would 2 or more X25-Es max out the onboard controller.
 
what sort of app is this, is it in house? Possibly think of actually optimizing the application -> db interface to not make it so long / slow
 
So would you recommend something like the intel X25-E? What type of controller? The Adaptec is a RAID controller. Do I need a RAID controller to run one drive?

I am kind of new to hardware tech.

You dont need RAID controller to run single drive.
How much speed do you need for your DB? - if you dont need too much space go with SLC ( X25-E or OCZ Vertex EX)
Will common usage mean lots of writes to SSD? - if yes you should go with SLC ( X25-E or OCZ Vertex EX)

 
The database is Quickbooks, so i can't do any optimizations on the database beyond what they recommend as far as configurations.

I have studied what happens in the performance monitor when my users are working with the application and Quickbooks does alot of reading even during updates.

I've pulled the SC1430 out of service and started poking around in the case. This motherbord has 3 SATA connectors of which one is in use.

I'm going to try to use the onboard controllers.

Now the question is do I replace the existing hd and add an sdd or do I just add an sdd?

This machine is only going to run QB, so I'm not to worried about the page file being on a slower drive as there shouldn't be alot of paging. The OS windows 2003 R2 with 3gb of ram.

I want to do some bench marks today to get an idea of what performance I'm currently getting out of this drive. I'm also going to get my users to run some unit testing against this machine so I can get some idea of application bench marks.
 
.........
Now the question is do I replace the existing hd and add an sdd or do I just add an sdd?

Depends on size of your DB - if you can put whole DB with reasonable amount of spare space on SSD you should do it.
 
Benchmarks:

SC1430 w/ WD1600YS-18SHB0

3.6 MB/Sec Min
58.8 MB/Sec Max
49.3 MB/Sec Avg

13.4 m/s Access Time
99.6 MB/Sec Burst
2.4% CPU Utilization

I want to replace the WD hard drive with an Intel SSD.

Does anyone have any ideas about what speeds might be possible with an intel x25-e?

The SATA II standard says 3.0 Gb/Sec is the theorectical limit. Intel says 250 Gb/sec read speed and 170 MB/sec write speed.

Am I likely to see anything close to this in the real word?

Thanks,
 
Don't worry about the sequential read/write speeds. Very little real world use actually is sequential reads and writes, most of it is random reads and random writes. In random reads and random writes an SSD will be 1-2+ orders of magnitude faster than a mechanical disk. It will blow you away.
 
Don't worry about the sequential read/write speeds. Very little real world use actually is sequential reads and writes, most of it is random reads and random writes. In random reads and random writes an SSD will be 1-2+ orders of magnitude faster than a mechanical disk. It will blow you away.

On 4k writes its like 1000 times better...give or take.
 
I think the SSD will work for my application.

Do I just plug this thing in and load the operating system and apps on it like any other drive?

Any special configurations?
 
why not just plug in the SSD drive and move the database to the ssd;;; no need to reinstall OS
 
That is one option I've considered, and I guess it should be the first option I choose as it will be alot simplier to implement.

If it works, good. If not will moving the OS to the SSD improve performance more?

I guess these are questions answered in a lab environment before moving the machine to production.

Anybody have any experience implementing DB apps on a SSD?

I'm going to purchase the drive today, so I should have some hard info.next week some time.
 
No experience implementing SSD with a DB, but I am just starting some research to see if the R&D dept will cover a 2TB RamSan 620 for the DB project we are working on. But I won't get my hopes up.
 
you should have the DB apart from the OS in the first place.

If you have to buy the drives then go SSD.

If you already have at least 3 hds of the same size (preferably SCSI), I'd go raid 5.
 
I got a quote for a RAMSAN 20 @ $18,000.00.

That why I am looking for alternatives.

I put a rush on my order from Newegg should see my drive pretty soon.
 
I have this app currently running on a Dell 2900 with 5 1 TB (7 k) drives in RAID 5. I'm getting barely acceptable performance according to the end users, still have a blocking problem.

I've been working with Dell to optimize the array. It is currently setup as one array with 4 partitions. One option we have discussed is stripping 2 drives and RAID 5 for the other 3.

I can't really pull this one out of service until I get the current one working good enough.

I broached the subject of a lab today, so I can do some development and proof of concept before throwing stuff right into service as I have done in the past.
 
