• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Server Advice

Recommended Posts

DevTech    1,517
20 minutes ago, xendrome said:

 

I totally disagree, this is a profit making business here. Downtime means loss of revenue and that means people can lose their jobs. I've run and migrated to/from dozens of servers with platter drives and have only had 2 failures in 15 years on Dell OEM hardware. Thank god for RAID5/10 setups, having a hot-spare available meant no downtime since I did not have to restore a backup image, had a hard drive from Dell in under 2 hours to replace the hotspare. These dell drives are enterprise level also, not consumer level.

 

Plus earlier you were talking about read/write ops on the drive and database I/O performance, if this was infact a database that would benefit from SSD for performance because of the load it was under I would be leery about using a single SSD for constant read/writes due to the wearing on the drives over a 5 year+ span, he said they had their current server for double that.

1. Your first point is moot since I configured a RAID-10 system using Dell Enterprise SSD at no more cost than the Teddy Bears.

 

2. I did in fact make a NVMe config with a single Non-RAID 1.6 TB Dell Hot Swap Enterprise NVMe SSD but that could easily be changed to a RAID-1 1 TB Dell NVMe Hot Swap SSD in a 2.5 inch carrier into the already configed 12 Bay NVMe Chassis which also has a 12 Bay normal 2.5" set. The cost might be +$200 for that. I wish I had not posted that config without RAID because everyone just jumped on this and ignored all the other good info.

 

3. I don't understand that now that Dell has developed and sells Enterprise Hot Swap NVMe drives in pluggable 2.5" carriers that it GETS NO RESPECT (Rodney Dangerfield) which I attribute to pure nostalgia for the Jet Engine whine of 15K drives. (that warm fuzzy Teddy Bear)

 

4. I have already pointed out that Dell Engineering is first class but the sales side appears complicit here in an attempt to get rid of all their Teddy Bears first before pushing the better solution.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517

Dell Enterprise/Small Business NVMe

 

In the hope that a picture is worth a thousand words:

 

Dell PowerEdge Express Flash NVMe PCIe SSD 2.5 inch Small Form Factor User’s Guide

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/us/en/04/dell-poweredge-exp-fsh-nvme-pcie-ssd/nvmepciessdug/hot-swap?guid=guid-cad180ee-8e6e-41f5-8442-a81a222faa2f&lang=en-us

 

Technical specifications

https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/us/en/04/dell-poweredge-exp-fsh-nvme-pcie-ssd/nvmepciessdug/technical-specifications?guid=guid-c3a629c4-936e-4dc8-bbef-10825da7b223&lang=en-us

 

Here it is:

 

dell-nvme-front.thumb.jpg.507098e62a8c3612b165a59fbe140fbe.jpg

 

 

 

Dell-nvme-plug.thumb.jpg.d7a35c312b4614c0bd32d24d3a4d2619.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302    1,725
1 hour ago, DevTech said:

 

 

But now, I would like to add that if anything I have said seemed unfair or nasty, I am very very sorry. Please don't hesitate to point out at any time if I am disturbing you or anyone. I will be happy to learn there...or anywhere... or with green eggs and ham..there I go again...

 

I see it as part of having a conversation and part of having knowledge. You will defend what you know or you think you know until proven wrong.  I am ok with being wrong but need a bit more than “because I said so”.  My intentions are to have you think of a better answer because the one you gave isn’t intelligent enough.  I never look for textbook answers, if you have enough knowledge of a subject you can break down that subject well enough that a five year old can understand. If you have problems articulating yourself to that point you don’t know the subject matter enough and in my opinion should not continue. Many people on this site don’t know technology enough to be able to do that.  If I am challenging you is because I don’t understand the angle or what you are talking about.  

