Best Computer for Database access?

[mjkoziel]

I'm looking for articles to help me buy a new system. I don't know what hardware is best to use when you need to access a large database - that is the primary need for this machine.
I'm looking for articles to help me get a little more informed on what I need.

Does anyone know where to find buyer help/tips articles that specifically address the needs of databases? - Or have personal advice?

Thanks,
Matt

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

You can't get an anyswers until we know exactly what kind of database.

 

[compusaguy]

the best hardware would be a 286 33 Mhz with 4 MB Ram, 2400 Baud modem, VGA monitor, and a fresh copy of Windows 3.11

 

[mjkoziel]

I don't really need answers, I need links to articles. For research.
The database sql lots of tables and records. I don't need a custom system with an expensive hard drive array. I'm buying a pre-built computer and want to maximize my money. Ie, spend less on CPU and more on HDD, or something like that.

 

[nineball9]

If the database is on another computer - server, mainframe, etc - then basically all you need is a dumb terminal; any PC would do.

If you need to run client-side software, check the specs for the software.

If you intend on creating your own database on your own system then research, as you are asking about, about the performance for your database product is a good strategy.

Good luck!

 

[thriemus]

For database systems get as much ram as you can (doesnt have to be the fastest, DDR400 is great) and get the fastest hard drives you can. CPU's are important but nowhere near as important as a fast disk sub system.

4 raptors in RAID 10 or hardware raid 5 would be great. Even better go 15k scsi drives for best performance.

 

[Gamingphreek]

4 raptors in RAID 10 or hardware raid 5 would be a waste of money. Even better go 15k scsi drives for best performance.

Fixed

 

[RudePuppy]

I recently tried to build a workstation for development at home that I hoped would at least be competitive with my server at work. My reasoning was that a workstation being hit by a single developer might keep up with a server class system being pounded by 400 users. I chose a P4 3.2, 1 gig of ram, and a pair 160Gb Hitachis running in RAID 0. It wasn't even close. Of course, the server I benchmarked against had 4 gigs of ram, dual Xeons, 3 10Ks in RAID 5 for OS and swap, a pair of 10Ks in RAID 1 for the transaction log, and 6 10Ks running RAID 1+0 for the data. The database in question is 5+ gigs.

There's a query I run monthly to calculate sales tax due at the zip code level for a few thousand zips. The workstation can crunch this out in 180 seconds on the first run, 120 seconds once the data is cached. The server trounces this, 30 seconds flat on the first run. I think this represents the extreme. Smaller queries feel like they execute in a timely manner on the workstation.

I'm sure your situation is unique, but I gave up trying to replicate server level speed at home. It wound up being tremendously faster just to VPN back to the office and hit the server rather than running SQL locally. If you must run local, then my best advice is not to break the bank in search of speed.

MS SQL Server is certainly CPU hungry (I am just assuming Microsoft SQL here), despite many generalized statements on the web that databases are not, so don't skimp here. If there was a difference between a good 7200 rpm drive and a Raptor, I bet you'd have to have a stop watch to see it. Raid 0 with 2 drives gained nothing, nothing at all in the dozens of benchmarks I ran, using queries of all sizes. I was really suprised by this, but so be it. If you want to splurge somewhere, do it on RAM. The first query may be slow due to disk access, but SQL caches everything after the first load, so RAM is definitely your friend. If you are just running queries, then one disk is fine. If you are doing lots of inserts and updates, the get a cheap second drive just for the transaction log, that's a good performance add on.