Sniff test: 9.05.700 server

Yahoo Archive
1
I'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying. Would I be correct that
you're talking about splitting the DB across multiple arrays/controllers? I
don't really see any reason to do that. I would generally prefer to just
add more disks to the array.
A good controller and an array of 8+ SSD should be able to support most
anyone.
If you're big enough that such a setup still isn't enough iops, I'd look at
the Fusion IO stuff or one of the similar products, there are also SAN
solutions. Bring the IO to the DB not vice versa.

I wouldn't partition the DB unless it's so big that having a monolithic
volume isn't manageable.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Nancy Dornacker <nancy.dornacker@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Would you also setup the database to be mult-volume and spread across
> multiple logical SSD drives?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
Over the next several months I will be performing an upgrade from Vista 6.10.543 to Vantage 9.05.700. It fairly well goes without saying that my hardware will also be replaced in the process. However my budget is severely limited.

Epicor's minimum requirements for servers seem a little steep for the demands that my company will be placing on them. Currently I am running Vista on a Microsoft Virtual server with a dedicated 2.5 GHz core, 2GB of RAM, and 16 GB of storage. This services 12 full seats and 4 data entry seats. The backup file for my DB currently 1.81GB.

Will a vm comprised of two cores from an Intel Xeon E5620/2.66 GHz, with 16 GB of RAM, and 75GB of storage adequately meet my needs? My gut says yes, but perhaps I need a gut-check.

Thank you for your time.
3
I'd try to get a little more CPU if you can manage it, 4 cores at least.
Your ram should probably be ok, but again a little more wouldn't hurt,
especially considering how cheap it is.

The most important thing is disk IO. What do you have under it? I'd suggest
a bare minimum of 6 dedicated 15k spindles if you're going with traditional
disks.
It would be far preferable to go with SSDs. The enterprise-class SSDs are
still pretty pricey. That said, you can get away with using consumer level
drives, just keep a couple spares on hand. We've been using them for some
time with no issues. You can get 180gb units for under $200 these days. I'd
get 6 of them. Set 4 into a raid 10. Give the array it's own controller
and allocate the whole thing to the Epicor VM. Keep the other two on hand
as spares. That should give you plenty of room to grow and iops to spare.

If you try to get by with less disks, or share the array with another VM,
expect performance to be pretty dismal.

Turn on network compression for your users. Assuming your network is
running nice and fast, this should leave you with some fairly solid
performance numbers.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Over the next several months I will be performing an upgrade from Vista
> 6.10.543 to Vantage 9.05.700. It fairly well goes without saying that my
> hardware will also be replaced in the process. However my budget is
> severely limited.
>
> Epicor's minimum requirements for servers seem a little steep for the
> demands that my company will be placing on them. Currently I am running
> Vista on a Microsoft Virtual server with a dedicated 2.5 GHz core, 2GB of
> RAM, and 16 GB of storage. This services 12 full seats and 4 data entry
> seats. The backup file for my DB currently 1.81GB.
>
> Will a vm comprised of two cores from an Intel Xeon E5620/2.66 GHz, with
> 16 GB of RAM, and 75GB of storage adequately meet my needs? My gut says
> yes, but perhaps I need a gut-check.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
I was planning on just one raid controller managing 4x 300GB SAS 10K Hot-Swappables in a RAID 10. I figured this would be a fantastic improvement on my RAID 1 of 500GB SATA's.
Have the IO requirements of Epicor increased enough to justify a secondary raid controller dedicated to it? In an extreme scenario I envision 7 people writing to the DB at one time.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
Re: [Vantage] SNIFF TEST: 9.05.700 SERVER

I'd try to get a little more CPU if you can manage it, 4 cores at least.
Your ram should probably be ok, but again a little more wouldn't hurt,
especially considering how cheap it is.

The most important thing is disk IO. What do you have under it? I'd suggest
a bare minimum of 6 dedicated 15k spindles if you're going with traditional
disks.
It would be far preferable to go with SSDs. The enterprise-class SSDs are
still pretty pricey. That said, you can get away with using consumer level
drives, just keep a couple spares on hand. We've been using them for some
time with no issues. You can get 180gb units for under $200 these days. I'd
get 6 of them. Set 4 into a raid 10. Give the array it's own controller
and allocate the whole thing to the Epicor VM. Keep the other two on hand
as spares. That should give you plenty of room to grow and iops to spare.

If you try to get by with less disks, or share the array with another VM,
expect performance to be pretty dismal.