 

It took me a long time to understand this fact, not everyone needs the latest and greatest especially if it is out if their price range.  You have understand and be ok with that fact.  When I put a computer together for someone I want to get them the best board, memory, processor, etc..because that is what I would want...that isn’t what they want or need. You have to really listen and ask questions and find out what they really need and what they want. If it can’t come together with what they want see what they need and if you can give them a little more but don’t be afraid to give them just what they need and what he needs in this case is a system that will last, it doesn’t need to be a top performer or the fastest thing available. Prepare for failure in the system but don’t over spec. It is hard to know everything but it isn’t enterprise, it is mom and pop. Flash ssd/sas ssd is expensive.  Imo it isn’t worth the price of admission. Also spend the 40 or whatever bucks to get the chassis with the largest hot swap drives so the system can keep running if you ever have to swap a drive out (cute handle things). Storage and memory should be the main concern.  Any Xeon processor should handle whatever load he puts on it.   That is my last attempt to talk you off the edge of small business insanity. It is ok that dell and big boxes have these options.  It is ok for this type of business. It will be absolutely fine as it will be supported in the fullest extent. It is perfectly ok, it is not in your control what they do and do not offer and that too is ok.  Don’t worry about it not being the best or latest tech, it is ok that it is not.  Whatever it is will be much better than what he has. Whatever it is will have a long term or potential of long term warranty. It truly is ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
9 minutes ago, sc302 said:

Whatever it is will have a long term or potential of long term warranty. It truly is ok. 

I'll read in detail later - gotta run out

 

Part I don't get is I "found the handles" for NVMe and config at same price

 

So whats wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302    1,725
3 minutes ago, DevTech said:

I'll read in detail later - gotta run out

 

Part I don't get is I "found the handles" for NVMe and config at same price

 

So whats wrong?

 

Nothing is wrong,  just saying it is ok to go with a “lesser” option.  It is simply ok. Nothing is really wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patseguin    1,307

Thanks to everyone who devoted so much time to helping me. I was getting stressed out so I just made a decision. I went with a build with 2.4TB drives in RAID6 and 2 480GB ssd drives in RAID1 for the os. I also decided on Server 2019 Standard instead of essentials just to make sure FileMaker server works without issues. I'll set up an external backup and also find a good cloud backup solution.

 

As far as deploying, I may have tons of questions. Server 2008 was extremely difficult for me to configure since I have no training or certification. I had to do a ton of googling to get it working right as a domain controller. I'm hoping with 2019 they made it a bit more user friendly. Is there maybe some way to export my configuration from my current server and import it to the new one? Another thing I thought of was keeping my older 2008 Dell server up and running for any reason. I'm thinking probably a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster    1,974
4 hours ago, patseguin said:

Another thing I thought of was keeping my older 2008 Dell server up and running for any reason. I'm thinking probably a bad idea.

Could always use it as a backup. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302    1,725

Get it on the internet.  I will take it from them for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
9 hours ago, patseguin said:

I went with a build with 2.4TB drives in RAID6

RAID-6 is even worse than RAID-5 for a Database due to even one more parity creation on every write! Might help with making your new server feel much like the old server!

 

But it may not matter for your specific data base as the "Teddy Bear Fans" here keep pointing out.

 

If you ever get a chance to compare running your FileMaker on your RAID-1 SSD vs your slow spinners, I would be very appreciative of the test results. Without a test there is a case to be made for 5 users being a "sleepy hollow" scenario and it won't matter what hardware it runs on. But if the Embroidery software actually does any real processing on the data, then the opposite could be true. After all the guessing, you are in a perfect spot to test it with both SSD and the "Ancient Ones" and yeah with figuring out Server 2019, you probably won't have the time to consider this, but given the mysteries involved, had to ask :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster    1,974
40 minutes ago, DevTech said:

But it may not matter for your specific data base as the "Teddy Bear Fans" here keep pointing out.

*ding ding ding*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302    1,725

I ran an entire erp system on 15000 rpm disks on a fiber channel array. Went to flash...0 increase.  Oracle jd Edwards Erp system with 150+ users is going to be a bit heavier than a 5 user file maker pro db. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
2 hours ago, Mindovermaster said:

*ding ding ding*

"Ring Ring Ring"

 

I can sound like a Children's TV show too!

 

I used the word "may" but it is SOLIDLY in the EDGE CASE area! The VAST MAJORITY of Database software will have a VERY noticeable performance improvement on SSD.

 

Logically, "no difference" is a possible outcome, which is why I logically agreed it was possible. Possible is no where near the same concept as PROBABLE.

 

And find a single reference paper in a Database Journal that says RAID-5 (or 6) is good for a Database. Simply NOT professional to provision that way even if you can run around like a Bull in a China Shop and make it happen.

