Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Curious to get feedback on a server selection. the system will run mysql server, with roughly 80 machines accessing the server at all times (except night)

> PowerEdge R610 Chassis for Up to Six 2.5-Inch Hard Drives
> Primary Processor Intel® Xeon® E5620 2.4Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem
> Second Processor Intel® Xeon® E5620 2.4Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem
> 24GB Memory (6x4GB), 1333MHz Dual Ranked LV RDIMMs for 2 Procs, Optimized 
> Operating System Windows Server® 2008 R2
> RAID 1/RAID 10 for H700 or PERC 6/i Controllers
> PERC H700 Integrated RAID Controller, 512MB Cache
> 73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in Hotplug Hard Drive x 2 RAID 1
> 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in Hotplug Hard Drive x 4 RAID 10
> Energy Smart Power Supply, Redundant, 502W
> Broadcom 5709 Dual Port 1GbE NIC w/TOE iSCSI, PCIe-4

What do you guys think. Should I add / remove anything. I want to have a redundant, reliable, well optimized system.

thanks

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I'm no fan of the E5606, E5607 and E5609 as they don't have HyperThreading or TurboBoost - it's really worth going the extra yard for the E5620's, basically you're doubling your capability for less than double the price. In fact I'd rather have one E5620's than two E5606's if that helps.

You're also losing a lot of performance by going for 4 x 4GB, those CPUs are triple channel, not double, this means you should load them out in threes. For this scenario I'd their go for 6 x 4GB (3 modules per CPU) or 6/12 x 2GB (3 or 6 modules per CPU), going with the old 2/4/8/16 method means you're losing a third of your memory performance ok.

You don't mention the quantity of disks you've bought but I imagine you've gone for a R1 pair of the 73GB's for OS and four 146GB's in a R10 - if that's the case then this will be fine. Let me know if it's anything else.

Other than those things I'm sure it'll be fine, don't forget about the rails and bezel too :)

share|improve this answer
    
thanks , i have the rails and bezel added just didnt list them. yes , the 73gbs are system raid1. 4 145gb raid10 for data/trans logs. i will check into the processor and memory upgrades –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:25
1  
24GB Memory (6x4GB), 1333MHz Dual Ranked LV RDIMMs for 2 Procs, Optimized –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:30
    
That is low end. If that is for databases, this server would need 20+ discs in most scenarios to even start scratching on the cpu side. –  TomTom Apr 20 '11 at 16:31
1  
Intel® Xeon® E5620 2.4Ghz, 12M Cache,Turbo, HT, 1066MHz Max Mem X 2 –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:31
    
tomtom what do you mean? –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:32
show 4 more comments

Without knowing your MySQL usage pattern, I'd say that it's a good choice. When choosing a server for MySQL, it's very important to choose a RAID Controller with battery and a good cache as it will help avoid some data corruption scenarios in case of a bad crash. Here are some good slides about HW Optimizations for MySQL.

Hope this helps!

share|improve this answer
    
hi, thanks for the feedback. I have the raid controller with the 512MB cache/ i beleive that is battery cache (i'll have to verify upon ordering). the usage is high. it is a POS database - customer information, crm, inventory and so on. it his hit i would estimate somewhere in the area of 5k + times aday –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:03
    
@Jeff: if you've the budget for it, i'd consider at least two servers to provide redundancy. –  Marco Ramos Apr 20 '11 at 16:05
    
Don't have the budget for that, wish I did but dont have that option –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:15
    
the one im looking at now is runnings 6grand +, and we just got 2 other servers for 2.5 and 4.2 not to long ago. running into the end of the budget –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:15
    
how difficult is it to setup the replication between the two servers. the owner has a bit of an interest in it - but i have never configured something like this before and am unsure of the process –  Jeff Apr 21 '11 at 19:10
add comment

If all of your 80 clients going to actively read/write database and you expect grow in future, I would consider increase RAM up to 32GB to be able have large InnoDB cache. Bigger cache - less disk usage. 16GB sounds too small for modern prod db server - memory is relatively cheap.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks for the advice –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 16:21
    
i went 24 –  Jeff Apr 20 '11 at 17:09
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.