Turn on network compression for your users. Assuming your network is
running nice and fast, this should leave you with some fairly solid
performance numbers.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Over the next several months I will be performing an upgrade from Vista
> 6.10.543 to Vantage 9.05.700. It fairly well goes without saying that my
> hardware will also be replaced in the process. However my budget is
> severely limited.
>
> Epicor's minimum requirements for servers seem a little steep for the
> demands that my company will be placing on them. Currently I am running
> Vista on a Microsoft Virtual server with a dedicated 2.5 GHz core, 2GB of
> RAM, and 16 GB of storage. This services 12 full seats and 4 data entry
> seats. The backup file for my DB currently 1.81GB.
>
> Will a vm comprised of two cores from an Intel Xeon E5620/2.66 GHz, with
> 16 GB of RAM, and 75GB of storage adequately meet my needs? My gut says
> yes, but perhaps I need a gut-check.
>
> Thank you for your time.
5
You may be able to get away with one controller if you absolutely have to,
assuming it's a decent one and your other loads are small. But if you're
going to spend the money for 300gb SAS drives, just get the SSDs as you
don't need the extra space anyway.
300GB SAS:
-Five drives at $250 each = $1250
180GB SSD:
-Six drives at $200 = $1200
As long as Epicor is the only thing on the array you should get pretty
decent performance.