 

Bad science is bad science no matter what words you put on it. I can't help it if computers have been around long enough fro traditions to have built up and for VooDoo recipes to spread in a social manner. That doesn't make it science. No matter how many people start believing the moon landing never happened, it did. Period.

 

Same thing here. No matter how many people repeat some incorrect but trusted traditional I.T. "everybody knows" won't make it correct. Science is testing.

 

Which is why I politely asked when time was available that a simple test be made to see if this Embroidery Database is an edge case that does not benefit from performance or if it is more squarely in the norm of what Humanity Actually Knows About Databases

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster    1,974
5 minutes ago, DevTech said:

And find a single reference paper in a Database Journal that says RAID-5 (or 6) is good for a Database. Simply NOT professional to provision that way even if you can run around like a Bull in a China Shop and make it happen.

Guess what, SC302 has done exactly that, so... What does that show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
2 hours ago, sc302 said:

I ran an entire erp system on 15000 rpm disks on a fiber channel array. Went to flash...0 increase.  Oracle jd Edwards Erp system with 150+ users is going to be a bit heavier than a 5 user file maker pro db. 

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Depends on the code. Depends on the DB structure. Depends on what exactly the Database is being used for. Does it contain a boatload of Embroidery patterns that need to be accessed and processed? Who knows...

 

Anecdotal experience is not science. Your measurement shows for that database, there was no difference. You see that I hope? if the 5 user Embroidery DB gets tested and has the same result as yours it would still not be insightful, just a second anecdote. Standard science: Correlation is NOT causation. To prove (or have reasonable confidence in) causation, you need a controlled experiment or at least a good understanding of the breakdown (like in this case the DB layout, the sprocs etc)

 

But no matter what  this is an anecdote I'm curious about.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

Guess what, SC302 has done exactly that, so... What does that show?

HUH? what on earth are you talking about? NO database people would say that!

 

 

EDIT: Please stop the Teddy bear stuff. Next you will say the Earth is flat. Please, enough is enough. He can make a server however he wants and I have said nothing about that, no suggestions whatsoever since his decision. So no need to pervert reality or how on earth will people learn anything?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster    1,974
5 minutes ago, DevTech said:

HUH? what on earth are you talking about? NO database people would say that!

He ran platter drives and moved to flash drives. He saw 0 difference, that should teach you that, in that scenario, it didn't matter. In OP, however, does it REALLY matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
1 minute ago, Mindovermaster said:

He ran platter drives and moved to flash drives. He saw 0 difference, that should teach you that, in that scenario, it didn't matter. In OP, however, does it REALLY matter?

Read my explanation again and try to understand.

 

The OP has made a decision and I have made no comments on his decision. And I will continue to not make any further comments on his configuration.

 

I have asked him if he can find the time sometime to perform the same type of test that @sc302 performed and I full expect the PROBABLE outcome to be that th SSD will show a large performance improvement. Because that is the logical result to expect.

 

If it does not improve I would just add it to a mental check list of ANOMALIES for which both computer science and reality are plentiful.

 

Would I take an ANOMALY and use it to NOT suggest SSD to a client. No possible professional way! If some pattern matched the anomalies described in this thread, would I point out that the possible outcome might be different in that special case? Sure thing. That is responsible DUE DILIGENCE.

 

There is a thing called Computer Science and with that there is Database research. Nothing I am saying is a secret. You can look it up actually!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster    1,974
7 minutes ago, DevTech said:

Read my explanation again and try to understand.

 

The OP has made a decision and I have made no comments on his decision. And I will continue to not make any further comments on his configuration.

 

I have asked him if he can find the time sometime to perform the same type of test that @sc302 performed and I full expect the PROBABLE outcome to be that th SSD will show a large performance improvement. Because that is the logical result to expect.

 

If it does not improve I would just add it to a mental check list of ANOMALIES for which both computer science and reality are plentiful.

 

Would I take an ANOMALY and use it to NOT suggest SSD to a client. No possible professional way! If some pattern matched the anomalies described in this thread, would I point out that the possible outcome might be different in that special case? Sure thing. That is responsible DUE DILIGENCE.

 

There is a thing called Computer Science and with that there is Database research. Nothing I am saying is a secret. You can look it up actually!