I have this app currently running on a Dell 2900 with 5 1 TB (7 k) drives in RAID 5. I'm getting barely acceptable performance according to the end users, still have a blocking problem.

I've been working with Dell to optimize the array. It is currently setup as one array with 4 partitions. One option we have discussed is stripping 2 drives and RAID 5 for the other 3.

I can't really pull this one out of service until I get the current one working good enough.

I broached the subject of a lab today, so I can do some development and proof of concept before throwing stuff right into service as I have done in the past.

I assume Dell has had you keep perfmon logs and/or use IOMeter from Intel?
 
Yeah the perfmon logs show the disk queue with 2 to 4 requests waiting during heavy use of the database app.

I've also used HD Tune to look at disk performace under load, but I think HD Tune kind of interferes with disk i/o, so it's not a fair measure of performance on a busy system.

I'm kind of feeling my way in the dark here.
 
I have this app currently running on a Dell 2900 with 5 1 TB (7 k) drives in RAID 5. I'm getting barely acceptable performance according to the end users, still have a blocking problem.

I've been working with Dell to optimize the array. It is currently setup as one array with 4 partitions. One option we have discussed is stripping 2 drives and RAID 5 for the other 3.

I can't really pull this one out of service until I get the current one working good enough.

I broached the subject of a lab today, so I can do some development and proof of concept before throwing stuff right into service as I have done in the past.

How large is the DB?
 
That is not the only application running on this machine. It's also the domain controller, provides space for video editing, intranet web server, workstation images, and general file storage. The overhead from these other apps combined with a really disk intensive database gives unacceptable performance for the database app.

During the performance monitoring and trying to troubleshoot the problem, I've increased my own understanding of how all the moving parts work together.

I'm in the process of evaluating the x25-e in a server running just the database app. Also need to evaluate workstation response, server architecture, network bandwidth, and even application useage patterns.

Basically, I've always assumed bigger is better. Well guess what that ain't always the case.

And the saga continues...

BY the way, thank you to everyone for the help as I try to sort out these issues.
 
That is not the only application running on this machine. It's also the domain controller, provides space for video editing, intranet web server, workstation images, and general file storage. The overhead from these other apps combined with a really disk intensive database gives unacceptable performance for the database app.

During the performance monitoring and trying to troubleshoot the problem, I've increased my own understanding of how all the moving parts work together.

I'm in the process of evaluating the x25-e in a server running just the database app. Also need to evaluate workstation response, server architecture, network bandwidth, and even application useage patterns.

Basically, I've always assumed bigger is better. Well guess what that ain't always the case.

And the saga continues...

BY the way, thank you to everyone for the help as I try to sort out these issues.

I'd definitely try to run each "service" off its own array rather than combining them. That's a lot of random seeking here and there.
 
If you can afford it, go with the SSD drives.
 
keep everything how it is right now; just move the database to an intel ssd drive:: BINGO; instant database performance increase
 
and how brother...

I got the drive today from Newegg, and it screams.

Install was straight forward:

Installed drive, enabled SATA port, created partion, initialized, quick format, done.

The results in ther perfmon show a blip of disk access where before it was pegging out at 100% for multiple minutes in some cases.

Running the longest report, now finishes in seconds.

The perfmon results now show the processor running ~35% while this process runs.

Wait for it....

What can I do now to help the performance (speed really is addictive) more?

I'm going to install the database manager on this disk (ssd) and maybe the OS too. It's going to be tight to get all of this on a 30 GB drive, but it maybe worth the performance gain.

The machine has Dual Core Xeon 3.0 Ghz with 6 Gb RAM.

Any thoughts?
 
and how brother...

I got the drive today from Newegg, and it screams.

Install was straight forward:

Installed drive, enabled SATA port, created partion, initialized, quick format, done.

The results in ther perfmon show a blip of disk access where before it was pegging out at 100% for multiple minutes in some cases.

Running the longest report, now finishes in seconds.

The perfmon results now show the processor running ~35% while this process runs.

Wait for it....

What can I do now to help the performance (speed really is addictive) more?

I'm going to install the database manager on this disk (ssd) and maybe the OS too. It's going to be tight to get all of this on a 30 GB drive, but it maybe worth the performance gain.

The machine has Dual Core Xeon 3.0 Ghz with 6 Gb RAM.

