Recommended Posts

Hi,
 
We need a server for a small businesse with less than 10 client workstations. It runs a database for trucking dispatch (Axon). We plan to install a Windows 8.1 Pro machine to act as the server. Do we really need ECC memory for this? Are the chances to get errors caused by memory so low that we shouldn't worry about this?
 
I mean even Synology, a well reputable manufacturer, don't use ECC memory in their "Small and medium business" line... https://www.synology.com/en-us/products/ If you look at the specs, they only do use ECC in their "Large Scale Business" line. So what? Small and medium businesses don't care about their data? Or is it that Synology considers that correctable memory errors don't happen to/affect small/medium businesses?
 
According to the following study, "About a third of machines and over 8% of DIMMs in our fleet saw at least one correctable error per year." 
 

for 10 workstations do you really need to bother with a Server? Can you run that DB in Azure or other Cloud?

 

if you really need to use a Server don't use a Consumer OS (Windows 8.x) but a Server OS (Windows Server).

The real question is will your server be mission critical? What happens if the server was to go down?

If it's mission critical then ECC is a must, if it's not and you have spare RAM or can get spare RAM or do without some slots or even work for a few days until it's fixed then ECC probably isn't worth getting.

  • Like 2

Windows 8.1 isn't tuned and geared to run a database server..Yeah, IT'LL WORK, but it isn't recommended. If you are using a DATABASE Server then ECC will help with data corruption. For a company of 10, this should be cloud based with internet failover. 

To specify: We want to use Windows 8.1 Pro cause it can handle 20 users logged in, with a maximum of 16384 open files per session. We have less then 10 users so it should work OK right? Also the dispatch server software uses it's own database system. So we don't need SQL or anything.

I've just checked Azure. It looks like pricey no? 1 Windows virtual machine with 4 cores, 7 GB RAM : 2640$ US per year. And there's maybe other charges I didn't forsee.

 

Their VPN isn't exactly cheap either.

I've just checked Azure. It looks like pricey no? 1 Windows virtual machine with 4 cores, 7 GB RAM : 2640$ US per year. And there's maybe other charges I didn't forsee.

 

Depending on what you require you could pay as little as $15 a month for a database up to 250gb in size: Azure SQL Databases

ECC is going to protect you from corrupt memory issues. Is the applications running on this box mission critical? For instance, is this storing accounting information for the whole business and a corrupt memory address flipping a dollar value something that could be disastrous for the business? The problem with memory corruption is that it doesn't always lead to a machine crash. It could just silently pollute data. Obviously, this isn't a major issue on consumer systems where they are rarely on long enough or storing mission critical data in an authoritative fashion.

 

for 10 workstations do you really need to bother with a Server? Can you run that DB in Azure or other Cloud?

 

if you really need to use a Server don't use a Consumer OS (Windows 8.x) but a Server OS (Windows Server).

Azure is a better choice for this size workload!? Azure is going to cost them more in 3 months than it would cost them to put this on prem for the better part of 3 years, at least. Not including the additional complexity of the setup increasing their support costs as well.

 

On Prem is the best option here...

Depending on what you require you could pay as little as $15 a month for a database up to 250gb in size: Azure SQL Databases

I haven't looked at their requirements but does that database size only include MDF / NDF's (the actual data) or is that also including the log files? because if its also the logs then that could get expensive fast... depending on how much you use it... It's not an option for me with multiple terabyte data stores with confidential and regulation protected data that isn't allowed "in the cloud" so I never looked at it :rofl:

This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen before it's even been fully conceptualized. Like others have mentioned, look at Azure instead. It will work much better and most likely cost less in the long run...

Would you please explain to me how it would cost less? I don't understand. Would you please give me an estimate on how it would cost approximately? Remember, it's not an SQL database. They have their own proprietary database system.

Hello,

 

In addition to looking at this from a technical side, what about a financial one?

 

How much extra does the cost of ECC RAM add to the server build?

 

How much would it cost the business to without the database for a half-day?  What about a full-day? 

 

For that matter, can the business be run without access to the database for that long, or is having it down a major impact on revenue generation?

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

Azure is a better choice for this size workload!? Azure is going to cost them more in 3 months than it would cost them to put this on prem for the better part of 3 years, at least. Not including the additional complexity of the setup increasing their support costs as well.

 

On Prem is the best option here...

 

i don't know the size workload, do you? :)

 

I have costumers that went into a Cloud provider here in Portugal for their DB because in the long run it was cheaper; since those costumers had less then 10 employees the expenses for running a BD in the cloud were less then buying hardware/software, maintenance, backups, redundancy and upgrades. And it works great, till this day (22/05/2015).

 

On premisses is the best of course, but then again one has to calculate the expenses (hardware/software, maintenance, backups, redundancy and upgrades) and see if it pays for small business with only 10 employees; sometimes it doesn't.

 

OP: if the DB is propertary you can still use a cloud provider, only not Azure.

Would you please explain to me how it would cost less? I don't understand. Would you please give me an estimate on how it would cost approximately? Remember, it's not an SQL database. They have their own proprietary database system.

 

You can get 2 core, 3.5GHz VM from Azure for $110/month. You will be guaranteed it won't go down unless for maintenance which they generally give you plenty of advance notice with exact dates and times when the data center(s) where your VM's are hosted will be performing maintenance.

 

My reasoning is that if this database is critical to their business and will be costly if the in-house server crashes then the monthly hosting fees will outweigh the cost of not being able to do business while your server is down.

 

If none of that is important (uptime, etc) then in my experience the RAM you put in the machine will have very little effect if it runs fine when you start it up.

Data corruption happens all the time. Like others before me said, data corruption only sometimes means system crash.

Mostly it corrupts data which you will not even notice for years.

 

The only question is, is your buisness data more worth than the few bucks you need to invest more for ecc memory ?

 

I mean really, in Germany, there is no big difference between ecc and non ecc memory anymore.

And even some of the low cost celeron and pentium processors have ecc support.

You only have to look at the intel ark to see which ones has it and which one not. The celeron g1820 for example has it and only cost 40 euro over here.

 

The only noticeable price difference is the mainboard.

While non ecc boards cost about 50-100 an ecc enabled supermicro server board will cost up to 200 euro.

Data corruption happens all the time. Like others before me said, data corruption only sometimes means system crash.

Mostly it corrupts data which you will not even notice for years.

 

The only question is, is your buisness data more worth than the few bucks you need to invest more for ecc memory ?

 

I mean really, in Germany, there is no big difference between ecc and non ecc memory anymore.

And even some of the low cost celeron and pentium processors have ecc support.

You only have to look at the intel ark to see which ones has it and which one not. The celeron g1820 for example has it and only cost 40 euro over here.

 

The only noticeable price difference is the mainboard.

While non ecc boards cost about 50-100 an ecc enabled supermicro server board will cost up to 200 euro.

 

wow first post and registered in 2011? :D

  • 4 weeks later...

To specify: We want to use Windows 8.1 Pro cause it can handle 20 users logged in, with a maximum of 16384 open files per session. We have less then 10 users so it should work OK right? Also the dispatch server software uses it's own database system. So we don't need SQL or anything.

The better choice would be Server 2012R2 (or even Server 2012).  The requirements for the OS itself are no different than that of Windows 8.1 (or 8), you STILL won't need ECC, you still have Hyper-V support (but, unlike 8.x or 10, you don't need SLAT support) and the cost curve is not THAT high.  You would need five additional client access licenses (the server OS itself includes 5) - however, that cost is not that high.  If the issue is the UI/UX, add Desktop Experience to the server loadout via Server Manager

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!