 

 

 

 

No one else talks tech like you... I've been here awhile. NO on else takes up 4 posts and 6 paragraphs of stuff (except for BudMan...)

 

Around here, we do not make scenarios, we get right to the center of the problem. What you are talking about is fantasy, it does not equal to real life.

 

That's just my opinion. Take it or burn it. Or... something...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
3 hours ago, sc302 said:

I ran an entire erp system on 15000 rpm disks on a fiber channel array. Went to flash...0 increase.  Oracle jd Edwards Erp system with 150+ users is going to be a bit heavier than a 5 user file maker pro db. 

If you are interested, we could explore this.

 

The default result to expect is a fairly large performance INCREASE. 

 

To me, that means there is another more overriding performance bottleneck that is preventing the difference from being seen. CPU/RAM/Network/Oracle/Security software/Type-of-RAID/etc could all erase a perf diff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
3 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

No one else talks tech like you... I've been here awhile. NO on else takes up 4 posts and 6 paragraphs of stuff (except for BudMan...)

 

Around here, we do not make scenarios, we get right to the center of the problem. What you are talking about is fantasy, it does not equal to real life.

 

That's just my opinion. Take it or burn it. Or... something...

You've gone over the edge with a personal attack.

 

It would appear that you enjoy social bullying and because nobody else is precise, detailed and has a depth of knowledge I am providing you have some right to make a personal attack instead of taking the time to read up on databases. 

 

I'm not impressed here.

 

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302    1,725
15 minutes ago, DevTech said:

If you are interested, we could explore this.

 

The default result to expect is a fairly large performance INCREASE. 

 

To me, that means there is another more overriding performance bottleneck that is preventing the difference from being seen. CPU/RAM/Network/Oracle/Security software/Type-of-RAID/etc could all erase a perf diff.

 

You keep talking like you know for sure it will increase his database speed by switching to flash/ssd.  I wouldn’t bet a single cent on it.   You say it is faster, and it is true that it is capable of being faster, however if he isn’t taxing the system as it sits, he will more than likely not see any gains.  Unfortunately I can no longer perform extensive tests to verify db speed as the old storage has been disconnected and disassembled, I can tell you that the user experience has not changed from before to after and I do not see any speed increase with vms (booting, launching apps, running queries, etc).  From what you say is that I should see a huge performance gain.   I wouldn’t see performance gains even if I went to 40Gb/s on the back bone.  The links aren’t taxed enough to necessitate even the 8Gb/s backbone. Upping to flash/ssd was ultimately unnecessary for speed.  

 

But what do I know, I just manage and architected the data center, I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about.  I am not seeing real life, it is all fictitious make believe..it is all in my head. 

 

You keep beating the horse that says he will see a performance gain and I will defend the horse saying that it isn’t necessarily true. Put whatever facts and whatever you believe to be true and I will continue to doubt your theory. I have seen where it isn’t true, just because it is a ssd doesn’t mean the db/client interface will be any faster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster    1,974
4 minutes ago, DevTech said:

You've gone over the edge with a personal attack.

 

It would appear that you enjoy social bullying and because nobody else is precise, detailed and has a depth of knowledge I am providing you have some right to make a personal attack instead of taking the time to read up on databases. 

 

I'm not impressed here.

 

Umm, it seems like SC302 agrees with me.

 

I'm not attacking anyone. I am just saying what I see.

 

Social bullying? I'm not disregarding your information. I'm not saying you are wrong.

 

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
3 minutes ago, sc302 said:

You keep talking like you know for sure it will increase his database speed by switching to flash/ssd.  I wouldn’t bet a single cent on it.   You say it is faster, and it is true that it is capable of being faster, however if he isn’t taxing the system as it sits, he will more than likely not see any gains.  Unfortunately I can no longer perform extensive tests to verify db speed as the old storage has been disconnected and disassembled, I can tell you that the user experience has not changed from before to after and I do not see any speed increase with vms (booting, launching apps, running queries, etc).  From what you say is that I should see a huge performance gain.   I wouldn’t see performance gains even if I went to 40Gb/s on the back bone.  The links aren’t taxed enough to necessitate even the 8Gb/s backbone. Upping to flash/ssd was ultimately unnecessary for speed.  

 

But what do I know, I just manage and architected the data center, I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about.  I am not seeing real life, it is all fictitious make believe..it is all in my head. 