Any thoughts?


To get more speed: Buy a couple more, throw it on an array... bam
 
and how brother...

I got the drive today from Newegg, and it screams.

Install was straight forward:

Installed drive, enabled SATA port, created partion, initialized, quick format, done.

The results in ther perfmon show a blip of disk access where before it was pegging out at 100% for multiple minutes in some cases.

Running the longest report, now finishes in seconds.

The perfmon results now show the processor running ~35% while this process runs.

Wait for it....

What can I do now to help the performance (speed really is addictive) more?

I'm going to install the database manager on this disk (ssd) and maybe the OS too. It's going to be tight to get all of this on a 30 GB drive, but it maybe worth the performance gain.

The machine has Dual Core Xeon 3.0 Ghz with 6 Gb RAM.

Any thoughts?

RAID 10 with dedicated controller.
 
and how brother...

I got the drive today from Newegg, and it screams.

Install was straight forward:

Installed drive, enabled SATA port, created partion, initialized, quick format, done.

The results in ther perfmon show a blip of disk access where before it was pegging out at 100% for multiple minutes in some cases.

Running the longest report, now finishes in seconds.

The perfmon results now show the processor running ~35% while this process runs.

Wait for it....

What can I do now to help the performance (speed really is addictive) more?

I'm going to install the database manager on this disk (ssd) and maybe the OS too. It's going to be tight to get all of this on a 30 GB drive, but it maybe worth the performance gain.

The machine has Dual Core Xeon 3.0 Ghz with 6 Gb RAM.

Any thoughts?

I always install the OS on a separate array from everything else. And for Databases I put the Database on one array and the Transaction Logs on another. (this means my Database server has 3 RAID1 arrays, it is actually faster this way than with 1 RAID1 for OS and one RAID10 for DB and Logs, I tested it) With SQL at least your fastest drives should go to the Transaction Logs.

Putting your OS onto the same drive/array as your database will slow down your database. And really with servers the OS doesn't need a fast drive, it should not be accessed very often at all. (your boot time may increase, but who cares?)

Also it sounds like you are running a business environment without any RAID? Personally I wouldn't do this because a drive loss for any reason would mean down time and data loss to last backup. However in a small enough shop where the time lost re-entering the data isn't significant I guess this could be ok.
 
1 X25-E SSD = around 12 SAS 15k disks (on RAID0!)

In most database environment, throughput it completely irrelevant. I'd suggest ignoring any posts in this thread about throughput. Maxing out the controller isn't an issue until you are talking around 30k IOPS. Even then, there is no throughput bottleneck.
 
I've got an update on this project.

I've been running the Intel x-25e with the QB app, and no surprise the disk bottle neck goes away.

The bottleneck is now the processor Dual Core Xeon 3.0 Ghz.

I've been reading about and speced a couple of machines using the Xeon E5520 processor from Dell (Power Edge T410), but the cases are so large. For such limited functionality in a machine, 1 DB app for 18 users, it seems I should be able to get something with a smaller footprint.

Note: I've got another thread about building a machine, what's the edicate about multiple threads?

The case used in one of the suggested builds has a much smaller footprint than anything I've found at Dell, but the cost is about the same.

Or am I too hung up on buying a server? Maybe a "workstation" would work as well.

In any case, whatever I get will have the SSD running the DB app with the OS running on HDD (7k or 10k sata).

Will the i7 CPUs make the big a difference?
 
I've got an update on this project.

I've been running the Intel x-25e with the QB app, and no surprise the disk bottle neck goes away.

The bottleneck is now the processor Dual Core Xeon 3.0 Ghz.

I've been reading about and speced a couple of machines using the Xeon E5520 processor from Dell (Power Edge T410), but the cases are so large. For such limited functionality in a machine, 1 DB app for 18 users, it seems I should be able to get something with a smaller footprint.

Note: I've got another thread about building a machine, what's the edicate about multiple threads?

The case used in one of the suggested builds has a much smaller footprint than anything I've found at Dell, but the cost is about the same.

Or am I too hung up on buying a server? Maybe a "workstation" would work as well.

In any case, whatever I get will have the SSD running the DB app with the OS running on HDD (7k or 10k sata).

Will the i7 CPUs make the big a difference?

Yeah the i7s are very very quick.
 
Back
Top