On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I was planning on just one raid controller managing 4x 300GB SAS 10K
> Hot-Swappables in a RAID 10. I figured this would be a fantastic
> improvement on my RAID 1 of 500GB SATA's.
> Have the IO requirements of Epicor increased enough to justify a secondary
> raid controller dedicated to it? In an extreme scenario I envision 7 people
> writing to the DB at one time.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> Re: [Vantage] SNIFF TEST: 9.05.700 SERVER
>
>
> I'd try to get a little more CPU if you can manage it, 4 cores at least.
> Your ram should probably be ok, but again a little more wouldn't hurt,
> especially considering how cheap it is.
>
> The most important thing is disk IO. What do you have under it? I'd suggest
> a bare minimum of 6 dedicated 15k spindles if you're going with traditional
> disks.
> It would be far preferable to go with SSDs. The enterprise-class SSDs are
> still pretty pricey. That said, you can get away with using consumer level
> drives, just keep a couple spares on hand. We've been using them for some
> time with no issues. You can get 180gb units for under $200 these days. I'd
> get 6 of them. Set 4 into a raid 10. Give the array it's own controller
> and allocate the whole thing to the Epicor VM. Keep the other two on hand
> as spares. That should give you plenty of room to grow and iops to spare.
>
> If you try to get by with less disks, or share the array with another VM,
> expect performance to be pretty dismal.
>
> Turn on network compression for your users. Assuming your network is
> running nice and fast, this should leave you with some fairly solid
> performance numbers.
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Over the next several months I will be performing an upgrade from Vista
> > 6.10.543 to Vantage 9.05.700. It fairly well goes without saying that my
> > hardware will also be replaced in the process. However my budget is
> > severely limited.
> >
> > Epicor's minimum requirements for servers seem a little steep for the
> > demands that my company will be placing on them. Currently I am running
> > Vista on a Microsoft Virtual server with a dedicated 2.5 GHz core, 2GB of
> > RAM, and 16 GB of storage. This services 12 full seats and 4 data entry
> > seats. The backup file for my DB currently 1.81GB.
> >
> > Will a vm comprised of two cores from an Intel Xeon E5620/2.66 GHz, with
> > 16 GB of RAM, and 75GB of storage adequately meet my needs? My gut says
> > yes, but perhaps I need a gut-check.
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6
Thank you, John. I appreciate your time and responses.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
>
> You may be able to get away with one controller if you absolutely have to,
> assuming it's a decent one and your other loads are small. But if you're
> going to spend the money for 300gb SAS drives, just get the SSDs as you
> don't need the extra space anyway.
> 300GB SAS:
> -Five drives at $250 each = $1250
> 180GB SSD:
> -Six drives at $200 = $1200
> As long as Epicor is the only thing on the array you should get pretty
> decent performance.
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I was planning on just one raid controller managing 4x 300GB SAS 10K
> > Hot-Swappables in a RAID 10. I figured this would be a fantastic
> > improvement on my RAID 1 of 500GB SATA's.
> > Have the IO requirements of Epicor increased enough to justify a secondary
> > raid controller dedicated to it? In an extreme scenario I envision 7 people
> > writing to the DB at one time.
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@> wrote:
> > Re: [Vantage] SNIFF TEST: 9.05.700 SERVER
> >
> >
> > I'd try to get a little more CPU if you can manage it, 4 cores at least.
> > Your ram should probably be ok, but again a little more wouldn't hurt,
> > especially considering how cheap it is.
> >
> > The most important thing is disk IO. What do you have under it? I'd suggest
> > a bare minimum of 6 dedicated 15k spindles if you're going with traditional
> > disks.
> > It would be far preferable to go with SSDs. The enterprise-class SSDs are
> > still pretty pricey. That said, you can get away with using consumer level
> > drives, just keep a couple spares on hand. We've been using them for some
> > time with no issues. You can get 180gb units for under $200 these days. I'd
> > get 6 of them. Set 4 into a raid 10. Give the array it's own controller
> > and allocate the whole thing to the Epicor VM. Keep the other two on hand
> > as spares. That should give you plenty of room to grow and iops to spare.
> >
> > If you try to get by with less disks, or share the array with another VM,
> > expect performance to be pretty dismal.
> >
> > Turn on network compression for your users. Assuming your network is
> > running nice and fast, this should leave you with some fairly solid
> > performance numbers.
> >
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Over the next several months I will be performing an upgrade from Vista
> > > 6.10.543 to Vantage 9.05.700. It fairly well goes without saying that my
> > > hardware will also be replaced in the process. However my budget is
> > > severely limited.
> > >
> > > Epicor's minimum requirements for servers seem a little steep for the
> > > demands that my company will be placing on them. Currently I am running
> > > Vista on a Microsoft Virtual server with a dedicated 2.5 GHz core, 2GB of
> > > RAM, and 16 GB of storage. This services 12 full seats and 4 data entry
> > > seats. The backup file for my DB currently 1.81GB.
> > >
> > > Will a vm comprised of two cores from an Intel Xeon E5620/2.66 GHz, with
> > > 16 GB of RAM, and 75GB of storage adequately meet my needs? My gut says
> > > yes, but perhaps I need a gut-check.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *John Driggers*
> *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> *
> **:: 904.404.9233*
> *:: waffqle@...*
> *:: NO FAXES*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
7
My pleasure. Hope everything goes smoothly with the upgrade.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thank you, John. I appreciate your time and responses.
>
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@...> wrote:
> >
> > You may be able to get away with one controller if you absolutely have
> to,
> > assuming it's a decent one and your other loads are small. But if you're
> > going to spend the money for 300gb SAS drives, just get the SSDs as you
> > don't need the extra space anyway.
> > 300GB SAS:
> > -Five drives at $250 each = $1250
> > 180GB SSD:
> > -Six drives at $200 = $1200
> > As long as Epicor is the only thing on the array you should get pretty
> > decent performance.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:46 PM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I was planning on just one raid controller managing 4x 300GB SAS 10K
> > > Hot-Swappables in a RAID 10. I figured this would be a fantastic
> > > improvement on my RAID 1 of 500GB SATA's.
> > > Have the IO requirements of Epicor increased enough to justify a
> secondary
> > > raid controller dedicated to it? In an extreme scenario I envision 7
> people
> > > writing to the DB at one time.
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, John Driggers <waffqle@> wrote:
> > > Re: [Vantage] SNIFF TEST: 9.05.700 SERVER
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd try to get a little more CPU if you can manage it, 4 cores at
> least.
> > > Your ram should probably be ok, but again a little more wouldn't hurt,
> > > especially considering how cheap it is.
> > >
> > > The most important thing is disk IO. What do you have under it? I'd
> suggest
> > > a bare minimum of 6 dedicated 15k spindles if you're going with
> traditional
> > > disks.
> > > It would be far preferable to go with SSDs. The enterprise-class SSDs
> are
> > > still pretty pricey. That said, you can get away with using consumer
> level
> > > drives, just keep a couple spares on hand. We've been using them for
> some
> > > time with no issues. You can get 180gb units for under $200 these
> days. I'd
> > > get 6 of them. Set 4 into a raid 10. Give the array it's own controller
> > > and allocate the whole thing to the Epicor VM. Keep the other two on
> hand
> > > as spares. That should give you plenty of room to grow and iops to
> spare.
> > >
> > > If you try to get by with less disks, or share the array with another
> VM,
> > > expect performance to be pretty dismal.
> > >
> > > Turn on network compression for your users. Assuming your network is
> > > running nice and fast, this should leave you with some fairly solid
> > > performance numbers.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, sasser.johnm <sasserster@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Over the next several months I will be performing an upgrade from
> Vista
> > > > 6.10.543 to Vantage 9.05.700. It fairly well goes without saying
> that my
> > > > hardware will also be replaced in the process. However my budget is
> > > > severely limited.
> > > >
> > > > Epicor's minimum requirements for servers seem a little steep for the
> > > > demands that my company will be placing on them. Currently I am
> running
> > > > Vista on a Microsoft Virtual server with a dedicated 2.5 GHz core,
> 2GB of
> > > > RAM, and 16 GB of storage. This services 12 full seats and 4 data
> entry
> > > > seats. The backup file for my DB currently 1.81GB.
> > > >
> > > > Will a vm comprised of two cores from an Intel Xeon E5620/2.66 GHz,
> with
> > > > 16 GB of RAM, and 75GB of storage adequately meet my needs? My gut
> says
> > > > yes, but perhaps I need a gut-check.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *John Driggers*
> > *High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
> > *
> > **:: 904.404.9233*
> > *:: waffqle@...*
> > *:: NO FAXES*
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>



--
*John Driggers*
*High End Dev, System Design, Profit Drinking*
*
**:: 904.404.9233*
*:: waffqle@...*
*:: NO FAXES*

*

*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8
Would you also setup the database to be mult-volume and spread across
multiple logical SSD drives?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]