Need help choosing updated server drives

[baddog60]

I have a 5 year old server that needs to keep running. It is currently running Server 2003 and SQL 2000. I am getting worried that the hard drives are getting old. I have mirrored 74 Gig Raptors for the OS and mirrored 10K 74 Gig SCSI for the SQL database. My database is currently about 45 Gigs.

If my budget is between $1500-$2000 total, what should I replace my OS drives and my Data drives with? I was thinking about using an SSD for the OS. Is it OK to use the Intel x25-m G2 for a server OS drive or do I need to go with an SLC based drive? The data drive could either be three 15K SCSI in a Raid 5 or an SLC based SSD. I would appreciate any comments regarding either the Os or Data drive.

 

[Emulex]

you do not want raid-5 for sql data. raid 0+1 is worst case scenario encompassing data,log,tmp.

p.s. nobody does scsi anymore time to move on to sas.

you could afford 2x146gb sas10K boot and 4x146gb 15K sas with that budget. or better yet 2x146gb sas10K boot, 4x146 15K sas (raid 0+1 of course no raid 5!) , 2x146 raid-1 for log/tmp

if you are running tight on budget you could crank down to 2.5" 10K RPM but 15K is worth every single cent.

 

[yinan]

He could get away with RAID 5 if he went SSD, it would save some money kinda.

 

[RebateMonger]

Next question is:

Five years is often considered "end-of-life" for servers. If you are going to have to migrate your OS to a new disk controller, then you are basically moving your OS to a new server anyway. Today's servers are quieter, use less power, are far faster than those of five years ago, and can do virtualization. It may be time to think about a new server.

 

[Emulex]

ssd+database = slc = not saving money at all.

i think you need to re-evaluate your budget - storage isn't that much faster in reliable-land

 

[baddog60]

Thank you all of your replies, but I may end up going in another direction. Although I have certainly heard of virtualization before, I never thought that I had a compelling reason to try it. This may be that perfect circumstance. I could image the existing server over to either a new server or one of our other current systems. By combining this project with another similar one I should be able to combine the budgets and be able to purchase a new server to share. I don't know why I had not thought of doing this before, but somehow what RebateMonger said made sense.

Any new gotchas to look out for? Thanks for your help.

 

[Emulex]

i virtualized sql server 2008 64 bit - just make sure you don't give it too many cpu's - your current choice may dictate that sorta. 1 cpu can be faster than 2 cpu if you have alot of other junk on the machine. I'd give ram reservation, cpu priority, and disk priority.

and you'll also probably want to segregate the drives to avoid io contention like i said.

same rules basically apply - don't use thin provisioning if you can afford the disk space. there is overhead with virtualization and it usually rears its ugly face in disk i/o department.

8 15K 2.5" sas drives is not enough for an older dual-socket server (4 cores each) - the machine can easily use 12-16K 3.5" 15K SAS drives before it runs out of cpu - and ram - loads and loads of ram - 32gb is a good start since you have virtualization overhead, management console or vm helpers, etc.