Windows Server - Cpu speed and core recommendations for this 2003 server? Virtualization of parts ?

We are in the process of rebuilding our old server.. previously it was
a xeon (single core i think) 2.8ghz.. with 4gb ram.. was using around
3200mb of ram.

It ran x86 server 2003.

Now we are building the new one.. which i'm guessing i'll probably put
x64 for sure.

***I was thinking of the Harpertown Xeon quad core 2.33ghz processor
(single cpu)..

***4gb memory...

Here is what it will do: (4 total servers, 40 workstations, 35ish
users)
File serving (member server only)
Live Communication Server 2007
Great Plains Dynamics 10.0
System Center Config manager
System Center Virtual Machine Manager
Sql 2k5 default instance (vmm and sccm)
Sql 2k5 dynamics instance
Sql 2k5 OCS instance
Trend Micro antivirus central point
UPS shipping software
**Maybe virtual server 2005 (virtualize a few above?)

It runs a raid5 4 disk array.

Would this CPU be enough for these tasks.. would i be better off with
the 2.83ghz one.. or maybe two quad core 2.33's?

I guess if i choose to use virtual server, i may want to expand to 6gb
of memory?  Does it make sense for restore ability, to virtualize say
Live Server 2007 and System Center Config Manager on this same box for
instance (with SQL 2005 on those virtual server instances too)?

Thanks in advance

I guess if i do virtualize these roles.. i should probably put the vhd
for these 3 on a seperate physical, single volume drive?

In article <c6ccba43-0cda-499f-8055-bac996cd2458
@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

You need to consider your other PROBLEM's and not just CPU.

SQL - needs one array for Data, one array for Transaction logs
O/S - should be on its own array
Files - should be on their own array

With a Quad Core CPU (Active Caching), your bigged hit will be the weak
Disk setup you have listed.

I have a very nice Dual CPU, Quad Core server with 4GB RAM, 12 Disks,
setup as I describe above, supporting 150 users that hammer the
database.

We have a third party SQL server that only provides WEB/SQL data
connections that is screwed because the third party built the entire
thing on a single array, and everything is fragmented badly - 50K
fragments for the database files alone.....

You also need to understand how your applications (transactions) are
written when you are 8 cores for them to use - you will end up with more
blocking until the transactions are written with that in mind.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

12 disks.. what sort of case do you have those in.. the one we have
been buying is a 2u rack mount that holds 8 removable.. hence we
really cant go beyond 8, unless i get something different.

How does all this change if i look to virtualize each role.. i'm
leaning more towards virtualizing each role.

In article <e48f7f98-dffc-4b1d-acee-
1e316c071a9e@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

IBM 3800, we also use Chenbro cases for white-box servers.

I never buy 2U servers unless I'm doing a web server that only needs a
MIRROR.


A database, unless you want to kill performance, needs a proper drive
setup.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

I do have one mirror for the OS.. the data was on raid5.. for
virtualization.. i figured i'd create another mirror.. if i had 5
virutal servers running.. i'd run 3 on the raid 5 and 2 on the mirror
set...

In terms of databases and VS.. what is typically done here.. is it ok
to have a sql server inside a virtual machine.. also.. on the virtual
servers.. is it typically setup the way a real server would be.. ie:
c drive for OS.. another D for data.. then an E say for logs.. or does
this even matter in the virtual sense..

In article <63e4b289-c7fe-43e7-8bbc-4b2572756654
@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

Personally I see no benefit to VS, it's an extra waste of resources, has
it's own set of problems, and if the machine can handle all the
instances of SQL as VS then you might as well just not VS and set them
up on the server alone. You are going to have to learn how to manage the
memory between them.

You could run the entire thing on a single drive if you wanted to, but
that would not be good by any means/measure.

Databases belong on a single array, alone.

Transaction logs should be on another array, but you could put them on
the OS drive if only the OS resides on it.

Your users data/files/profiles belong on another array.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

I like the idea of having one "role" encapsulated in a VS
environment.. it can be easily ported to another server or backed up
all in its own piece.. so if there is any issues with that host's
hardware, it can be moved instantly almost.


When you say this.. are you referring to the virtual drives..ie:
create virtual server.. then create a C, D, E drive inside it (c=OS,
D= Databases, E=logs).. or are you saying create one virtual
harddrive, store that "image" on one array, then create another
virtual harddrive, store that vhd on yet another array and so on?

Cheers

In article <83fe429c-ffbb-4dde-8fe8-4f07805c6774
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, markm75c@msn.com says...

No, I'm saying don't do a VS, purchase more servers instead, and
properly configure the arrays for what you want to use them for.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)