I was not attacking your experience.

 

I was taking your previous description of your approach to things and offering to work with you on it in some sort of collaborative manner. It sure looks like somewhere you have a mysterious and interesting bottleneck.

 

Were you making that up about wanting to learn stuff? I feel very let down if so.

 

But it seems like everything here has to be adversarial. Mindmaster sees it as a "fight" but that is boring and tedious.

 

I am loosing my faith in this community to be frank...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sc302    1,725
31 minutes ago, DevTech said:

I was not attacking your experience.

 

I was taking your previous description of your approach to things and offering to work with you on it in some sort of collaborative manner. It sure looks like somewhere you have a mysterious and interesting bottleneck.

 

Were you making that up about wanting to learn stuff? I feel very let down if so.

 

But it seems like everything here has to be adversarial. Mindmaster sees it as a "fight" but that is boring and tedious.

 

I am loosing my faith in this community to be frank...

 

No.  I am interested in learning new things however in this case I already have people all over this. While a second or third set of eyes is helpful in this case I am uncertain of your abilities beyond emc/dell or understand the storage collects that I have sent over to verify storage configs. They have stated I have more compute capability than storage and that my sp utilization is low. Essentially the sans are underutilized even the 15000k storage was also underutilized. Far more capable than what I am putting them through which is why it is fast and why I am not seeing performance gains. It was over spec’d for the environment in both cases. 

 

Far more  goes into it than just flash vs spinning disk.  

 

For him, being that the db is also under utilized and the server is way under utilized (I wouldn’t consider 5 users in a db would kill the db throughout or really tax a decent server even if it was a few years old), he won’t really see a performance increase. 

 

Dont be so bull headed.  It isn’t always that simple where you can say do this one thing and you will absolutely see a performance increase....I haven’t dealt in absolutes ever.  I don’t make an assumption that others don’t have their stuff in order unless they prove it or ask for help. I am not asking for help, I have my environment pretty good.  Where were you during my sales calls or during the design phase. You have no idea of how over spec’d my environment is (remember I stated I used to recommend what I would buy, understand that I over plan/over spec for my environment).  Not seeing an increase in performance wasn’t unexpected, but note that there is no noticeable performance increase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DevTech    1,517
24 minutes ago, sc302 said:

No.  I am interested in learning new things however in this case I already have people all over this. While a second or third set of eyes is helpful in this case I am uncertain of your abilities beyond emc/dell or understand the storage collects that I have sent over to verify storage configs. They have stated I have more compute capability than storage and that my sp utilization is low. Essentially the sans are underutilized even the 15000k storage was also underutilized. Far more capable than what I am putting them through which is why it is fast and why I am not seeing performance gains. It was over spec’d for the environment in both cases. 

Well if it is possible to see anything I write down in a non-adversarial way, I will say:

 

1. The SSD WILL write faster, just no way that is not possible.

 

2. The main perf limit on most databases is the insane difference between RAM and disk which is why all sorts of cache and other algorithms are applied to avoid a disk write and why "In Memory" database software like Redis has become so popular.

 

3. Oracle could be caching the writes so well that within the measurement window for your DB perf instrumentation there is equally enough time for the 15K write or the SSD write. But still no matter how much spare compute you have the DB should be faster on some sort of measurement.

 

4. It could also be the case that you have an exceptionally high read to write ratio.

 

5. I am sure you will enjoy the search for the mysterious weirdness - I always suspect security software in any enterprise for performance issues. 

 

 

My "area of expertise" is software programming/design/architecture and I have been CTO of the last few companies (start-ups) that I been associated with FWIW which IMO isn't much meaning since data is data always. I am for sure NOT CEO material and I recognize that.

 

Still feeling rather disturbed and I might take a hiatus from the forums for a while, but that's no comment on your personal wonderful attempt to be understanding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patseguin    1,307

Someone told me that raid6 is better than raid5 because 2 drives can fail. As for speed, I only build my home systems with ssd's and am well aware of the performance increase. For my needs, platter drives were much more cost effective and have been plenty fast enough for FileMaker server. I do have the freedom to replace my drives with ssd when and if the need arises.

 

Let's watch the personal attacks too. I had no idea I'd be creating such an emotional thread. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.